PvP Fights Now Be Like:

[Ragnar.4257]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Ragnar.4257" said:Since you like algebra, here you go:

Guardian = Warrior + 1->Guardian + 1 = Warrior + 2

Adding +1 to both sides results in no change to the relative strength of guard and warrior.

Guardian = Warrior + 1->Guardian = Warrior

To make guardian=warrior, we have to add +1 only to the right hand side, (or -1 to the left and shift if across). Which, of course, is not something you can do in an equation.

However, GW2 is not an equation. It is perfectly within the devs power to +1 to warrior without also +1 to guardian.

Idk if you are trolling or serious right now. But like I thought, I think you're just not ready to have a conversation about how diversity and balance in systems and games like gw2 actually work. I mean you don't even understand the significance of the equal sign or why you can't just willy nilly use it for everything because you think you can.

Listen to what I'm bout to say very carefully. You have an apple, and an orange.

..just because you put an EQUAL SIGN between them does not make the apple and the orange the same.

Do you understand that concept? Go read up on chaos theory and understand why perfectly equal ordered systems don't exist in reality. Everything is different and nonlinear down to the very atoms or bits of data they are made of. This is true in all systems, even perfectly linear ones, in both reality and in computer games...it doesn't matter....why? Because it's a feature of mathematics...not science.

In simple terms, your algebra is complete nonsense, because Warrior does not equal guardian...am I being clear enough?

The notation of "warrior" and "guardian" there is obviously representative of their strength.

Oranges and apples are bought and sold with currency. If both are valued at 1$ I can write an equation that states Apple = Orange, where those terms are representations of their values. It is obviously not meant to imply that an apple is actually the same thing as an orange. I thought you were smarter than this?

You're the one that invoked algebra. Now you're saying it's not possible to employ it in this scenario. Make up your mind.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

@Ragnar.4257 said:We aren't in a bunker meta. People will still get deleted in the blink of an eye if they're not paying attention. This whole thing you're arguing about is entirely in your imagination. Incase you didn't notice, it wasn't just damage which got nerfed, sustain did too in the form of healing-values, stunbreak CDs, block/evade CDs, boon durations, cleanses etc.

^ He's right on this you know.

Go play in some higher tiered environments like MAT or just even normal ATs. People still explode when +'d. There is plenty of damage.

Anyone who thinks otherwise must largely be playing only in ranked or unranked, where there is this skew of plat to gold to silver on each team. When you have skews like this, of course the bulk of the guys attacking you aren't understanding how to execute their damage correctly. However, pushing heals and dodge rolling around is a lot easier to do for those tiers. <- This is why people think things are bunkery right now. But I'm telling you, in higher tiered environments, people know how to bait defensive cycles before bursting and they know how to combo team bursting, and things explode still.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Ragnar.4257" said:The notation of "warrior" and "guardian" there is obviously representative of their strength.

Oranges and apples are bought and sold with currency. If both are valued at 1$ I can write an equation that states Apple = Orange, where those terms are representations of their values. It is obviously not meant to imply that an apple is actually the same thing as an orange. I thought you were smarter than this?

You're the one that invoked algebra. Now you're saying it's not possible to employ it in this scenario. Make up your mind.

We are just getting started, don't worry.

You've taken your first step. In order to define one thing to be equal to another, you define that equality with a common metric, in the case of the apple and the orange, it's monetary value. But now, you know that the apple and the orange even though they have one metric that is equal, you know they still aren't the same right... Do they have the same weight? The same shape? The same color? The same composition? The same malleability? The same mass? The same Buoyancy?

To define the equality of two objects, you further and further evaluate it for an infinite number of metrics, which you will eventually find that the two objects are never and can never be equal. This is because if they were, the two objects would have to be in the same exact quantum states, which by no-cloning theorem is impossible to have. This is why the apple will NEVER be equal to the orange, because down to their very atoms they can never occupy the same quantum state. This is the hallmark of why chaos theory exists. Any small difference between elements in a system, even if it's a deterministic system, cause the system to become chaotic and unpredictable to due those said infinitesimally small differences between each element. In addition, even if many of those metrics are equal, their equality further determines that the two objects become closer and closer to being the same object. If they are both red, both made of carbon, with the same mass, have the same buoyancy, and shape...the description of the objects converge to being the same object.

Therefor, apples and oranges are never the same, and the equal sign is an approximation based on the number of metrics used to define that equality.

In the case of Warrior equals Guardian, this is the exact reason why the two classes aren't equal, and in fact are inherently different. You simply can not say that Warrior equals Guardian because it's simply not true, and when you do say Warrior equals Guardian, you are using in your case just a single metric to define that, which is like again saying that the apple is equal to the orange. If you wanted to say the two are the same, then you have to go down skill by skill, metric by metricto see if both are equal to make such a determination. If every metric is equal, then the guardian is infinitely non-different then the warrior, where the two are no longer considered to even be different classes...again because if all metrics define that they are equal, means they are descriptions of the same object.

[Ragnar.4257]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Ragnar.4257" said:The notation of "warrior" and "guardian" there is obviously representative of their strength.

Oranges and apples are bought and sold with currency. If both are valued at 1$ I can write an equation that states Apple = Orange, where those terms are representations of their values. It is obviously not meant to imply that an apple is actually the same thing as an orange. I thought you were smarter than this?

You're the one that invoked algebra. Now you're saying it's not possible to employ it in this scenario. Make up your mind.

We are just getting started, don't worry.

You've taken your first step. In order to define one thing to be equal to another, you define that equality with a common metric, in the case of the apple and the orange, it's monetary value. But now, you know that the apple and the orange even though they have one metric that is equal, you know they still aren't the same right... Do they have the same weight? The same shape? The same color? The same composition? The same malleability? The same mass? The same Buoyancy?

To define the equality of two objects, you further and further evaluate it for an infinite number of metrics, which you will eventually find that the two objects are never and can never be equal. This is because if they were, the two objects would have to be in the same exact quantum states, which by no-cloning theorem is impossible to have. This is why the apple will NEVER be equal to the orange, because down to their very atoms they can never occupy the same quantum state. This is the hallmark of why chaos theory exists. Any small difference between elements in a system, even if it's a deterministic system, cause the system to become chaotic and unpredictable to due those said infinitesimally small differences between each element. In addition, even if many of those metrics are equal, their equality further determines that the two objects become closer and closer to being the same object. If they are both red, both made of carbon, with the same mass, have the same buoyancy, and shape...the description of the objects converge to being the same object.

Therefor, apples and oranges are never the same, and the equal sign is an approximation based on the number of metrics used to define that equality.

In the case of Warrior equals Guardian, this is the exact reason why the two classes aren't equal, and in fact are inherently different. You simply can not say that Warrior equals Guardian because it's simply not true, and when you do say Warrior equals Guardian, you are using in your case just a single metric to define that, which is like again saying that the apple is equal to the orange. If you wanted to say the two are the same, then you have to go down skill by skill, metric by metricto see if both are equal to make such a determination. If every metric is equal, then the guardian is infinitely non-different then the warrior, where the two are no longer considered to even be different classes...again because if all metrics define that they are equal, means they are descriptions of the same object.

By this logic, no 2 warrior builds are the same, since they're equipped at different times by different users in different locations etc etc. Even if they select the exact same traits, equipment, utilities, they're still not equal to each other.

