GW2 PvP scene is dead because EVERY class can Tank/Heal/CC/DPS, it's ZERO skill gameplay.

[Gorem.8104]

The reactions on the OP's post perfectly sums up why gw2 pvp scene has died. 

[Swagg.9236]

4 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

I’m 100% going to watch that video when I get time (I go on the forums on my phone when I’m waiting for things, so not exactly the appropriate time to watch a video on the evolution of systems towards homogeneity 😂). So thank you! 

Now, to the point at hand, I 100% agree with you. In fact, in video games I would argue that simple systems are inherently superior to excessively complex systems due to the nature of a human being limited in their ability to process and respond to the input stimuli with an appropriate output stimuli. Too complex and a game is just tedious button management. 

If we look in GW2, to keep it focused on the present game, functions like dodge would meet the appropriate criteria, correct? It is a very simple mechanic, but can be used in a variety of ways creating a very diverse set of outcomes based on dodge usage. (Just trying to verify the application of what you said to this specific instance). 

If so, how would you suggest an alteration of the combat system to mitigate the pull towards homogeneity? In my view, the game is in a place where that isn’t possible without exterior intervention.

Nerf the things that are over performing, buff the things that are overperforming, make small adjustments until the meta settles, then change again still seems to be the conclusion I am coming to. I’d love to hear your thoughts 🙂 

(if you’ve posted them here already, just lmk, I honestly haven’t read everything in this thread)

I know I'm butting into this conversation thread, but you've kind of already mentioned the main issue with GW2:  there is no real hope to cull the bloat and expand the scope of general interactivity among classes.  As it stands, GW2 is kind of like a horse hoof that hasn't been cleaned and trimmed in several years:  akin more to a misshapen glob of rocky gunk than the end of an articulated joint; it's very difficult to perceive any clear role or identity within it.  It's not like one COULDN'T do it, but it's more of an issue of how it seems everyone who plays GW2 somewhat seriously will immediately begin to screech the moment when someone suggests trimming the overgrown horse hoof.  No "big voice" within the game's community would ever support it, and the devs don't really seem tuned to any idea beyond letting the hoof grow out forever.

It's not that GW2 needs help "mitigating the pull towards homogeneity," but rather that GW2 is already incredibly homogenous.  Unfortunately for the game as people have come to know it, the only way out of the rabbit hole is to effectively re-write how it plays for the sake of establishing actual roles and playstyle options.  That said, even if this sort of initiative were miraculously given a green-light, it stands to be said whether or not the dev team at anet right now even knows how to work the code well enough to turn the game into something which actually promotes creative movement, timing and coordination with the most interactive elements currently within GW2.  There are certainly plenty of specific ways to up-end GW2 for the better, but I'm not even sure that it could technically get done.

You're really better off just waiting the extra month for Elden Ring to drop lol.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Swagg.9236

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

23 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

If we look in GW2, to keep it focused on the present game, functions like dodge would meet the appropriate criteria, correct? It is a very simple mechanic, but can be used in a variety of ways creating a very diverse set of outcomes based on dodge usage. (Just trying to verify the application of what you said to this specific instance). 

If so, how would you suggest an alteration of the combat system to mitigate the pull towards homogeneity? In my view, the game is in a place where that isn’t possible without exterior intervention.

Right. Things like dodge mechanic have this property, of being simple but also capable yielding complicated and nuanced behavior.
 

Generally speaking it is difficult to define what it means for something to be complex and what is not…but the relationship seems to deal with the number of possible ways or configurations  something can be arranged…so it’s often referred to as “the possibility space,” or “configuration space.” More formerly is is called dimensionality.
 

You have a trait…how many ways can this trait be used? How many possible configurations of builds with this trait are there? How large is that space? For example, one can argue that the possibility space for dodge mechanic is much larger than say, the possibility space of “Rune of the Soulbeast” because the rune has very little ways it can interact with other things.

 

Interaction is also a difficult to parametrize concretely. When we talk about interaction we really mean meaningful interaction rather than non-meaningful interaction. It’s easy to slap a bunch of +10% damage modifiers to every single rune and say that they can interact with all forms of damage and that number has meaning…however if you think about this for a moment, you realize that meaning is a relative concept. If everyone has a 10% damage modifier on…then how is that meaningful? You might as well have no damage modifiers in the game at all if all the things in the game have the same things…and this harkens to what Swagg is referring to with the game being already homogenous to begin with. 
 

