Were the sustain nerfs *really* needed?

[DaFishBob.6518]

4 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

It should have had an icd to begin with.  But adding regen is probably better than that for solo play anyway.

Did you just imply that having an ICD and a change from heal to regen is better than just having an ICD?

[Vivi.2805]

The nerfs have nothing to do with balance, its an age old tactic to get people to "purchase and play" the new content.

 

[Labjax.2465]

16 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

No, I'm not being sarcastic or joking.  I really am blind, and I don't appreciate others using disabled players as a reason for whatever they're arguing that has nothing to do with being disabled, like in this thread.  The OP complained about nerfs to skills, citing disabled players.  I'm stating that disabled players have nothing to do with the topic, so leave them out.  I then gave some, albeit anecdotal, support showing that the nerfs don't affect me in the slightest.  Such statements provide support against the notion that the nerfs inadvertently affected disabled players.

 

It is a completely different thing to state that you have a disability, how that disability affects gameplay, and how the changes to the game affected your specific circumstance.  I've done this before.  This method of discourse is less about complaining and more about informing.  I've discussed, in ancient threads, how in-game sound, or lack thereof, affects my gameplay.  I didn't complain and I wasn't frustrated.  I just mentioned it.  Some of those threads turned into others giving suggestions that had never occurred to me, and one player even built an application for me.

However, this is not what the OP is doing.  Disabled players are not a veil to legitimize your complaints.

 

Again, stating that disabled players are at a disadvantage and so nerfs affect them more is not "using them as a veil to legitimize complaints." What you are doing, in fact, is acting like you speak for other disabled players by trying to use your anecdotal "git gud" speak as a reason why it isn't a concern. It's not debatable that people with disabilities will generally be more impacted by things like this than abled people. That doesn't mean every player with a disability is now going to struggle more. It's just the reality of how disabilities work and you are doing people with disabilities a disservice by acting like this obvious fact of reality could be wrong because you specifically are unaffected. It's the same old tired git gud song and dance that people do in video game discourse ad nauseum, which is basically just bragging disguised as contribution to the conversation ("I didn't struggle with it, so why are you complaining"), you have just added a disability flavor to it.

The way you are framing this issue, you are acting like no one is allowed to ever advocate for people with disabilities on their behalf. They must back off and only let those with disabilities bring up the issue, if they are impacted. Even though most people don't even use forums to begin with.

I agree that sometimes people with disabilities can be used to legitimize certain complaints without really caring about them or their concerns and in general, it's important to listen to people with disabilities, not infantilize them as incapable of speaking for themselves, but I don't see how that is the case here and people with disabilities overcoming certain struggles in spite of them is not the same thing as the disability no longer existing or being a factor in things.

Idk if it really qualifies as a disability, but I very likely have ADHD and use lists sometimes to help me remember important things. If someone said that having too many things to remember in a game is a problem for people with memory issues, I wouldn't say "well I use lists, so don't speak for people with disabilities." I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but I have to balance that with the fact that your position amounts to accusing people of using people with disabilities as a prop without any evidence and potentially undermining real concern for them in the process. It's awesome you've found ways to overcome issues you've had with navigating this game, but we aren't all coming from the same place.

[wayneericgouin.9371]

5 hours ago, Valisha.8650 said:

"I agree, therefore it's objective". "It works for me, therefore all is good". "They were ridiculous, because I say so".

Truly, a textbook example of objective thought.

Don't take it out on me, I didn't nerf your runes 😁

Edited March 3, 2022 by wayneericgouin.9371

[Firebeard.1746]

On 3/1/2022 at 12:21 PM, Horus.8304 said:

Yes they were. Cause if you look at all the bright and shiny new Specs: They all have massive sustain. Some even have TOO much sustain.

 

So, now, if you want that confortable solo experience you were enjoying before then you'll have to fork up the cash and buy the new expansion. It's the classic F2P formula "create demand for the supply".

I was thinking this. And that's annoying. I thought anet was walking away from this nonsense with buffs they did to some hot specs late pof, like scrapper getting quickness. 

[Stx.4857]

I hate to think game companies actually do this, but I can't argue with the evidence...

 

Both Thief and mechanist have new especs that have incredible sustain, and A-Net nerfed the crap out of power Thief and Scrapper engineer sustain, even though the new especs were ALREADY better at sustain.  It really does seem like they are just trying to push the new specs on us.

