Obtena.7952

That wasn't their point at all. They made a general statement that Anet creates content like raids that results in toxicity. It doesn't. How people interact with each other in the game that creates that toxicity. The irony is that when this game was released, it was designed in a way that should have caused the LEAST toxicity among players because as long as you knew the encounter and could execute the mechanics, you could literally play whatever you wanted. And you know what? We STILL had a significant fraction of people that brought their toxic behaviours to bear on others, even without the things like role-mandated gameplay patterns in raids with integrated DPS meters and group-support-centric stat-check boosts. So the bottomline here is that there is no game anyone can make that removes toxicity. It's up to players to be inclusive and accepting of how others want to play to ensure they don't encounter it. When that breaks down, that's because players break it down because they have been given freedom by the game to play how they want. In otherwords, some players CHOOSE to be exclusive in an open, freeform team environment ... that tends to toxicity.

Except raids (and other instanced content) NEVER did that in GW2 because you never needed meta builds or top tier DPS to successfully complete them ... like EVER. If anything, the 'requirement' for meta and DPS has only diminished over time, except for the most intendedly difficult content like CM strikes. Certainly the mechanics are no more difficult than any other MMO and in some encounters can be ignored completely, because of things like power creep. The toxicity, whatever the reason for its existence, certainly does not originate with how the game is designed ... and never has. It's solely based on the ideals and perceptions of players that impose those mindsets on others. Ironically, it seems that the complaints about balance for PVE commonly originate FROM the people that the content isn't designed around in the first place; I don't see the average scrub complaining that their 'press 1' or 'faceroll' strategy is messing up their ability to do content.

I don't see a problem here. It's not necessary for the game to cater to everyone's particular hang ups so those people can experience the game. "form your own squad" might be a problem, but it's not a game problem. Can't stress enough ... if you can't get a team, you just ain't trying hard enough.

As always, going to wait to pass judgement. It's not uncommon to get an 'upgrade' and wonder 'WTF ... this is worse'.

Sure, I think the same thing. I guess the difference is that I think the context of that change is STILL relevant to how Anet is regarding cweaver as a whole, which contradicts the OP's view. Op thinks Cweaver is a completely has-not class because 'numbers'? Weird conclusion if we actually LOOK at how Anet treats it or even how it performs in general if you remove the constraints the OP imposes on it to make his argument. Focus on the changes the OP is asking for? I think I've done that no? Like somehow we should just accept the idea that cweaver not having CC is a problem? It's not. Classes/specs have these gaps. It's not unreasonable low CC is a gap for Weaver. If an ele needs CC for an encounter ... they can get it. This is simply a case where someone wants something very specific for a particular spec because they don't want to have to make choices or change anything about their build to get it. Other than some weird comparison to other classes skilsets (which isn't really relevant since skillsets aren't intended to be the same across specs/classes in the first place), there actually ISN'T a reason presented for why cweaver should have more CC. It's just some vague notion of "improperly applied balance philosophy", therefore "giev buffz" The bottomline is that something don't jive about what the OP is saying and how it's being regarded by Anet and even other players ... and it ain't because Anet doesn't know what they are doing with the game or their own philosophy either.

That doesn't make sense. Anet TOLD us the hammer nerf was due to cweaver and ctempest builds being too high in DPS ... so yes it does have SOMETHING to do with it. Again, why discrepancies in class/spec gap? Probably because balancing isn't just about the numbers and it IS more complex than you want to admit. There are things to consider that AREN'T just about numbers. The worst part about this thread is that if you want CC, you just make different choices to get it. Apparently that's too much to ask, even given all the choice we have on the classes.

Again, your going to come here, tell Anet they don't know what they doing and they should change the game, based on what you believe is a 'your fair' version of balance. I guess taking a hint about how Anet is going to react to that from the more recent balance patch where Anet is nerfing cweavers with hammers just doesn't hit with you ay? Cweaver has low CC? OK, again, that's not a problem nor is it some departure from the balance philosophy. Classes/specs are intended to have gaps like that. Again, you simply aren't going to justify class changes based on the premise that you think you know better than Anet about how to implement their own balance philosophy, made even more evident by the fact that while you complain it's a have not spec in all it's numbers, Anet just handed out a fresh nerf for it.

Bad assumptions ... you don't know how they arrived at that decision to make that nerf. Again, you don't know what is happening behind the scenes there; none of us do. You are saying things you have NO idea about. And yes, they did nerf cweaver with the hammer nerf ... clearly because it was cweavers using hammer that alerted them to the high DPS they didn't want to see. Again, just because Anet's version of balance doesn't match your ideas should not lead you to the conclusion they just don't know what they are doing. That's just nonsense. It's actually irrelevant if they do or don't know because in either case, they certainly aren't going to ask players how they should be doing it. They are going to do it the way they want to do it, regardless if they know or not. This isn't about Anet knowing or not and you stepping in to 'help' them out. This is about you acknowledging how game changes work.