So the idea of meaning in the game is hard to define…but it’s also not hard to see what can be thought of as meaningful…which is the fact that you can do something that others are not doing in order to gain an advantage over those people…this is something that has meaning and this is what meaningful options are…if you have a build that works and does something people don’t know much about that is meaningful. Diversity in all sense of the word is truly what makes things have meaning.

 

And so think about it in the form of this analogy…that if everything was the same, that’s like being dead…there’s nothing to do, there is no change…while diversity is thr state of things being different, the state of things changing…it’s like being alive. It’s archaic yes…but diversity is for all intensive purposes the reason why things are alive rather than dead. It is what gives the world meaning. But all things must live and all things will die. There is no stopping entropy death…but you can at least make that life last longer and more interesting by having more diversity.

 

So to address your question, which is what changes are needed to mitigate the pull towards that entropy death, there is only one logical conclusion and that is to increase the possibility space of things…to have meaningful skills and traits and so on that can interact with many things in many different kinds of ways. This might require changes to how the trait system works…that might require freeing up utility restrictions…that might require freeing up stat selection…and it definitely requires reworks to many of the mechanics of skills. Tradeoffs are an integral self balancing mechanisms but those have to be done with meaning. The current implementation of tradeoffs are very flawed, but there is a right way to do those where the mechanics have meaningful and interesting tradeoffs.

 

Theres a lot more things to say and add on there but not enough time or energy to say them all.

[Ashgar.3024]

On 1/27/2022 at 8:28 PM, Gorem.8104 said:

The reactions on the OP's post perfectly sums up why gw2 pvp scene has died. 

Because Anet didn't have endless budget to keep it on life support like Blizz did with WoW's? Lol.

Game isn't perfect but comparing it to WoW's PvP and saying its less skillful is a take that's pretty hard to take seriously if you played both for any serious amounts of time.

[oscuro.9720]

3 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Right. Things like dodge mechanic have this property, of being simple but also capable yielding complicated and nuanced behavior.
 

Generally speaking it is difficult to define what it means for something to be complex and what is not…but the relationship seems to deal with the number of possible ways or configurations  something can be arranged…so it’s often referred to as “the possibility space,” or “configuration space.” More formerly is is called dimensionality.
 

You have a trait…how many ways can this trait be used? How many possible configurations of builds with this trait are there? How large is that space? For example, one can argue that the possibility space for dodge mechanic is much larger than say, the possibility space of “Rune of the Soulbeast” because the rune has very little ways it can interact with other things.

 

Interaction is also a difficult to parametrize concretely. When we talk about interaction we really mean meaningful interaction rather than non-meaningful interaction. It’s easy to slap a bunch of +10% damage modifiers to every single rune and say that they can interact with all forms of damage and that number has meaning…however if you think about this for a moment, you realize that meaning is a relative concept. If everyone has a 10% damage modifier on…then how is that meaningful? You might as well have no damage modifiers in the game at all if all the things in the game have the same things…and this harkens to what Swagg is referring to with the game being already homogenous to begin with. 
 

So the idea of meaning in the game is hard to define…but it’s also not hard to see what can be thought of as meaningful…which is the fact that you can do something that others are not doing in order to gain an advantage over those people…this is something that has meaning and this is what meaningful options are…if you have a build that works and does something people don’t know much about that is meaningful. Diversity in all sense of the word is truly what makes things have meaning.

 

And so think about it in the form of this analogy…that if everything was the same, that’s like being dead…there’s nothing to do, there is no change…while diversity is thr state of things being different, the state of things changing…it’s like being alive. It’s archaic yes…but diversity is for all intensive purposes the reason why things are alive rather than dead. It is what gives the world meaning. But all things must live and all things will die. There is no stopping entropy death…but you can at least make that life last longer and more interesting by having more diversity.

 

So to address your question, which is what changes are needed to mitigate the pull towards that entropy death, there is only one logical conclusion and that is to increase the possibility space of things…to have meaningful skills and traits and so on that can interact with many things in many different kinds of ways. This might require changes to how the trait system works…that might require freeing up utility restrictions…that might require freeing up stat selection…and it definitely requires reworks to many of the mechanics of skills. Tradeoffs are an integral self balancing mechanisms but those have to be done with meaning. The current implementation of tradeoffs are very flawed, but there is a right way to do those where the mechanics have meaningful and interesting tradeoffs.

