plz balance patch soon

[Jski.6180]

11 hours ago, Blueberry.8095 said:

Might be of minority but I'm actually glad that the meta don't shift that often...... Whilst I can understand why people want it that often but please let me share  from my perspective.

I play the game a lot but I'm a slow learner, it takes about 2-3 months for me to be really good at a build (used to be longer, like 3-5 months) - not just able to use it, but can confidently bring it to any hard mode and be fluent with the rotation + situational skills.

I also don't just play 1 build, after I successfully mastered a build, I will pick up another so that I can be the person who's flexible in filling a role for raid and fractal; well..... a tiny bit of balancing here & there is fine to re-adjust, I did not say that I'm against balancing, but if the meta have a major shake every so often like how some people are hoping for, then I'll have to relearn every single role every time when there's a new rotation/skill changes for every single build that I've learnt, if that happens, I'll just forever sticking with playing 1 build or just 2 max so I don't have to feel like doing homework indefinitely by re-learning all those roles, if not I'll either go crazy or I'll get burnt out on this game lol, because I'm not like the top few percent who can just master something immediately. I'm just another average gamer (certainly doesn't belong to the elitist level group).

They want something new or at least let more classes into the meta. Its silly to think we still see classes missing key parts that we see in the meta for pve pvp and wvw knowing this is the same meta we had for years now.

Builds not the important part of the game any more its all about the "right class" during the right event. That is fundamentally not what gw2 was made for.

[Lottie.5370]

10 hours ago, mythical.6315 said:

Then it’s a player issue if they’re choosing to play certain classes. All classes are perfectly viable. 

 

That's... just not true. Turn up to Fractal CMs as a druid, scrapper, spellbreaker, chrono, any core class (the list really can go on) and you are literally trolling. They literally are not viable.

 

It's not like I was talking about open world where you can play whatever you want, and the meta is different in raids/strikes and I understand more classes get a chance to shine there, but there are still so many specs that just do not get much playtime compared to Scourge/Firebrand which are both able to do way too much.

[mythical.6315]

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I'm going to put this out there ... the data is actually irrelevant. The fact is that there will always be a meta, regardless of how many classes are in it or why. Therefore, the existence of meta, regardless of it's composition, is a trivial reason to make any game changes. 

Some people will not appreciate this very logical reasoning. That's OK .. there are also practical and technical reasons as well. Good news is ... it appears that what is meta really isn't a consideration in how the classes are changed anyways so ... 👍

Oh I agree that there will always be a meta. There’s no way that they developers would be able to balance all of the elite specializations to the point that they’re relearivrly equal to each other due to how convoluted they designed the entire build system. But there’s nothing wrong with that as players don’t need to play optimally to enjoy the game. 

[mythical.6315]

12 minutes ago, Lottie.5370 said:

 

That's... just not true. Turn up to Fractal CMs as a druid, scrapper, spellbreaker, chrono, any core class (the list really can go on) and you are literally trolling. They literally are not viable.

 

It's not like I was talking about open world where you can play whatever you want, and the meta is different in raids/strikes and I understand more classes get a chance to shine there, but there are still so many specs that just do not get much playtime compared to Scourge/Firebrand which are both able to do way too much.

You’re not understanding what viable means:

capable of working successfully; feasible.

If you can complete content with the elite spec then it’s viable. If you disagree then by all means provide your evidence.  All fractals, dungeons, strikes, and raids can be completed with any elite spec. 

Players have for a long time conflated viable and optimal. It’s disappointing really. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by mythical.6315

[Lottie.5370]

36 minutes ago, mythical.6315 said:

You’re not understanding what viable means:

capable of working successfully; feasible.

If you can complete content with the elite spec then it’s viable. If you disagree then by all means provide your evidence.  All fractals, dungeons, strikes, and raids can be completed with any elite spec. 

Players have for a long time conflated viable and optimal. It’s disappointing really. 

 

Yupp that's a nice dictionary definition you have there. I have one for you too.

 

Feasible: possible to do easily or conveniently.

 

Really it comes down to your subjective viewpoint on what successful and viable are to you. To me, for an elite spec to be viable it must be able to perform on the same level, or close to the same level, as other elite specs. It is not successful, easy or convenient to be reaching enrage timers, wiping, or spending several minutes longer on every encounter because the specs you have just cannot perform as well as other specs available - which is still completely missing my point that some classes are able to do too much, and some classes can't compete with that. It's about balance (or the lack of it) not semantics.