Now, I ask, is it really useful to go to this level of detail, or can we grow up a bit and use a sensible approximation? Newtonian physics is a suitable approximation for day-to-day usage. I don't need to evaluate the exact quantum state of every particle in the universe to make a statement on GW2 PvP balance.

This whole conversation is like Einstein trying to get out of a speeding-ticket by arguing with the policeman that he wasn't reeeaaally going over the limit, it just looked like that because of frames of reference, time dilation, and are you even qualified to define speed? Do you know who I am?. Mate, you were speeding. Your doctorate and years of research aren't relevant.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Ragnar.4257" said:By this logic, no 2 warrior builds are the same, since they're equipped at different times by different users in different locations etc etc. Even if they select the exact same traits, equipment, utilities, they're still not equal to each other.

There you go! Now your catching on. Even in a perfectly balanced, completely deterministic game of stick wars 2, because agents exist in a world governed by real world physics, you can NEVER have a perfectly balanced game there will always be near infinite amount of variables and metrics that you can not evaluate, like player skill. This is why it is important to understand why you can't just insert an equal sign willy nilly into whatever equation you want to create, especially in complex systems and games like gw2.

Now, I ask, is it really useful to go to this level of detail, or can we grow up a bit and use a sensible approximation? Newtonian physics is a suitable approximation for day-to-day usage. I don't need to define the exact quantum state of every particle in the universe to make a statement on GW2 PvP balance.

I mentioned this earlier but DPS Benchmarks is the metric Anet and other game companies use to determine balance between classes that are different to one another. It is merely an approximation based on repeated observation and experiment, much like the real world.

So now when you talk "sensible" you have to define your metric. You want Warrior to equal Guardian but by what metrics? By their DPS benchmark on a golem? By their performance in AT's? By their individual skills and their coefficients...There are an infinite number of metrics you can attempt to define the equality between the elements in a system, and it doesn't stop at the level of classes...it goes down to skills and their mechanics...

How do you evaluate the equality between Thief dagger autoattack and Elementalist staff autoattack? How do you evaluate the equality between Stability and Immobilize? The truth is that it is non-sensible to attempt to equalize things based on metrics at all. Such mechanics are so estranged that they can't be compared in any truly meaningful way, and therefor changes in the coefficients or whatever other numerical changes in an attempt to make them equal actually becomes non-sensible.

[Ragnar.4257]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Ragnar.4257" said:By this logic, no 2 warrior builds are the same, since they're equipped at different times by different users in different locations etc etc. Even if they select the exact same traits, equipment, utilities, they're still not equal to each other.

There you go! Now your catching on. Even in a perfectly balanced, completely deterministic game of stick wars 2, because agents exist in a world governed by real world physics, you can NEVER have a perfectly balanced game there will always be near infinite amount of variables and metrics that you can not evaluate, like player skill. This is why it is important to understand why you can't just insert an equal sign willy nilly into whatever equation you want to create, especially in complex systems and games like gw2.

Now, I ask, is it really useful to go to this level of detail, or can we grow up a bit and use a sensible approximation? Newtonian physics is a suitable approximation for day-to-day usage. I don't need to define the exact quantum state of every particle in the universe to make a statement on GW2 PvP balance.

I mentioned this earlier but DPS Benchmarks is the metric Anet and other game companies use to determine balance between classes that are different to one another. It is merely an approximation based on repeated observation and experiment, much like the real world.

So now when you talk "sensible" you have to define your metric. You want Warrior to equal Guardian but by what metrics? By their DPS benchmark on a golem? By their performance in AT's? By their individual skills and their coefficients...There are an infinite number of metrics you can attempt to define the equality between the elements in a system, and it doesn't stop at the level of classes...it goes down to skills and their mechanics...

How do you evaluate the equality between Thief dagger autoattack and Elementalist staff autoattack? How do you evaluate the equality between Stability and Immobilize? The truth is that it is non-sensible to attempt to equalize things based on metrics at all. Such mechanics are so estranged that they can't be compared in any truly meaningful way, and therefor changes in the coefficients or whatever other numerical changes in an attempt to make them equal actually becomes non-sensible.

No, I can put an equals sign between guardian and warrior, if I'm defining my metrics and stating what is being approximated and what is not. Just as I can say that Apple = Orange, if I qualify that the metric is monetary value.

And no, we don't need to go to the level of each individual skills, down to every minute detail. We can take a black-box approach and simply observe the resultant performance in games, leaderboards, tournaments. This approach, incidentally, has the added bonus of also covering several other factors which are not directly part of the builds themselves, such as how players approach playing them, how they interact with maps, objectives, etc.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Ragnar.4257" said:No, I can put an equals sign between guardian and warrior, if I'm defining my metrics and stating what is being approximated and what is not. Just as I can say that Apple = Orange, if I qualify that the metric is monetary value.

And that's how approximate your evaluation will be...it's monetary value and nothing more, if you come to me selling me an apple when i ask for an orange, I'm gonna look at you funny. Say if you were to use DPS Benchmarks as your metric for equality in SPVP I wonder how far that will actually get you...well A-net kind of already did this once upon a time so we can "see" what the consequence of using such broad metrics actually do to the game.

We can take a black-box approach and simply observe the resultant performance in games, leaderboards, tournaments. This approach, incidentally, has the added bonus of also covering several other factors which are not directly part of the builds themselves, such has how players approach playing them, how they interact with maps, objectives, etc.

CMC 'probably' uses performance in AT's as a metric for his balancing in SPVP...that's gotten us pretty far this past year hasn't it...If you think that this is the best balance in the history of every game ever because of his usage of this godlike metric then...okay whatever that's your opinion if you think this is remotely a healthy state of the game.

And no, we don't need to go to the level of each individual skills, down to every minute detail.

This is what I basically said. It's non-sensible to try to balance every metric of every skill into equality because it leads to the inevitable conclusion I've said many time before now, that a perfectly balanced game is the heat death of player choice in a game like gw2 which survives at it's core, on player choice. Balancing using broad. mediocre metrics like AT performance is at best, throwing darts at a dart board, especially when the only changes that can be made are numerical ones, which are by proxy of the already mentioned concepts are meaningless to the balance of the system as a whole.

[Ragnar.4257]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Ragnar.4257" said:No, I can put an equals sign between guardian and warrior, if I'm defining my metrics and stating what is being approximated and what is not. Just as I can say that Apple = Orange, if I qualify that the metric is monetary value.

And that's how approximate your evaluation will be...it's monetary value and nothing more, if you come to me selling me an apple when i ask for an orange, I'm gonna look at you funny. Say if you were to use DPS Benchmarks as your metric for equality in SPVP I wonder how far that will actually get you...well A-net kind of already did this once upon a time so we can "see" what the consequence of using such broad metrics actually do to the game.

We can take a black-box approach and simply observe the resultant performance in games, leaderboards, tournaments. This approach, incidentally, has the added bonus of also covering several other factors which are not directly part of the builds themselves, such has how players approach playing them, how they interact with maps, objectives, etc.

CMC 'probably' uses performance in AT's as a metric for his balancing in SPVP...that's gotten us pretty far this past year hasn't it...If you think that this is the best balance in the history of every game ever because of his usage of this godlike metric then...okay whatever that's your opinion if you think this is remotely a healthy state of the game.

