Why pistol and not sword?

[Tails.9372]

31 minutes ago, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

I meant identity in terms of dealing dmg.

Which had always been an empty point to begin with. Bleeding is heavily focused on both scepter (another 900 range main hand condi focused weapon) and blood magic and yet people are still asking for it on pistol and no sign of "but identity crisis" there which tells you everything you need to know about the nature of this complaint. Now I can understand not liking the theme of the e-spec and wanting something completely different but that's generally not what people are criticizing (especially not in a principled way).

[Wintermute.5408]

1 hour ago, Tails.9372 said:

no sign of "but identity crisis" there which tells you everything you need to know about the nature of this complaint.

Oh please. Torment is a very specific condition, that sends DPS to the gutter each time the target moves. Having yet another condi spec revolving around torment means that HB will be nonviable in exactly same scenarios Scourge already is. That's your "identity crisis". Depending on final numbers, those 2 will massively overlap, with one of them always being better, eliminating the other from DPS spot. Using literally any other condition instead of torment on HB would at least marginally differentiate them.

[Obtena.7952]

13 minutes ago, Wintermute.5408 said:

Oh please. Torment is a very specific condition, that sends DPS to the gutter each time the target moves. Having yet another condi spec revolving around torment means that HB will be nonviable in exactly same scenarios Scourge already is. That's your "identity crisis". Depending on final numbers, those 2 will massively overlap, with one of them always being better, eliminating the other from DPS spot. Using literally any other condition instead of torment on HB would at least marginally differentiate them.

That really doesn't make sense ... there is no 'identity crisis' for damage dealing  just because Harbringer has a hybrid weapon that applies torment. Like WTAF are you people talking about? How is that pile of words even a compelling reason for Anet to change it? Nothing you said here is actually a problem or even makes much sense.

Scourge isn't 'non-viable' at all (what does that even mean?)

There is no 'dps spot' for HB to be 'eliminated' from (are you trying to claim HB needs to be meta based on DPS? THAT'S not going to work for you!)

HB doesn't need a different condition to apply on it's weapon to further differentiate it from ... anything. The theme itself is differentiation enough. 

It's ironic you are trying to make a 'DPS' case to change HB condition ... but somehow you convinced yourself Anet changing torment to anything else gives you a BETTER condi DPS profile on a hybrid DPS class? So how do you come to that conclusion?

Edited September 25, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Wintermute.5408]

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

That really doesn't make sense ... there is no 'identity crisis' for damage dealing  just because Harbringer has a hybrid weapon that applies torment. Like WTAF are you people talking about? How is that pile of words even a compelling reason for Anet to change it? Nothing you said here is actually a problem or even makes much sense.

Scourge isn't 'non-viable' at all (what does that even mean?)

There is no 'dps spot' for HB to be 'eliminated' from (are you trying to claim HB needs to be meta based on DPS? THAT'S not going to work for you!)

HB doesn't need a different condition to apply on it's weapon to further differentiate it from ... anything. The theme itself is differentiation enough. 

It's ironic you are trying to make a 'DPS' case to change HB condition ... but somehow you convinced yourself Anet changing torment to anything else gives you a BETTER condi DPS profile on a hybrid DPS class? So how do you come to that conclusion?

I suggest reading next time before answering. I'll keep it simple for you.

Torment is trash on mobile targets.

Almost any other condi is better than Torment on mobile fights.

We already have a torment-focused spec. One will always be stronger than the other.

Easy enough to understand now? Or should I somehow simplify it even further?

Now look at the following description:
"Mid-range torment-based DPS relying on sustain instead of shroud damage absorption." Tell me which necro espec I just described.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Wintermute.5408

[Obtena.7952]

6 hours ago, Wintermute.5408 said:

Torment is trash on mobile targets.

Almost any other condi is better than Torment on mobile fights.

We already have a torment-focused spec. One will always be stronger than the other.

Easy enough to understand now? Or should I somehow simplify it even further?

