Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Quadox.7834

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,276

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Quadox.7834

    cRev has a low skill floor.

    in Player vs. Player

    Posted

    @"DeceiverX.8361" said:Just as a heads up, "Skill Floor" means its performance when played at the worst (lowest) level. Skill ceiling is the efficacy something has when played as best as possible.

    You mean it has a high skill floor; it performs highly even when played at its lowest level.

    no it means req> @"DeceiverX.8361" said:

    Just as a heads up, "Skill Floor" means its performance when played at the worst (lowest) level. Skill ceiling is the efficacy something has when played as best as possible.

    You mean it has a high skill floor; it performs highly even when played at its lowest level.

    nah skillfoor is the required skill to play it effectively. doesn't require much skill or knowledge to be reasonably effective -> low skill floor

    Please give us at least 1 viable power mesmer spec.

    in Mesmer

    Posted

    @"mortrialus.3062" said:Every build is "unfun to play against.". They're only fun to kill. The more reliably you can kill any build the more "fun" it is. The less reliably the less "fun" it us. That's literally all anyone means wgen they talk about builds being "fun" or "unfun"

    nah even when i kill a death magic necro on power mesmer i still think "fuck me this is boring and unfun"

    Easy to play builds should be less effeective ( plat 2-3 elo)

    in Player vs. Player

    Posted

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:Terrible idea. A builds effectiveness should be independent of how hard, or not, it is. Else there is no reason to ever play an easy build, and people will be forced to play hard builds they might not enjoy. Even fighting games dont do something this monumentally misguided.

    nah, a build can absolutely be too effective for how easy/effortless it is, turret engi is a decent past example.

    The only issue that could arise is botting, but evidently you dont need an easy build for botting nowadays. Otherwise, it doesnt matter how easy a build is, it should be no different in power to a hard build. Imagine if, iunno, Street Fighter did that. Noone would play Ryu because he would suck.

    nah, decent fighting games absolutely take this into account. ryu doesn't play himself, he is more like the gw2 equivalent of warrior i suppose. even in melee, people complain all the time about jigglypuff being too easy. nobody would want to play or watch if there was a character that could go toe-to-toe vs fox by pressing two buttons (just as an example) while the fox has to l-cancel, wavedash, shinespike, etc etc. both skillfloor and skillcap matter.

    Easy to play builds should be less effeective ( plat 2-3 elo)

    in Player vs. Player

    Posted

    @UNOwen.7132 said:Terrible idea. A builds effectiveness should be independent of how hard, or not, it is. Else there is no reason to ever play an easy build, and people will be forced to play hard builds they might not enjoy. Even fighting games dont do something this monumentally misguided.

    nah, a build can absolutely be too effective for how easy/effortless it is, turret engi is a decent past example.

    PvP top50

    in Player vs. Player

    Posted

    @"Falan.1839" said:I made a breakdown of EU Top 50. To make this a bit more meaningful I have added a "main" as in most played this season for some of the multiclassersas many of them kind of focussed on one char this season even though they have played several classes in the past.I obviously can't account for wintraders, so don't take it too seriously who is Top 1 and Who is Top 50 or whatever, but it shouldnt impact the general picture of classes used that much, as even the wintraders usually play "carry" classes for their non-rigged matches. When players had several accs in the Top 50 I marked all but one as alt.

    1. Bazile - Thief
    2. Dostomatos - Guard/Multiclass
    3. Belzedar - Rev
    4. Feulyr - Multiclass [alt]
    5. Tiny Kitty - Nec
    6. Resource - Rev
    7. Motoko - Rev
    8. Renegade Metric - Multiclass
    9. Andreas - Ele/Guard/Rev
    10. Jesusonduty - Engi
    11. Masterofdisaster - Mes/Rev
    12. Firens - Thief [alt]
    13. God of Slayers - multiclass
    14. Gebranodant - Ranger/Multiclass
    15. Pomelanio - Multiclass
    16. TallBarr - Guard
    17. Sauron - Thief/Multiclass
    18. Heal of Midnight - Multiclass
    19. Okina - Engi
    20. Envergure - Ranger/Warr
    21. Nikola - Rev/Guard
    22. Vaans - Warr
    23. Solmat - Thief/Multiclass
    24. Aramis - Nec [alt?]
    25. Kachros - Ranger/Multiclass
    26. Zanned - Engi
    27. Thomastorm - Multiclass
    28. Albostan - Thief/Multiclass
    29. BigBabaDennis - Thief/Ranger/Rev [alt]
    30. Trekon - Rev
    31. Pride - Thief
    32. TalleFjanten - Guard [alt]
    33. Dome - Thief/Ranger/Rev
    34. Sukaya - Engi
    35. Kaitori - Thief
    36. Mois - Rev
    37. Hiokma - Multiclass [alt]
    38. Beast - Nec [alt]
    39. Sankuru - Thief/Rev
    40. Holl - Nec
    41. Mykhezzis - Rev
    42. Kida - Thief/Engi?
    43. BoosieBadazz - Engi
    44. Wevh - Ranger
    45. Twitch tv zananan - Engi [alt]
    46. Ilwynn - Rev?
    47. Captaine Fox - Ranger
    48. Nyuimpin - Thief
    49. Pouloulou - Rev
    50. Bella - Warr?

