plz balance patch soon

[ScottBroChill.3254]

1 minute ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Well, that's true right ... I don't think the existences of a range or gap or whatever you want to call it is the same as a lack of balance. Again ... not everything can be meta, so that gap/range/whatever will exist. 

That kinda is the definition of imbalance. The Webster definition of balance is: a state in which different things occur in equal or proper amounts or have an equal or proper amount of importanced

The gap you are talking about is things NOT occuring in equal proportions or importance. 

[ScottBroChill.3254]

"I know what I said ... and that's not saying to ignore balance. That's what YOU are TRYING to pretend it says."

Um you are saying ignore the gap dude. Just because you aren't saying those exact words doesn't mean that isn't roughly what you are saying. What in the world kind of logic are you using.

Edited January 26, 2022 by ScottBroChill.3254

[Obtena.7952]

6 minutes ago, ScottBroChill.3254 said:

That kinda is the definition of imbalance. The Webster definition of balance is: a state in which different things occur in equal or proper amounts or have an equal or proper amount of importanced

The gap you are talking about is things NOT occuring in equal proportions or importance. 

You can think what you like. The fact is that by it's very nature, we have to accept that there is a difference in performance between non-meta and meta builds. The range/gap we are talking about doesn't NEED to occur in 'equal proportions or importance' (whatever that means) to be enable people  to play the game how they want and be successful. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Obtena.7952]

6 minutes ago, ScottBroChill.3254 said:

Um you are saying ignore the gap dude. 

No that's not true ... I just recognize it exists by the very nature that some comps are optimal and others aren't. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[ScottBroChill.3254]

1 minute ago, Obtena.7952 said:

No that's not true ... I just recognize it exists by the very nature that some comps are optimal and others aren't. 

and then what? level with me. Should we just not worry about the gap or should we try to get it a little closer to being balanced for all the other specs or atleast the majority?

[Obtena.7952]

2 minutes ago, ScottBroChill.3254 said:

and then what? level with me. Should we just not worry about the gap or should we try to get it a little closer to being balanced for all the other specs or atleast the majority?

I honestly don't see why we should worry about the gap. It doesn't prevent people from playing how they want and being successful ... so when people complain about the 'oppressive environment' they are experiencing because 'meta' ... that's because of choices they make, not because of how the game is designed.

The only worry I would have (and it's also a worry Anet acknowledges in their patch notes from previous changes) is when content is trivialized by class design. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[ScottBroChill.3254]

1 minute ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I honestly don't see why we should worry about the gap. It doesn't prevent people from playing how they want and being successful. The only worry I would have (and it's also a worry Anet acknowledges in their patch notes from previous changes) is when content is trivialized by class design. 

Ok, so ignore the gap?

[Obtena.7952]

2 minutes ago, ScottBroChill.3254 said:

Ok, so ignore the gap?

Acknowledging it exists is not ignoring it. Ignoring it would be pretending it shouldn't exist. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[ScottBroChill.3254]

Like I get it if you're just saying the gap isn't large enough to worry about and to bring up arguments why the gap isn't as large as we all percieve it to be, but you are just saying don't worry about it and that success isn't dictate by what build you use but I would just have to argue against that. I think we have two opposing views and that's cool, I just want to know what the actual points are so it doesn't feel like we are talking in circles. 

[Obtena.7952]

10 minutes ago, ScottBroChill.3254 said:

Like I get it if you're just saying the gap isn't large enough to worry about and to bring up arguments why the gap isn't as large as we all percieve it to be, but you are just saying don't worry about it and that success isn't dictate by what build you use but I would just have to argue against that. I think we have two opposing views and that's cool, I just want to know what the actual points are so it doesn't feel like we are talking in circles. 

If you don't want to talk in circles, then you should probably not tell me what I'm saying. I mean, you desperately want to argue with me and trick me to saying we should ignore balance ... not going to happen, because I don't believe we should ignore balance. The gap size doesn't matter; arguments that 'it's too big' don't make sense because only a relatively small number of players can take full advantage of that peak meta performance in the first place.