And no, we don't need to go to the level of each individual skills, down to every minute detail.

This is what I basically said. It's non-sensible to try to balance every metric of every skill into equality because it leads to the inevitable conclusion I've said many time before now, that a perfectly balanced game is the heat death of player choice in a game like gw2 which survives at it's core, on player choice. Balancing using broad. mediocre metrics like AT performance is at best, throwing darts at a dart board, especially when the only changes that can be made are numerical ones, which are by proxy of the already mentioned concepts are meaningless to the balance of the system as a whole.

Yeah, and if you come to me for an apple, and I present you an apple, and you say "but it doesn't have the exact same quantum state as the apple I meant" I'm going to tell you to get lost.

And I never suggested that the current state of balance was perfect. Merely that it is possible to reach a state that is functionally balanced "enough" for us to be happy with.

Your contention is that if a given build is even 0.001% more efficient than the rest, then everyone will play that build, and thus balance is impossible. I disagree, and all the evidence I need is to point at the playerbase. I would suggest that if all builds are within ~5% strength of each other, then that is sufficient for practical purposes, and that the outstanding 5% difference will be negated by differences in player preference, skill, maps and objectives, team compositions, etc.

Let's say that revenant has a strength-rating of 100, and guardian has a strength rating of 90. So I should play revenant right? But that assumes that I can play both of them at maximum efficiency. If I personally can play guardian at 95% efficiency, and revenant only at 70% efficiency, then guardian is actually the better choice for me, and that may not be the same for someone else. Provided those initial strength-ratings are close enough that the deciding factor is my own skill, the balance is good enough.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Ragnar.4257" said:Yeah, and if you come to me for an apple, and I present you an apple, and you say "but it doesn't have the exact same quantum state as the apple I meant" I'm going to tell you to get lost.

Heh, and that would be a funny joke because I'd tell you that such an apple doesn't exist anyway.

And I never suggested that the current state of balance was perfect. Merely that it is possible to reach a state that is functionally balanced "enough" for us to be happy with.

This is what I'm trying to say here...that balancing for equality kills player choice (aka build diversity), for the reason that as Anet tries to make the elements in the game equal, the description of differences between skills and classes are lost in the attempt to make them balanced via this equality. When applying nerfs and buffs in the attempt to balance the game, that is what happens...the heat death of player choice. Because like i mentioned before, numerical nerfs and buffs that are made, are made in the interest of trying to make the elements of the game equal, and the mechanisms I described from now pages ago is the reason why it happens.

But, there is more then one kind of "balance." Rather then balancing for equality, you instead balance for diversity, and this is where evolution and complexity science come into play. It's not like balancing for equality is the only kind of "balance." Real world systems in nature like evolution are balanced via a different mechanism...which is that the system is highly diverse... which is essentially the complete opposite of balancing for equality...it's a balance of differentiation. It's a completely different mechanism at play but it's the same mathematics we've been discussing that allow it to work, and it's the reason we see real world systems exhibit diversity rather than equality...because the mathematical mechanism is efficient, or rather that complex systems tend towards being highly diverse because they are more efficient. It's like swimming in a river. Swimming uphill is like balancing for equality, while swimming downhill is balancing for diversity.

Gw2 is a mimicry of evolutionary systems and we see it play out in real time. Builds are made, builds compete and cooperate, builds die and go extinct, builds exist in consort with other builds. It's the players that are the driving force of this adaptation, and Anet fights this by trying to homogenize the game with nerfs and buffs, when really the opposite of these actions should be taken, to spur on heterogeneity like every other complex system in the universe. I mean seriously when was the last time you saw a perfectly balanced homogeneous ecosystem? It doesn't exist, and there's a good reason why.

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:Go play in some higher tiered environments like MAT or just even normal ATs. People still explode when +'d. There is plenty of damage.

Anyone who thinks otherwise must largely be playing only in ranked or unranked, where there is this skew of plat to gold to silver on each team. When you have skews like this, of course the bulk of the guys attacking you aren't understanding how to execute their damage correctly. However, pushing heals and dodge rolling around is a lot easier to do for those tiers. <- This is why people think things are bunkery right now. But I'm telling you, in higher tiered environments, people know how to bait defensive cycles before bursting and they know how to combo team bursting, and things explode still.

Just throwing it out there since this whole thing kind of exploded and this post stands out...

Most people play Ranked/Unranked. ATs are super niche.And the last MAT(Maybe? If not, the one before that) There was a game that ended with DCs, barely any deaths before then, and the streamer casting the whole thing even called it boring.

Only one where anyone actually quit mid-match I think, but that usually doesn't happen in MATs. There was quite a few that ended with relatively little deaths and of course, people picking on the thing the entire time

Also there was that MAT a little while after the Feb 25th patch went live where 2 people were just /dancing at tranq on Silent Storm. It was probably the most interesting thing to happen during that MAT tbh.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

@Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

@"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:Go play in some higher tiered environments like MAT or just even normal ATs. People still explode when +'d. There is plenty of damage.

Anyone who thinks otherwise must largely be playing only in ranked or unranked, where there is this skew of plat to gold to silver on each team. When you have skews like this, of course the bulk of the guys attacking you aren't understanding how to execute their damage correctly. However, pushing heals and dodge rolling around is a lot easier to do for those tiers. <- This is why people think things are bunkery right now. But I'm telling you, in higher tiered environments, people know how to bait defensive cycles before bursting and they know how to combo team bursting, and things explode still.

Just throwing it out there since this whole thing kind of exploded and this post stands out...

Don't take offense, but there are some things you are not seeing or understanding here.

Most people play Ranked/Unranked. ATs are super niche.

Ranked/Unranked now is comprised of matches that largely look like:

RED - plat 1 / gold 3 / gold 2 / gold 1 / silver 3 vs. BLUE - plat 1 / gold 3 / gold 2 / gold 1 / silver 3

This is an enormous skew of skill variables and the game should never be balanced around how the game feels when this is happening. The more years that go on that some of you insist "we should balance for the majority and not for top tier" you are insisting that the game be balanced around going further and further down the spiral of player skill deprivation as the years go on and this match making in ranked keeps getting worse. Ironically enough, Arenanet has actually listened to that plee, and that is why the game's mechanics in 2021 have devolved.

As much as some people want to argue this, the game should largely be balanced as a first priority around what the best players in the game can pull with a given class or character. These are the players who are excavating the absolute limits & maximum potentials of what a class/character is actually capable of. After the game is been balanced for top tier, then we can go back an tweak to make sure that something isn't OP or UP for middle tier. But the game must be largely as a first priority, balanced around top tier play for obvious reasons. Balancing the game around players who "want things tailored to their inefficiency or reluctance to try harder and learn" is ridiculous for every possible reason that could be discussed.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, go watch some youtube videos that discuss the subject. I'm not going to write a thesis on game design here.

And the last MAT(Maybe? If not, the one before that) There was a game that ended with DCs, barely any deaths before then, and the streamer casting the whole thing even called it boring.

Only one where anyone actually quit mid-match I think, but that usually doesn't happen in MATs. There was quite a few that ended with relatively little deaths and of course, people picking on the thing the entire time

Also there was that MAT a little while after the Feb 25th patch went live where 2 people were just /dancing at tranq on Silent Storm. It was probably the most interesting thing to happen during that MAT tbh.