 

Theres a lot more things to say and add on there but not enough time or energy to say them all.

I see. I would agree that this is a superior way to handle the structure and balance of the game, especially in regards to trade offs. However, I don’t see that as a real change Anet is going to implement unfortunately, given how deep and intensive a change it would be for the risk of players who are engrained in the current system choosing to leave the game rather than adopt a new system. 

I have some game-focused questions; all games will eventually move towards this state of convergence. Would “balance” changes be an industry wide method of not only finding an equalized state for the different classes in a game, but staving off this equilibrium state by reintroducing complexity via an alteration of the variables that define layer engagements? In this case, do you think it would be viable, for a video game, to use frequent balance changes to shift the meta as a way to maintain a state of complexity? I understand it’s supposed to happen organically, but with a game that’s been out for years, would it not be inevitable that the game would seek convergence eventually and need exterior intervention unless the set of choices are so close to being equally viable that every choice is nearly equally viable?

To me this seems to be the methods employed by long lasting games like League of Legends, which, I’m told, changes it’s meta frequently enough that players who may not like a set meta know it will shift soon enough. 

Would it be, or is there some sort of problem with simulated complexity from exterior intervention?

Thx for the detailed responses you’ve given so far, they are very interesting 🙂 

Edited January 29, 2022 by oscuro.9720

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

I see. I would agree that this is a superior way to handle the structure and balance of the game, especially in regards to trade offs. However, I don’t see that as a real change Anet is going to implement unfortunately, given how deep and intensive a change it would be for the risk of players who are engrained in the current system choosing to leave the game rather than adopt a new system. 

I have some game-focused questions; all games will eventually move towards this state of convergence. Would “balance” changes be an industry wide method of not only finding an equalized state for the different classes in a game, but staving off this equilibrium state by reintroducing complexity via an alteration of the variables that define layer engagements? In this case, do you think it would be viable, for a video game, to use frequent balance changes to shift the meta as a way to maintain a state of complexity? I understand it’s supposed to happen organically, but with a game that’s been out for years, would it not be inevitable that the game would seek convergence eventually and need exterior intervention unless the set of choices are so close to being equally viable that every choice is nearly equally viable?

To me this seems to be the methods employed by long lasting games like League of Legends, which, I’m told, changes it’s meta frequently enough that players who may not like a set meta know it will shift soon enough. 

Would it be, or is there some sort of problem with simulated complexity from exterior intervention?

Thx for the detailed responses you’ve given so far, they are very interesting 🙂 

technically there is no issue with constant shake ups. It’s like hitting the “reset” button on the system, so that entropy resets like you would expect.

 

However this option is…is not so much a solution than it is an evasion of the issue. It’s also a bit complicated because you can imagine that every patch we get is technically a shake up…however most of the time those changes “aren’t enough” so to speak and the game collapses very fast towards a homogeneous state…in pretty much a couple days.

 

one of the reasons why it happens so fast is because players are parallel processing the new information in the game (what Wolfram calls Multi-Computation ), and because people have memory, people are taking the information that they already know about the game and expediting that old information with the new information. If the changes made are “too simple” players can easily figure out and optimize.

 

eh…the best way to envision how this works is seeing the game as if it is a computation of some kind…and we as participants in this computation are solving little math problems. It is this process of solving these math problems that pushes the computation forward. You can imagine that if these math problems are simple and are decidable rather than undecidable then the time it takes for the game to “be solved” will happen in some finite time.

 

For example…say today Rune X has a 5% damage buff…then two weeks the game is updated and that rune gets buffed to 10%. Players will go and evaluate how much this change effects the builds they would like to make…and this involves sifting through all the things that rune interacts with…if that rune interacts with a one or two builds only…and the effect is a simple addition problem…then well it becomes real easy to evaluate that change and decide the optimal strategies. The time that takes is gonna depend on how complex that rune behaves with the rest of the game. 
 

That’s just one reason why updates are bandaid fixes to the real issues of the game, and we see this made evident on a l consistent basis already. The game is updated somewhat often, and the meta usually falls into place within a week or two after a patch. 
 

