Current state of fractal balance

[AliamRationem.5172]

2 hours ago, Bakeneko.5826 said:

It has lazy design, but it's not THAT bad

Honestly, I can't stand the "training" bosses. They feel completely irrelevant, like we're just wasting time until we get to the final boss.  I could use less filler in my Sunqua.

[Bakeneko.5826]

1 hour ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

Honestly, I can't stand the "training" bosses. They feel completely irrelevant, like we're just wasting time until we get to the final boss.  I could use less filler in my Sunqua.

Oh, Im talking about Ai only, havent done regular Sunqua in ages

[The Boz.2038]

17 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

Honestly, I can't stand the "training" bosses. They feel completely irrelevant, like we're just wasting time until we get to the final boss.  I could use less filler in my Sunqua.

What, you somehow do not enjoy punching a literal rock that doesn't fight back for a solid minute?

[AlCapwnd.7834]

On 1/21/2022 at 10:51 AM, anbujackson.9564 said:

There should be a balance between what damage you can do while providing a lot of utility. You know just like banner bs is at 33k and not 38 (33 being still too much and Anet cant handle the right way to fix it). Revert the torment change and reduce the damage to the level of 32-33k. There you go. You know instead of randomly picking utilities and traits and most likely hurt core in the process.

 

Yes it is... I never said otherwise. My point was that Anet shouldnt have touched the support aspect of scourge in the first place, especially when it doesnt fix anything at all.  Instead they should just nerf the damage. Thats better than nuking the whole class design of scourge (which is awful to balance right from the start) by ripping everything off so you can justify the high damage. There is still harbringer coming around you know. A glasscannon which does less damage than a hybrid by design spec.

 

Guys please, stop the defending of this spec. Every famous player and streamer, who are pretty good at the game and spend most of their time in it, say that scourge, firebrand and renegade are overpowered. Its a common fact. What are you trying to defend here? 

What it looks like to me, is that you (and some "Streamers") just hate the green class. I Personally do not give a crap what Streamers think. They do not run the studio. If you want it changed put in an application at ANET and get on the balance team. But to your comment that they are overpowered. Have you seen Thief, Engi or Rangers in WvW? You want to talk about 1 shot OP busted, id start there.

[anbujackson.9564]

Double post.. seriously why cant we delete them?

Edited January 24, 2022 by anbujackson.9564

[anbujackson.9564]

33 minutes ago, AlCapwnd.7834 said:

What it looks like to me, is that you (and some "Streamers") just hate the green class. I Personally do not give a crap what Streamers think. They do not run the studio. If you want it changed put in an application at ANET and get on the balance team. But to your comment that they are overpowered. Have you seen Thief, Engi or Rangers in WvW? You want to talk about 1 shot OP busted, id start there.

I dont hate any class or spec. Actually thats a lie. I hate firebrand but thats another story. And just because I think a spec is overperforming doesnt mean I hate the whole class (i enjoy both elite specs). That streamer organizes ingame events for instanced end game content. So I'm pretty sure this guy knows what hes saying. Anyway.

This is a PvE thread, in instanced content which is, again, you know.. PvE. If you think that there are overperforming specs in WvW, you might want to adress this somewhere else. But do you know what will happen? There will be people saying that they are fine and you just need to ged gud. Just like people here get in this thread to say that the presented data is wrong and biased and spec xyz's performance is much worse, our opinion is wrong,... you name it.

Again, its not just about scourge right now. It never was right from the beginning. Its about scourge AND firebrand AND renegade. And if you start excusing scourge performance because firebrand exists or renegade performance because scourge exists and so on... is just meaningless. They all need to get nerfed.

 

[Valisha.8650]

Just delete firebrand already, half of the problem solved.

[AliamRationem.5172]

Worth a listen, imo. 

[Bakeneko.5826]

6 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

Worth a listen, imo. 

He is almost never worth listening to

[AliamRationem.5172]

1 hour ago, Bakeneko.5826 said:

He is almost never worth listening to

I dunno, man.  That graph displayed on the thumbnail looks pretty professional.  I think we can trust his opinions.  Plus he is about the most well-groomed streamer I've ever seen.  Yeah, he probably just rolled out of bed with his headset on, but I don't see even a hint of Cheetoh dust on him.  Immaculate!

