claytonmorby.3751

Yes, I agree that while Chrono was stronger back then, the gameplay resembles a lot what we had before. Right now it is very AoE condi bunkerish gameplay. Classes with multiple aoe hits that don't require too much timing or aiming in order to land their skills are rising way up above and as much as the numbers are larger than what we had back then, the "style" is the same as in gameplay. Mindless spam with very little punishment for mistakes. This patch was meant to make PvP more associated with skill and active gameplay but it did the opposite. It was mindless spam beforehand. You didn't have to worry about missing a big ability because you could just burst stuff down so easily. What multiple aoe hits are a problem? It's my understanding that people are complaining about 2v2s, so not sure how aoe comes into it. Comparing it to the HoT bunker meta is laughable as well. You had ESL teams /gg once a team capped mid because it was impossible to force bunkers off. PvP wasn't killed due to balance, it was near dead when Anet tried to start the ESL and the half ass attempt at real ranked killed it for good.

Never asked for balanced to be based on 2v2. Cards get frequently limited and hard banned in Trading Card Games. Fighters frequently get banned in Fighting Games. Why not ban certain classes in certain PvP game modes when they've reached the status of mandatory? Nice false equivalence. This isn't a highly competitive game. It's an MMO. Other MMOs like WoW concede certain PvP modes and focus on balancing for their "main" mode. And the title of this post asks for a ban in 2v2s. That's balancing around 2v2s. FB still dominates the meta in 5v5, there's a need for change anyway.There's always a class that dominates the meta. And having discussion about FB in that sense would be fine. This post is a joke though.

I agree that FB Necro comps are too strong, but this is misinformation. It's very, very hard to get a character banned in fighting games. Bayonetta was never banned, but you could easily argue that she should have been. She single handedly lead to the most controversial grand finals tournament at the end of smash 4's lifespan. If you haven't seen the infamous moment, I suggest looking up Lima vs Captain Zac. Meta Knight came very close to being banned in Brawl, there was a mass effort from the biggest tourney organizers to ban him at all tournaments. Unfortunately, one guy decided not to ban him at his tourney. He just so happened to be the owner of Apex, the biggest smash tourney world wide. Due to this one guy, the entire attempt to ban MK fell apart because people would rather play by the rules set by the biggest stage. As for why it's so hard to get characters banned in fighting games. People invest countless hours into those characters. Namely, the big competetors like Zero, Nario, Dabuz, M2k, Leffen, Mango, ect. Players like these have huge influences in the community, they're who spectators come to see. If you ban a top tier like MK, you effectively ban these players from the tournament. It would be like going to a sports game only to realize that all of your favorite players have been replaced. tl;dr, banning characters is hard. Attempts to do so almost always fail in fighting games, likely will here too. Bayonetta was banned in multiple locals until she was appropriately nerfed. https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/8d8k58/raid_weekly_in_chicago_bans_bayonetta/ Metaknight was absolutely banned in North America. https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/10/03/meta-knight-banned-from-super-smash-bros-brawl Cloud was banned from Doubles. https://www.ssbwiki.com/Cloud_(SSB4)#Banned_in_Doubles Hero was banned in Australia and France https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqvsvl https://nintendoeverything.com/nintendo-france-bans-hero-and-future-dlc-characters-from-official-smash-bros-ultimate-tournaments/ I understand that players invest countless hours into their favorite characters and classes. I do not suggest banning Necromancer and Firebrand recklessly and with no thought. I care about Necromancer and Firebrand mains. I want metas where each and every one of the top 10 is occupied by a different top tier player maining a different class, and across all tiers all classes are viable. I do not recklessly call for bans or nerfs. Necromancer and Firebrand deserve to be banned from 2v2. You are recklessly calling for bans and nerfs. Over a gamemode very few play out of an already tiny PvP population. Guess what? At no point has PvP had fair representation of all the classes. And that's in 5v5 where there's more room to balance. If you want a fighting game, go play a fighting game. Just cut the melodramatics here. Instead of making a constructive post with suggestions on how to tune issues, you've made a kitten of yourself.

Never asked for balanced to be based on 2v2. Cards get frequently limited and hard banned in Trading Card Games. Fighters frequently get banned in Fighting Games. Why not ban certain classes in certain PvP game modes when they've reached the status of mandatory? Nice false equivalence. This isn't a highly competitive game. It's an MMO. Other MMOs like WoW concede certain PvP modes and focus on balancing for their "main" mode. And the title of this post asks for a ban in 2v2s. That's balancing around 2v2s.

No offense, but WvW has existed for much longer than the Warclaw. Much how the balance patch addresses the powercreep veterans had been complaining about. You're very likely the minority.