What matters is the range of builds people can use to be successful ... and contrary to the false narrative here, that's actually a good number of builds. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[ScottBroChill.3254]

3 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

If you don't want to talk in circles, then you should probably not tell me what I'm saying. I mean, you desperately want to argue with me and trick me to saying we should ignore balance ... not going to happen, because I don't believe we should ignore balance. The gap size doesn't matter. That's a fallacy. What matters is the range of builds people can use to be successful ... and contrary to the false narrative here, that's actually a good number of builds. 

Obtena... You are the only person on this forum that gets into constant arguments with people because whenever someone calls you out on something you use symantics to disregard every opposing argument.

[Obtena.7952]

9 minutes ago, ScottBroChill.3254 said:

Obtena... You are the only person on this forum that gets into constant arguments with people because whenever someone calls you out on something you use symantics to disregard every opposing argument.

That's bad for lots of people that aren't me ... because my arguments tend to be pretty solid. Tell me this is wrong:

People can play how they want and be successful. 

You can't because it's not. That's a big win. Complaining what is meta is a nothing compared to being able to do that as a player. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[ScottBroChill.3254]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

That's bad for lots of people that aren't me ... because my arguments pretty solid. 

I'd have to disagree. 

[Obtena.7952]

9 minutes ago, ScottBroChill.3254 said:

I'd have to disagree. 

If you like ... but what I do know ... if you don't value the variety you get in builds you can play to be successful, you are playing the wrong game. If you aren't experiencing that in GW2 and you want to, that's unfortunate because you could be. What is meta doesn't impact any of that. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[AliamRationem.5172]

19 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

You can think what you like. The fact is that by it's very nature, we have to accept that there is a difference in performance between non-meta and meta builds. The range/gap we are talking about doesn't NEED to occur in 'equal proportions or importance' (whatever that means) to be enable people  to play the game how they want and be successful. 

So you're saying that balance doesn't matter because all classes are "viable".  Why is viability the standard?  Because it means Obtena isn't literally saying balance doesn't matter.  They're just saying, practically speaking it doesn't matter.  Two oh-so different things, don'tcha know?

Just call in the mods.  Another thread Obtena'd.  Pack it up and go home, boys.  This one isn't worth your time.

[ScottBroChill.3254]

Back on the actual topic. 

I think firebrand is overtuned. 

Scourge and Alacrigade appear OP, but I think I might have to change my opinion to what others were saying and just put them on the strong/easy way of playing.

I think these three professions are so dominant because they lack competition in their roles and/or provide something unique that is strong giving them a desirable niche, like a monk or healer in other games.

I think a lot of other specs are either undertuned or lacking something special making them kinda bland in roles. most just opt for dps meta builds because the floor for acceptable dps isn't necessarily that high. But the domination of these support builds that can also build for dps makes the play rate of these classes extremely high and has shifted the meta into desireables, and undesireables. This is kinda always the case in mmo's, but the infrequent balance has made it very apparent. 

[ScottBroChill.3254]

2 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

So you're saying that balance doesn't matter because all classes are "viable".  Why is viability the standard?  Because it means Obtena isn't literally saying balance doesn't matter.  They're just saying, practically speaking it doesn't matter.  Two oh-so different things, don'tcha know?

Just call in the mods.  Another thread Obtena'd.  Pack it up and go home, boys.  This one isn't worth your time.

I swear he has another account to give himself the trophy react, I'm dying. 

[Obtena.7952]

6 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

So you're saying that balance doesn't matter because all classes are "viable".  Why is viability the standard? 

Because Anet want people to be able to play how they want. I mean, let's flip that around ... what makes you think meta IS the standard? Certainly nothing I've seen Anet do indicates that. Your problem is that you are desperate for meta to mean something with regards to balance ... it doesn't.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[AliamRationem.5172]

1 minute ago, ScottBroChill.3254 said:

Back on the actual topic. 

I think firebrand is overtuned. 

Scourge and Alacrigade appear OP, but I think I might have to change my opinion to what others were saying and just put them on the strong/easy way of playing.

I think these three professions are so dominant because they lack competition in their roles and/or provide something unique that is strong giving them a desirable niche, like a monk or healer in other games.

I think a lot of other specs are either undertuned or lacking something special making them kinda bland in roles. most just opt for dps meta builds because the floor for acceptable dps isn't necessarily that high. But the domination of these support builds that can also build for dps makes the play rate of these classes extremely high and has shifted the meta into desireables, and undesireables. This is kinda always the case in mmo's, but the infrequent balance has made it very apparent. 