What you're not understanding in these comments ^ is why that kind of stuff happens. Right now, with the way you are posting these responses, I can tell that you believe these statements are in support to the claim that "the meta is tanky right now" but that is an assumption that isn't true. You must not be playing in higher tiers or ATs or certainly not the MATs very often if you believe that. If you did often play in higher tiered environments, you'd understand why top tier players can have games won or lost while only having 2 or 3 deaths the entire game. You aren't understanding that the very same thing happens whether it is a sustain meta or a glass cannon meta. The reason why higher tiered players will have games with few deaths regardless of if it is a sustain meta or a full dps meta, is because they know where to position and where not to position. They know when to stay and when to leave. Even in a full dps meta, getting downs and securing kills when two top tier teams go against each other, is never easy to do. But when it does happen, it happens like lightning and dudes get dropped fast, and it happens the moment someone is out of position, regardless of high dps or low dps high sustain metas. The reason why 2 dudes are jumping around tranq instead of fighting, is the same reason why Vaans and I have done the exact same thing when meeting each other on nodes before. We've fought each other so frequently and consistently in ATs, that we already both know that the fight isn't going to go anywhere. Both of us are going to play so ridiculously defensive that the fight could go on for 10 or 15 minutes and neither of us would get a kill on the other. And you're talking a full dps sic em one wolf pack soulbeast and a spellbreaker here, we have a lot of damage. It's just that we don't suck and we don't take stupid risks that would get us killed. It has nothing to do with our classes being too sustainy. It has to do with two players who know each other's game style and the game in general so well, that we can't kill each other unless someone +s the fight.

I don't know what else to explain here to clear up this concept. Regardless of full sustain meta or full dps meta, the same thing happens in top tier games man. People have a hard time killing each other because great players know how to stay safe.

AT footage with good players demonstrating damage output:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/929101534

As a final note, I'd like to say that if sustain were in question in this current patching, it would be revive power and instant revive skills, which were not adjusted to scale properly after the large nerf patch.

[Ghos.1326]

@KelyNeli.4516 said:

@"Shao.7236" said:So the reasoning is, make everyone overpowered so nobody can be underpowered because tipping the balance in equal match ups is too difficult?

I've heard that one before and it's not doing so well in other games

. I remember when people were overpowered they were also untouchable and you had to spam low cooldown as the only way to win.

I find it even more ironic that you look at duels from before feb patch on youtube, those that had high stakes and they'd take just as long to finish, except people could spam or do ridiculous damage with 1 effortless skill.

In which games? Can you elaborate?BDO has this kind of balance and pvp is really fun, fast and exciting with few exceptions. Sure there is different combat style, but they dont nerf everything and everyone is happy to receive buffs, no class is completely useless in pvp. You wont tank damage, but you have a tons of way to avoid the said damage, believe it or not there is a way to make your character unkillable in this game too. And do you know best part about it? BDO has more players than it EVER had before, more and more plays it, despite it being a horribly pay2win game with excessive amount of grind. When GW2 is losing players, and i see lion arch getting empty and system asking me to change my town in the evening at 18 o clock on friday.WoW in BFa was in a pathetic state when it came to pvp for THE EXACT SAME REASON GW2 IS RIGHT NOW.Nerfing everything to the ground and making everyone a sponge for damage.The best pvp was in legion where you could deal hundred of thousands of damage to few people with right timing and right combo that was amazing stuff.FFXIV pvp is a joke also for the same reason GW2 is, takes forever to kill anyone, its still somehow worse because healers are overpowered there.

This is a lie. WoW during BFA had insanely bursty things. I know because I've kept in touch with it.BDO is fun, sure, in its own way. But really the only way to "tank" or "avoid" damage in that game is to have better gear than the other player. that's not very fun and exciting, sorry to inform you.Also, for WoW, lets consider HP pools as compared to Guild Wars 2. The lowest amount of health available in GW2 is 11k and some change. In WoW? If you equip all of the end game gear during your campaign, around 18k. Hence why WoW has more damage per skill (this is not to mention, also, the global cooldown of most, if not all, skills) than GW2.You gotta factor in everything when you want to make a comparison. To go into discussion on BDO, everything is also highly mobile there, so literally everything can match everything else's speed. In GW2, you do SOMEWHAT see that issue, but not the degree of BDO. How do I know? I play BDO as well. (and yes I play WoW)

[georgessj.4198]

@Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

@georgessj.4198 said:And i have photos of a 300 damage skill hiting me for14k (perhaps even more) that takes less than a second to hit my char. Obviously i died in 2 seconds after the other hits came so......where does this lead to? Does it lead to boosting ferocity or dmg overall so it can hit my 25khp char for 26k?

I'm very sorry to hear that and I hope you find peace in the future.Was that before or after patch? What build/stats were you running?

I play a Bunker build post patch and the only thing that can come remotely close to that kind of damage now is a Soulbeast that invests everything into maximum damage. Even then it doesn't come from 1 skill. It comes from multiple skills and it still only manages about half of 22k hp.(Albeit with 3,067 armor).

Then I pop my healing skill and go from ~11k back to ~18k hp, and proceed to stunlock the Soulbeast for a solid 20 seconds(Give or take a few stunbreaks, but that doesn't really matter because they all take a good 5% of a match for the CD to reset now, longer in some cases) and if they even manage to escape the CC/Block spam by the time their burst is ready again, i've already completely reset back to full hp, and seen every mean word in the English language tossed my way in /say chat.

If you're also investing everything into damage(like Zerks) then obviously you're going to die a lot quicker. It's probably not going to feel all too different to pre-patch.... Until you fight a bunker like me.

Before, damage was there to stop people like me and provide some sort of consistent threat to people running similar builds.After, damage is only a threat to other people trying to do damage.

I don't like it very much personally, but if people like it, I don't judge. But yes, I think the majority of the nerfs from 2/25/2020 onward have been pretty pointless. I don't think damage needs to be buffed, I think all the nerfs and removals since then need to be undone.I'm also a huge hypocrite because I will exploit it to no end so long as its there, and ruin many days and attention spans in the process. Don't hate the player though.

Namaste ?

Well then 2 can play this game right?I'm very sorry to hear for your bunker killing troubles and I hope you find peace in the future.When you try to kill bunkers What build/stats were you running? (so i can ridicule it even if its good just like you would do to mine).Namaste ?Now if you wanna get serious everything you say is true IN A 1 VS 1 PVP ONLY !!!! perphaps it will also ruin 2 vs 2 games yes but in 5 vs 5 when the most usless by default and nerfed classes like the warrior for example uses axe skill 3 hits you for a 6-7k plus that theres probably 1 to 4 real damaging class enemies around to unleash some 10k bursts in a couple of nanoseconds what kind of reset back to full hp are you pretending to be doing? And ofc thats assuming a condi fiesta doesnt take place in a condi fiesta game.

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

@Trevor Boyer.6524 I get you, and I don't mean to insist anything. Just retelling things that historically happened there in monthlies since the patch.Like I say; if people like it, I get why and that's all gravy. More power to them. I don't have any sort of philosophy towards balance, I just personally don't find this very fun to play or watch in its current state.

@"georgessj.4198" said:Well then 2 can play this game right?