I just think the 50% Damage Reduction Buff should be looked at. Camps/Tower aren't really a big deal, but the kill times on Keep Lords and SMC can get ridiculous, especially if you're having a multi-way fight.

I voted balanced, but I really should've put undecided. In solo/small groups encounters I definitely feel condi is stronger. Bigger groups seems more than capable of shrugging off both power and condi damage now though. I think in the coming weeks certain builds might start to really come out of the woodwork and change things.

Imagine wanting to ban/balance around 2v2

Issue with WvW is that you can get certain stat combos that you can't in PvP. Also you need either range/mobility or you'll be kited down.

Yeah gonna have to second this. Especially with the buffs they can get at keeps, the NPCs are going to last way too long.

What I think is wild is the ICDs they've added to near everything over the years but retaliation seems to have avoided that.

They need to observe when target has retaliation or not.... they dont want to... But... with the boon stack n spam.. we all have all boons constantly. Imo some boons need to be short effects just like quickness is. When surfing Zergs that is really hard to do. In smaller scale, there is no good excuse.In smaller scale retal isn't an issue, because it doesn't do near as much damage.

You're talking about a weapon that has had its place in both PvP and WvW metas for years. Is it weaker now due to powercreep? Sure, but I don't think you appreciate how useful Marks 3,4, and 5 can be in a competitive setting.

Well, that's the point isn't it? That's where skill plays a factor. I disagree we should get utilities in Shroud ... unless your aim is to just take a challenging class and dumb it down. Based on what I see, that's not the goal Anet has for this class offering. Goodness, I've never seen someone shill so hard for a "developer's vision". You've made good points in this thread, but it's drowned out by you shouting down people by just saying they're wrong, and how "evolved" your way of thinking is.

Try full trailblazer with torment runes as scourge, or core nec with traveler runes. That build you posted is bad, no offense. I had always thought that Condi was out of the meta after all the nerfs and access to cleansing sigils etc.But I was wrong.I tried so hard to make full Grievers work but it was so hard.Every warrior was thrashing me unless I managed a perfect play and they made mistakes. Out of nostalgia, I was just roaming around with a shroud-flashing full Trailblazer condi core Necro build.And I managed to beat Cake Walk's core Warrior ? This was the build I used.http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PSwAYtjlVw8YdMRGJOsLZpTA-zVJYkRNfhkZJkbC0bEo4A-w I also had a rather easy time fending off scrappers which seems to have become very popular?I met 3 different scrappers within 30mins of roaming. From what I have experienced, currently my preferred shroud-flashing playstyle seems to require a tankier build...Glass builds are really tough when I'm leaving shroud early many times in a fight.And full trailblazers actually still works in this anti-condi meta... You have one stunbreak. Warriors and scrappers will kill you no problem. This build wont survive any cc chain. Lots of changes should be made. Ah...that's where we disagree.The build I used is for greater offensive control.Proper corruption of stab and kiting actually prevents the warrior from even getting close to you too often.I was stunned a total of 3 times in the fight against the Cake Walk warrior.Once a shield stun at the start which I soaked his burst with Shroud, and then twice when he used Rampage which I negated with Spectral Walk.Corrupting stab to fear with shroud enter + scepter 3 + corrupt boon + fear wall + shroud fear + staff 5 + shroud 2 prevents him from getting close a lot of times.My build is an offensive control build that reduces their chances of CCing you.I find it a lot more effective than using a stunbreak heavy build. And it was the same Cake Walk warrior that fought against Hobo's Herald and his Soulbeast partner, and still managed to surprise Hobo and downed his Herald in one move.So I would think he is pretty good warrior.But he never managed to bring my necro down below 75% HP because he couldn't get close effectively.Control is more effective than bringing many stunbreaks to a fight. Warriors have stances with pulsing stab and pulsing resistance (fear is a condition), shield, autoproc passives, cleanse on wepswap etc. I main a variant of the build you posted with a few changes, and (good) warriors still give me headaches, as they can easily tell when you have used your one or more stunbreaks and lock you down with Bull charge into more cc. Trust me, spamming corrupts wont kill warrior too easily. Plus, they can simply run away, reset utilities and come back. Gapclosers they have aplenty. A necro with one stunbreak is easy fodder. Necro and Warrior player here. Corrupt Boon fcks up every Warrior build, and Corrosive Poison Cloud is underrated. Protects against projectile attacks, poisons enemies, and weakens them. Using blinds and fears to ping pong a warrior will work better than bringing 3 stunbreaks.Yeah gonna have to agree as someone who plays both as well. Bringing 3 stunbreaks just delay the warrior, they will have more stuns than you have stability. You gotta use offensive pressure and soft CC conditions to try and keep them off you.