"Bring the player, not the profession"-- but you REDUCED the boon cap from 10 to 5?

[Tescao.3042]

23 minutes ago, Daddy.8125 said:

Doesn't need to? May I ask did you look at gw2 profit margin from the quaterly by any chance. 

Here's a hint it's barely visible on the graph. 

This games dying unlike every other mmorpg so maybe just maybe it's not a case of they don't need to.... More a case of stupid enough not to. 

Games on the break of a profit loss by NCSofts quaterly reports and you over there acting as if what they're doing is fine and people are ok with it 😂😂

My god how dead does the game need to be before you aknowledge a problem. 

Player perception isn't the problem. The problem is the disparity between choices. Your actively stating players should just be bad at the game to solve a solution. 

It's very simple to balance with less disparity Anet just don't do it. 

Don't worry buddy. Birth and death are just two insignificant sides of the same coin, in a boundless void. There are those who realize this and there are those who try to cling to certain events of the past or are in fantasies about the future, thus losing the opportunity to witness the moment.

[The Boz.2038]

47 minutes ago, Tails.9372 said:

Or to illustrate it even further: someone who wants to go around "guns blazin'"

Not an "issue". If group is full, yet still needs Role A, and 3 out of the 5/10 people in the group can fulfill role A, and *nobody* wants to do it... well, game gave you tools. You decided not to use them. Have fun on the LFG.

[AliamRationem.5172]

6 hours ago, Daddy.8125 said:

lol.

No MMORPG Balances to a "Meta Standard". however Every other MMORPG Gets their balance 100x tighter then Anet does, stop acting as if this a "individualist trait to anet" Because it simply is not. you arent Right.

your not Right, you simply blame everything on "meta pushing" and Attempt to invalidate good critism based on false accusations of this mindset you blame anything anyone says critically on the game on some "oh well anet cant balanace meta" Anet have not done "Exactly what people have been asking them to do for months" not by a absolute mile.

- No game balances based on meta. it doesnt exist, what games do is make Changes, Nerfs and Buffs to classes (or whatever system they run this on) to decrease the disparity by as much as possible to ensure "Sub optimal" Choices do not feel like direct "Wrong choices".

- Anets balancing is one of the worst of the Genre, and their metas tend to stick around ALOT longer then its competitors, its a Area requiring improvement

- you try to state they dont aknowledge roles as part of the game, yet their latest post quite litterally stats the absolute opposite.

- you try to Circle around the whole "Elites are to provide a new playstyle and not a direct upgrade" but name a Elite that is not "A Direct upgrade to core", because if u cant locate it, its because the game Never put those words into actual action. they simply stated it and did the absolute opposite.

- you try to say "More regular balancing Wont improve the situation" yet ignore the fact the vast majority of critic made towards the company by both the players, outside players and players who've quit is quite litterally because of how long things remain meta.

"meta standard balancing" DOesnt exist. Anet just do some of the worst balancing avaliable in the genre. thats just factual, they're also terrible at reworking and revamping Old Weapon sets which have lost value over the years which pushs the game into more and more "Correct and Incorrect choices".

I'd love to know what u think anet have done that the playerbase as asked for continosuly. because i've seen nothing but not meeting the Demand realistically.

it is Clownshow balancing. in no MMORPG i've ever played have i seen a company lack the competence to not have a Singular Meta build exist for 4 years, yes every game has metas. no matter what u nerf there will always be a "meta" but u just seem to be happy to accept Sub-Standard Products. your not right. U simply just blame everything on "meta pushing mindsets" and Never actually respond to the fact most are commenting on the disparity in proffessions and not "Nerfing meta" most players are aware u cant "Remove meta". they just dont want the Meta be as strict as it currently has in regards to good and bad choices.

how can Anet themselves admit they've failed at a part of the game faster then u can..... im pretty certain your litterally paid by anet to come on the forums and push these views.

 

I see you're wasting your time on the troll again.  Thanks for clueing me in to that ignore feature again, btw.  Very handy.  Saves me a lot of time and wasted breath.

It's funny we've been raising hell about the 3 god classes forever now and only now that it's going to affect box sales and the reception of the new elite specs they want to impress us with do they do anything about it.  Better late than never, but it pisses me off that they watched this happen and did nothing about it for so long.

[AliamRationem.5172]

1 hour ago, The Boz.2038 said:

Easy: by virtue of the game being more mature, and there being more sources of each desired effect now.

Mirror comps weren't a consequence of 5-man boons, but of exclusive boon sources. Which is where FB is at in Fractals right now.

I am very much 100% sure this is not true.
GW2 is one of the very, very few MMOs on the market that even allows you to play different roles and specs as each class, and is an example of one of the better balanced "metas" around.