    S: rev thiefA: engi guard ranger necroB: ele mes wari suppose

    NA's Low Platinum population and its effect on PvP, also how to improve it

    in Player vs. Player

    Posted

    @shadowpass.4236 said:

    @shadowpass.4236 said:Fun > Prestige > Reward

    Imo for incentive to play a game

    True. The idea is rewards = more people grind in plat = more match quality = more fun.

    Which is fine but you have to understand that people have different reasons for playing a game. I like competition and fun fights. You can increase the rewards massively but I care more about the quality of the time I'm spending rather than how many shinies I get out of it. So if the gold per hour was something crazy but I wasn't enjoying ranked conquest, I don't really want to buy anything in particular so it wouldn't make a difference in the amount I que up.

    Hence why I think that having a healthy amount of all 3 would draw people in. Rather than one over the other.

    One of the issues is the constant nerfing making everything feel worse to play. Nerfing cooldowns and damage as much as they did drastically reduced fluidity. skill ceiling and floor, and made many things
    feel
    worse to play especially when builds don't die even when outplayed. More competition / guild capes / unique items for ranking = more prestige + better rewards.

    but you must surely agree that some of the nerfs they did were very healthy to the game, for example removing stunbreak on legend swap? there is nothing skilled about being almost unpunishable.

    buff > nerf

    in Player vs. Player

    Posted

    @Kuma.1503 said:

    @"Quadox.7834" said:
    1. so it isn't powercreep (as i said), but "weakness creep".

    I suppose you can call it that, but you'll more often hear the phenomenon described as "reverse power creep".yes, which is
    not
    power creep, which is what my point was from the start -> that you
    do not
    get power creep from nerfing things, by definition.
    1. i didn't read the whole thing but it is disingenous to call the recent changes in gw2 "reverse power creep" and then trying to equate it to the problems that power creep has caused in gw2. they have been nerfing things recently because a ton of players have been begging them to, for years years, and because they have finally gotten over their aversion to splitting pvp/pve. did you miss how much stronger every class got after specialization rework, HoT and PoF? apparently so.

    I apologize for the long post but, it's precisely for the purpose of being ingenuous that I go into such detail. Either way, you must have also noticed the aftermath of Anet's recent balancing?

    Anet nerfed damage across the board --> Necro became unkillable tanksAnet nerfed stab and stunbreaks across the board --> CC is overbearingAnet nerfed nearly every ability but left Engi kits alone --> Mortar kit became overbearing

    Nerfs have consequences, often greater ones than we initially expect. As I said before, my goal is simply to get other players to look past the short term and think about the consequences. We need to make sure we're nerfing the correct things, and we have to open ourselves to the possibility that buffs and/or reworks will also be necessary to ensure that classes remain fluid and functional.

    I see far too often, players are afraid of so much as mentioning the word "buff" for fear of re-introducing power creep into the game.

    did you miss how much stronger every class got after specialization rework, HoT and PoF? apparently so.

    Again, apologies for the long post, but if you had read it you wouldn't have to ask that.

    i mean yes it is obvious that we should "make sure to nerf the correct things".

    buff > nerf

    in Player vs. Player

    Posted

    @Kuma.1503 said:

    @Quadox.7834 said:@Kuma.1503 powercreep is when the absolute power level in the game creeps up because the devs favor buffing over nerfing (usually related to profit reasons and/or loss aversion).

    What I just described was reverse power creep, which can cause just as many balancing issues as power creep.

    It usually occurs as a result of two things.
    1. A desire to lower the difficulty curve of a game, making it more accessable to newcomers.
    2. In a game that suffers from power creep in an attempt to avoid it.