Now look at the following description:
"Mid-range torment-based DPS relying on sustain instead of shroud damage absorption." Tell me which necro espec I just described.

OK ...  and I will likewise even keep it more simple for you ... none of those things are reasons for Harbringer to change in any way. It's not a problem we have other specs that apply torment. It's also not a problem one will be stronger than the other either. That's NEVER been a problem in this game that some builds are better than others. What makes you think that's a big deal now?

and BTW, you just described Harbringer. Was I supposed to be confused or something? Don't worry, you don't need to keep it simple for me ... I'm WAY ahead of you. If anything, I'm going to ask you to catch up. 

Edited September 25, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Loules.8601]

2 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

OK ...  and I will likewise even keep it more simple for you ... none of those things are reasons for Harbringer to change in any way. It's not a problem we have other specs that apply torment. It's also not a problem one will be stronger than the other either. That's NEVER been a problem in this game that some builds are better than others. What makes you think that's a big deal now?

and BTW, you just described Harbringer. Was I supposed to be confused or something? Don't worry, you don't need to keep it simple for me ... I'm WAY ahead of you. If anything, I'm going to ask you to catch up. 

I don’t think that you are ahead of anyone. For you, gamedesign - ephemeral thing that intercept with your dreams. 
You can talk about “how everything is ok” -

but sorry, it’s maybe ok only for minority - and casual minority.
Most casuals don’t play with “completely non-meta” and weak builds. They just go to meta-battle, after friends and guild recommendations. Almost no one gonna play with specialisation just as a skill-set skin (current WB, Virt, Vindi…). And in most people eyes - “non-playable for me content = no content at all”.

So if Arena can’t create borderline meta (not top, but PvE viable) spec - most of their audience just wouldn’t appreciate their work in this area at all. 
GW2 - still competitive game, even for casual audience. So you can’t create non-competitive thing for it - if you want to continue sell your product to your audience.

And “competitive” players - not just raiders or PvP/WvW, but anyone, who go to this modes even time to time (so major part of audience).

[Obtena.7952]

14 hours ago, Loules.8601 said:

but sorry, it’s maybe ok only for minority - and casual minority.

You don't know who or how many people non-meta specs are OK for or have ANY data to suggest how any percentage of the players behave. But I'm willing to bet based on the game history, it's OK for way more people that you think it is. 

The truth here is that there isn't a problem that Harbringer has torment as it's main condition. Certainly not because of  'damage identity crisis' or 'other condis are better'. It's theme-appropriate, regardless if some people like it or not, so of course Anet is going to choose it. 

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Loules.8601]

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

You don't know who or how many people non-meta specs are OK for or have ANY data to suggest how any percentage of the players behave. But I'm willing to bet based on the game history, it's OK for way more people that you think it is. 

Imagine that someone want to play as plague doctor - it’s his kink and dream. He find that style in GW2 Harbringer… but can’t play almost anywhere’s because spec just… weak, in comparison to others? It’s okay for you, when you have corresponding meta build or two - but what about people (even casual) who just want to play as espec, but can’t play almost anywhere with it? It’s ok for you, when people can’t play the game?:)

 

So I know about people - because almost anyone just want to play the game with whatever he want. And for you - it’s okay as long as you (veteran player) have backup plan. But what about casual players, who just want to play their ideal specialisation?

[Obtena.7952]

55 minutes ago, Loules.8601 said:

Imagine that someone want to play as plague doctor - it’s his kink and dream. He find that style in GW2 Harbringer… but can’t play almost anywhere’s because spec just… weak, in comparison to others?

Specs being 'not-meta' (let's not slip into sensationalism with labeling everything that isn't meta as 'weak') don't prevent people from playing them ... it's when those people who want to play those specs allow OTHER people to tell them how to play that they are prevented from playing how they want. What you are saying doesn't make sense because the game doesn't prevent anyone from playing any build they want. It's other players that do that. 

Quote

But what about casual players, who just want to play their ideal specialisation?