I played WoW for years and never once saw anything close to this clown fiesta where you can open up LFG and find 3 classes sponging up 80% representation in groups.  Admittedly, it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison as WoW is a trinity game where people queue up as roles rather than allowing players to request specific classes for their groups. 

There were definitely times where one tank was preferred over others, sometimes very strongly.  However, since tanks were used for different things (e.g. using a paladin to main tank but a more versatile/higher damage death knight for off tanking, etc.) and it only ever really mattered at the bleeding edge of content anyway, it never felt like you were just straight worse across the board for making the mistake of not picking the "Chosen Class".

In GW2 that's just par for the course.  There's always one or more classes that are absolutely, ridiculously dominant.  They don't seem capable of dealing with it and they don't balance often enough so things stay in this stagnant and broken state for months or even years at a time.

[Tescao.3042]

10 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

wasted breath.

Sorry buddy to have to talk about this, but if you're not aware of your breath and you're breathing in autopilot, you're already wasting it. It is very difficult to count inhalations and exhalations for example in one day of wakefulness. It requires tight control over the here and now.

[AliamRationem.5172]

3 minutes ago, DomHemingway.8436 said:

Sorry buddy to have to talk about this, but if you're not aware of your breath and you're breathing in autopilot, you're already wasting it. It is very difficult to count inhalations and exhalations for example in one day of wakefulness. It requires tight control over the here and now.

Did you have anything useful to say?  Or is this just a demonstration?

[Tescao.3042]

2 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

Did you have anything useful to say?  Or is this just a demonstration?

your choice, your evaluation.

Edited February 16, 2022 by DomHemingway.8436

[Mell.4873]

3 hours ago, Daddy.8125 said:

Doesn't need to? May I ask did you look at gw2 profit margin from the quaterly by any chance. 

Here's a hint it's barely visible on the graph. 

This games dying unlike every other mmorpg so maybe just maybe it's not a case of they don't need to.... More a case of stupid enough not to. 

Games on the break of a profit loss by NCSofts quaterly reports and you over there acting as if what they're doing is fine and people are ok with it 😂😂

My god how dead does the game need to be before you aknowledge a problem. 

Player perception isn't the problem. The problem is the disparity between choices. Your actively stating players should just be bad at the game to solve a solution. 

It's very simple to balance with less disparity Anet just don't do it. 

The game isn't dying its fine the problem it's facing are due to the lack of hard end game team content. This change will help since it provides assigned rolls to a group. 

[Obtena.7952]

4 hours ago, Daddy.8125 said:

Doesn't need to?

That's right ... because it never has. Some people will let others play how they want, some people will tell others how to play. Nothing Anet will do will change that. What players perceive or believe is going to be meta has nothing to do with changes Anet are making in the game. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[AliamRationem.5172]

1 hour ago, Mell.4873 said:

The game isn't dying its fine the problem it's facing are due to the lack of hard end game team content. This change will help since it provides assigned rolls to a group. 

You think this is a sign they intend to support endgame content?  Okay.  If you think an expansion that releases with 4 bosses in a room is supporting endgame content, I guess you can go ahead with that line of thinking.  I see things differently. 

I see them moving away from fractals because they require more development resources.  I see them only fixing an absolutely broken state of balance at the very last second they possibly can to avoid wrecking the release of new elite specs (and then going back to more of the same minimal-to-no-effort on balance).  I see every sign of borderline maintenance mode on endgame content.  This is the bare minimum.  How can we call it supporting endgame content?

I hate to be so negative.  I'm really looking forward to anything new at this point.  I'm starving for more of my favorite game here!  But supporting endgame content has never been their thing no matter how much we ask them to do more.

[Tails.9372]

7 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:

Not an "issue".

Except it is within the context A-Net was setting. They said "Bring the player, not the profession" but there is effectively no difference in forcing either a certain profession or a certain role as both prevent the player from going after the gameplay they desire and thus the "Bring the player" part does not apply.

[Obtena.7952]

33 minutes ago, Tails.9372 said:

Except it is within the context A-Net was setting. They said "Bring the player, not the profession" but there is effectively no difference in forcing either a certain profession or a certain role as both prevent the player from going after the gameplay they desire and thus the "Bring the player" part does not apply.

But that's the thing ... Anet is not forcing people to choose a profession or role as a consequence of encounter design. Any forcing is done by the players, because content doesn't need specific professions or roles to complete it. 

Let's be clear here. Until we have content that REQUIRES people to take these roles or specific professions (meaning, they will FAIL in completing the content if they don't have them) the game is still very much bring the player, not the profession (it actually always has been)

Edited February 16, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Tails.9372]

48 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

But that's the thing ... Anet is not forcing people to choose a profession or role in how they design content. If there is any forcing, it's done by the players. 

