Wvw Balance. What needs buffs?

[Thornwolf.9721]

1. Shiro rework
2. Herald and shield rework
3. pet UI and Pet's in general reworked to be better for ranger, core pets outside of birds are terrible. 
4. CC rework, not every cc should do no damage. Especially when they either cost a lot to preform OR have a huge cooldown
5. Hammer for warrior/rev rework.
6. General animation overhaul for some classes and some fine tuning to the rigs and animations so you don't looke like you're about to rubber band yourself into bethesda levels of "why".(Rev unrelenting assault on a male norn for example)
7. A rework to racial stuff, skills, armor and so on or additions of said content. Make it matter in some way; Doesn't need to be huge but it sucks that its been abandoned especially in gameplay.
8. Druid rework because it feels poopy
9. Chrono rework same reason as druid
10. I actually want all of the core weapons across all classes to be looked at, we all know the outliers that need reworks. (Staff on necro, daggers on necro, swords on warrior, maces on warrior and guard, hammers period. Heck even other long bows outside of ranger need to be looked at; I'd wager most weapons need at minimum some minor reworks. Bring them to the level of elite spec weapons so they can compete.) 

[Junkpile.7439]

Idea was talk about what need buff. Rev sure need some serious nerffing, but make own what need nerf thread and spam there how to rework rev so average revs can't 1 vs 5 against weaker classes.

[Shiyo.3578]

Literally nothing needs to be buffed.

Stealth, mobility, sustain, and burst all need to be nerfed.

All healing abilities on a global 60s CD.

All defense trait lines deleted and remade into something that fits the game(tanks don't exist in PvE, bunkers aren't fun in PvP or WvW)

 

  

9 hours ago, God.2708 said:

I think the biggest thing to 'buff' is the workability of core classes across the board. But because of game design that's not so simple as just 'buff core'

Please no. They already wasted 2-3 years of class design development trying to make boring core specs viable and now they're ALL trash again.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Shiyo.3578

[God.2708]

7 minutes ago, Shiyo.3578 said:

Please no. They already wasted 2-3 years on class design development trying to make boring core specs viable and now they're ALL trash again.

What are you talking about? The only core specialization that had any noteable changes was core necro with a couple of its shroud skills being changed, and core revenant got an extra skill.

Druid got nerfed. Daredevil got nerfed. Chrono got nerfed. Mirage got nerfed. Berserker got nerfed/buffed. Scrapper got... buffed more than nerfed. etc etc.

Some those were pretty exciting changes, but they were all directed at creating 'negatives' in (mostly) HoT specs. Nothing was really directed at making core specs better, which requires a mix of making their core only class skills slightly better, and in some cases making third traitlines slightly better. Ele, Engi, and Ranger would all require more in-depth looking at to be successful, but it's a far cry from the worst thing they could spend time on if it came piecemeal with balance updates.

[Shroud.2307]

9 hours ago, God.2708 said:

I think the biggest thing to 'buff' is the workability of core classes across the board.

I feel this way too, but that doesn't necessarily mean buffs for all of them.

Personally, I think core specs should be the most flexible option for every class. This means that every one of them can do a little bit of everything; Power, Condi, Support. Elite specs should refine and strengthen individual roles.

Although it is already this way to some degree, some things are better or worse off than others with their elite specs just being better at everything. Scrapper, Firebrand, Scourge, Renegade, to name a few, can fulfill every role better than their core options.

And when I say "do a little bit of everything", I mean do it well. 
I'm not saying something like core support Engi should be as good as Scrapper, but it should be a viable option, which currently it is not. The same can be said of other core specs when compared to their elites - it doesn't need to be better or even as good as, it just needs to be able to compete - to have it's own benefit.

[Shroud.2307]

The only change I would really like to see for a specific class is for Engineer to get unique effects for each Grandmaster Trait only when slotted with core. 

For example, Iron Blooded- Reduce Physical and Condition damage for each Boon you have (2%).  
Change that to 3% per Boon, but only when used with core.