Well, if they play with other players who accept that people can play how they want, this shouldn't be a problem. See, I'm sniffing out the meta-think here because for 9 years this game hasn't been designed around needing specs to be meta to play them and be successful ... and I don't see any reason Anet would abandon that and start making content that requires meta builds now. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Loules.8601]

4 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Specs being 'not-meta' (let's not slip into sensationalism with labeling everything that isn't meta as 'weak') don't prevent people from playing them ... it's when those people who want to play those specs allow OTHER people to tell them how to play that they are prevented from playing how they want. What you are saying doesn't make sense because the game doesn't prevent anyone from playing any build they want. It's other players that do that.

We all know that it’s not how this all work. You can talk about players all day long but this people still couldn’t go anywhere. 
And “find people who accept who you are”, before you can play game - absolutely horrible experience. 

And you mistakes something - GW2, as other similar games, always around meta. Not as minimum to complete content - but as a reality. Your dreams about ideal world - would create bad experience for “competitive” players and horrible for new players - who can’t find party because their spec don’t have place in current game. 
 

When you would change all the community,

completely removing popularity on meta-classes in content - we would speculate about uselessness of meta for class design. 
But before that, we are in another reality. Your “new classes don’t need meta” would be cause of a lot of bad experience for most of players (newbies/casuals most of all) - one way or another. And you think that this is a right concept, without place in meta?)

[Obtena.7952]

15 minutes ago, Loules.8601 said:

We all know that it’s not how this all work. You can talk about players all day long but this people still couldn’t go anywhere. 
And “find people who accept who you are”, before you can play game - absolutely horrible experience. 

That just doesn't make sense ... we know it's EXACTLY how it works because it's worked this way for 9 years. It's not as hard to find people that allow you to play how you want as you think. I wouldn't even describe it as 'finding' ... cause they aren't hiding. 

Quote

And you mistakes something - GW2, as other similar games, always around meta. 

That's not true. There isn't a SINGLE instance of content where you must play meta to succeed. Content is not 'always around meta'. In fact, GW2 content about the farthest thing from designing around meta I've ever seen in an MMO. 

Quote

When you would change all the community,

completely removing popularity on meta-classes in content - we would speculate about uselessness of meta for class design. 

Meta only exists because people want to complete content optimally, not because you need it to be successful. Therefore, there is no speculation about uselessness of meta for class design ... we already know meta is not a factor for class design. How? Because you're going to see it happen in EoD ... just like it happened at launch, at HoT and at PoF. 

Quote

But before that, we are in another reality. Your “new classes don’t need meta” would be cause of a lot of bad experience for most of players (newbies/casuals most of all) - one way or another. And you think that this is a right concept, without place in meta?)

Actually, that's wrong ... not having to play meta causes lots of great experiences for players because they can play how they want. That is exactly one of the selling point of the game when it was released. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Loules.8601]

3 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Actually, that's wrong ... not having to play meta causes lots of great experiences for players because they can play how they want.

Inability to find party for fractal/raid, because it’s not meta in a

slightest  - cause of “lot of great experience”? Seriously? 
Your worlds sounds like: “You can’t play with your build with most of other people, but you can go and get some fun… somewhere else, not where you want”.

 

Sorry, but this ideas just bad and create a  horrible experience for many casual players. There is no good things in the inability to play content. Yes - no one talk about top ranking, but if you can’t play with it with other people, like in… MMO genre?.. - It’s straight up bad in every possible situation. 

 

[Obtena.7952]

9 minutes ago, Loules.8601 said:

Inability to find party for fractal/raid, because it’s not meta in a slightest  - cause of “lot of great experience”? Seriously? 
Your worlds sounds like: “You can’t play with your build with most of other people, but you can go and get some fun… somewhere else, not where you want”.

Your perception of how GW2 works is just wrong because lots of people who don't play meta get teams for group instanced content all the time.  If non-meta players are struggling to get a team for group instances, it's because they are looking in the wrong places for those teams. 