Whether it's A-Net forcing it or the ones making the group doesn't really matter as it's still an issue A-Net sees as a problem and is ultimately responsible for and this will persist as long as support oriented builds bring disproportionately more performance to the table.

[Obtena.7952]

24 minutes ago, Tails.9372 said:

Whether it's A-Net forcing it or the ones making the group doesn't really matter as it's still an issue 

Actually it matters alot because who is 'forcing' players determines the solution. It also affects the definition of the problem. 

Put it this way ... It's unlikely Anet views this 'problem' the same way players do. So the probability Anet solves this 'problem' the way players want will be very small. 

I mean, my solution to this whole thing would be to enable people who are setting up a PUG team to mark their team for 'bring whatever you want'. That would actually solve all these problems because people would know what teams do and do not care about what builds people bring ... but that's not likely what you think should happen right?

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Tails.9372]

2 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Actually it matters alot because that determines the solution. 

Not really, A-Net can't mind control their players and telling people who just want to have fast and fluid runs to significantly lower their group requirements is just as fruitless of an effort as telling the average player to "git gud".

Fortunately for A-Net group requirements are inherently reactionary to how things perform so the only realistic solution they can go for is to balance out how much the various kinds of builds bring to the table.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Tails.9372

[Obtena.7952]

17 minutes ago, Tails.9372 said:

Not really, A-Net can't mind control their players and telling people who just want to have fast and fluid runs to significantly lower their group requirements is just as froughtless of an effort as telling the average player to "git gud".

Fortunately for A-Net group requirements are inherently reactionary to how things perform so the only realistic solution they can go for is to balance out how much the various kinds of builds bring to the table.

No really ... the solution IS based on how the problem is defined and that's dependent on how people are being forced. This isn't debatable. There are lots of ways to 'fix' this problem ... and I can guarantee to you that most players view this as a class balancing issue when it's not. 

Balancing out what builds bring to the table is NOT the only realistic solution. In fact, I would say that's a very unrealistic solution since it's very impractical to implement, as well as the fact that the 'forcing' isn't based on how close builds perform. It's based on what teams want because of how they perceive certain builds.

In fact, we already know this approach doesn't work ... because we already have some 'balanced out' roles for the roles Anet has defined ... but we don't see any PUG's asking for a Quickness Scrapper, Alacrity Chrono or Tempest Healer do we? 

The fact is this ... PUG's want specific things in their teams and that's not a class balance issue, because what they want isn't necessary to succeed. Balance isn't a problem if it's not a barrier to success. It's not even a problem in the first place ... people can build teams however they want and play with builds they specify. That's a freedom the game allows. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Puck.3697]

8 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

I see you're wasting your time on the troll again.  Thanks for clueing me in to that ignore feature again, btw.  Very handy.  Saves me a lot of time and wasted breath.

It's funny we've been raising hell about the 3 god classes forever now and only now that it's going to affect box sales and the reception of the new elite specs they want to impress us with do they do anything about it.  Better late than never, but it pisses me off that they watched this happen and did nothing about it for so long.

Haha 😂😂 sometimes I remind myself why I don't view her posts lol 😂😂 prolly a waste of time as usual 😂

And no problem. 

And yah, just hopefully the right changes happen and we see them dealt with properly. 

[Mell.4873]

13 hours ago, Tails.9372 said:

No it's stupid because it shows that A-Net doesn't seem understand the core of the issue. Players don't just play classes, they play builds to which the class is just one factor. Groups also don't just ask for general classes, they ask for specific builds that "fit the bill". To illustrate the issue:

A player wants to play "A" on class "X".
A group asks for a player with "B" on class "Y".

Now A-Net sees this and wants to equalize the factor "class" so that the group only asks for "B" and the player can play on class "X". But here is the issue: the player wants to play ""A" on class "X"" and not ""B" on class "X"". Or to illustrate it even further: someone who wants to go around "guns blazin'" on a purely offensive Harbinger build is not going to care (at all) about the other more support oriented options the necromancer class offers while on the other hand a group asking for a specific support role is not going to care about someone who wants to play a build that doesn't offer what they want regardless of whether or not the class that person is playing could.

The only real way how "Bring the player" could realistically work is by properly balancing how much selfish / selfless builds bring to the table which would require some heavy nerfs / penalties to things that focus on group support (which in turn would upset a lot of players) or some heavy buffs to the inherently selfish options (which is something A-Net doesn't seem to want) so that in the end:

what a support build brings to the table = what a hybrid build brings to the table = what a selfish build brings to the table

at least roughly holds true.

The only reason I don't play warrior is because he has no party boons, that kind of defeats your point. 

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

2 hours ago, Mell.4873 said:

The only reason I don't play warrior is because he has no party boons, that kind of defeats your point. 

No boons isn't quite right, they have party fury, might, swiftness, vigor, and resistance.