 

I'm not going to speak for the revenant nerfs, because I don't play one, and it was widely known that they had one of if not the strongest Solo spec in the game partly due to self healing.

[Jski.6180]

The lack of office info about it make it even worst.

[PixelHero.5849]

(Edit: the following is apparently incorrect) Out of all of the sustain nerfs (Thief, Necro, Rev, Scrapper, and torment runes), it is worth noting that they did leave one case of letting players choose sustain over higher damage:  Scrapper.

 

While Impact Savant got nuked from 15% to 5%, Adaptive Armor was left untouched at 15%.  Meaning, if you're willing to drop quickness, you can have MORE (20%) barrier generation than Impact Savant's previous 15%.  Now, lots of players will whine, because the quickness was good and vital to the role, but that's the choice, isn't it?  The 15% was too strong for group content, but solo players that need the sustain to overcome weaker play can still trait into it.  That's good design and healthy for the game: allowing players to tweak what they need with appropriate tradeoffs (although the -vitality on Impact Savant needs to go now).(/Edit: the above is apparently incorrect)

 

The other professions/specs?  Nah, you all are just screwed.  No option or weighty choices to choose survivability.  Even if you feel the sustain was too strong before (and many people do), the extent to which these traits have been nuked makes them almost non-viable choices now, and fewer choices in your build is always a bad thing for the game.  Example: Why would you choose invigorating precision now over the other choices?   It's just dead.

 

 

What I feel should have been done is adjust the general numbers down, then adjust the strength of the other, non-sustain traits UP.  Allowing those who chose to go for sustain significantly underperform relative to those who opt for other choices.  This widens the band of options available to users of all skill levels, expands decisions made during build theory, fixes the problem for elite group content (where they don't need the sustain choices, and would always take the higher damage option), fixes these classes soloing hard content (can't complete in the time), and addresses the "braindead-choice" problem by making them significantly weaker, casually encouraging players to develop their skills to the point they can drop the crutches and play their character to the full extent.

 

In short, I think the sustain was only a problem insofar as the other choices weren't impactful enough, and so they were no-brainer choices that left the character at max-powerlevel AND sustain. 

 

But even if they wanted to try that, that'd take a full balance patch, which we won't have until summer.  Even then, I don't think that's the direction they are headed in. 

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by PixelHero.5849

[Obtena.7952]

Were they NEEDED ... depends on your perspective. That's not really a valid question though. The question here is:

If Anet makes a change, how does it impact the game and how does that change align with the direction Anet wants the game to take?

So, it looks like OP'ed sustain features that have low trade offs are in their sights. I have no reason to think they are done nerfing or that they aren't also lining up offensive features as well. 

I think there is STILL a case for Anet providing builds that allow lower-capable players to be successful ... but it's evident this will no longer come at a cost to the game that makes it trivial for the player that Anet targets as their main market. 

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Puck.3697]

Ngl teapot and more have spent a year continously stating videos on why these sustain tools needed nerfing repeatively. 

How are we not aware of why this happened? Because these tools were obnoxiously broken in group and Raid encounters and allowed players to ignore mechanics entirely due to the pure sustain. 

They had to be nerfed in PvE to end this problem as Anet have stated they want to make raid and fractal mechanics matter and required to be done properly. They are removing the "cheese strats" 

Honestly this game isn't even hard enough to warrant so much complaining. 

[Tiberius.3802]

23 hours ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

It should have had an icd to begin with.  But adding regen is probably better than that for solo play anyway.

Eh. Regen's a weak and extremely redundant boon when it's applied by almost everything.

[Puck.3697]

15 hours ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

I was thinking this. And that's annoying. I thought anet was walking away from this nonsense with buffs they did to some hot specs late pof, like scrapper getting quickness. 

i would honestly ask what proffession has High sustain in EoD...

Bladesworn? ya Spellbreaker has More sustain.

Virtuoso? Ya. Mirage is still better.

Harbinger? No. it Litterally has a Mechanic that kills itself.

Vindicator? only 1 dodge that requires Use to maximise damage? So u facetank all dmg?

Untamed? No more sustain then Soulbeast.

Willbender? Defintly not. Firebrand still has more Sustain.

Catalyst? Ye Cele Weaver stomps it in Solo capability.

Spectre? Nope. it cant use half its healing on itself lol.