Quote

Sorry, but this ideas just bad and create a  horrible experience for many casual players. 

Again, that doesn't make sense ... it's not a horrible experience for casual players to be able to play how they want. I mean, if that's true, nothing stops them from playing meta that already exists, so you are still wrong that every espec needs to be meta. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Loules.8601]

1 minute ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Again, that doesn't make sense ... it's not a horrible experience for casual players to be able to play how they want. 

People want to play as they want - but there is no connection between this and your words. People just want to play the game as they want, you want to create bad experience for them, removing them from majority of competitive players. 
So unlike my words, which don’t have downsides to others - your idea have a veeery big and “not fun” one. And your tries to justify this - only your own projection, which completely ignore other people wishes and comfort experience with other people.

[Obtena.7952]

9 minutes ago, Loules.8601 said:

People want to play as they want - but there is no connection between this and your words. People just want to play the game as they want, you want to create bad experience for them, removing them from majority of competitive players. 
So unlike my words, which don’t have downsides to others - your idea have a veeery big and “not fun” one. And your tries to justify this - only your own projection, which completely ignore other people wishes and comfort experience with other people.

That doesn't make sense. The game has allowed people to play how they want, be successful in group content and not play meta for it's entire existence.  This isn't some weird idea I have ... it's ACTUALLY how the game works. That's why it's not a fail if an espec isn't meta ... because the game content isn't designed so you need to play meta to be successful. That's ALWAYS been the way it's worked. 

So no, if Harbringer isn't meta for any group content, that doesn't mean it's a espec design failure. It just means if someone wants to worship meta for themselves or push meta on others, Harbringer won't be part of that. 

I mean, believe what you like ... but I can guarantee that a whole bunch of especs are going to be released in EoD that aren't meta, just like every other release we have ever had in the last 9 years. If that's labeled a failure by you, I can also guarantee that it will have no impact whatsoever on people who want to play and use it successfully in group content, meta or not. 🤷‍♂️

Edited September 26, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Loules.8601]

24 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I mean, believe what you like ... but I can guarantee that a whole bunch of especs are going to be released in EoD that aren't meta, just like every other release we have ever had in the last 9 years

Any examples?) Because I don’t know even one.

[Obtena.7952]

7 minutes ago, Loules.8601 said:

Any examples?) Because I don’t know even one.

Let's flip that around to talk about something you should know then ... I don't see any value in talking about things you claim you don't know.

How about you name all the specs and give an example of where they are meta? It's your claim Anet is balancing specs to be meta. Obviously you did your homework on that before making such a statement right?

Edited September 26, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Loules.8601]

29 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Let's flip that around to talk about something you should know then ... I don't see any value in talking about things you claim you don't know.

So when we start talking about:

34 minutes ago, Loules.8601 said:

that aren't meta, just like every other release we have ever had in the last 9 years

… you can’t name even one spec for entire game history. That’s the answer to all of our discussion, I think. 
Every e-spec have place in meta - sometimes only minor, but… 

Guardian - FB as support, DH as DPS

Warrior - especs playable as DPS/Half-supp

Mesmer - all of especs have place in meta too

 

Some classes can be more popular on “non-standard” position (like chrono more popular as support in previous years) - but you can effectively and uniquely play as any of this especs in one (meta) way or another. 
 

But some of new specs have problems with interactions between old especs or actual game. 
Virtuoso - I don’t say about more difficulty or re-design (I like current visual style), but current version of Virtuoso… just useless. There is no positive mechanics in new espec. Zero. It’s variation of core-Mesmer, and it have similar strong and weak points. It isn’t new espec - because there is nothing new, except visual. You can create easy to play and interesting spec, not this. 
And for Harbringer - it’s current version can be played as support (but this one will be completely nerfed before next Beta I think) and as cDPS… it’s like a Scourge, but without barriers. Same weak points but no strength or unique skills to compensate it.
So if we talk about it in real game - you, as Necromancer, don’t have any real good thing that stimulate you to play as Harbringer (unless they keep all-boons style). You are like Scourge, but worse - you don’t have real place in the game, YOUR unique place, unlike all of the current especs. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Loules.8601

[Obtena.7952]

22 minutes ago, Loules.8601 said:

So if we talk about it in real game - you, as Necromancer, don’t have any real good thing that stimulate you to play as Harbringer (unless they keep all-boons style). You are like Scourge, but worse - you don’t have real place in the game, YOUR unique place, unlike all of the current especs. 