For games with less issues (games with more complexity) it’s the above is less of an issue because re-exploring a complicated game will take a long time. the tallest trees catch the most wind…so occasional meta shakeups to a healthy game, is healthy. 
 

So given the above there are other issues that are introduced, mainly the notion of how practical it is. Here I have a great example. Every few months PVE has a living world episode which contains a map, bunch of achievements…and just adds more “stuff,” to the game. If we imagine that the game is a computation of some kind…players are “multi-computing” this new information…by simply playing the game and doing all of this content in parallel. This content is usually completely consumed within a couple hours…compared to the 3 months to develop that content. The process of multi computation is powerful and there’s a reason nature does this because it is the most efficient way to solve problems.

 

So…given how fast information can be processed by players in parallel, how substantial do the changes have to be? That all depends on the complexity of what the update has to offer. Given the ratio stated before (a few hours to solve content that took 3 months to create), one would assume that the changes have to be substantial…and pretty much would have to be mechanical changes, rather than numerical ones. At that point they might as well just actually implement good mechanical changes and fixing the game rather than just doing constant meaningless shakeups to a flawed game.

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[oscuro.9720]

12 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

technically there is no issue with constant shake ups. It’s like hitting the “reset” button on the system, so that entropy resets like you would expect.

 

However this option is…is not so much a solution than it is an evasion of the issue. It’s also a bit complicated because you can imagine that every patch we get is technically a shake up…however most of the time those changes “aren’t enough” so to speak and the game collapses very fast towards a homogeneous state…in pretty much a couple days.

 

one of the reasons why it happens so fast is because players are parallel processing the new information in the game (what Wolfram calls Multi-Computation ), and because people have memory, people are taking the information that they already know about the game and expediting that old information with the new information. If the changes made are “too simple” players can easily figure out and optimize.

 

eh…the best way to envision how this works is seeing the game as if it is a computation of some kind…and we as participants in this computation are solving little math problems. It is this process of solving these math problems that pushes the computation forward. You can imagine that if these math problems are simple and are decidable rather than undecidable then the time it takes for the game to “be solved” will happen in some finite time.

 

For example…say today Rune X has a 5% damage buff…then two weeks the game is updated and that rune gets buffed to 10%. Players will go and evaluate how much this change effects the builds they would like to make…and this involves sifting through all the things that rune interacts with…if that rune interacts with a one or two builds only…and the effect is a simple addition problem…then well it becomes real easy to evaluate that change and decide the optimal strategies. The time that takes is gonna depend on how complex that rune behaves with the rest of the game. 
 

That’s just one reason why updates are bandaid fixes to the real issues of the game, and we see this made evident on a l consistent basis already. The game is updated somewhat often, and the meta usually falls into place within a week or two after a patch. 
 

For games with less issues (games with more complexity) it’s the above is less of an issue because re-exploring a complicated game will take a long time. the tallest trees catch the most wind…so occasional meta shakeups to a healthy game, is healthy. 
 

So given the above there are other issues that are introduced, mainly the notion of how practical it is. Here I have a great example. Every few months PVE has a living world episode which contains a map, bunch of achievements…and just adds more “stuff,” to the game. If we imagine that the game is a computation of some kind…players are “multi-computing” this new information…by simply playing the game and doing all of this content in parallel. This content is usually completely consumed within a couple hours…compared to the 3 months to develop that content. The process of multi computation is powerful and there’s a reason nature does this because it is the most efficient way to solve problems.

 

So…given how fast information can be processed by players in parallel, how substantial do the changes have to be? That all depends on the complexity of what the update has to offer. Given the ratio stated before (a few hours to solve content that took 3 months to create), one would assume that the changes have to be substantial…and pretty much would have to be mechanical changes, rather than numerical ones. At that point they might as well just actually implement good mechanical changes and fixing the game rather than just doing constant meaningless shakeups to a flawed game.