Other specs aren't necessarily undertuned (of course some of them are) and firebrand, renegade, and scourge should not be the standard to which they are elevated.  These specs need the nerf bat.  Support needs to be pared down to the point where the expectation is not that you have full uptime on every boon in existence but that you have to pick and choose.  Bringing this comp or that comp should have pros and cons.  But with firebrand, renegade, and scourge it's either you get all your boons or you slum it with inferior specs that only do part of what these classes can do.

[ScottBroChill.3254]

3 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

Other specs aren't necessarily undertuned (of course some of them are) and firebrand, renegade, and scourge should not be the standard to which they are elevated.  These specs need the nerf bat.  Support needs to be pared down to the point where the expectation is not that you have full uptime on every boon in existence but that you have to pick and choose.  Bringing this comp or that comp should have pros and cons.  But with firebrand, renegade, and scourge it's either you get all your boons or you slum it with inferior specs that only do part of what these classes can do.

You got a point there. With other support specs like druid, tempest, etc. do you think bringing down the big three is enough for them to see more play or do you think they need something more? I know tempest can put out a lot of heals and provide might, but is healing and might enough for it if you consider that FB or whatever will lose some of it's boon support?

[AliamRationem.5172]

15 minutes ago, ScottBroChill.3254 said:

You got a point there. With other support specs like druid, tempest, etc. do you think bringing down the big three is enough for them to see more play or do you think they need something more? I know tempest can put out a lot of heals and provide might, but is healing and might enough for it if you consider that FB or whatever will lose some of it's boon support?

I just think we get too much out of support roles in this game to the point where we've basically introduced a shittier version of trinity gameplay.  I also think it's more fun when we force choices. 

For instance, right now we don't have much choice.  If you want the good support, you're bringing firebrand.  But would it be better if bringing any class spec'd for support provided what firebrand does?  Not really.  Yeah, more classes get to have a turn, but they all bring the same things and feel interchangeable.  Wouldn't it be better if nobody could bring everything but each class were distinctly useful to the group for different reasons?

I feel like FFXIV does a much better job of this.  Am I wrong?

Edited January 26, 2022 by AliamRationem.5172

[Jski.6180]

32 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

I just think we get too much out of support roles in this game to the point where we've basically introduced a shittier version of trinity gameplay.  I also think it's more fun when we force choices. 

For instance, right now we don't have much choice.  If you want the good support, you're bringing firebrand.  But would it be better if bringing any class spec'd for support provided what firebrand does?  Not really.  Yeah, more classes get to have a turn, but they all bring the same things and feel interchangeable.  Wouldn't it be better if nobody could bring everything but each class were distinctly useful to the group for different reasons?

I feel like FFXIV does a much better job of this.  Am I wrong?

The means of supporting dose not even fit in this game ui right. You "can" target some one that you set it to but you cant have person markers and your skills do not auto target that player.

All of the meta classes are support classes that where able to do dmg because of there core ideal class. Your far better off losing max dps for support boons the game is just so oppress though these mostly benchmark boons.

 

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

5 hours ago, Mungo Zen.9364 said:

I'll let Obtena speak for themselves, but it disheartens me to see Meta used with the definition "Most Efficient Tactics Available".

If that were the case, as I said in my prior long post, then no matter how much balance is given, there will always only be 3-4 builds that are used.

Typically we would look at over-powerful compositions and call them Meta breaking.  Think 10 Chrono Raids for a minute.  This became Meta-Breaking since it only required one profession and excluded everything else.  It was also more capable of completing content than traditional Raid comps.  Anet 'fixed' this in a patch and allowed the Raid Meta to rebalance itself.  Was the Raid meta for a few months just 10 Chrono?  Not at all, it was very diverse, even though there was a 'Most Effective" way to clear content.

Again looking at Raid Meta, there are many builds that are interchangeable as there is greater margin for build development.  Any profession you can bring to a raid is part of the Raid Meta.  Where 10 Chrono was becoming the 'Most Efficient" the actual Meta included any profession build that could contribute to the 10 man comp.