 

 

[Shiny.1638]

1 hour ago, mythical.6315 said:

You’re not understanding what viable means:

capable of working successfully; feasible.

If you can complete content with the elite spec then it’s viable. If you disagree then by all means provide your evidence.  All fractals, dungeons, strikes, and raids can be completed with any elite spec. 

Players have for a long time conflated viable and optimal. It’s disappointing really. 

 

What is disappointing is completely ignoring valid points and screeching for evidence, that has been given, without seeming to have any of your own.

 

Yes Wingman has biases, but there are 1.5 million fractal logs and almost 3.8 million raid logs there, so you can very easily argue that it is representative data. That is a huge sample of players, only ONE player in the group needs to have arc & upload the log, and seeing as people are calling for balance around Fractal CMs & Raids, it's entirely relevant data.

 

[mythical.6315]

37 minutes ago, Lottie.5370 said:

 

Yupp that's a nice dictionary definition you have there. I have one for you too.

 

Feasible: possible to do easily or conveniently.

 

Really it comes down to your subjective viewpoint on what successful and viable are to you. To me, for an elite spec to be viable it must be able to perform on the same level, or close to the same level, as other elite specs. It is not successful, easy or convenient to be reaching enrage timers, wiping, or spending several minutes longer on every encounter because the specs you have just cannot perform as well as other specs available - which is still completely missing my point that some classes are able to do too much, and some classes can't compete with that. It's about balance (or the lack of it) not semantics.

 

 

Sure if you want to twist it that way then go ahead. 

[mythical.6315]

2 minutes ago, Shiny.1638 said:

 

What is disappointing is completely ignoring valid points and screeching for evidence, that has been given, without seeming to have any of your own.

 

Yes Wingman has biases, but there are 1.5 million fractal logs and almost 3.8 million raid logs there, so you can very easily argue that it is representative data. That is a huge sample of players, only ONE player in the group needs to have arc & upload the log, and seeing as people are calling for balance around Fractal CMs & Raids, it's entirely relevant data.

 

No evidence has been given to the questions that I asked. Everyone just defaults to popularity numbers instead which mean little to nothing. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by mythical.6315

[Cyninja.2954]

34 minutes ago, mythical.6315 said:

No evidence has been given to the questions that I asked. Everyone just defaults to popularity numbers instead which mean little to nothing. 

 

It means enough to support the opening demand of topic creator, even if his reason given might not be correct (it is).

 

In the end, it matters little on what or which basis certain classes crop out other classes. It might very well be multiple issues. It might not have to do with other classes not being able to complete the content.

 

All that matters is that certain classes see vast over representation currently. The reason being: these classes improve the chance of success at the content far more than all competition.

 

The questions you ask are semantic or theoretical in nature at best as is your definition of viable. They are also vastly inadequate to qualify this situation, given every fractal has been soloed and as such everything is viable according to your statement.

 

If 90% of the playerbase expects someone to play 1 of 3 classes, playing any other class is effectively not possible. These are such high numbers that even creating your own group is near impossible beyond creating a static. Which effectively makes the LFG unusable.

 

Something regular fractal players currently experience on a daily basis, reflected in the wingman stats.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[captrowdy.9561]

I came from ESO and they changed it up every few months. Just when I got comfortable with a play style nope it’s gone. One of the reasons I like this so much better. 

[mythical.6315]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

It means enough to support the opening demand of topic creator, even if his reason given might not be correct (it is).

 

In the end, it matters little on what or which basis certain classes crop out other classes. It might very well be multiple issues. It might not have to do with other classes not being able to complete the content.

 

All that matters is that certain classes see vast over representation currently. The reason being: these classes improve the chance of success at the content far more than all competition.

 

The questions you ask are semantic or theoretical in nature at best as is your definition of viable. They are also vastly inadequate to qualify this situation, given every fractal has been soloed and as such everything is viable according to your statement.

 

If 90% of the playerbase expects someone to play 1 of 3 classes, playing any other class is effectively not possible. These are such high numbers that even creating your own group is near impossible beyond creating a static. Which effectively makes the LFG unusable.