    Unfortunately, In the latter scenario, Devs often take the easy path when it comes to nerfing, which causes issues.

    Consider why the game became power crept in the first place. It wasn't simply numbers that crept up. Mechanics were changed. Abilities were reworked. Odds are no small amount of reworks too place to accommodate the new additions into the class's kit. Changes like these usually happen as a result of large expansions or major patches, so a lot of work went into them.

    When attempting to nerf in order to undo what was done, Devs will typically try to hit numbers, or flat out remove what is considered problematic. Why this causes issues is because the class may have been reworked in such a way that it relied on whatever was just removed or overnerfed (Smiter's Boon'ed). It needed the nerfed ability or trait in order to either function or play fluidly. In other words, when attempting do undo power creep the easy way, you often make classes clunky or cause it not to function as intended.

    In other cases, the problematic ability or trait is left alone, and the class is nerfed around it, leaving the rest of the kit feeling weak and unsatisfying.

    I'd argue Scrapper, Druid, and Chrono each suffer from this to a degree.

    If you want to undo power creep, the easy path of simply refusing to buff will not make the game healthier. You need an equally high-quality patch which addresses the new additions that the class relies on to function. If that new addition is deemed to be problematic, then before nerfing or removing it, the class must be reworked in order to no longer rely on it.

    In Chrono's case, the equivalent would have been either reworking Chronophantasma and CS, or reworking mesmer skills in such a way that these traits no longer break them. I'm not sure if the latter is possible, so the prior option is most likely the appropriate choice.

    If you want an example of what reverse power creep looks like, you need only search "World of Warcraft class design". Look at the trends regarding player feedback. It goes beyond loss aversion, even new players coming into the game complain that classes have become clunky, sometimes not functioning as intended because the Devs figured

    "If adding things into the game causes power creep, then removing things from the game will make the game healthy."

    If you're curious I can go into detail about which classes suffer from these nerfs the most, and which were made the most clunky as a result (Shadow Priest), but this post is long enough as is.
    1. so it isn't powercreep (as i said), but "weakness creep".
    2. i didn't read the whole thing but it is disingenous to call the recent changes in gw2 "reverse power creep" and then trying to equate it to the problems that power creep has caused in gw2. they have been nerfing things recently because a ton of players have been begging them to, for years years, and because they have finally gotten over their aversion to splitting pvp/pve. did you miss how much stronger every class got after specialization rework, HoT and PoF? apparently so.

    buff > nerf

    in Player vs. Player

    Posted

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:this is from Wikipedia:

    power creepThe gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content. The phenomenon may be caused by a number of different factors and, in extreme cases, can be damaging to the longevity of the game in which it takes place. Game expansions are usually stronger than previously existing content, giving consumers an incentive to buy it for competitions against other players or as new challenges for the single-player experience. While the average power level within the game rises, older content falls out of balance and becomes regressively outdated or relatively underpowered, effectively rendering it useless from a competitive or challenge-seeking viewpoint.

    power creep can also mean individual options within a class, or certain classes being stronger than others. pretty sure there isn't one concrete specific definition, as long as there is buffing going on and that buffing makes something stronger then everything else.

    you linked a definition which agrees with me, was that the point?

    buff > nerf

    in Player vs. Player

    Posted

    @"Kuma.1503" said:People do realize that an imbalanced amount of buffs OR nerfs can bring about power creep right?

    Simplified example. You decide that cleanses are too available. You believe that players should put more thought behind when they cleanse. You nerf cleanses.You've just power crept every condition build in the game.

    You decide that evades and blocks are too strong. You nerf them. You've just power crept burst oriented builds because they have an easier time baiting out your defensive options.

    We've seen it happen. Anet's gamewide nerfs to damage have power crept Necro into unkillable tanks. Renegade's forgettable damage from life siphon looks OP. Burn Guard, which has been nerfed itself, has advanced from a noob killer build, to "new OP must be nerfed asap"

    I'd argue that there are more clearly underperforming specs right now than there are clearly overperforming specs. Druid, Chrono and Warrior could all use some help. It's true that we could continue to nerf until these classes become playable again (which, I must remind everyone is still power creep) but do we really want every class to feel as clunky and unsatisfying as Druid or Chrono?