I don't look at the Big 3 in Fractals as being Meta Breaking, just the easiest way for the most players to work together.  Most players, unfortunately, do not invest the time or energy to be flexible with their builds and adapt for different group comps.  Look at all the players who copy/pasta a Meta build and then can't play as intended.

You do not have to take the Big 3, but you do need to be competent enough with your profession and game mechanics in order to figure out a different way of completing it.  Most people don't care enough since they just want to get in, get rewarded and move on.  If some website says do this comp, then that's what most players will do without understanding why, and then everyone parrots it as gospel.

Looks like you've taken "meta" to mean a mixture of "popular," viable," and "effective" all in one.  That is... not what the meta means.  If I were to define meta, it means

 

Noun:

A): Using information outside of the game itself in order to change how the game is played.

B): The most effective tactic available

Adjective

A) A quality that relates to this information or (Adverb) using this information.

B) To relate to or be contained within the most effective tactic available.

Roots: the prefix "meta" means "above", so using outside information is metaphorically "above the game."  

 

Definitions are, by their nature, exclusionary.  If the "raid meta" is any profession that can be brought into raids, but every profession can be brought into raids regardless of their effectiveness, then the term means literally nothing.  It defines, elaborates upon, and excludes nothing, and therefore it would contain absolutely no knowledge or concepts.  We'd be left with a vacuum, for now there is no term to describe the most effective tactics, which by nature would exclude everything that is not the most effective tactic.

From a mile high up, the best strategy in the game is to do as much damage as fast as possible.  From half a mile up, the best strategy is to give your team full offensive boons while mitigating damage and dealing with specific mechanics.  There's two different philosophies on how to do this: the safe way and the fast way.  If these two philosophies are ever satisfied by the same composition, then it poses a balance problem, for it means there is no merit to do anything other than the most effective tactic.  Interchangeability of professions between roles doesn't mean that all professions are equal.  One will do the role better than the others, depending on what content you're in.  Sometimes the difference is nearly negligible, other times it is substantial. 

 

[Mungo Zen.9364]

1 hour ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

Looks like you've taken "meta" to mean a mixture of "popular," viable," and "effective" all in one.

I do not have any idea how you have drawn this conclusion based upon my posts in this thread.

 

[The Boz.2038]

6 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

I just think we get too much out of support roles in this game

I'd... tentatively agree, if we agree on what a "support role" is.

Alacren is support-ish, but is a "team-buff support DPS that brings the CC". Bannerslave fits the exact same description, with more DPS and CC, and less support. Ditto qScrapper, but inverted (more support, less DPS). I do not consider those support roles.

Heal firebrand? Entirely support role. Plague/heal Scourge? Entirely support role. Druid? Again, entirely support role.

 

Gotta keep in mind two things, though:
One: People engaging with content right now have the advantage of access to builds that are safe and effective, and can use them to learn the content. A pure blanket nerf "just off the top" might leave people that are not yet engaging with the content (raids, fractals) without a rung in the ladder that goes from "dunno what I'm doing" to "I understand this content". Less a problem in raids,  more a problem in fractals. While the toppest tip of the imbalanced toolbox should be nerfed, the bottom really should be bumped up. What I define the bottom here is "the best that each profession has to bring to a specific game mode" as the absolute minimum, and "each elite specialization" as a more luxurious goal. 

Two: I think an off-support meta should be our goal here. What I mean here is "a meta in which the most optimal comp isn't comprised of pure specialists, but by builds that provide more than one thing as either a team buff or control option or other". If you reduce builds to one dimension, DPS for example, then you'll get a linear formation of DPS classes, and some will be clearly stronger, some clearly weaker, and since DPS it the entirety of the role, there are no other factors to consider; monobuilds can easily follow. Elementalists used to enjoy this spot in three separate instances over the years: king of the DPS role, other classes need not apply. However, if instead of, say, one DPS role slot you have "DPS alacrity", the number of variables increases, and direct comparisons that clearly favor one vs the other decrease. You could have two or three or five different professions capable of filling that spot in an effective manner, which is leaps and bounds better for the game than "LF HFB Alacren". A pure DPS build should be, at most, 10% better than the DPSest of support DPS builds in the DPS department.