That's the hope, in the end.

I'm very sorry to hear for your bunker killing troubles and I hope you find peace in the future.When you try to kill bunkers What build/stats were you running? (so i can ridicule it even if its good just like you would do to mine).Namaste ?

I think something got mixed here. I don't kill bunkers, I play a bunker. I don't kill anyone actually. Currently i'm peacefully protesting the lack of damage by doing none and preventing others from doing the same.

I would also never ridicule your build because I love you and everyone else. That is why I peacefully remove their ability to do damage, because the only one that truly takes damage in the end is the one dealing it.Namaste ?

Here is my current build: gw2skills.net/editor/?PKwAIl7lJwSYYMFGKeaX+vTA-zZwOlMFC9KCyYB0xEQHDA

Do not be disillusioned by the 1200 condition damage. This build has no access to any conditions that actually do damage that are not first given unto it. ☮️

Now if you wanna get serious everything you say is true IN A 1 VS 1 PVP ONLY !!!! perphaps it will also ruin 2 vs 2 games yes but in 5 vs 5 when the most usless by default and nerfed classes like the warrior for example uses axe skill 3 hits you for a 6-7k plus that theres probably 1 to 4 real damaging class enemies around to unleash some 10k bursts in a couple of nanoseconds what kind of reset back to full hp are you pretending to be doing? And ofc thats assuming a condi fiesta doesnt take place in a condi fiesta game.

All I play is 5v5. That's where I receive most of my insults.Little do they know however; violence has karmic consequences, and to save them from retribution I take it upon myself to stall and CC multiple people at once. Lately, the maximum number of souls i've managed to save is 4 at once. For 200 points of an entire conquest match.

You are correct though. When dealing with only one; it is much easier to show the misguided the path of kindness, self-reflection, and morality.

Some might call this very boring, and to most it probably is. None can cross the gateway into the astral plane without discipline, and 'fun' is a mile marker on the road to destruction. ?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Ragnar.4257" said:This is just straight up philosophical nonsense.

You're actually saying that it is not possible to buff or nerf anything, and that regardless of any change you make all builds/classes remain the same relative to each other.

What. The. F.

Just incase anyone had any doubts about whether anything I said is "philosophical nonsense" I'll just post this here.

Blurred part is just irrelevant information about physics. Feel free to read the wiki yourself : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneity_(physics)

"Mathematically, homogeneity has the connotation of invariance"This is the thing I've been saying the entire thread. Invariance means that the equation or system is invariable at any and all scale, no matter what operation you do, you simply do not meaningfully change the system in any way if you intend to make two objects equal.

Therefor thinking that the "nerf this" balance patch had any positive or meaningful effect on balance as a whole is -mathematically- false.

[Ghos.1326]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Ragnar.4257" said:This is just straight up philosophical nonsense.

You're actually saying that it is not possible to buff or nerf anything, and that regardless of any change you make all builds/classes remain the same relative to each other.

What. The. F.

Just incase anyone had any doubts about whether anything I said is "philosophical nonsense" I'll just post this here.

Blurred part is just irrelevant information about physics. Feel free to read the wiki yourself :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneity_(physics)

"Mathematically, homogeneity has the connotation of invariance"This is the thing I've been saying the entire thread.

Invariance means that the equation or system is invariable at any and all scale

, no matter what operation you do, you simply do not meaningfully change the system in any way if you intend to make two objects equal.

Therefor thinking that the "nerf this" balance patch had any positive or meaningful effect on balance as a whole is -mathematically- false.

This doesn't necessarily apply to physics, however, and the goal here is to not make everything the same, but to tone down the things that, because of how incredibly powerful they are now, are chosen as a standard in order to open up opportunities for other trait/skill options to be chosen in regards to specific intended roles and/or playstyles. Doing this can provide the "give vs take" thing that I preach about all the time. When one thing provides too much take (benefits) and not enough give (cons), it becomes THE absolute pick no matter how much weaker or stronger it is, simply because it adds too much benefit in all areas rather than limiting its benefits in regards to other traits/skills that can offer other benefits. Example, skill A has: large offensive options, large defensive options, large mobility options, large support options. in contrast to skill B which offers: medium offensive options, large defensive options, low mobility options, low support options. skill A will always be chosen because it simply has everything packed into one, where as if skill A was nerfed to provide higher options in lets say offense but medium in support and low in both mobility and defense, it would compete with skill B, which skill B may be more useful in a defensive setup rather than skill A which used to be good in everything.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Ghos.1326" said:This doesn't necessarily apply to physics,

It's not a physics thing...it's a mathematical thing.

If I were to use an analogy, Dimensional Analysis is like making sure your sentence is using letters from the same alphabet. You simply can not write a sentence in physics without understanding and applying dimensional analysis to it, and the reason you apply it is because if you don't, whatever equation you present is going to end up being rubbish... the reason it would be rubbish is because of the mathematics behind the implication of using an equal sign. Like they say in an example on the Dimensional Analysis page, saying that 1 mile is equal to 1 hour makes no sense... You then have to define how long a mile is...is it 100 apples lined up from end to end? What if I disagree with you and say that a mile is the length of some dead guy's foot times a thousand?

You can see how contrived it becomes when you start realizing how all things are relative to each other because of the invariant behavior of setting two different things equal to one another. The only way to reconcile two things that aren't the same to be equal, is by making sure both things share an infinite number of metrics with one another to describe whatever it is, and by applying the relation of an infinite number of metrics, means that the two are the same object. You can see why equations like E=mc² are so groundbreaking in terms of understanding that these two things are truly the same thing. It's not just a "conversion" of mass to energy, they are literally the SAME thing down to an infinite number of metrics.

Back here in Gw2 land, Guardian is not the same thing as a Mesmer, therefor Guardian is not equal to Mesmer, and they never will be until every single skill, trait, weapon, armor and health are exactly the same.

however, and the goal here is to not make everything the same, but to tone down the things that, because of how incredibly powerful they are now, are chosen as a standard in order to open up opportunities for other trait/skill options to be chosen in regards to specific intended roles and/or playstyles. Doing this can provide the "give vs take" thing that I preach about all the time. When one thing provides too much take (benefits) and not enough give (cons), it becomes THE absolute pick no matter how much weaker or stronger it is, simply because it adds too much benefit in all areas rather than limiting its benefits in regards to other traits/skills that can offer other benefits. Example, skill A has: large offensive options, large defensive options, large mobility options, large support options. in contrast to skill B which offers: medium offensive options, large defensive options, low mobility options, low support options. skill A will always be chosen because it simply has everything packed into one, where as if skill A was nerfed to provide higher options in lets say offense but medium in support and low in both mobility and defense, it would compete with skill B, which skill B may be more useful in a defensive setup rather than skill A which used to be good in everything.

What you are describing here is a familiar technique in balancing called "Power budgeting,"

Class A has a 1000 Power Budget, Class B has a 1000 Power Budget

Class ADamage - 500Defense - 100Support - 100Mobility - 300

Class BDamage - 200Defense - 400Support - 300Mobility - 100

Both classes "add up" to their power budget of 1000. It's a very common and a very successful model to balance games on. But the mistake with using this model and tangling it up into gw2, is that it assumes that "damage" and "defense" and "mobility" and whatever are the same to begin with, and can be equated, and this again is another consequence of the equal sign, dimensional analysis and the invariance of that behavior. If damage equals 200, then essentially this means that 200 damage is also equal to 200 defense., because 200 and 200 are the same thing. So Power Budgets, ASSUME that all the above elements are equal to equate them into some value that they all share in common. So 400 defense is equivalent to 2x200 damage, 4x100 mobility etc... Since most developers understand that these different elements can't actually be equal, they know that they are just approximate concepts.