 

I see. You have a sound argument, and I don’t disagree with you tbh. Thanks for the informative discussion 🙂

Edit: I actually have another question; going along the same line of designing flexible yet simple game mechanics, would simple changes with wide effect then be more impactful? For example, to combat the boon heavy meta, give all boon strips priority to strip stability first. Granted there’s only so many of these changes can be made, but this theory and its application to real instances is interesting to me. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by oscuro.9720

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

15 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

I see. You have a sound argument, and I don’t disagree with you tbh. Thanks for the informative discussion 🙂

Edit: I actually have another question; going along the same line of designing flexible yet simple game mechanics, would simple changes with wide effect then be more impactful? For example, to combat the boon heavy meta, give all boon strips priority to strip stability first. Granted there’s only so many of these changes can be made, but this theory and its application to real instances is interesting to me. 

Generally speaking Yes. That depends on how the game is designed. If the game is designed in such a way, where a single very small change effects every spell and build, than the cost benefit of that change is very much in ones favor to do for a large number of good reasons.

 

However if the game is designed in such a way, where where small changes don’t effect that many spells or builds than you lose more and more of that cost benefit.

 

I spent some time creating a magic system for a game just out of curiosity using Wolframs model couple months ago, and I found that one can device a magic system so simple and also so complex that it really blew my mind and gives some perspective into how bad the situation is for gw2 design.

 

With needing to define only 192 parameters, the spell system I had created could make up to 16.7 million unique spells. (Not builds…spells) So if I wanted to change a single parameter, that parameter would effect up to a hundred thousand spells. So every change has a huge cost benefit ratio there.

 

Compare this with Guild Wars 2 which probably has around 6000 unique parameters needed to define, with close to maybe 1000 unique spells. The cost to benefit ratio there is at a loss rather than a surplus…on average you need to change two or three parameters per spell. Some of these unique parameters overlap (like say boons) so changes to boons for example gives a better cost benefit than to say changes to Rune of the Soulbeast.

[oscuro.9720]

6 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Generally speaking Yes. That depends on how the game is designed. If the game is designed in such a way, where a single very small change effects every spell and build, than the cost benefit of that change is very much in ones favor to do for a large number of good reasons.

 

However if the game is designed in such a way, where where small changes don’t effect that many spells or builds than you lose more and more of that cost benefit.

 

I spent some time creating a magic system for a game just out of curiosity using Wolframs model couple months ago, and I found that one can device a magic system so simple and also so complex that it really blew my mind and gives some perspective into how bad the situation is for gw2 design.

 

With needing to define only 192 parameters, the spell system I had created could make up to 16.7 million unique spells. (Not builds…spells) So if I wanted to change a single parameter, that parameter would effect up to a hundred thousand spells. So every change has a huge cost benefit ratio there.

 

Compare this with Guild Wars 2 which probably has around 6000 unique parameters needed to define, with close to maybe 1000 unique spells. The cost to benefit ratio there is at a loss rather than a surplus…on average you need to change two or three parameters per spell. Some of these unique parameters overlap (like say boons) so changes to boons for example gives a better cost benefit than to say changes to Rune of the Soulbeast.

That sounds really cool. That last example (changing boons) is actually along the lines of what I was thinking of. Based on a conversation in another thread, I was thinking that something as small as adding boon strip priority to every boon strip would have a substantially larger impact than class specific changes despite being fairly basic. 
Thanks for the conversation, it was very informative! Im still working my way through all the links you’ve shared, definitely valuable knowledge! 🙂

[Kuma.1503]

What you just described is homoginization, and it's what happens when you keep deleting options and nerfing outliers in order to make everyone "balanced". 

Reminder that the community asked for this. 

Edited January 30, 2022 by Kuma.1503

[Bast.7253]

Well, two matches for this Sunday.. Sundays are always terrible.. unranked... and both have been 500 to 100 losses. 

And that's pretty much been my experience for the past three weeks. I'm by no means a great player, but a 90% losing ration in unranked with the majority of the matches being blow outs and having streamers is probably one contributor to this game mode being dead.
 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

3 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

That sounds really cool. That last example (changing boons) is actually along the lines of what I was thinking of. Based on a conversation in another thread, I was thinking that something as small as adding boon strip priority to every boon strip would have a substantially larger impact than class specific changes despite being fairly basic. 
Thanks for the conversation, it was very informative! Im still working my way through all the links you’ve shared, definitely valuable knowledge! 🙂

In my view, based on complexity, the things that have the most impact are going to be changes that would inspire more ways to play the game. So it’s not so much a procedural task as it is a creative one.