Another example, Anticorrosion Plating- When you grant Protection to an ally, cleanse Conditions from them (x1)
Change that to x2.

I wouldn't want to see just a x1 or +1% for every Trait though, because some things would be ridiculous. My point is that I would like to see Grandmaster traits given a bit of a boost for core Engi so it has some appeal over the elites, and also allows ANet to better target buffs/nerfs without effecting core.
Like they want to nerf Juggernaut because Flamethrower Scrapper, but Juggernaut is a core trait. Would be nice if the trait was split between the specs so they could nerf it for the elites and leave the core version as is.

[coro.3176]

I play support scrapper in big fights, and let me tell you. Cleanse is truly insane. I'm potentially cleansing 1 condi every second from each of 5 players indefinitely. Purge gyro -> fumigate -> light blast -> medkit field -> heal -> shield skills back to purge gyro.

It's too much. It's not just scrapper that can do this, but scrapper is probably the main offender.

Having said that, I don't want to buff condi application, because that will make small scale miserable. I think it'd be better to nerf some of the shared cleanse and make those skills more selfish. As it is now, abundant cleanse negates a lot of strategy in the game when things like vuln, weakness, poison, etc. just don't work because they're always removed instantly.

[Xenesis.6389]

4 hours ago, Kanto.2485 said:

Keeping a blob-oriented balance in mind:

- Damaging conditions have been useless for a while and could use a small buff for all classes (maybe buff AoE skills that would not be used in roaming).

- Support tempests and warrior got hit by the 10-target nerf and got nothing in return, there is still no reason not to pick a scrapper as 2nd support.

 

Eh, problem with conditions in zergs is the amount of cleansing available, even worse when conversion is involved as you're basically giving them free boons too. You can boost damage for them I suppose if you think that one or two hits before it's wiped will have an impact, but I personally don't think it needs to be boosted, as they can still be deadly in smaller settings. For me I think first they need to look at the conversion rates in fights, maybe tone that down, and then maybe looking at less aoe and more personal cleansing.

Warrior support with banners supposedly getting reworked in the summer, I think tempest support should get a little buff too, maybe better play with auras? it's their niche and it should be an viable option for groups, like gyros on scrappers are game changer synergized support for what they bring, why isn't tempest auras on the same level?

 

3 hours ago, Thornwolf.9721 said:

1. A rework to racial stuff, skills, armor and so on or additions of said content. Make it matter in some way; Doesn't need to be huge but it sucks that its been abandoned especially in gameplay.

I would be very careful of this, and would advise them to never touch racial abilities or bonuses or keep it to fluff stuff. It's one of the reasons why a lot of players switched from Alliance to Horde in recent years in both pve and pvp in world of warcraft, because they have racial perks that mattered too much in combat. While gw2 doesn't have race restrictions to sides, it would still suck knowing that maybe you're using a race that's not as good as another and feeling a little forced to play specific races for your classes.

[Za Shaloc.3908]

#1 wish for me is for Scrapper to get nerfed. Group superspeed access needs to be cut hard and should be nowhere near permanently maintainable. In general even beyond the group superspeed, its kit is overtuned.

 

I don't think Tempest needs that many buffs honestly. I think it could get a bit more group stab access, perhaps through Armor of Earth so that Fire can still be taken for the cleanses. Tempest is, to me, close to where the power level of a support should be, not Scrapper. Scrapper needs to be brought down far more than Tempest needs to be brought up.

 

I'd like to see (support) Druid & Ventari both get buffs to their usability. Trying to cleanse on a Druid vs on a Scrapper is laughable. Not to mention CA being gated behind Celestial Force which can be a struggle to upkeep. Perhaps something can be done to pets to make them more functionable in large-scale (for Untamed's sake as well), but idk what or if it'd be possible. Vindicator makes a pretty serviceable support but IMO, Alliance is a better healer/cleanser than Ventari, so the curse of the tablet still remains.

 

I hope they iterate more on polishing the EoD specs as most of them need quite a bit more work.