Take now a look at gw2, and look at abilities...like Immobilization and Stability. How do you fit these two mechanics into the structure of a power budget...the truth is you can't, and it's because the two things aren't remotely similar. Is immobilization a mobility trait? or is it defensive? How much defensive? How much mobility? I mean it doesn't make you move it just freezes the other guy. Does it helping me land damage, make it a damage trait?

In short, Power Budget's work well when the games are very simple, where the elements of the game can be broken down into very easy to understand R/P/S elements, where the elements in a budget can actually be thought of as equal to one another (like in RPS). In Gw2, the design of the game is so complex that Power Budgeting becomes just as useless as any other mediocre metric to APPROXIMATE apparent balance.

Question, could you even begin to describe the Power Budget of thief class, let alone assign it a number? We kind of know thief is fast...it's got damage maybe? It's also squishy...is it?

But aside from just talking about power budgeting, what you talk about in your example, nerfing in that example has no meaning either, because like I mention before, you can subsequently buff something else via the inverse operation (Buffing Skill B rather then Nerfing Skill A). However the key difference in your example from other examples provided by others before you, is that you want to nerf something to bring things that might not have the same power budget, into having the same power budget, with one skill having different set of attributes then the other. This is a step further then the previous commenter made, as it's closer to a more practical view of how to balance a game like gw2.

But you simply can not escape the trap of the equal sign ever. It might seem simple "gives and takes" but the answer we want is never what we get and it's never really as simple as it appears. Like mentioned above, nobody can even fathom without any measure of accuracy the power budget of a class like thief without it being a complete guess, let alone give it a numerical value that is actually useful for making a power budget to make balance decisions based upon it. The idea of 'Gives and Takes' is a good start in my opinion, and there are also in my opinion, clever ways to apply this approach to Gw2 and would 'probably' yield at LEAST decent results (at least far better then what we have now) but the idea of a power-budget is far from the endgame.

[voltaicbore.8012]

I once saw two people with Down's Syndrome arguing VERY loudly in a parking lot. They were swearing at each other, screaming.... after listening for a minute it was apparent they weren't really even in the same conversation, but for some reason were just furious with each other.

That's exactly the feeling I get when reading @Ragnar.4257 and @JusticeRetroHunter.7684's back-and-forth here. It's pretty clear to me that Justice is operating from a standpoint that assumes that no number tweak would ever be made without some accompanying counter-tweak lurking just over the horizon. Over time, it's reasonable for someone with Justice's position to believe that a series of tweaks and counter-tweaks almost invariably spirals the meta right back to the same mess it started in. Given that for lower tier gameplay it appears as though the bunker meta has come back, it's hard to say that this position has no merit, at least when it comes to GW2.

From what I can see, Ragnar starts from a different position: devs can (and do!) tweak numbers to leave them unbalanced, in pursuit of certain changes. Therefore number tweaks are capable of lasting impact on gameplay. I personally believe this is the more reasonable position to take, as number tweaking is an active choice on the devs' part, not some natural counter-balancing process. If you want to make people harder to kill in pvp, you tweak the sustain numbers a bit higher than you counter-tweak the damage numbers, it's that simple. There is no guarantee whatsoever that it will always spiral back to exactly how things started out. Given that people can get exploded on point even at high gold and low plat matches, I think it's very incorrect to assume that the old bunker meta is back, which supports the idea that we haven't just circled back to the same old meta thanks to the endless tweaking process.

Ultimately, I think it's impossible for people with these positions to have the same discussion about the impact of number tweaks. One position presumes a guaranteed set of counter-tweaks that inevitably lead back to the start, while the other presumes that devs will can keep the tweaks tilted in a certain direction.

Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting both of you, and wanted an excuse to mention the one time in my life I witnessed something akin to the 'cripple fight' from South Park many years go.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@voltaicbore.8012 said:I once saw two people with Down's Syndrome arguing VERY loudly in a parking lot. They were swearing at each other, screaming.... after listening for a minute it was apparent they weren't really even in the same conversation, but for some reason were just furious with each other.

That's exactly the feeling I get when reading @Ragnar.4257 and @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684"'s back-and-forth here. It's pretty clear to me that Justice is operating from a standpoint that assumes that no number tweak would ever be made without some accompanying counter-tweak lurking just over the horizon. Over time, it's reasonable for someone with Justice's position to believe that a series of tweaks and counter-tweaks almost invariably spirals the meta right back to the same mess it started in. Given that for lower tier gameplay it appears as though the bunker meta has come back, it's hard to say that this position has no merit, at least when it comes to GW2.

From what I can see, Ragnar starts from a different position: devs can (and do!) tweak numbers to leave them unbalanced, in pursuit of certain changes.Therefore number tweaks are capable of lasting impact on gameplay. I personally believe this is the more reasonable position to take, as number tweaking is an active choice on the devs' part, not some natural counter-balancing process. If you want to make people harder to kill in pvp, you tweak the sustain numbers a bit higher than you counter-tweak the damage numbers, it's that simple.

Love your comment it's certainly a perfect way to frame this discussion. But I want to say that this statement above was exactly my point from the very beginning, and that everything I've been saying was to this end. That the changes made would never and can never make the game balanced, and what has been done since the start is a purposeful unbalancing of the game. This unbalancing, even if it does inspire meaningful change, does exactly as it says on the tin.... it unbalances the game. So if these changes were 'meant' to balance the game, well that was a lie was it not? This is the point I started with from the very first post really when highlighting another comment of someone else.

And you know, Ragnar's position is of course the one that sounds intuitive right... Frankly why wouldn't anyone naturally think that number tweaks, and changing things has meaningful change on the system as a whole...I believed the same thing many years ago. But looking further into the math behind it, what arises is contradiction and paradox. You then stumble on an idea that seems counterintuitive...but turns out to be how the world truly works and the whole time you've been fooled.

Yes, it DOES sounds crazy...why would changes to things not have any meaning? I totally wondered the same thing. But when picked apart logically and then extrapolated as you put it, that exact behavior is what happens. You return to the same state of the system you had before...or you enter a state of the system that is essentially the same at every other state of the system...either at larger or smaller scales...if all scales are the same...then what is the point of anything? It's a crazy realization to think this, and of course I don't like it just as much as other people don't like it but this is how it works and if it's PROVED to work this way mathematically, then there is really no argument to be had. You either did the math or you didn't and the argument is simply one person trying to explain to the other the same concept you struggled to grapple with in the beginning.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that it will always spiral back to exactly how things started out. Given that people can get exploded on point even at high gold and low plat matches, I think it's very incorrect to assume that the old bunker meta is back, which supports the idea that we haven't just circled back to the same old meta thanks to the endless tweaking process.