Mechanist? Well i guess it gained a Pet.. but discharge holo is still better.

These new Speccs dont have Sustain. they dont have Utility lol, they're ALL Weaker then PoF Elites quite easily, this Rumour is Misinformation entirely and i rly Would like to hear Why people honestly beleive the EoD Speccs have high sustain, because theres a reason they ALL Suck in PvP and WvWvW. and its down to low Sustain low Utility. anyone trying to say Any specc is better off with its EoD Specc is generally being Disengious. because its simply untrue and we all know that.

Read just a Slight amount of feedback on these EoD Speccs.. its Swiftly reliesed.

Edited March 3, 2022 by Daddy.8125

[Firebeard.1746]

42 minutes ago, Daddy.8125 said:

i would honestly ask what proffession has High sustain in EoD...

Bladesworn? ya Spellbreaker has More sustain.

Virtuoso? Ya. Mirage is still better.

Harbinger? No. it Litterally has a Mechanic that kills itself.

Vindicator? only 1 dodge that requires Use to maximise damage? So u facetank all dmg?

Untamed? No more sustain then Soulbeast.

Willbender? Defintly not. Firebrand still has more Sustain.

Catalyst? Ye Cele Weaver stomps it in Solo capability.

Spectre? Nope. it cant use half its healing on itself lol.

Mechanist? Well i guess it gained a Pet.. but discharge holo is still better.

These new Speccs dont have Sustain. they dont have Utility lol, they're ALL Weaker then PoF Elites quite easily, this Rumour is Misinformation entirely and i rly Would like to hear Why people honestly beleive the EoD Speccs have high sustain, because theres a reason they ALL Suck in PvP and WvWvW. and its down to low Sustain low Utility. anyone trying to say Any specc is better off with its EoD Specc is generally being Disengious. because its simply untrue and we all know that.

Read just a Slight amount of feedback on these EoD Speccs.. its Swiftly reliesed.

I can only really comment on mesmers as I don't play a ton of the others and haven't played the mechanist yet on my my engi. Virutoso gets aegis on bladesongs and the power DPS I do from range feels stronger than the sustain I had on double GS mirage. While double GS mirage has amazing AOE, so can virutuoso if played well and it's way stronger. Also with signet of ether the amount of blade stacking you can do on virt is stronger than regen ticks (or at least feels that way, but condis can still melt me, mirage may be stronger against condi damage). Also f4 and distort utility is a strong iframe as well.  

Edited March 3, 2022 by Firebeard.1746

[Puck.3697]

25 minutes ago, Firebeard.1746 said:

I can only really comment on mesmers as I don't play a ton of the others and haven't played the mechanist yet on my my engi. Virutoso gets aegis on bladesongs and the power DPS I do from range feels stronger than the sustain I had on double GS mirage. While double GS mirage has amazing AOE, so can virutuoso if played well and it's way stronger. Also with signet of ether the amount of blade stacking you can do on virt is stronger than regen ticks (or at least feels that way, but condis can still melt me, mirage may be stronger against condi damage). Also f4 and distort utility is a strong iframe as well.  

but it loses Distortion. and Staff Mirage Just has higher sustain with a Perma Dodge build.

[zch.3127]

23 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

I'm stating that disabled players have nothing to do with the topic, so leave them out.  I then gave some, albeit anecdotal, support showing that the nerfs don't affect me in the slightest.  Such statements provide support against the notion that the nerfs inadvertently affected disabled players.

 

I guess I'll chime in on this.

Over the past year I've lost quite a lot of function in one of my hands due to a neuromuscular disorder. I haven't been mouse-only for a while, thankfully, but in longer fights and particularly long metas I start having to choose between moving my character and using my skills, because my shaky, rigid claw can't do both.

So yes, I certainly appreciated Invigorating Precision for helping to take the pressure off, and I do think the nerfs were excessive and largely unwarranted. But after making a few adjustments to my build (which I should have made ages ago anyway), I suspect my worst case scenario for solo play might be... simply having to put Shadow Refuge onto my skill bar instead of Fist Flurry.

So, for me, the sky's not actually falling, it's just kinda rainy.

Edited March 4, 2022 by zch.3127

[miriforst.1290]

15 hours ago, PixelHero.5849 said:

Out of all of the sustain nerfs (Thief, Necro, Rev, Scrapper, and torment runes), it is worth noting that they did leave one case of letting players choose sustain over higher damage:  Scrapper.