 

I'd like to see Cele brought down in numbers as it is overtuned in its value (IMO it was totally fine before), and I'd like to see Minstrel's brought down to tri-stat. Will that ever happen? Probably not since it's directly tied to PvE, but I can dream.

 

I have more specific changes I'd like to see for balance, but this is more in terms of the broader scale.

 

Oh and I'd like to see all SA Deadeyes permabanned from the gamemode.

[RisenHowl.2419]

7 hours ago, SleepyBat.9034 said:

Stop right there friend, what's this insane stability creep??

If the goal is to open up the meta we'd need reliable stab on classes other than fb. Those changes would go a long way towards that goal lol

[Shiyo.3578]

1 minute ago, RisenHowl.2419 said:

If the goal is to open up the meta we'd need reliable stab on classes other than fb. Those changes would go a long way towards that goal lol

Stability shouldn't be a boon in the game, period.

[subversiontwo.7501]

3 hours ago, Shroud.2307 said:

I'm not saying something like core support Engi should be as good as Scrapper, but it should be a viable option, which currently it is not.

According to who? I'm not asking just to be facaetious, this entire thread is prefaced by Dan claiming that the support Tempest isn't viable while it is listed as a "good option" on GW2 Mists. I'm not saying that Mists has to be the end-all of references, but meta sites tend to have a curated and more narrow definition of viability than overall player ingenuity.

This is nothing against you Shroud, I just used that qoute from you as a starting point to question the overall motives here, but I'm chalking this entire thread up to the usual business of players who do not set policy but only follow policy whining about that very policy. It is becomming quite the entertainment on these forums, given how common yet illogical it is.

We can't have sensible discussions here anymore (about things like roles or what, why or how metas establish) because of people who are all about "but the meta says" without being commanders to enforce it or curators of reputable sites to communicate it.

I'd love to talk about topics of balance if it wasn't for that even the first post setting it up can't seem to understand what "viability" is, nevermind how most posts following suite can't even seem to understand what "need" and "buff" implies. Now, I understand taking some broader liberties with topics when threads come up, but these days its always the same cry, cry, cry about the meta and how people assume things won't work without putting in the effort to execute it and try it out.

It's the same as when people can't distinguish something being viable from the meta and that commanders likely tell people no, why, because they simply assume them not to be competent enough to form their own parties or execute as a party (the constantly recurring discussion of classes like Ele, Ranger or Thief in larger-scale content), as required. That needs to be underlined, good commanders rarely consider classes trash, they consider players trash based on those players' behaviour. Many times when something gets kicked or dumped into an irregular party it is either that or that said party isn't as irregular for the player's choice as the player itself may presume (eg., stab for my Weaver!?).

Overall players should spend more time befriending other players and learning to cooperate than they spend shedding snowflake tears over their whatever one profession or class (in a specific role, with a specific build). Once they've done that, they're better equipped to discuss balance.

Edited March 24, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[Jski.6180]

I am going to say ele but i am always going to say ele and mostly core but also tempest.

We need to see stab on more classes then FB, we need to see pema super speed removed from the game, we need to see barrier spam removed at some level, we need more counter to stealth and we need to see stealth fill an "aimed shot" effect (where you do not use stealth to heal but to land a big hit), we need to see classes (or there elites) be able to be part of the game play of counter play for boons heals dmg and tanks.

[knite.1542]

I think the traits on warrior and thief (maybe others, don't remember) that currently have 5 minute cooldowns need to be revisited.

[Shroud.2307]

1 hour ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

According to who?

In case I misunderstood, I want to add this

 

4 hours ago, Shroud.2307 said:

Personally, I think

This is my opinion and it is exactly that - opinion.

Support Tempest and support Engi are in two different worlds of viability. By definition, it means "capable of working successfully." And technically both can work, but it depends how you measure that success. 
Looking at things objectively and understanding where objective ends and subjective begins is how balance should be discussed. 

I'm pretty sure this is what you were saying, but I wanted to bounce it back in my own words.