So this is a great point to make in defense of the opposing argument, which imo comes down to that definition of meaning...like is change for the sake of change have any meaning? In a secular and personal way, yes there is meaning in literally anything that is not completely homogenous. But from a macroscopic and mathematical system wide view of this logic problem, it has no meaning. The way I view this kind of problem is based on complexity mathematics and computer science, where meaning lies on a spectrum between a system being simple, and on the opposing side, a system being complex. Is the game becoming more and more complex, or have we stopped? Have we reached maximum optimal meta game scenario? Or can the system continue to evolve further. I think this is for me what defines the essence of meaning...can the system evolve or can it only devolve. If we are devolving, we are treading back over paths that even if we didn't take them previously, we've already experienced it in the same qualitative sense.

So even if we experienced "Bunker Meta" 5 years ago, and we are now returning to a new bunker meta, even though it is a bunker meta with different builds this time, the truth is we have been down a similar path before...and we haven't evolved further in complexity, we are just returning to previously explored states. That is objectively less meaningful then exploring a new, more complex state.

So ya again great comment you made, and just want to add that I have nothing against Ragnar on any personal level even if we call each other names, I don't care about that kind of thing. But I won't stand for the spread math lies like saying that "Guardian = Mesmer" Because this kind of behavior just further prevents people from thinking about the problems logically and objectively.

[Lord of the Fire.6870]

I don't think it will change any thing but this is my take on the topic:

Arena.NET's huge problem is they do for the most part balance around the top 10% of players the last 2 year in all game modes.For PvP the effect is if you aren't a bit above average the fights are slow and feel like bunker wars partially they can't kill each other.. For the top 10% not much has change besides builds .

I must also say true there are balance problem which should be solved but they are much often deep integrated into the design of a class e.g Mirage has 2 munition skills with 1/4s cast time no wonder they needed to do something about it. But also in the long term there should be a solution for it how to 'play' this.

About skills difference and what the game do demands from a player:

A)I know from watching ArcDPS inside Drizzlewood Coast or others like Dragon Resistance the difference what people who know their stuff and who not is 2x-3x the dmg and in peak even more. You properly say but this isn't sPvP but I can only say it is otherwise I wouldn't be so often Top DPS with my off meta condi Tempest build in sPvP. It is just crazy/insane to try to balance for this difference also it is what makes/made GW2 for so many interesting is it is skill based and not only press 3 skills into cooldown. Same goes for the build variants

B)I read somewhere about we were all one shot I have sad news for all who thinks this isn't normal in Gw2 (too lazy to find it). Even in PvE it is at least in the 'real' end content you have a lot of one shot mechanic where you are instead dead in the fractals cms and in raids e.g with fragility in 100 cm basically everything one shots you except when you have Aegis up. Something not so hard more normal ? Okay how about Drizzlewood Coast? The fight against the Claw of Jormag you can only survive 3 hits from the Jormags waves after this you are in downstate (if you fail to jump over it).

So basically the game allows you only to take at best 3 hits before you are in down state . True this has also to do how the developers 'balanced' their content around the top 10% so I don't say this healthy but the problem has also to do with something else.

C) The difference skill also comes often with problem with excepting new build at least is that what I see in sPvP. Basically something like condi druid which was nerfed I don't know how many season ago and then went through further nerfs , more condi cleans on the other side and then the FEB nerf on top of it . So you can see why the player doesn't make dmg . Especially the Feb change but also what came later forced player to change builds or use something different. But people out there still ignore it.

I think the biggest problem which lies behind is how unfair the system is basically when you have 2 players which can both make 3x the dmg of the other players because of skill . You basically playing 9 vs 5 (in the normal season setup) the difference is reflected in the league but so the worst of point I ever got was +9 from the usually +12 so basically 30% vs near 100% . I think I wrote in 2-3 threads about it you can take a look how you really do this or think yourself about a solution.

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

@"Lord of the Fire.6870" said:I don't think it will change any thing but this is my take on the topic:

Arena.NET's huge problem is they do for the most part balance around the top 10% of players the last 2 year in all game modes.For PvP the effect is if you aren't a bit above average the fights are slow and feel like bunker wars partially they can't kill each other.. For the top 10% not much has change besides builds .So basically the game allows you only to take at best 3 hits before you are in down state . True this has also to do how the developers 'balanced' their content around the top 10% so I don't say this healthy but the problem has also to do with something else.

I don't know really. Most of the top players I know dislike post 2/25/2020 PvP as much as new players.I don't think it was really meant to cater to them, because most of them are about big numbers and "clip it chat" moments and those are harder to get after all the damage nerfs.

I'm not calling this a good thing though, because it's equally bad for new players. IE the other 90%.A vet might tolerate being stunlocked and working longer for their kills, but any new person coming in is probably going to be way less forgiving with that. Trust me, i've seen it happen.

The real target audience with that I feel, were the forum balance enthusiasts. =)If you scroll up you can find some of them here.While I don't know how much of the actual game population they make up, I think they're somewhere between 75-80% of the forum population.

I think the biggest problem which lies behind is how unfair the system is basically when you have 2 players which can both make 3x the dmg of the other players because of skill . You basically playing 9 vs 5 (in the normal season setup) the difference is reflected in the league but so the worst of point I ever got was +9 from the usually +12 so basically 30% vs near 100% . I think I wrote in 2-3 threads about it you can take a look how you really do this or think yourself about a solution.

I think this is more of a matchmaking concern really.Which I also think is way more important, so my proposed solution is to undo most-everything since 2/25/2020 so PvP is semi-fun to play again, and as a result; worth giving a kitten about to eventually fix all the fundamental stuff that's been draining people away for forever.

My last piece of game-balance advice after that would be to please ignore us, or at the very least take all our radical frustration-fueled short novels with a grain of a salt.

[Axl.8924]

@Arheundel.6451 said:

@Shao.7236 said:@"KelyNeli.4516" You look it up yourself, I have no need to bring forth content that will be obviously argued for being wrong in this biased topic about the state of the entire game, let alone the contradictions in your post has me questioning why you even bother.

This community is an sad accident when it comes to PvP and has no sense of self preservation unless they get what they want at the cost of even having a bit of fun over instant gratification.

Most of the posts are made by people who used to play immortal broken builds that would toss over entire unbalanced games for their ego to be satisfied and I have no regret to state the obvious denial everyone is experiencing as of late. It's like Guild Wars 2 shouldn't be Guild Wars 2 but whatever players imagined it to be; some kind of random keymash with no thinking upfront.

PvP was like you guys are so wishing it to be before and it did no better, actually was worst and the only thing holding it together was the fact people could be braindead about it and those always come and leave in mass.

The sane players are only ones of what actually remains in this game, those that didn't quit when they should have like everyone else, at least they aren't missing out on how GW2 PvP could have been when the game has it's players put to a higher skill cap, without the very uncared aspects of the game let loose to have anyone trying to do anything frustrated and disappointed that they couldn't defeat this "insert immortal broken builds with insane damage" player here now complaining on the forum they can't be carried by their build anymore.

It also comes a time where things should be changed in functionality rather than numbers in order to maintain an abundant build diversity which contributes overall to the good health of the game and population,

balance doesn't mean only wack a mole number dumpening

Nerfing things down to a point where nobody uses them anywhere goes against the whole idea of playing a MMO, by all means we must always strive for balance but ...oh god this is neither a correct balance process or something worth praising

The better balance to me was pre pof.