[Lord of the Fire.6870]

10 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

Worth a listen, imo. 

90% of what he says I can't agree. I played fractals + cms , WvW , sPvP over 2 years straight . I think the difference is he sees mostly things out of the raids perspective.

 

What is true is that only Druid and Firebrand have access to all the boons which you are need in PvE content. Mainly might, quickness, protection, stabi.

 

Yes Firebrand is too packed with everything reason is it is like the elements on Ele but each with a munition system and Scraper is too dominate in Wvw as healer because of stealth and because Arena.NET nerfed all shouts so the reason have another healer in wvw felt under the bus.

 

Most OP/unreplaceable specs came from PoF because they introduced lots of  new mechanics with them:

Barrier

Agis Spam

Munition Systems

Boon Corruption/ Suppression

The rest are some strait crit/ dmg traits.

 

From a game perspective there are multiply problems with this:

 

1. It make in PvE content a lot easier a content which isn't supposed to get easier.

2.For WvW and sPvE it starts the discussion about boons which in truth is the discussion about personal skill vs the skills in the game.

3. People assumed that vanilla and the different elite specs would be somehow on the same level at some point PoF specs were a complete game breaker on this point.

 

Okay but I must say Arena.NET nerfed the hell out of most PoF specs the only one who remain are really remains Scourge and Firebrand . All this I think is one of the reason EoD specs looks so weak.

 

On the other side OP specs which are innovative  can be really fun the problem is for competitive modes like sPvP and WvW they are not . The problem in PvE is you need down sides. Lets take the idea of giving quickness to Ele.  I would give Ele on attunement change 15s quickness, Tempest can then share this then with others with the help of a trait, Weaver on the other hand can't  because of Weaver has a complete different attunement.

 

Basically fix the minimum necessary on other builds performance  and then start nerfing if it s necessary not earlier what Arena.NET is often doing , keep PvE and sPvP/WvW separated whenever it is need.

 

What also is often the problem is some dev screwed up he/she didn't saw the side effect something will have .

Okay here the list:

 

 1. The change by introducing GG in fractal first and even worse rest of the skill CDs the mist singularity = massive abuse of boons

2. The Meganerf of sPvP and WvW = for sPvP a complete whipe of the meta , we had tank , condi meta and spiral of more nerfs, WvW the doom of all other healer builds besides Firebrand and Scrapper the rest is just because what else should they play.

3.The Exposes buff change = also 98% of the meta by in cm fractals at least

A honorable mention would be the SoI change of Chrono but at least this seems to have worked out and be planned a lot more then the rest.

 

Like I sad in the end the didn't change back this stuff and all get the attention from day 0 from a lot players this is bad and posted a lot on board . What devs then done is trying to fix it by changing something else which then let the whole game mechanic look more and more crippled = less fun

[The Boz.2038]

14 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

Worth a listen, imo. 

This is... pretty much exactly what I've been saying.

Add dimensionality to builds so that they're less directly comparable in a single dimension, and spread the love around.

[Obtena.7952]

Not sure I agree with the video. Meta diversity is more complex than than just what classes share boons ... yet he goes on to suggest the ACTUAL problem is boon uptime and coverage. Well, distributing boons doesn't exactly fix that ... I would argue that even with good distribution, the diversity may not improve.  People are after the best boon application PERIOD. They don't care for what class (or classes) gives that. Even if we had 9 classes that could all give out 10 seconds of any desirable boon ... players have WAY more reasons to desire any one of those specific classes for their teams. 

I'm afraid that if we want meta diversity there are two ways.

1. Everyone gets everything equally so there is no meaningful class choice in teams ... GL with that.

2. Everyone gets something unique to ensure a place as a desirable team member... and here we are to the point of the thread ...

Neither of these approaches will work having diverse 5 man meta teams. One isn't practical and the other is simply limited by the number of team spots. 

