[October 4 Balance Patch Wishes]

49 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

I'd really hope they wouldn't have made a post like that if they did, in fact, when I saw it, I assumed that they'd posted BEFORE the news post that is pinned to the top of the forum. But hey, if you're going to try to score cheap semantic points, at least make sure you're up to date before you post, or you might find yourself looking foolish. And if the post hadn't been dripping with a "gotcha" tone, I'd have simply pointed out that there had been a recent statement and left it there, and probably wouldn't even have thought to check the timestamps.

If you seriously want to double down with that... I guess we'll see in a week, or maybe a month. But a bit of advice? If the company has issued a statement in the last 24 hours that they plan to address a problem in the next patch, backing the person who claimed that maybe the company no longer recognised it as a problem in the first place is probably not the hill you want to die on. Even if the problem is one that had been left untouched for an extended period beforehand. Doubly so if, say, the team formerly in charge had recently been subject to a large public backlash that pushed the company to restructure the team and make sure to make visible progress on such pain points, including issues that have been left unaddressed for far too long, before the lack of confidence in the game's balance starts to critically undermine the work of the rest of the company.

I can't read 20 lines of whining. I wouldn't do it even for someone I respected. I just know, like everyone else, they have said they would address this for years and they haven't done it for years. Saying one more time is more words not actions. The rest is fluff. And the only one trying to score cheap semantic points here is you trying to quibble about time stamps lol as if that is relevant to anything. People don't need to read every topic on the forums and, as you yourself confirmed, he was completely right to bring up 300 cd traits.

[October 4 Balance Patch Wishes]

2 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

 but the fact that they're being brought up again essentially renews the statements made years ago that they weren't intended to be left like that permanently.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Also your childish insistence that the person in question must have seen the other post that came shortly before is frankly bizarre to say the least.

[World Linking 7/29/2022]

2 hours ago, browolf.3825 said:

when is the next relink?

Probably 2 weeks. If not, 3. 

[Quick Update on the Skills and Balance Team]

3 minutes ago, samsar.9152 said:

This game needs braindead and powerful professions with very good abilities to survive and do dps.. Not all players are ever able to learn hard/complicated skill rotations and still want to do for example raids and strike missions. 

 

You don't need 29k benchmark auto-attack builds to do raids or strikes. Not even close. A 20% damage nerf will not reduce the viability of rifle braindead mechanist in those game modes.

Next.

[Quick Update on the Skills and Balance Team]

4 minutes ago, Jijimuge.4675 said:

To be fair, in the original post, it says that the patch will "mostly focus on addressing issues in PvP/WvW" (emphasis mine).  In PvE, the performance of Power mech is very much a live concern (especially on the forums), so I suspect that some kind of tweaks to this setup are likely.  Balance-wise, it looks like low-hanging fruit to me, especially given their prior comments re balancing at least partly in relation to actual usage of specs

To me it has to happen or it would be just another broken promise. Because it was very obvious that the subject of that post is mechanist. Mecanist currently has 2.3+ times the representation of the next most represented elite specialisation. This has never ever happened before. Nor has 32%+ representation even when we had just 9 options and not 27.

[Quick Update on the Skills and Balance Team]

1 minute ago, samsar.9152 said:

Mechanist is fine as it is now. No need to change it.

 

Please, do nothing to mechanist. I have never loved engineer as profession so much than now. 🙂

Mechanist is not fine as it is now. Needs a 20% nerf to base damage. Period.

Mechanist is hated by most engineer mains.

[October 4 Balance Patch Wishes]

1 hour ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

I was going to make a "this aged well" comment, and then I looked at the timestamp, and realised that your post actually came after ArenaNet announced that they were finally going to rework those traits.

Maybe next time check recent news before you try to deliver a semantic gotcha?

Hold your horses, friend. They haven't touched ANY of those cds just yet and a simple promise doesn't necessarily mean they will nor does it tell you how they are going to do it (read: there is always the option that a change might be for the worse or simply be a lateral one that deliver nothing substantial). Same for cc skills doing no damage.

[Quick Update on the Skills and Balance Team]

7 hours ago, Carnifex.3275 said:

What? So we're stuck with this balance state in pve until November-December? This is rough.. 😔

Yeah 30-40% mechanist representation in pve for 6 months would be vile and unacceptable. I hope that the fact they they will 'focus' on pvp/wvw doesn't mean there is not going to be a big nerf to Mechanist passive damage (and they simply need to nerf the bot for this).