You can ask the question “Does this change create new ways to play the game.” Would people create builds around the idea of that change.
 

Say we take the boon of Might and we changed it from giving +30 power and condition stat to a percentage based thing (1% damage per stack). You can ask the question of whether this change would inspire new builds…or would builds largely remain functioning as they normally do. In this case it seems likely that most builds would remain the same.

 

Lets say now that instead, we change might to something like “Strikes inflict vulnerability” which is functionally the same as changing its effect from stat based to percentage based…The key difference between the two changes is that vulnerability interacts with a long chain of other abilities in the game…so here again you can ask the question “would this change inspire new builds?” And the clear answer is yes. 
 

So the line between a good change and a meaningless change…relies heavily on interaction…and the complexity of that interaction with the rest of the game in order to create new builds. It’s the creation of new builds that allows the current meta builds to be usurped by new ones…and if there is enough of these builds that exist…where those builds can achieve their goals…then that process of builds being constantly usurped happens naturally over and over again.

Edited January 30, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[grx.8714]

On 1/26/2022 at 4:24 PM, lightDestroyer.1265 said:

Dude, weaver was nerfed hard a year ago.  When you have heralds,  holos and thief and u choose to complain abt weaver lol. 

I know you gotta defend your main, but right now no other build is able to survive a 2vs1 scenario on a side node better than weavers.

 

It's not broken like necro, but belong to the ape tier category.

 

Heralds are very strong, but on a full zerk and condi meta they need skill to survive, 1 burn tick can take you down if you are not careful.

Glint heal is pretty much a dead heal right now, shiro teleport cooldown increase is super annoying.

Thief is still better to +1 and help in team fights, and can also decap and to some extent stale on a node for a bit and even engage some 1vs1s so.

 

This being said necro and guards are the top priority problems, I am tired of those apes pressing 1 button and auto and using a fear ring and completely shut you down while guard can insta reset a fight with signet impossible to interrupt unless you have a good thief. 

 

 

 

[SKellox.8329]

 

 no need conformity to be skilled and carry.

[Gobcrack.9320]

On 1/30/2022 at 9:43 PM, grx.8714 said:

It's not broken like necro, but belong to the ape tier category.

 

I tried Weaver and it's def not ape tier, it's too many buttons to be ape unlike Necro with like 3 button rotations. 

[grx.8714]

11 hours ago, Gobcrack.9320 said:

 

I tried Weaver and it's def not ape tier, it's too many buttons to be ape unlike Necro with like 3 button rotations. 

Yeah, I mean it's not maybe noob friendly pick, but if you play it for a while became so easy to switch attunements and know your full evade healing cleanse rotation etc.

It's not ape tier like necro which simply press 1 button that gives him and extra hp bar and can auto you to death even if fails the fear, and shroud5 is undodgeable as well, then when out of shroud a guard just refill your health and keep you alive while you are max shroud again.

And it's the only build sitting around with almost 30k hp, so stupid, you are forced to full zerk on every other profession to be competitive and do kills and you are below 20k hp with such low defense.

And guard, geez, it is seriously too easy, aegis spam is kitten, and especially ress signet should be removed. They should remove every insta ress ability and cut in half downed state hp.

 

I had one game with a necro downed and ressed 4 times, because of all the ccs, the pressure, the support into him it wasn't possible to either cleave or stomp him, it's stupid.

 

But as I said many times, if you nerfs those builds, other kitten builds will appear anyway and it's a never ending cycle so.

[Shaogin.2679]

On 1/23/2022 at 10:44 AM, Gobcrack.9320 said:

Despite what people's opinions are about WoW PvP, the raw statistical data shows that WoW PvP is the most watched MMO PvP in the entire genre. 

 

It has Blizzard + 3rd party tournament support, pro player scene and a thriving content creator community which is why people often regard it as the best MMO in general and why it's been #1 for over a decade.

 

GW2 on the other hand went the opposite direction of WoW in terms of gameplay and decided to make it so that EVERY SINGLE CLASS class can Heal, Tank, CC AND DPS and now we have gameplay that feels incredibly spammy and everyone is now bunker classes with DPS which slows down gameplay A LOT and makes it super boring to watch/play.