There are so many layers to this issue that there isn't any practical way to address it. Another layer is why something is meta ... because FB and Scourge are meta for way different reasons than Renegade is. This problem is not reconciled with just distributing boon sharing. That's just a far too simpleminded approach to the problem. 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Shikaru.7618]

Another aspect of meta is also around encounter diversity and mechanics design. I don't have any good examples off the top of my head but hypothetically if more encounters were designed in such a way that benefitted tempest strengths more in meaningfuly ways, we could see more class diversity too. This is a bad implementation so don't take this literally but if a boss took bonus damage from anyone with an active aura, tempest would suddenly be way more attractive as an option. Right now a lot of encounters favor druid utility way more and druids lower healing output never makes or breaks an encounter. Sure tempest can maybe save a run here or there, but the reason the healing made a difference is due to poor play by the rest if the squad.

[The Boz.2038]

There's a difference between "We need stability and aegis, guardian is the only source of stability and aegis in the entire game, so we take guardian" and "We need stability and aegis, guardian does the best stability and aegis, but here's a revenant that does it a tiny bit less strongly". You might consider a revenant for the needed slot in situation B. Never in situation A. 

"There will always be someone best at X" is a truism; bestness comes in degrees.

[Lord of the Fire.6870]

16 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Not sure I agree with the video. Meta diversity is more complex than than just what classes share boons ... yet he goes on to suggest the ACTUAL problem is boon uptime and coverage. Well, distributing boons doesn't exactly fix that.  People are after the best boon application PERIOD. They don't care for what class (or classes) gives that. Even if we had 9 classes that could all give out 10 seconds of any desirable boon ... players have WAY more reasons to desire any one of those specific classes for their teams. 

I'm afraid that if we want meta diversity there are two ways.

1. Everyone gets everything equally so there is no meaningful class choice in teams ... GL with that.

2. Everyone gets something unique to ensure a place as a desirable team member... and here we are to the point of the thread ...

Neither of these approaches will work having diverse 5 man meta teams. One isn't practical and the other is simply limited by the number of team spots. 

There are so many layers to this issue that there isn't any practical way to address it. Another layer is why something is meta ... because FB and Scourge are meta for way different reasons than Renegade is. This problem is not reconciled with just distributing boon sharing. That's just a far too simpleminded approach to the problem. 

 

 

Most of the stuff in the video is about healers where we had at least in fractals never a choice only Druid and then Firebrand reason is the missing quickness, stabi and protection.  I can only see we had a meta which was kinda good for dps builds around 2018 to 2019. Healer we had only one same goes for sec support fist Chrono then Renegade.

 

How it was :

List for dps was like this : Weaver, Dragonhunter, Soulbeast but also Reaper, Holosmith,  and also Berserker Warrior with his flags . The only ones which were left out were thief and power Chrono and I mean with this CMs run in normal runs they had their position too (okay there is also power Tempest -> normal run).

 

While a lot of the builds have or had similar dps there were differences with them mainly the ramp up of the dps and this was also the cut power Tempest and power Chrono out of the CM meta .

 

Basically we had both 1 &2 a bit Renegade, Firebrand  and Beserkers position were fixed . The reason why Beserker felt off is the banners were nerfed to the point that they don't bring in much and also they condi builds are a bit on the weak side in this build and last banners are useless in 100 CM

 

For dps builds it was more like 1 in terms of dmg and the ones with  a bit lower dmg had often more burst or survivability but not all could got over the dmg or burst minimum line. I think I should mention this but especially Weaver was after the changes with the fire fields traits under the minimum burst in the eyes of many in the CM community only with its absurd pre-buff rota it was staying running. For the condi builds now the reason it isn't in the meta at all is also because self weave takes wayyy too long so it takes forever until max dmg

 

What Happened:

I think the main reason Arena.NET made the changes to the exposed buff is that you in the meta before you need 2 different classes/builds to run it which lowers accessibility in cm fractals . No I don't think this was a good solution not only

1. It destroyed the meta with announcement

2. It again didn't solve the problem directly but tried to solve it in a 'magically' way which created again even more problems

3. 100 cm isn't the only fractal which needs a redesign . Sirens Reef doesn't make sense you need someone who can clean condis with the start of T2 which is absurd . The earliest where you should need specific builds is T3 and even when I was coming into T3 there wasn't actually even in T4 when I first came into it hadn't with all groups the typical setup with healers . This started to change with Twilight Oasis  which is also super condi heavy at least with some instabilities on top of all 135 shortcuts you can use walking around this map yeah it needs also at least some changes. The problems with those other fractal were reported here and complained for months when they came out Arena.NET sit them out until people stopped posting about them.