The relevant and 'real good things' that stimulate people to play as Harbringer aren't restricted to performance, so that's not true that it's a fail spec if it's not meta. That simply can't continue to be true (it's still questionable if it is true) as the number of especs continues to grow. It's a nonsensical and artificial requirement that an espec needs to have a place in the meta. Again, the 'real game' isn't designed around every spec needing to be meta because you don't need to be playing meta builds to be successful and it's not sustainable requirement anyways. 

here is some irony ... while you are sitting there claiming HB needs changes because it's not meta: ... 

https://snowcrows.com/builds/necromancer/harbinger/condition-harbinger 🙄

 

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Sigmoid.7082]

5 minutes ago, Loules.8601 said:

So if we talk about it in real game - you, as Necromancer, don’t have any real good thing that stimulate you to play as Harbringer (unless they keep all-boons style). You are like Scourge, but worse - you don’t have real place in the game, YOUR unique place, unlike all of the current especs. 

So there is no reason to play harb because you believe that, for some reason, they are going to remove one of its defining playstyles to make it closer to scourge? Therefore its no different and you may as well play scourge?

 

I still think this silly as this is born from a really asinine complaint, that both harb and scourge have a lot of torment in their kit. They play differently. Even when played for DPS they have real different damage profiles. Its strange, and worrying, that people can't reason past the "well they both apply lot of torment so they must be the same" and that "if it was a different condition if would have more identity / somehow be super different compared to scourge" frail logic. 

 

[Tails.9372]

So let's summarize: there is no "identity" issue here and there is no issue of torment not fitting the spec thematically either. People just don't like torment cause in their opinion "Torment is trash" so trash in fact that you "can’t play the e-spec almost anywhere" cause its just that "weak". Meanwhile the actual numbers show that for a DPS focused spec its in a really good spot in PvE (aside from arguably the power focused builds) and the feedback I commonly see from competitive players would suggest that there aren't any viability issues there either.

[Pooh.6897]

If i had to take a guess, I think that they don't want a weapon in the game that all classes can use. It would make sword pretty unique, as it would be the only weapon that all classes could use, but it would also make swords way too valuable. I think they're trying to push classes to weapons that are relatively rare, such as mace, pistol and rifle. I'm not agreeing with their choice for pistol, as I rather would've seen a new melee weapon for necro, but I do understand their choice for not choosing sword. I agree, sword necro would have been very cool, but if I were to take a step back, I'd say it would be better to push necro to weapons that not many classes can use, such as mace.

[Klowdy.3126]

On 9/15/2021 at 10:11 AM, Kuulpb.5412 said:

My opinion on it is:
It's not Melee if it doesn't have the "feel", 
So Dagger is Melee as when you hit,  it feels like it connects, 
Axe is not, as though it feels like it hits ( when the sound file plays), it doesn't really have the "sluggish feel" of Melee.
I think in this case specifically it's more a thematic thing than an actual "mechanical" thing.

Unless of course they meant mechanically in which case yes Ranged "can" be used as melee as this isn't DnD

I gotta agree here. Mesmer GS doesn't feel like a melee weapon at all (because it's not in this case), but is still a heavy melee weapon. Reve hammer is a weird 1, though. It has a lot of range, but a lot of the abilities are you ripping through the mist to actually pop up and attack, or smash the ground and send out a wave. I agree. It needs to feel like a melee weapon.