If we could go back to then with similar numbers for thief class ranger warrs etc, we would be far more balanced.

We had high dmg but not too high, and sustain and cc spam wasn't as braindead

Nerfing outliers as others have said isn't over the line, but the problems arise when there isn't enough patches to check on balance and keep on working on them.

You nerf lich form for instance? Well there will be repercussions oh you nerfed reaper? well now reaper isn't scary anymore.

And warriors not happy being healers in pve? well it takes forever to do fixes.

WOW pvp is bad for several reasons:

They don't have people who care about classes and changes destroying them make classes feel hollow, and they strip down choices so that skills become braindead.

Before a certain point they had all sorts of skills as answers to other stuff, but at least they had folks in the staff actually changing things more than twice a month.

Good luck getting changes needed for ranger class and its elites, its going to go unanswered for a long time, and that is why i quit the game.

Some elites and classes are left unanswered without the changes to make meaningful impact, while other classes destroy you in every way, and then the crybabies get a class nerfed because they refuse to learn how to counter it.

[Lord of the Fire.6870]

@Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

@Lord of the Fire.6870 said:I don't think it will change any thing but this is my take on the topic:

Arena.NET's huge problem is they do for the most part balance around the top 10% of players the last 2 year in all game modes.For PvP the effect is if you aren't a bit above average the fights are slow and feel like bunker wars partially they can't kill each other.. For the top 10% not much has change besides builds .So basically the game allows you only to take at best 3 hits before you are in down state . True this has also to do how the developers 'balanced' their content around the top 10% so I don't say this healthy but the problem has also to do with something else.

I don't know really. Most of the top players I know dislike post 2/25/2020 PvP as much as new players.I don't think it was really meant to cater to them, because most of them are about big numbers and "clip it chat" moments and those are harder to get after all the damage nerfs.

I'm not calling this a good thing though, because it's equally bad for new players. IE the other 90%.A vet might tolerate being stunlocked and working longer for their kills, but any new person coming in is probably going to be way less forgiving with that. Trust me, i've seen it happen.

The real target audience with that I feel, were the forum balance enthusiasts. =)If you scroll up you can find some of them here.While I don't know how much of the actual game population they make up, I think they're somewhere between 75-80% of the forum population.Well I also asked myself is it against or for the top 10% of the sPvP players . On first look it seems against them but if you go through every detail it turns around.

1. When you one shot each other who wins ? The one who reacts faster naturally but if you need to do a full rota who wins then ? Obviously the one who can his rota better.
2. With short boon duration who can handle it better the slow player or the one who react fast on a daily bases ? Obviously the faster player can still use it
3. The stabi nerf is obviously annoys everyone but how about protection ? This an resistance can mitigate dmg but without who wins ? The one who has higher DPS . Same goes for healing . So killing off Hfb and turning the others into condi cleans tanks helps more the skilled player and punish the not so good players

I don't know who wants to play sPvP well for some time I had fun but for the last year it became annoying. I'm only still for farming shard there in the next season I should complete my legendary armour then I need another 2 seasons for my amulet then I'm through.

@Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

@Lord of the Fire.6870 said:I think the biggest problem which lies behind is how unfair the system is basically when you have 2 players which can both make 3x the dmg of the other players because of skill . You basically playing 9 vs 5 (in the normal season setup) the difference is reflected in the league but so the worst of point I ever got was +9 from the usually +12 so basically 30% vs near 100% . I think I wrote in 2-3 threads about it you can take a look how you really do this or think yourself about a solution.

I think this is more of a matchmaking concern really.Which I also think is way more important, so my proposed solution is to undo most-everything since 2/25/2020 so PvP is semi-fun to play again, and as a result; worth giving a kitten about to eventually fix all the fundamental stuff that's been draining people away for forever.

My last piece of game-balance advice after that would be to

please

ignore us, or at the very least take all our radical frustration-fueled short novels with a grain of a salt.

Well with shrinking population the matchmaking gets only worse the problem from the beginning the system seems not to compensate for this by shifting the scoring of the end result at least not enough . The System prefers grind over compensation. With the current system you don't notice that you were completely outmatch and players push it then to the balance then to the match they had. On top of it the way it is done don't allow for replacement during a match

And yeah I shouldn't fall so much for trolls..

[Tanbin.2436]

people complaining about BDO being pay2win don't realize that BioHack, probably the richest player out of both NA and EU with full pen gear and accessories (and that includes BiS accessories) did so by only having to purchase a valuepack to get the tax reduction on retrieving items. that's $20, and he bought most of his through the marketplace.

you can flip the market in BDO and make billions of silver just enhancing through reblath for free. or you can lifeskill and barter, or you can grind. this is the cool thing about BDO, it can be pay2win if you want it to be, but if you know the market you can just flip and make easy silver.

[Ragnar.4257]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:no matter what operation you do, you simply do not meaningfully change the system in any way if you intend to make two objects equal.

Okay guys, we can give guardian 1 million HP and leave everyone else unchanged. Apparently it doesn't constitute a meaningful change, and changes nothing regarding game balance or quality. What a sensible conclusion. You can link as many wikipedia articles about unrelated stuff as you like, the absurdity of this statement is clear for all to see.

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Ragnar.4257" said:This is just straight up philosophical nonsense.

You're actually saying that it is not possible to buff or nerf anything, and that regardless of any change you make all builds/classes remain the same relative to each other.

What. The. F.

Just incase anyone had any doubts about whether anything I said is "philosophical nonsense" I'll just post this here.

Blurred part is just irrelevant information about physics. Feel free to read the wiki yourself :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneity_(physics)

"Mathematically, homogeneity has the connotation of invariance"This is the thing I've been saying the entire thread.

Invariance means that the equation or system is invariable at any and all scale

, no matter what operation you do, you simply do not meaningfully change the system in any way if you intend to make two objects equal.

Therefor thinking that the "nerf this" balance patch had any positive or meaningful effect on balance as a whole is -mathematically- false.

This is still nonsense.

And the reason, is that GW2 is not an equation. In an equation, I cannot add to one side without adding to the other, which results in the homogeneity you describe.

But in GW2 it is entirely possible to add to one side without adding to the other. If we make guard stronger, we do not necessarily make rev stronger. We can decide to make rev also stronger, resulting in no net change, or we can leave rev where it is resulting in a relative nerf, or we can hard nerf it, or we can buff it even more resulting in a relative nerf for guard.

You have simply declared GW2 to be homogenous. This a ridiculous assumption.

You're saying that a situation where 90% of players pick guardian and 10% pick rev is equivalent to a situation where 50% pick both, because its still the same number of players. It is...... but that says nothing about balance. You're looking at the wrong equation.

It's like declaring that the energy and mass of the universe is homogenous. True, you can't add or remove from the total. That doesn't change the fact that you can take actions to make certain areas much hotter or colder. This is almost a perfect example of this situation. I'm saying "if you turn the heating up, the room will get hotter", and you're saying "nope, because eventually the universe will reach heat death". Ummm....... that doesn't change that turning the heating up right now in this room will make it hotter. Bringing up the heat death of the universe is so irrelevant to tweaking the temperature of the room I'm in, that it's hard not to conclude that you're either a troll, or really want to show off about how you read a book.

I am well aware of the concept of homogeneity. I am disputing its relevance to this situation.