 

While Impact Savant got nuked from 15% to 5%, Adaptive Armor was left untouched at 15%.  Meaning, if you're willing to drop quickness, you can have MORE (20%) barrier generation than Impact Savant's previous 15%.  Now, lots of players will whine, because the quickness was good and vital to the role, but that's the choice, isn't it?  The 15% was too strong for group content, but solo players that need the sustain to overcome weaker play can still trait into it.  That's good design and healthy for the game: allowing players to tweak what they need with appropriate tradeoffs (although the -vitality on Impact Savant needs to go now).

 

That's... not how it works (would be interesting if it did however). Adaptive armor isn't directly tied to impact savant. It increases all barrier gain by 15%. That means that if all barrier gain is halved let's say, then so is the barrier gain from this trait. So if anything it's even less of a choice if you aren't expecting to generate as much barrier. What gives this away as a bad faith nerf to push sales (with engineer as an example) is the following:

The mechanist pukes a ton of barrier not only on him self but his allies and is expected to run condi heavy builds. To promote our expansion (again this is an engineer specific example, i am not versed enough with the others) let us now:

a) Nerf scrappers (selfish) barrier sustain to make people more impressed when they see those mechanist barriers (aoe).

b) Nerf a core engineer condi skill which shines at stationary long lasting encounters (thin line pulsing burning) in favor of the burning slapped on to a variety of pulsing confusion fields on mechanist.

c) Avoid mentioning these and similar nerfs (afaik) across the board for all professions in the patch notes motivation which is supposed to highlight the most important changes and why they are making them. Only list the technical changes because if they snuck this in without that there would be a *massive* outrage. So they tried being as sneaky as they could get away with.

 

These are small changes meant to puncture your tire to sell you a new car (that you likely would have bought anyway).

I was thinking of buying EOD if it was well received after release, but for now i am holding out and awaiting the next big balance update. When was that again? Summer?

Edited March 4, 2022 by miriforst.1290

[Puck.3697]

2 hours ago, miriforst.1290 said:

That's... not how it works (would be interesting if it did however). Adaptive armor isn't directly tied to impact savant. It increases all barrier gain by 15%. That means that if all barrier gain is halved let's say, then so is the barrier gain from this trait. So if anything it's even less of a choice if you aren't expecting to generate as much barrier. What gives this away as a bad faith nerf to push sales (with engineer as an example) is the following:

The mechanist pukes a ton of barrier not only on him self but his allies and is expected to run condi heavy builds. To promote our expansion (again this is an engineer specific example, i am not versed enough with the others) let us now:

a) Nerf scrappers (selfish) barrier sustain to make people more impressed when they see those mechanist barriers (aoe).

b) Nerf a core engineer condi skill which shines at stationary long lasting encounters (thin line pulsing burning) in favor of the burning slapped on to a variety of pulsing confusion fields on mechanist.

c) Avoid mentioning these and similar nerfs (afaik) across the board for all professions in the patch notes motivation which is supposed to highlight the most important changes and why they are making them. Only list the technical changes because if they snuck this in without that there would be a *massive* outrage. So they tried being as sneaky as they could get away with.

 

These are small changes meant to puncture your tire to sell you a new car (that you likely would have bought anyway).

I was thinking of buying EOD if it was well received after release, but for now i am holding out and awaiting the next big balance update. When was that again? Summer?

I just dont buy it im sorry.

I think the likelyhood is, this is more in line with creating their trinity.

Mechanist is the Support specc, Barrier is a Support ability, Scrapper is realistically a Power DPS. EoDs fine. if ur waiting out for a patch i wouldnt. its far more likely it's going to be More nerfs as they reverting power creep.

i feel like players currently are trying harder to demonize Anets actions here more then actually fairly critic.

Passive Sustain has been a Painful point of GW2 and there has been far too much of it realistically. and i think people have just become too used to being Overpowered that anything less is being percieved badly realistically.

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Daddy.8125

[Infinity.2876]

On 3/2/2022 at 4:46 PM, Valisha.8650 said:

>jade bot

That will kinda put newer players at disadvantage. Or incentivize them rushing the story to obtain it, just like a lot of people do with mounts, the scale in particular.