 

Like I said this is something Arena.NET does wayyyyyyyyyyyyy toooooo often it really let Gw2 sink to the level of an Asian f2p MMOs where the main quest line is bugged for months people can't progress and dev says who cares? (in truth no reaction)

 

About how healers would be different if we had more options :

 

1. Well we have healers for 10 players or 5 .

2. Some builds have dmg buff permanent and some needs activation of a skill later needs some over work even when target for short fights in fractals it is often too short especially on Tempest.

3. Even when cramped in more boons into  ele/Tempest it is will never be as flexible as FB because you don't need change attunement  but you have more heal as Tempest.

 

To be honest it is not always the boons which are a problem Renegade as example has a hard time with the energy consumption and too little condi clean (at least for WvW if we say Scrapper isn't around)

 

[Obtena.7952]

8 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:

There's a difference between "We need stability and aegis, guardian is the only source of stability and aegis in the entire game, so we take guardian" and "We need stability and aegis, guardian does the best stability and aegis, but here's a revenant that does it a tiny bit less strongly". You might consider a revenant for the needed slot in situation B. Never in situation A. 

"There will always be someone best at X" is a truism; bestness comes in degrees.

Right ... so the thing that almost everyone misses is that meta doesn't go away or become less significant if we have more 'bestness' on other classes. Teams that are built around meta only care about ONE degree of bestness ... the meta, and that's REALLY what we are talking about here because the complaints are based on how some PUGs use meta as their team comp standard. 

It's definitely good to have degrees of bestness ... but that's not going to fix the problem this thread is complaining about. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Cyninja.2954]

3 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Right ... so the thing that almost everyone misses is that meta doesn't go away or become less significant if we have more 'bestness' on other classes. 

Okay, define meta then.

What is meta according to you? Because strait off the bat, I'll tell you that a lot of players have a very different understanding or interpretation of this simple concept. It depends heavily on which aspects players value to which degrees, especially ease of play, safety, speed, etc.

In fact most of the time when players complain about meta, they are in fact complaining about over-representation of specific classes and not actual meta classes.

Quote

Teams that are built around meta only care about ONE degree of bestness ...

That's a very stupid claim. It just shows your lack of endgame content engagement in this game. The varying degrees of "bestness" is literally what separates large parts of this player base and why certain carry builds exist.

Even the same player will alternate in their attitude and approach depending on which group they are part of. Case in point: My own expectation and value of different builds/classes/setups and also expect others to play specific builds/classes/setups.

The classes and thus their representation which players are willing to group with changes heavily between skill level of groups and difficulty of content. Most often absolutely unrelated to what any meta build or setup might be.

Quote

the meta, and that's REALLY what we are talking about here because the complaints are based on how some PUGs use meta as their team comp standard. 

No, if you had followed the context of this thread, and focused on the spirit and intent instead of only 1 buzz word, you would have garnered that the main complaint from many players in this thread is not in fact about meta (which ever definition you might actually use) but rather about the dominance of specific classes to an extent that they are so represented that nearly no other class is accepted (and ironically most of those classes and the builds on them are not in fact meta, unless meta is defined as the most represented and played classes in that content).

Quote

It's definitely good to have degrees of bestness ... but that's not going to fix the problem this thread is complaining about. 

 

It literally is given this thread is about a set few classes shoving away all others. This thread is literally asking for more flexibility and closer "bestness" between classes.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Obtena.7952]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

In fact most of the time when players complain about meta, they are in fact complaining about over-representation of specific classes and not actual meta classes.

... about the dominance of specific classes to an extent that they are so represented that nearly no other class is accepted

If people aren't actually complaining about meta, then over representation isn't a problem because people can play how they want and be successful and other people's choices won't prevent that. My point ... is that this complaint IS specific to meta PUGs. 