 

Like just take a look at Necro for example, this class can be played at Core level and it can not only DPS and burst someone down incredibly fast but it has multiple HP bars via Shroud/Lich and on top of that it even has innate Healing, it can also CC incredibly well with fears.

 

This is a CORE class that not only BURST, it can BUNKER, it can also HEAL AND it can CC.

 

People in this community can't find anything wrong with this because guess what, Guardian can do this too. Most classes can do what they can do, so the meta becomes less about creativity and skill based gameplay and more so finding out which class can do the 5 different things faster and easier because at that point you'd be at a disadvantage NOT running it. 

 

People also love saying "You can play off meta", and that's fine because they're right but it has nothing to do with my point.

 

You can play off meta, you can play on meta, it doesn't matter. The gameplay itself is ruined by the fact that every class can do everything, it's lazy gameplay and it takes away role identity which further puts off a majority of gamers evident by the lack of people's interest in any GW2 PvP content.

 

Geez, we get it, you're bad at PvP so you decided to make this incoherent post. WoW has viewers because people are addicted to WoW and can't let it go, period. Studies show that mmo players have addictive personalities. WoW PvP is garbage, just like nearly every other mmo PvP scene because no one focuses on PvP. However, based on your description of GW2 PvP, let's me know you're some gold/silver player here complaining cause someone wrecked you. If you can't handle it, it's cool, go back to super infamous WoW that totally isn't digging its own grave right now. If you want to stay here, you're probably going to need to get used to the combat here. 

[lightDestroyer.1265]

On 1/31/2022 at 9:43 AM, grx.8714 said:

I know you gotta defend your main, but right now no other build is able to survive a 2vs1 scenario on a side node better than weavers.

 

It's not broken like necro, but belong to the ape tier category.

 

Heralds are very strong, but on a full zerk and condi meta they need skill to survive, 1 burn tick can take you down if you are not careful.

Glint heal is pretty much a dead heal right now, shiro teleport cooldown increase is super annoying.

Thief is still better to +1 and help in team fights, and can also decap and to some extent stale on a node for a bit and even engage some 1vs1s so.

 

This being said necro and guards are the top priority problems, I am tired of those apes pressing 1 button and auto and using a fear ring and completely shut you down while guard can insta reset a fight with signet impossible to interrupt unless you have a good thief. 

 

 

 

Yeah, no u r dead wrong.  Weaver is not my main.  I stopped playing elementalist months ago . Weaver can sustain a 1v2,  surprise!  A duelist can sustain 1v2. Fire weaver is pretty good in ranked,  but from the way you are thinking , you didn't even mention holo which is more broken. So,  i cant take you seriously. If anything, some classes need buffs like warrior and mesmer.  Everything else is in a good spot. Only guard and necro are overtuned with the bunker and rez due to nerfs on dmg. 

[recipesw.7453]

I don't know how, I got a willbender but nothing like what I encounter, some willbenders in pvp full heal the whole time. If not the product of cheating, this stupid special spec needs to be nerved a lot.

Not to mention that they teleport the whole time, thanks to 3 sword skills and other willbender skills. It's ridiculously overpowered.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

27 minutes ago, recipesw.7453 said:

I don't know how, I got a willbender but nothing like what I encounter, some willbenders in pvp full heal the whole time. If not the product of cheating, this stupid special spec needs to be nerved a lot.

Not to mention that they teleport the whole time, thanks to 3 sword skills and other willbender skills. It's ridiculously overpowered.

Necro'd?

Willy sword has 1 teleport and sword 5 which is kinda like a dash/tele, not sure where ur getting 3 tele sword skills from.

[Sahne.6950]

The necromancers are growing stronger by the minute.

[Burnfall.9573]

2 hours ago, Psycoprophet.8107 said:

Necro'd?

Willy sword has 1 teleport and sword 5 which is kinda like a dash/tele, not sure where ur getting 3 tele sword skills from.

 

"Truth Does Not Change With Time"

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

3 hours ago, recipesw.7453 said:

Not to mention that they teleport the whole time, thanks to 3 sword skills and other willbender skills. It's ridiculously overpowered.

*Leans off to the side*

psst. you. hey you. Yeah. You. You see this? ☝️

This is the next whine cycle for thief if they ever try anything else. This is why you can't have it.

That's all. off you go now. ❤️ 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Azure The Heartless.3261