So just doing some research here. From Jan 30th patch notes: The changes to hammer in November pushed condition builds for tempest and weaver a bit higher than we like to see, so we're making a few tweaks to bring those builds back in line. Singeing Strike: Reduced the burning duration from 3 seconds to 1.5 seconds in PvE only. Surging Flames: Reduced the burning duration from 9 seconds to 3 seconds in PvE only. Ground Pound: Reduced the bleeding duration from 10 seconds to 6 seconds in PvE only. So explain again how Anet should conclude that cweaver isn't hitting its power budget and that somehow 'the numbers' suggest it's a have not spec? Seems to me "the numbers" suggest the OPPOSITE based on the change Anet put in on Jan 30th. So either Anet isn't interpreting their own philosophy and numbers correct ... OR ... someone else isn't. Tell us that story about how balancing is about fair and equal and not about the game working how Anet wants again. It's a good one.

OH you think Anet balancing is about being fair now? You must be new here. Anet's balancing is about one thing: the game working the way they want it to work, because that's their role ... figuring out how things should work. And they give us insight to that with the philosophy.

That's funny ... you think all of Anet's balancing decisions made sense or it has something to do with making classes strong. <<snicker>> Again, you don't get to set stage for balancing to get the results you want. You're going to tell us all about how cweaver doesn't meet it's power budget ... when you don't know what that budget is or how it's determined. Good times. I don't think Anet are waiting for anything ... they do balance patches all time.

You don't get to define what power budget is and how it works to justify changes you want to the game. That doesn't make sense. For all we know, cweaver might meet or even exceed its power budget because Anet determines that with some method we don't know about.

Again, I'm simply telling you that Anet isn't just balancing because 'numbers' so when you sit here and pretend you understand their balance philosophy because cvirt > cweaver ... you don't. I mean, what convinces you that Anet using their philosophy didn't lead them to this situation in the first place? Yet somehow, you think you interpreting their philosophy for them will give the right answer, because you know it better than they do, probably because 'numbers'? That's an interesting view. Give it time, you will see.

Sure, and I'm just going to tell you it's not just about the numbers. So if you just want to boil down balance to number comparisons between classes, prepare yourself for many, frequent instances of confusion and disappointment because it's safe to say that most instances of class changes don't work how you think balance should.

Like you already said... it's abstract. Only Anet knows how they consider power budget in balance. What I DO know is that we don't know. Again, you're going to try to boil this down to 'numbers' and talk about things you acknowledge are abstract or elements you cherry pick to argue. What I'm going to say is that it's not just about numbers on skills. It can't be.

No you can't, because the game isn't just about counting numbers. It's not about just thinking all your numbers are lower, so you are worse than the next guy ... unbalanced.

Yeah exactly ... so you can't say it's deficient in it's power budget. You just don't know. Again, just looking at numbers is not how this works to determine one thing is 'literally worse' than something else. There isn't anything 'easy' about understanding how Anet applies it's philosophy. That's just some crap people say when they want to use it to justify getting things.

I see lots of numbers here; problem is that the game isn't played in Excel. What's relevant is people playing it, using it's skills effectively and being successful with it. If cweaver is deficient (again, not going to argue iif it is or isn't), it's not because it has lower numbers on skills or some encounters where it's not desirable. You keep talking about the power budget, except you don't know where cweaver rates on it's power budget. You create a narrative that it's 'bad' when it could be regarded by Anet as something else. The problem here is that you aren't really asking for something specific. You just quote philosophy, interpret it how you see fit and say cweaver is an exception to it thinking this justifies it getting anything. That doesn't make sense.

Your 'recall' is pretty bad ... I didn't agree to any of that. You're simply fishing for a cweaver buff and because you can't justify any specific one, you just throw out 'exception to balance' and think that closes the book on it. The reality is that NOTHING about Anet's philosophy suggests cweaver should have anymore than it already has, even if you think it not being a top pick in an encounter suggests otherwise. Again, it's not a problem if there are encounters where certain builds aren't desirable.

That doesn't make sense ... the balance philosophy isn't making 'ele worse'. But, if you aren't familiar with what the balance philosophy says and the parts relevant to why cweaver doesn't' have CC for example, you should go look it up before you continue to argue with people.

Because power budget is just one part of the whole philosophy.

Again, I'm not arguing with you about how deficient cweaver is (even though I think you are exaggerating the issues it has). My point is simply that you don't get to cherry pick Anet's philosophy to justify how you want things to work.

Maybe ... but you can be certain who isn't ignoring THEIR philosophy is Anet. Which is why it's absurd you come in here an try to slap everyone around with it.

The best part of the thread is where you come in, re-define Anet's philosophy for them (I'm sure they didn't ask you), then tell everyone cweaver needs a buff because it's all wrong based on your vision of the philosophy Anet should be using because 'literal definition'. I can tell you how it ends. Leonardo drowns, the Titanic sinks. I saw it before.

I never said any such nonsense. I'm simply telling you that cweaver being deficient is not necessarily a balancing issue because there isn't any indication that classes are balanced with respect to each other's capabilities. It's simply not a problem that cweaver doesn't have the same toolset of other classes. That's INTENDED. Classes are designed to not be the same as other ones. It's funny you use the balance philosophy to justify things you want on a class ... but you don't use it to understand the things a class doesn't have.