    In this case, I'd say we've reached a point where we can focus on giving out some buffs. See how the meta shifts to accommodate Druid and Chrono, then if any major outliers arise, we can nerf accordingly.

    you are wrong, that is not what powercreep means

    Bring Back the Old Mists

    in Player vs. Player

    Posted

    ive said it before, new mists makes me borderline depressed because of how dull it is

    i have asked quite a few people and i don't think anybody preferred new mists

    idea: old mists vip area for top 250/100 players? single-instance (everyone on same map).

    All teleports should require the player be in range

    in Player vs. Player

    Posted

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @"Eddbopkins.2630" said:I feel teleports should have los inorder for them to work. No more teleporting there walls to engage and disengage. If u don't have los u can't port. That seems fair and balanced for all classes that have and don't have ports.

    OP wouldn't want this because it doesn't directly or indirectly benefit thief above everyone else.

    How does weakning sword 2 massively indirectly benefit thief over
    anyone
    else? Seriously Im pretty sure the only other teleport like that is Revenants.

    Thief would lose sword two but have a relative gain in mobility compared to everyone else who now not only need a target but need to be in range to do so.

    It wouldnt relatively gain mobility at all. This literally only affects 1 revenant skill as far as I can tell. If it meant "all teleports now need a target", that would actually hurt thief by far the hardest, as with the loss of shortbow 5, they become an unplayable class overnight.

    But relative to OPs need threads you can read the OP as "thief needs to be in range for steal so why doesn't everything else? I do not like this. Please nerf or buff thief" like most of their threads.

    Yeah except, everything else already does that. Thief and Rev have 1 skill each thats the exception.

    Rev has two with Deathstrike and Phase Traversal.

    I was under the impression Deathstrike doesnt work until youre in range.

    Pretty sure Infiltrators Signet on Thief ports out of range too.

    Nope, you just get the out of range pop-up as usual.

    They already tried nerfing Shiro's port to be range restricted and it and Anet got absolutely destroyed on every platform about it, not just because they lied saying it was a bug but because it turned Shiro into a slow and clunky spec easily outrun because not only does he need a target but if they were out of range then it was GG.

    Someone correct me but doesn't Guardian's port on sword and Judge's Intervention also port regardless of range?

    Judges Intervention doesnt, not sure on the sword but probably not.

    the other guy already corrected you on guard, but infil signet also ports out of range.

    Is that so? I see. Wonder what I was thinking of then, no pathing to target or something? Alright, it changes a few more skills then, but its still a change that hurts thief more than others.

    it would fuck over powerrev and sd thiefidc though because it won't happen anyway

    All teleports should require the player be in range

    in Player vs. Player

    Posted

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @"Eddbopkins.2630" said:I feel teleports should have los inorder for them to work. No more teleporting there walls to engage and disengage. If u don't have los u can't port. That seems fair and balanced for all classes that have and don't have ports.

    OP wouldn't want this because it doesn't directly or indirectly benefit thief above everyone else.

    How does weakning sword 2 massively indirectly benefit thief over
    anyone
    else? Seriously Im pretty sure the only other teleport like that is Revenants.

    Thief would lose sword two but have a relative gain in mobility compared to everyone else who now not only need a target but need to be in range to do so.

    It wouldnt relatively gain mobility at all. This literally only affects 1 revenant skill as far as I can tell. If it meant "all teleports now need a target", that would actually hurt thief by far the hardest, as with the loss of shortbow 5, they become an unplayable class overnight.

    But relative to OPs need threads you can read the OP as "thief needs to be in range for steal so why doesn't everything else? I do not like this. Please nerf or buff thief" like most of their threads.

    Yeah except, everything else already does that. Thief and Rev have 1 skill each thats the exception.

    Rev has two with Deathstrike and Phase Traversal.

    I was under the impression Deathstrike doesnt work until youre in range.

    Pretty sure Infiltrators Signet on Thief ports out of range too.

    Nope, you just get the out of range pop-up as usual.

    They already tried nerfing Shiro's port to be range restricted and it and Anet got absolutely destroyed on every platform about it, not just because they lied saying it was a bug but because it turned Shiro into a slow and clunky spec easily outrun because not only does he need a target but if they were out of range then it was GG.

    Someone correct me but doesn't Guardian's port on sword and Judge's Intervention also port regardless of range?

    Judges Intervention doesnt, not sure on the sword but probably not.

    the other guy already corrected you on guard, but infil signet also ports out of range.

GuildWars2.com
ArenaNet

©2020 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

ESRB - Teen
×
×
  • Create New...