 

Something regular fractal players currently experience on a daily basis, reflected in the wingman stats.

Then it goes back to what I said earlier where it is a player issue as they insist on playing the most optimal builds at the detriment of variety. They have only themselves to blame for being in that predicament. 
 

Do you have evidence that it’s 90% or is that just hyperbole?  

[Cyninja.2954]

21 minutes ago, mythical.6315 said:

Then it goes back to what I said earlier where it is a player issue as they insist on playing the most optimal builds at the detriment of variety. They have only themselves to blame for being in that predicament. 
 

Do you have evidence that it’s 90% or is that just hyperbole?  

 

Sure, here:

https://gw2wingman.nevermindcreations.de/popularity

 

For fractals it's:

Scouge: 30.32%

Renegade: 20.72%

Firebrand: 37.52%

Total: 88.56%

 

That is without knowing how much more this has shifted since November, given the growth especially on scourge was ongoing for multiple data sets.

[The Boz.2038]

Some classes, builds, specs, etc. are just weaker than others.

This is a fact.

To argue against it is ridiculous. It is an exercise in sophistry.

Now, accepting that, *can* anything clear content? Yes. This is trivially true. All fractals have successfully been completed with four players, including CMs, so yeah, you can totes bring that minstrel aristocrat condi DPS dragonhunter and clear content. You'll be carried, sure, but you can "clear content". Not reliably, not in any way fast, and not in a random pug that's, through some miracle, looking for a generic DPS, and not an Alacren/Scourge/FB/BS.

 

Yes, some things will always "be meta". This is also trivially true. But the difference between meta and off-meta, the effectiveness delta, can *easily* be reduced, to *clear* benefit. How is this simple concept so hard to grasp?

[Astralporing.1957]

5 hours ago, Lottie.5370 said:

 

That's... just not true. Turn up to Fractal CMs as a druid, scrapper, spellbreaker, chrono, any core class (the list really can go on) and you are literally trolling. They literally are not viable.

It's better not to use the "viable" term, because some people try to use it in a very strict meaning (if you can complete the content on it, then it is viable) while at the same time using it to muddle the issue being discussed.

Is every class and  build viable? Sure - after all, in a content that can be run by less people it was designed for, you can be dead the whole fight and still complete, which makes any build technically (and literally) viable. That's not a real point however. The real point is that running some builds is beneficial for the group, while other choices are a detriment - and there can be a massive difference between those two.

Every class and spec being viable does not mean all are equal, nor does it mean all are good. The bar for "viability" is placed extremely low. As such, that statement is a non-argument, that is basically equal to stating that no build and spec is so inherently broken that it would be literally impossible to play them at all. It does not tell us anything more than that.

A build can be viable, while still being abysmally bad. As such, there's no point in bringing viability at all - you might as well say "that build exists". Ironically, it would probably be far better for the game if some of those builds did not, in fact, exist at all.

 

[Nephalem.8921]

7 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

It's better not to use the "viable" term, because some people try to use it in a very strict meaning (if you can complete the content on it, then it is viable) while at the same time using it to muddle the issue being discussed.

Is every class and  build viable? Sure - after all, in a content that can be run by less people it was designed for, you can be dead the whole fight and still complete, which makes any build technically (and literally) viable. That's not a real point however. The real point is that running some builds is beneficial for the group, while other choices are a detriment - and there can be a massive difference between those two.

Every class and spec being viable does not mean all are equal, nor does it mean all are good. The bar for "viability" is placed extremely low. As such, that statement is a non-argument, that is basically equal to stating that no build and spec is so inherently broken that it would be literally impossible to play them at all. It does not tell us anything more than that.

A build can be viable, while still being abysmally bad. As such, there's no point in bringing viability at all - you might as well say "that build exists". Ironically, it would probably be far better for the game if some of those builds did not, in fact, exist at all.

 

Rifle DE comes pretty close to being unplayable in sirens reef and other parts of the game. Its like doing that fractal with 4 players. Some builds like DE are just complete trash in most of pve. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Nephalem.8921

[Obtena.7952]

7 hours ago, Lottie.5370 said:

 

Yupp that's a nice dictionary definition you have there. I have one for you too.

 

Feasible: possible to do easily or conveniently.

 

 

 

I see ... now people make up their own definitions to argue. 