As for wanting to properly discuss things, I don't think this is the place. I have better discussions one on one or in small groups than I ever have here, and I don't say that like I can't recognize an echo chamber. I like when someone challenges my thoughts, but a lot of what happens here isn't that. 

It's okay to be passionate or angry about something - I wouldn't blame someone for not understanding perspectives they haven't visited. But more often than not, no one wants to have their mind changed, they just want to rant.

[Infusion.7149]

No nerfs were mentioned : "What do you think needs buffs? ". I think quickness from Kinetic Accelerators along with shared superspeed on scrapper gyros (not the skills that just do superspeed such as Toss Elixir U) could easily be trimmed in half to match mesmer's master of manipulation trait. Before July 2019 gyro rework tempest saw far more play (also it means it hasn't been 4 years of firebrand+scrapper). Tempest doesn't need much buffs as a spec now that retaliation is gone , although "feel the burn" having 2 ammo as in their PVP change would be nice. Really what sets scrapper ahead is the stealth and superspeed.
Ultimately once you have both firebrand stab and a heal scrapper in a party then heal tempest is sort of redundant , so you'd either swap the scrapper to DPS and give up some healing and keep purge gyro or have the tempest do some damage and pretend to be a herald.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Infusion.7149

[Dralor.3701]

Don’t understand the desire for cele nerfs, yes it is a lot of stat value but it doesn’t make you awesome at anything. I get you think it’s a problem but then everyone will just go back to complaining about X, Y or Z other tanky stat combo.

The piles of boons need to be addressed first.

[Coldtart.4785]

The only thing that needs a buff is the nerf hammer.

[DanAlcedo.3281]

4 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

According to who? I'm not asking just to be facaetious, this entire thread is prefaced by Dan claiming that the support Tempest isn't viable while it is listed as a "good option" on GW2 Mists. I'm not saying that Mists has to be the end-all of references, but meta sites tend to have a curated and more narrow definition of viability than overall player ingenuity.

This is nothing against you Shroud, I just used that qoute from you as a starting point to question the overall motives here, but I'm chalking this entire thread up to the usual business of players who do not set policy but only follow policy whining about that very policy. It is becomming quite the entertainment on these forums, given how common yet illogical it is.

We can't have sensible discussions here anymore (about things like roles or what, why or how metas establish) because of people who are all about "but the meta says" without being commanders to enforce it or curators of reputable sites to communicate it.

I'd love to talk about topics of balance if it wasn't for that even the first post setting it up can't seem to understand what "viability" is, nevermind how most posts following suite can't even seem to understand what "need" and "buff" implies. Now, I understand taking some broader liberties with topics when threads come up, but these days its always the same cry, cry, cry about the meta and how people assume things won't work without putting in the effort to execute it and try it out.

It's the same as when people can't distinguish something being viable from the meta and that commanders likely tell people no, why, because they simply assume them not to be competent enough to form their own parties or execute as a party (the constantly recurring discussion of classes like Ele, Ranger or Thief in larger-scale content), as required. That needs to be underlined, good commanders rarely consider classes trash, they consider players trash based on those players' behaviour. Many times when something gets kicked or dumped into an irregular party it is either that or that said party isn't as irregular for the player's choice as the player itself may presume (eg., stab for my Weaver!?).

Overall players should spend more time befriending other players and learning to cooperate than they spend shedding snowflake tears over their whatever one profession or class (in a specific role, with a specific build). Once they've done that, they're better equipped to discuss balance.

The current best comp for zergs is

Firebrand/Scrapper/Herald/Scourge + X. 

Every time you want play something in the same role as the builds above you have to ask yourself " Can this build be played in the same slot as XY?" 

And the answer is always a massiv NO. 

Replacing a Firebrand with a Tempest makes the comp much worse. 

There are 4 Tiers. 

Meta. Viable. Playable and unplayable. 

Meta is the best choice. 

Viable means you can do stuff with it but lacks something. 