In otherwords, in a team where everyone is playing how they want, people playing 'over-represented' classes isn't a problem, because everyone gets to do what they like. This problem is exclusive to when teams use this as a criteria to recruit ... and that's limited to PUG meta teams. 

I'm not having a hangup about meta definition here. Replace meta with 'desirable' or 'optimal' or whatever you want ... the problem doesn't change. People just don't like being filtered out of PUG teams because certain classes are favoured, hence all these threads (and yes I am paying attention the spirit of the thread). If everyone just played how they wanted and let everyone else play how they want, this would have NEVER been a problem. That's why the solution is to refuse caving into the meta PUG mentality. 

Quote

 

That's a very stupid claim. It just shows your lack of endgame content engagement in this game. The varying degrees of "bestness" is literally what separates large parts of this player base and why certain carry builds exist.

So it's stupid to claim that when people don't get into PUG's with non-meta builds, it's because they aren't playing meta? Why is that stupid? That seems rather obvious and should go without saying. Are there numerous other reasons meta-desiring PUG teams refuse non-meta builds that I'm just not aware of? I'm pretty sure there isn't. 

Quote

 

It literally is given this thread is about a set few classes shoving away all others. This thread is literally asking for more flexibility and closer "bestness" between classes.

And I'm saying it doesn't fix the problem with a few classes dominating the meta because in the team-building scenarios where meta is desired, non-meta builds are not welcome there anyways. The problem of "meta dominating classes dominate meta PUG teams" is NOT fixed by making classes better ... because the teams don't want better, they just want meta. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Bakeneko.5826]

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

If people aren't actually complaining about meta, then over representation isn't a problem because people can play how they want and be successful and other people's choices won't prevent that. My point ... is that this complaint IS specific to meta PUGs. 

Fractal meta atm is: alac, cfb, cfb, cslb and cde. Pugs run off meta builds 99% of time. Meta means best, not second or third best - either you run meta, or not.

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

PUG meta teams. 

You saw people use it (i used it, too), but PUG meta is not meta, its umbrella term for what pugs run. It ain’t meta in a sense for what meta stands for, pugs run convenient safe builds, that sacrifices clear speed for room to make mistakes. 

 

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Replace meta with 'desirable' or 'optimal' or whatever you want

No. Meta is THE MOST efficient way to play, there is one meta for condi (calac, cfb x2, cslb, cde) and power meta (alac, qfb, dh, slb, slb). You should look up definition of meta, so you are on same page with everyone here. Meta is not what you think is meta, because LFG wants something, meta is what provides best results in shortest ammount of time. 

 

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

don't get into PUG's with non-meta builds,

Scourge, hfb, pure alacren are not meta, players in fact DO get into groups with off meta builds daily, just not the classes you want to.

 

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

non-meta builds are not welcome there anyways

??? I see off meta builds in cm parties more often than meta ones, i dont think i saw a single one Fractal meta group in LFG for last week or so. Only time I have to run meta is with my static, because they expect me to run meta and not scourge.

 

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

because the teams don't want better, they just want meta. 

They don’t want meta, but they want… meta? What? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=meta&amp=true First definition, second meaning

Edited February 2, 2022 by Bakeneko.5826

[Obtena.7952]

3 hours ago, Bakeneko.5826 said:

Fractal meta atm is: alac, cfb, cfb, cslb and cde. Pugs run off meta builds 99% of time. Meta means best, not second or third best - either you run meta, or not.

You saw people use it (i used it, too), but PUG meta is not meta, its umbrella term for what pugs run. It ain’t meta in a sense for what meta stands for, pugs run convenient safe builds, that sacrifices clear speed for room to make mistakes. 

 

No. Meta is THE MOST efficient way to play, there is one meta for condi (calac, cfb x2, cslb, cde) and power meta (alac, qfb, dh, slb, slb). You should look up definition of meta, so you are on same page with everyone here. Meta is not what you think is meta, because LFG wants something, meta is what provides best results in shortest ammount of time. 

 

Scourge, hfb, pure alacren are not meta, players in fact DO get into groups with off meta builds daily, just not the classes you want to.