The fact is that all classes have viable builds EVEN BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION. If people don't want to play meta, they can choose to play so they don't have to.

The 'over-representation' argument is a non-starter because by their very nature of being 5 man content, Fractals favour classes that have have a the highest feature density. 

I would actually argue that if you want ANY variation in optimal Fractal team comps, then feature-dense classes (and the resulting over-representation it brings) is NECESSARY because if you don't have that, people will be making threads about how 4 classes are not meta in Fractals. 

We already have in some cases features that are shared ... it doesn't affect what is meta ... so the idea that we 'share' these features to get variation in the meta is incorrect.

The REAL problem here is that the game doesn't have alot of levers to pull to make 9 classes all meta in 5 man content. You got support/heal/DPS ... and meta spots don't 'share' . 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Astralporing.1957]

4 hours ago, Nephalem.8921 said:

Rifle DE comes pretty close to being unplayable in sirens reef and other parts of the game. Its like doing that fractal with 4 players. Some builds like DE are just complete trash in most of pve. 

It's still not completely impossible to play. The "viable" bar in this game would be at the level of a build that, for example, just by selecting certain traits dies or crashes the client. Something literally unplayable. Everything you can play however, no matter how bad it would be, should be considered technically viable. And that is exactly why "viable" is a completely meaningless term when discussing game balance.

[Bakeneko.5826]

4 hours ago, Nephalem.8921 said:

Rifle DE comes pretty close to being unplayable in sirens reef and

You mean single target DPS sucks in situation where cleave is needed? Are you OK?

[Sobx.1758]

15 hours ago, Lottie.5370 said:

Turn up to Fractal CMs as a druid, scrapper, spellbreaker, chrono, any core class (the list really can go on) and you are literally trolling. They literally are not viable.

Sorry, but that's literally false.

 

15 hours ago, mythical.6315 said:

Players have for a long time conflated viable and optimal. It’s disappointing really. 

True.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Firebeard.1746]

23 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I'm going to put this out there ... the data is actually irrelevant. The fact is that there will always be a meta, regardless of how many classes are in it or why. Therefore, the existence of meta, regardless of it's composition, is a trivial reason to make any game changes. 

Some people will not appreciate this very logical reasoning. That's OK .. there are also practical and technical reasons as well. Good news is ... it appears that what is meta really isn't a consideration in how the classes are changed anyways so ... 👍

I only agree insofar that there's reasonable class diversity and the meta isn't so strong that people are passing up other classes in favor of it because it's THAT MUCH better. And people feel compelled to play things they don't want to. 

Though this game has an added problem that the game itself doesn't really tell you which classes should be doing what, and so the community builds their own metas and it's very hard to fix that even when they're sub-optimal (i.e. even after a nerf). I think Diviner Chrono was still considered "meta" a year or two into PoF before Firebrigade became the thing. I joined well after PoF, made a diviner Chrono but because it was listed as meta on both Metabattle and Snowcrows as boon support for raids and fractals, only for it to quickly die because the community finally caught on. I don't remember any buffs to Firebrigade around the time I joined (End of Season 4). 

A solution to this would be to cap class specific bonuses (not boons) and label each class for what it should bring so the community can clearly complain that something needs a buff if it's unused. or even the devs can fix it themselves. 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Firebeard.1746

[Nephalem.8921]

20 minutes ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

I only agree insofar that there's reasonable class diversity and the meta isn't so strong that people are passing up other classes in favor of it because it's THAT MUCH better. And people feel compelled to play things they don't want to. 

Though this game has an added problem that the game itself doesn't really tell you which classes should be doing what, and so the community builds their own metas and it's very hard to fix that even when they're sub-optimal (i.e. even after a nerf). I think Diviner Chrono was still considered "meta" a year or two into PoF before Firebrigade became the thing. I joined well after PoF, made a diviner Chrono but because it was listed as meta on both Metabattle and Snowcrows as boon support for raids and fractals, only for it to quickly die because the community finally caught on. I don't remember any buffs to Firebrigade around the time I joined (End of Season 4). 

A solution to this would be to cap class specific bonuses (not boons) and label each class for what it should bring so the community can clearly complain that something needs a buff if it's unused. or even the devs can fix it themselves. 