[Quick Update on the Skills and Balance Team]

2 hours ago, Cait Sith.4650 said:

Each delay further proves that there was no balance philosophy for years. Just individuals changing things according to their own personal preferences and whims.

I'll believe the positive changes to PvP/WvW when I see them. Not a matter of negativity, but of past experience with ArenaNet's announcements and failure to deliver.

Regarding PvE, will you let it be in its current state until the end of November? Maybe when Mechanist represents around 35 or 40% of each squad in endgame content? https://gw2wingman.nevermindcreations.de/popularity

yeah I wonder what happened to that balance philosophy write-down they promised. They said they had one, they just needed to formalise it. In the last 3 posts from @Josh Davis.7865 there has been no mention of this and when we can expect it.

I think even the more hardcore defenders of Anet dev team at this point have to admit there was no balance philosophy in any form or shape and they now have to think and come up with one.

[Quick Update on the Skills and Balance Team]

14 hours ago, Josh Davis.7865 said:

😐

Sorry, but I also will believe when I see it, like the poster you reacted to in such a manner. You have not built any reliability and trustworthiness capital just yet. You have promised a lot and have delivered only part so far. We appreciate the effort, but in the end we need the results as well.

And honestly, the changes to cc skills were also done the same unconscionable and incredibly lazy way as the 300s cds. Not all those skills are the same and lowering damage coefficients from 3 to 0.01 or 0.1 is exactly like slapping a 5 minute cd on skills: it's the same as admitting you are not able to do your job. So I expect both to be addressed in October.

[The actual balance of Mechanist]

5 hours ago, Aedil.1296 said:

It doesn't take anything away from other classes after all. 

No, you're right 33% representation in raids doesn't take away from the other TWENTY SIX elite specialisations. And no, the fact that people demand mechanists for all roles in the party except quickness doesn't take away from other classes.

Should be 100% representation before they do something about it.

Mechanist with 20% less damage would still be played, so stop whining or find a better argument than disabled people.

[The actual balance of Mechanist]

5 hours ago, prototypedragon.1406 said:

Idk about you all but given requests for nerfs for a favored class they may just buff it to spite us all 🤔

If they don't nerf a spec with 33% representation, then they should simply just close down the balance team and have them do something else. And they may as well not balance anything ever again.

[Doubleteaming : how to fix it]

5 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

 

Not being in the match I am not sure I follow you. The question is was 2 &3 fighting 1 or was 1 &3 attacking 2? Or was it a even spread? Again the numbers I used was an example, the spread need not be that much if the theory was implemented/tested. The question is would it balance out the fights to the OP's original point. I wouldn't adjust PPT because that will self regulate, as you said the side that has less to defend will lose their structures depending on numbers so PPT will be determined by the side that is successful in their attacks/defenses. Since the side that was on top would vary as skirmish period score changes this concept would hopefully lead to people targeting the side at the top at the time since for a 1 to 1 kill the side in the current lead would be worth more to take down. If the skirmish score flips due to a side that was trying to bank PPK from this and being successful they would then find themselves the better targets for fights until the score balanced. Again theory crafting in a quick manner. There of course could be mechanic that within certain point spreads this incentive wouldn't apply when score were more balanced but would kick in if larger score gaps appeared. Again if the goal is to more often have 2&3 going after 1 when they have a bigger lead vs 1 & 2 going after three since they are an easier target at the time. 1 &2 could still do it but 3 might have better odds in fighting and more thought for trying to defend if they don't have enough to hold their objectives due to numbers available since each kill they secured would be worth a bit more. Mind you numbers and stats would need to be reviewed and a potential increase might be needed for PPT to make sure the PPK & PPT points stay in a reasonable balance. Just quick theory crafting.

It was fairly even I think Gandara has higher numbers and higher kdr. I think numbers were Gandara>Desolation>Piken but Piken got a comfortable second and Gandara a comfortable first place after losing to desolation the previous week.

The problem with PPT v points from kills is that the former is way more correlated with participation than the second. Imagine a situation with: server 1 35k kills and 55k deaths; server 2 40k kills and 25k deaths; server 3 35k kills 40k deaths. Server 1 will easily dominate the PPT without question, but as you can see the PPK are pretty even despite the participation disparity.

In normal conditions each server will attack more one of the 2 other servers based on how they think the match is going to go. If one server dominates, the other 2 will typically attack each other to avoid last place. If you can win, you will try to go after whoever you think your biggest competition is.

[Current server system is so bad and future is looking bleak]

I think alliances will be more balanced than the current system as a whole.