The jade bot doesnt give much sustain from vitality because vitality means a teeny bit more health. More health only delays the inevitable because you don't have constant healing/protection(barrier and the protection boon)

[draxynnic.3719]

22 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Were they NEEDED ... depends on your perspective. That's not really a valid question though. The question here is:

If Anet makes a change, how does it impact the game and how does that change align with the direction Anet wants the game to take?

 

"Is the direction ArenaNet is taking the game actually a good direction?" is a valid question to ask, and if the answer is no, criticising that direction is valid feedback.

[Obtena.7952]

46 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

"Is the direction ArenaNet is taking the game actually a good direction?" is a valid question to ask, and if the answer is no, criticising that direction is valid feedback.

Yup ... and who answers that question? Anet, because this is a business. This question is assessed based on business metrics. 

[mindcircus.1506]

1 hour ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

"Is the direction ArenaNet is taking the game actually a good direction?" is a valid question to ask, and if the answer is no, criticising that direction is valid feedback.

That's a very different question than the dozen threads on this topic have asked.

And it probably is the right question to ask if you don't like the changes.

 

Unfortunately, however these threads are filled with people acting like children:
Accusing Anet of doing it to sell the Xpac (despite the fact that the vast majority of EoD specs are far less powerful than PoF specs).
Positioning these changes as wholesale attacks against "Solo" or "Casual" players.
Telling Anet that busted specs are needed to accommodate disabled players (desipite having no disabilities)
Telling Anet that busted specs are needed to accommodate "high ping".
Attempting to position builds that were clearly obliterating the dodge mechanic with positive names like "Low Impact".

At no point has someone said "these changes make the game harder, the changes to average open world mobs makes them harder, the changes in the story missions makes them harder. Is this the right direction?", It's a valid topic and feedback on it would be healthy.

What's not healthy s the hyperbole, lies, false rhetoric and mob mentality that has been shown by the vast majority of players looking grind this axe after being made to dodge and work ingame mechanics.

Edited March 4, 2022 by mindcircus.1506

[draxynnic.3719]

On 3/5/2022 at 3:33 AM, Obtena.7952 said:

Yup ... and who answers that question? Anet, because this is a business. This question is assessed based on business metrics. 

Until enough customers decide they dislike the direction enough to leave that the business dies. Sooner or later any business needs to listen to what the customers want or it will die.

Trying to shut down all feedback on the basis that it's ArenaNet's game and they can do whatever they like with it regardless of what the player base wants is not productive. It's technically true, but if the direction that ArenaNet takes the game is far enough away from the direction that the players want, sooner or later it will die.

[Obtena.7952]

19 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Until enough customers decide they dislike the direction enough to leave that the business dies. Sooner or later any business needs to listen to what the customers want or it will die.

Trying to shut down all feedback on the basis that it's ArenaNet's game and they can do whatever they like with it regardless of what the player base wants is not productive. It's technically true, but if the direction that ArenaNet takes the game is far enough away from the direction that the players want, sooner or later it will die.

Sure all that goes without saying but some people not liking the changes can't be a reason for Anet to not change things. You're just supporting my point you quoted. These changes are business decisions. There isn't any feedback being shut down here. Do you not think Anet is already aware that some people won't like these changes, yet they made them anyways?

There is almost no valid reason to simply make threads that say "Hey, I don't like this" ... Guess what ... Anet already knows some people won't like it and also, the game doesn't cater to everything everyone likes (because it can't). This will show up in their metrics for how they measure the game. 

The valid feedback is "This isn't a good change because ... " Personally, I think this isn't a good change because it impacts low capability players the most. 

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[draxynnic.3719]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

Sure all that goes without saying but some people not liking the changes can't be a reason for Anet to not change things. 

 

Sure, but they need to have some means of evaluating whether a move is popular or not, and at the bottom line, 'the company can do what they like because it's their product' is never a good answer to criticism.

[Obtena.7952]

2 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Sure, but they need to have some means of evaluating whether a move is popular or not, and at the bottom line, 'the company can do what they like because it's their product' is never a good answer to criticism.

You don't think they have that then? I think they do. It's evident in the patch notes when they say "Hey, we are buffing this because not enough people play it". 

That's the problem with these threads ... they are primarily based on the assumption that Anet is simply making changes and not considering the impact to players and the business. People just WANT to believe that because they think they have a case for Anet reverting the change. 

Edited March 6, 2022 by Obtena.7952