[Mell.4873]

22 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

No boons isn't quite right, they have party fury, might, swiftness, vigor, and resistance.

True but I more ment quickness and alacrity the two main ones for open world pve content

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

1 minute ago, Mell.4873 said:

True but I more ment quickness and alacrity the two main ones for open world pve content

Perma fury, vigor, 25 stacks of might, and swiftness are kind of good for OW no? Quickness and Alacrity are kind of wasted in OW PvE to be honest. But everything dies so quick in OW that boons don't really matter. 

[Zaret.1450]

just to make it clear for myself... whats the problem reducin targets to 5?

 i mean the idea of anet is, if you want to give alac you have mirage, rene, engi, thief and guard, if anet left one of them 10 man and the others 5 it wouldnt be balanced so thry need to either make all 10 man or 5 man, we all agree there.

now why make it 5 and not 10? have you ever been in a raid or fractal with a good group? you can literaly vaporize some boses with the dmg you get with using just 1 heal and 1 alac, now imagine if you needed just 1 quickness too, making boons 5 man in the end decreases the groups overall dmg and makes it so there are more combos, the base structure will be alac quickness and 3 dps, alac and quick being also healer one of them, also changing spirits and banners now you dont need a bs and druid by default wich helps everyone as now the meta isnt that static, if everyone has the same boons its just now a matter of whos better for certain bosses or compos but the diference is minimal, i can go engi alac cause i like it more or rene alac cause its simpler to use and both work

 

[Jski.6180]

21 minutes ago, zaswer.5246 said:

just to make it clear for myself... whats the problem reducin targets to 5?

 i mean the idea of anet is, if you want to give alac you have mirage, rene, engi, thief and guard, if anet left one of them 10 man and the others 5 it wouldnt be balanced so thry need to either make all 10 man or 5 man, we all agree there.

now why make it 5 and not 10? have you ever been in a raid or fractal with a good group? you can literaly vaporize some boses with the dmg you get with using just 1 heal and 1 alac, now imagine if you needed just 1 quickness too, making boons 5 man in the end decreases the groups overall dmg and makes it so there are more combos, the base structure will be alac quickness and 3 dps, alac and quick being also healer one of them, also changing spirits and banners now you dont need a bs and druid by default wich helps everyone as now the meta isnt that static, if everyone has the same boons its just now a matter of whos better for certain bosses or compos but the diference is minimal, i can go engi alac cause i like it more or rene alac cause its simpler to use and both work

 

Stacking more of the same classes and less room for ppl playing other "not needed boon applying rolls." That and EoD is the only means of some classes getting strong support boons and if you like any class that is out side of these 2 boons you are worst off as a player then other ppl. In a way you as a player are less wanted.

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

It doesn't matter what they do, Firebrand will always be king of supports because its not even about Alac and Quickness. Those boons are nice, but encounters are won by Aegis and Stability. The DPS you do from never getting CC'ed or downed by the boss far exceeds the DPS you do by having perma Alac/Quick.

 

The only other Aegis source we have is Mesmer, and Stability is the rarest boon in the game without a Guardian present in the comp, excepting a few self-provided sources of it which are heavily class-dependant.

 

The devs are looking too hard at the offensive boons and not the defensive boons.

 

On that note, Thief loses their main mechanic (Blindness) in PvE encounters due to breakbars. They need a trait that gives allies Aegis (simulating the effect) when they blind a Defiant foe.

 

Btw after thinking about it alot I feel the target cap change will hurt support Tempest (which I main) the most, since their entire Shout mechanic was based upon the target cap allowing Aura application to more players than Core Ele could do. Without it, Tempest is just Core Ele with Overloads, really.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Hannelore.8153

[AliamRationem.5172]

1 hour ago, Hannelore.8153 said:

It doesn't matter what they do, Firebrand will always be king of supports because its not even about Alac and Quickness. Those boons are nice, but encounters are won by Aegis and Stability. The DPS you do from never getting CC'ed or downed by the boss far exceeds the DPS you do by having perma Alac/Quick.

 

The only other Aegis source we have is Mesmer, and Stability is the rarest boon in the game without a Guardian present in the comp, excepting a few self-provided sources of it which are heavily class-dependant.

 

The devs are looking too hard at the offensive boons and not the defensive boons.

 

On that note, Thief loses their main mechanic (Blindness) in PvE encounters due to breakbars. They need a trait that gives allies Aegis (simulating the effect) when they blind a Defiant foe.

 

Btw after thinking about it alot I feel the target cap change will hurt support Tempest (which I main) the most, since their entire Shout mechanic was based upon the target cap allowing Aura application to more players than Core Ele could do. Without it, Tempest is just Core Ele with Overloads, really.

If it weren't for WvW, I'd say remove stability and aegis from being shared entirely.  We have a dodge mechanic.  It's brilliant and we should be using it.