However, I also think that there will be more stacking at alliance level in a different way than today: more people sticking to alliances that cover their preferred time slots or play the way they like to play (k-trains, pure fighting, roaming opportunities etc)

[Current server system is so bad and future is looking bleak]

16 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

wrong what? when I write you here my point of view, when I try to make you see things from a different perspective, when I communicate some of my concerns to you, I have no pretension to decide what is right or what is wrong. I just try to communicate. I'm afraid that when you put the new system live I will lose much of my interest in the game mode I prefer. if you have any good answer to give me, or rather if some developer could reassure me of what they foresee or what they plan to build around this development project to motivate, stimulate players in the long term, you will be really grateful. after all, the dialo is also provided for this, question------>responded.

why don't you make an alliance with the people you like? Many of the current servers will have community alliances.

[The actual balance of Mechanist]

People cry because of mechanist nerfs, mechanist goes from 26% representation to 32%+.  You see the disconnection from reality here?

Mechanist has 232% representation compared the second most represented specialisation (which is firebrand and has dropped from the previous patch possibly to another engi specialisation: scrapper).

[Doubleteaming : how to fix it]

20 hours ago, manu.7539 said:

Well, the ability to read the map doesnt change anything when 2 map Q attack your bl and focus on your team and objectives. Its nearly impossible to defend yourself from it no matter how good is your team. When it happen too often then your team can be the best you'll still not win at the end of the week. Its obviously a wrong/broken mechanic in a competitive game and I try  to see with u guys if there is some solutions to fix that.. not that I have any big expectations that arenanet will fix it haha

There is a way to defend if you are not outnumbered: send someone to attack the other servers home border...smaller groups and roaming parties are not insignificant. God knows how many time we pulled a 35+ blob from EB or our home border while attacking keeps elsewhere in 4 or 5 people.

And before you say small groups can be easily countered, I will tell you that most towers and keeps can be attacked sneakily and from positions that are very hard to defend (i.e. you may not be able to take the keep but the repair bill will be very high, which is also crippling if done well and if you have other roamers flipping camps and killing supply donkeys). I mean, on red border you can even make fairly sheltered and hard to see trebs to hit a keep's supply depots. Also this often works because the enemy doesn't see the outnumbered icon popping up and doesn't realise something is going on until you have already caused quite a lot of damage 

But of course you need to have roamers and roamers who are not simply camp flippers and donkey farmers on enemy borderlands or smaller tags, maybe guild tags willing to do that, not just chickens following the 50-man open tag on EB or your home border.

Ultimately them taking my T3 keep and losing their T3 keep is a fair trade.

[Doubleteaming : how to fix it]

On 9/7/2022 at 7:01 AM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

So lets go theory crafting. First off lets assume we keep the three sided fight concept because I can't see them doing away with that and it would be a rewrite. In the design you would think that blue & red would double team green, but that's not a great way to do it since you potentially doom anyone that is green. So if the goal is to dynamically shift as the match goes on then we need a mechanic that shifts as we go on so that we can both handle match setting versus skirmish period setting versus score resets. Given the smallest element is 5 mins, lets run with that. So if you want population/score balance to matter than maybe we go with a method that warscore is not even when killing players. So players in the top skirmish score in that 5 mins are worth 1.25, players in second place are worth 1 and players in the third are worth .75. Now I pull these numbers as a simple way to display the concept and numbers can vary. But the goal would be to pay more for kills against whoever is leading at the time to try and discourage people just jumping the side on the bottom. It would pay more to jump the side in the lead and allow for catchup mechanics. Again to keep things in balance this would only apply to PPK. Holding and keeping for PPT should remain the same but I think the PPK would still encourage weaker sides to attack stronger vs just 1 & 2 attacking 3, or it would at least pay #3 more for each kill they did get while double teamed. Just quick thoughts but something to consider if the goal is to encourage weaker vs stronger sides.

Piken topped Deso for 2nd despite being lower in PPT by 40-50 for an entire skirmish yesterday. That means they got points from kills while they didnt have the manpower (or will) to defend some of their structures. If you change the score the way you are proposing they may have won the skirmish despite being 80 PPT behind actually. With your proposal it's also easier to alter results by feeding kills to an opponent...

The truth is PPT from structures should be altered first and foremost, not kills. Because when you are outnumbered the main problem is not that you can't kill enemies while roaming or that you have to fight 20v30, the main problem is that you can't defend, because 2-3 people is all it takes to flip any target including SM and when you have several large groups attacking different targets on multiple borders you simply can't defend. And in the best scenario you defend either EB or home border, if you can.