There were a couple of fb buffs and chrono nerfs. firebrigade became a thing with the introduction of diviner.also druid nerfs.

[Firebeard.1746]

1 hour ago, Nephalem.8921 said:

There were a couple of fb buffs and chrono nerfs. firebrigade became a thing with the introduction of diviner.also druid nerfs.

Well at the time i remember telling people that firebrigade was better on these very forums due to how chrono wells worked vs ofa and people treating me like i was crazy on these very forums only for 6 months later for it to be meta, while i was still fully capable of sustaining the same boons. But okay. Whatever. The only chrono nerf of note i can remember is the ip nerf, which wasn't that big a deal in pve. Stm chrono didn't really become a thing until firebrigade became meta only for it to be nerfed as a suboptimal replacement for qb. 

 

Was Druid really spewing stab and aegis to compete with HB at the time? I wasn't into druid at the time, but i thought that hb became meta in fractals mostly because people finally realized how to abuse its unique boons and in some cases you could literally skip mechanics with its boons.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Firebeard.1746

[Astralporing.1957]

4 hours ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

Well at the time i remember telling people that firebrigade was better on these very forums due to how chrono wells worked vs ofa and people treating me like i was crazy on these very forums only for 6 months later for it to be meta, while i was still fully capable of sustaining the same boons. But okay. Whatever. The only chrono nerf of note i can remember is the ip nerf, which wasn't that big a deal in pve. Stm chrono didn't really become a thing until firebrigade became meta only for it to be nerfed as a suboptimal replacement for qb. 

 

Was Druid really spewing stab and aegis to compete with HB at the time? I wasn't into druid at the time, but i thought that hb became meta in fractals mostly because people finally realized how to abuse its unique boons and in some cases you could literally skip mechanics with its boons.

"In fractals". Chrono really stopped being meta in fractals when they moved a lot of boons (including the signet) from perma upkeep 5-man cap to half-duration 10-man cap. Which ended up with requiring two boon chronos for perma upkeep even in 5-man content. Which, obviously, was a bad idea for fractals.

That was long before firebrigade got enough buffs to become meta, btw.

[Firebeard.1746]

27 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

"In fractals". Chrono really stopped being meta in fractals when they moved a lot of boons (including the signet) from perma upkeep 5-man cap to half-duration 10-man cap. Which ended up with requiring two boon chronos for perma upkeep even in 5-man content. Which, obviously, was a bad idea for fractals.

That was long before firebrigade got enough buffs to become meta, btw.

Well it took metabattle a while. Good to know though. 

[Herzblut.2864]

The playerbase is the main problem and nothing else.

 

It is nearly if not completely impossible to balance all classes to all payers in every content and make them kinda even on the field. 

 

Players saying that ele is not viable in pve like fractals or raids are just memes. 

 

In reality they are just not meant for the class since it takes some serious knowledge about the 60 steps plus rotation to deal serious damage and making small mistakes will lower their damagen by a big chunk in the end. 

 

Scourge on the other hand just dominates because of the torment changes. 

Yes scourge has alot of utility to bring to a group mainly the barriers and if traited the teleport rez but what players forget here is that scourge will never keep up with a good played condi ele or cond dare devil.

 

Most players did never see the top 5% players that can easy pull off 10-15k more dps then the average fractal or raid cm player can and that is surely no scourge.

 

One of the biggest factors is that most players use standart arcdps settings and not single target settings. 

Sure im not first in the list in dps with condi daredevil but with the right settings you can see that single target dps balance isnt that bad actualy and the magic of epidemic dps with standart settings is gone. 

 

Skill resetting in fractals does the rest to the condi meta and melts bosses in seconds while skipping mechanics and forced phasing into next phases. 

 

I agree that some classes have it way easyer then other to get on a good dps value while others get incredibly punished for making 2 mistakes in their rotations but mostly like the sorrows on dark ai in 100 fractal cm could be balanced by making them invulnerable to normal damage and only get affected by cc like the mechanic actualy should be. 

 

Instead of balancing classes all the time in pve anet just need to tweak the mechanics of bosses and mobs in general in endgame content to make them more fun and doesnt favour certain classes to much. 

 

A modefier for powered and condition dmg that lowers one by 50% on certain mobs would change everything and make players not just camp one damage type for 90% of the content. 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Herzblut.2864