 

??? I see off meta builds in cm parties more often than meta ones, i dont think i saw a single one Fractal meta group in LFG for last week or so. Only time I have to run meta is with my static, because they expect me to run meta and not scourge.

 

They don’t want meta, but they want… meta? What? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=meta&amp=true First definition, second meaning

I don't know what your deal is but I don't 'do' whatever this it is you are doing here. My point is pretty clear here:

Teams know what they want, regardless of how you want to define or label it. Teams wanting specific things isn't a problem because everyone can make teams and play how they want. IF you are in a position where you are refused team because of not doing what that team wants, that's not a problem. 

Many of the suggestions made so teams think they want things that they don't ... won't actually make teams think they want things that they don't. That includes the suggestion that we have wider boon sharing ability on more classes. This will not 'trick' teams into take the least effective boon sharing classes. They will STILL want what they think they want, based on WHATEVER that belief might be. 

Edited February 3, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Bakeneko.5826]

On 2/2/2022 at 11:59 PM, Obtena.7952 said:

I don't know what your deal is but I don't 'do' whatever this it is you are doing here. My point is pretty clear here:

My post, and some others, show, that you do not make your point clear, as you don't even know definitions of some terms you are using.

 

On 2/2/2022 at 11:59 PM, Obtena.7952 said:

Teams know what they want, regardless of how you want to define or label it. Teams wanting specific things isn't a problem because everyone can make teams and play how they want. IF you are in a position where you are refused team because of not doing what that team wants, that's not a problem. 

Agreed

 

On 2/2/2022 at 11:59 PM, Obtena.7952 said:

Many of the suggestions made so teams think they want things that they don't ... won't actually make teams think they want things that they don't.

Yes, pugs don't want meta, they want easy. That is why currently pug is dominated with classes that exceeds what is needed to survive, but underperforms in total group dps.

On 2/2/2022 at 11:59 PM, Obtena.7952 said:

That includes the suggestion that we have wider boon sharing ability on more classes. This will not 'trick' teams into take the least effective boon sharing classes.

Meta will take whatever class needs to sacrifice least to keep maximum ammount of boons for least ammount of dps lost. Condi alacren in 100 is good example - alacrity coverage is not 100% with that build, but it is good enough, considered what damage condi alac can provide, to be meta, even though it is useless beyond 100 cm. So your point is not really good? Less effective boon spec is taken because of damage it gives and how encounter plays out in total.

 

On 2/2/2022 at 11:59 PM, Obtena.7952 said:

They will STILL want what they think they want, based on WHATEVER that belief might be. 

Pug will want easy, speed runners will want most effective. While pugs might be somewhat unwilling to change, speedrunners and high end players will drop anything that is not the most effective way to do fractals, and it will not be based on belief, but pure raw numbers

[Obtena.7952]

4 hours ago, Bakeneko.5826 said:

Yes, pugs don't want meta, they want easy. That is why currently pug is dominated with classes that exceeds what is needed to survive, but underperforms in total group dps.

Again, I'm not going to quibble about definitions, I just don't 'do' that ... if I'm talking about meta, it's because it's to make the conversation easier, not because I don't know what I'm talking about. I think we all know the reasons PUG's want specific classes, so there isn't a reason to take issue with my language here. 

WHATEVER  PUGs want, they will take and no one will fool them into taking things they don't. Planting desirable boons on non-favoured classes isn't going to make PUG's think they will want those non-favoured classes. The suggestions we give other classes 'things' because they aren't desirable in specific content is misguided if those things don't make them desirable; it doesn't fix the problem, especially in fractals where there is only 5 man spots ... it means 4 classes will ALWAYS not be desirable. 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Telgum.6071]

I'm yet to see Firebrand not being OP, so I doubt the Necro situation is going to change much while Firebrand/Guardian is still on that spot.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Telgum.6071
Typo

[Bakeneko.5826]

17 hours ago, Telgum.6071 said:

I'm yet to see Firebrand not being OP, so I doubt the Necro situation is going to change much while Firebrand/Guardian is still on that spot.

All PoF specs need rework, most of them are loaded with stuff