[Doubleteaming : how to fix it]

On 9/6/2022 at 4:54 PM, manu.7539 said:

you are right but lets agree that in this situation the dominating server is going to win the skirmish anyway, bonus or not.

Deso won EU last week because it was basically 1v1 against Gandara and they were outnumbering the opponents in off-peak hours (late night and morning). This week Piken comes up and they struggle to win skirmishes because Piken pummels them in the morning and Gandara the rest of the day. So they are headed to T2 looking hopeless, after winning the previous week. In T2 next week they will be massacred by GH+WSR.

The 3 server dynamics are important and a significant part of match strategy. I think Deso would beat Piken in a 1v1 match with the current teams and against Gandara it would come down who plays the most late at night, but they can certainly beat Gandara. However for them to win in a 3-way match with Gandara and Piken it would require one of the other servers to actually help them or they would come bottom most of the times (again, with the current teams which factor in linked servers).

Besides it's common sense, if you are on an enemy border and get a report team 2 is attacking the keep of team 3 on the other side of the map it's often natural to attack the keep or a T3 tower on your side of the map. Maybe even just contest the garrison to help team 3, if them taking the keep benefits you in terms of scoring. Most of these situations change in the course of the day and week and the teams with fewer people online often ride on the back on what the larger team is doing to gain an advantage on the 3rd team. Of course, you can also have situations where most servers hate one or two specific other servers (seems to be the situation in NA) so that might present some differences to this dynamic, but I think the linking system plays a role in softening that (as the linked servers don't have the same strong feelings as they get paired with many host servers).

[October 4 Balance Patch Wishes]

Yo, prevent steam newbies from coming into wvw ill prepared gear wise. Gandara is the only closed server and suddenly we have the highest kdr in EU by some margin  in T1 of all places.

I've lost count of people without warclaw engaging me and getting killed in like 4 seconds. You even get people dismounting you who are clearly new (from their tag, like xxx invader) and play truly op builds so, so badly or with the wrong gear.

Fix at least the gear issue and if you need to go the pvp way, maybe with an exotic level amulet (and you can still use ascended/legendary if you wish) please do.

[The actual balance of Mechanist]

1 hour ago, Deepcuts.9740 said:

Where were posts like this when Engineer was bottom of the barrel trash DPS? 

I'll tell you: nowhere.

The reason: envy.

 

I've met plenty Rangers, Warriors, Thiefs and Guardians that out DPS me on my Mechanist pew pew in raids, fractals and metas.

Some of them by quite a lot.

 

Long story short: if you have the right gear, push the right buttons and you are not a cheap no-food/util/potions kind of player, you can match and even surpass a Mechanist DPS wise.

 

These kind of players always wanting some classes nerfed just because they cannot play their own favorite class as they should, imho, they need more love in their lives.

You don't understand the issue and that's ok. Devs don't have to be the same way.

[TY ANET]

4 hours ago, Evenge.4067 said:

Would be nice if devs would experience more servers than just Mag and BG. They seem to like the safety of the massive stacked blob servers. No wonder nothing changes.

This guy gets it.

[How can someone whisper me in WvW]

14 hours ago, Yellow Rainbow.6142 said:

I play the most annoying build ever and play offline.

I just lure them to my NPC and cc the crap out of him/her let my NPC kill them haha.

You must be good at giving free kills away if that's what you do. Tell me where you play, so I can farm some kills, please.

[October 4 Balance Patch Wishes]

This is my top-3 list of balance priorities:

1. Nerf mechanist

2. Nerf mechanist more

3. Nerf mechanist some more to bring it in line with the rest of the field

Then we can discuss how to address celestial builds and boonballs in WvW and tweak other classes in pvp and pve.

[The actual balance of Mechanist]

16 hours ago, Endaris.1452 said:

Realistically speaking, any damage variant of mechanist needs a trade-off for the innate damage the mech is contributing. Kind of how pets are nerfed on druid.

One possible approach would be to simply add that trade-off to the major master traits. If you choose the one for power damage, your own stats get reduced accordingly by a lower percentage while the mech is present to balance out the damage. Either that or straight up nerfing the inheritance % and/or the mech's weapon strength.

While I personally think Anet overbuffed the Rifle AA and just changing the animation and adding an Explosion to the skill was plenty enough, the main problem is ultimately the mech being too oppressive as a pet while being able to ignore mechanics in PvE as the standard pet perk.

How about forcing -20% damage traits here and there a-la Catalyst. That'll work.