Playable means it's technically usable but the numbers are to low. 

Unplayable means it's not useful whatsoever. 

Here are some examples. 

Firebrand is Meta. Best choice available. 

Tempest is viable but even that is debatable after the 10 target nerfs. 

Ventari Rev is playable. It does stuff that's technically useful. 

 

The power level between the 4 top tier builds and everything below is massiv. And even if we nerf them, we would need to completely gud them if anything below wants to see any play. 

 

I don't want Tempest to be S Tier level broken. I want it go up from C Tier to A Tier. 

 

 

 

 

[godfat.2604]

There’s too much needs to be done, so I’ll try to focus on where I am most interested, and only talking about high level goals rather than how exactly it should be done. Having groups vs groups fights in mind:

* Better diversity.

* Shake up the static composition so we can be more creative. The static composition I am referring to is Firebrand + Scrapper + Scourge + Herald + Something

* Better personal stability or more skills that can spread stability. This is in attempt to be less reliant on Firebrand, or Guardian in general.

* Better personal heal and condition cleanse. Same as above, make it less reliant on Scrapper.

* More boon removal/denial for more classes. Similar as above, make it less reliant on Scourge. This doesn’t need to be given to all classes, but should be generally more accessible.

I am sure there are more, but above as a starter. For example, projectile denial should be toned down from reflecting/blocking indefinitely for the entire duration, or duration should be toned down. CC doing no damages and 300s traits are other examples.

[Littlekenny.4196]

25 minutes ago, godfat.2604 said:

* Better personal stability or more skills that can spread stability. This is in attempt to be less reliant on Firebrand, or Guardian in general.

An equivalent AoE stunbreak would be needed to compete but even then, tomes offer a lot.

 

Quote

* Better personal heal and condition cleanse. Same as above, make it less reliant on Scrapper.

Scrapper isn't essential because of being the best healer and Condi cleanse, it's because they are the best at too much. Healing+Condi cleanse+boon spam+superspeed+quickness+stealth+bulwark(+self barrier so you don't die).

 

Quote

* More boon removal/denial for more classes. Similar as above, make it less reliant on Scourge. This doesn’t need to be given to all classes, but should be generally more accessible.

If there is another class that beats chrono strips then it will result is less control of your boon output and result and less stability increasing reliance on FB. Also it isn't strips that make scourge so important since chrono can beat them in that regard. Scourge does too much too well e.g. strips + damage + cover Condi spam + barrier.

 

 

All 4 of those listed classes are too good at too much.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Littlekenny.4196

[godfat.2604]

I agree that it’s more because they’re doing too much. I tried to avoid nerfing thus more focusing on bring the rest to compete with them. I wouldn’t mind if we want to go with the nerfing path though.

[gloflop.3510]

All my opinion now

Optimal would be to have for each class a viable power roaming option, a viable condi roaming option, and a viable zerg/blob option (maybe this also split by power and condi or support and damage).

An optimal zerg and an optimal blob should still consist of a variety of different classes. It is not bad what we know have. It would just be nicer to have more classes viable like ranger or thief. Of course, this is just the major structure. Minor changes within the structure (e.g. less support classes, more viability of condi damge,...) are now neglected by me. However, they should also be taken into account.

With roaming, the class should have little outcome on the result of a fight. The result should rather base on the skill level of the player instead. This is currently according to our trials within the guild less the case. It is more like: class A > class B, class B > class C, and class C > class A. So, if I play class A, I dodge class C and try to engage with class B. Class B is trying to dodge me and focusing on class C.

[Acyk.9671]

deleted

 

 

Edited April 3, 2022 by Acyk.9671

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

overall, dps modifiers 😛

 

old and unusable skills and various traitlines need buffs.

 

the balance overall of the classes did not change much, everything got made far worse and unfun to play than it was in earlier years simply. therefore, obviously nothing needs specific buffs.

 

the new classes are bad for wvw simply bc their group contribution isn't much, their mechanics mostly not practical and their aoe dmg is weak