Warrior Changes.

[felix.2386]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

Again, I'm not here to give you insight; you replied to ME to initiate this ... back and forth whatever you want to call it.

I'm here to ensure people see an example of where suggestions aligned with game intent lead to meaningful content on the forum. I don't get why you want to push that down. Do you not want to make meaningful suggestions to change the class?

because it's important for you to understand we know what you think and what anet think but what you think does not affect what we think in anyway.

your baseless arrogance seem to not enable you to comprehend

that what we think are not cause by not understanding what anet think, but we simply dislike it.

 

[felix.2386]

3 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

 

2. The Overcharge skills is so far ... the ONLY thing I like about this patch. 

woot woot, is that so, is it because you are not aligned with anet's intent of the class?

maybe if you understand the game and anet's intent of the class, and try to think around their perspective, maybe that would help

Edited June 24, 2022 by felix.2386

[JTGuevara.9018]

1 minute ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Oh we got results ... well, someone who sees the intent did anyways. 😁

In other words: the ends justifies the means. Yes, quite compelling. There ya have it, folks!

[prototypedragon.1406]

Can we get that magic find on banners now? please and thank you.🤯  I believe I'm quoting anet here " A Gift For Every Profession" can our shiny sticks have more ribbons please that flap faster in the wind as we  take Silverwaste shovels to world versus world while we dig up our banners as we stand in aoe?

[cryorion.9532]

6 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

You still don't get it. The measure here isn't reasonable or meaningful. I mean, we have seen Anet make changes that are NEITHER of these things. If people aren't going to recognize what direction Anet is trying to take the game, being reasonable or meaningful don't matter. Anet does things in the game because they have reasons, regardless of the quality of those reasons. That means there is intent behind what they do. No one is going simply state Anet's intent is wrong so they change it. The most relevant reason to change something is that it doesn't realize the intention of the design ... like how Explosions on BsW were not interactive, even though we had a whole weapon forced on us that are loaded with them. 

Well, I guess I wrongly assume that Anet intends to balance the game properly and fairly. If their intent is not to balance the game in a way that would make warrior profession fairly balanced on par with other professions, then there is no reason to bother providing meaningful and reasonable feedback/suggestions. I am sure people provided plenty of this feedback/suggestions on things that should be more interactive, things that are underperforming and it was either ignored or "it was not in Anet's vision". Not that it matters, the trust is completely gone at this point. Not that there was any in the last few years I suppose.

[Obtena.7952]

36 minutes ago, cryorion.9532 said:

Well, I guess I wrongly assume that Anet intends to balance the game properly and fairly. If their intent is not to balance the game in a way that would make warrior profession fairly balanced on par with other professions, then there is no reason to bother providing meaningful and reasonable feedback/suggestions. I am sure people provided plenty of this feedback/suggestions on things that should be more interactive, things that are underperforming and it was either ignored or "it was not in Anet's vision". Not that it matters, the trust is completely gone at this point. Not that there was any in the last few years I suppose.

If you conclude there isn't a reason to provide meaningful feedback ... OK. I have examples where making suggestions aligned to tAnet's intention for the game shows that's not true. 

If you are like other people and just don't like the intention, then yeah, I don't get why you would provide feedback or make suggestions either because Anet has to make a choice on how to implement the game. That choice is going to be based on how they intent it to work. How can it be any other way? Even if you want to change the intention of something, you still need to consider the framework of how  Anet would do that. 

I get that people are in denial here about how development works because they don't get what they want. Ultimately, you make a choice on how you spend your time if it bothers you that much. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[KryTiKaL.3125]

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I don't think you read my post ... 

1. I didn't claim Anet read my suggestion. I am claiming that if you recognize the intent, your ideas are more aligned with the reasons Anet does things. 

2. The Overcharge skills is so far ... the ONLY thing I like about this patch. 

You didn't claim they read your suggestions, you're just repeatedly reminding everyone that one of your suggestions was implemented into the game as a change. That is where people are getting the "arrogance" and "boosting your ego" things from because you have mentioned it multiple times now. It would be like if I went around into Engineer threads repeatedly reminding people that I made the suggestion ages ago to make Function Gyro a ground targeted skill which they eventually did. I don't claim responsibility for it, but I'm not constantly shoving that reminder into threads.

You're making this presumption that because ANet is ANet that whatever their intention is with the game balance that it is ultimately correct which seems almost purely based on the idea that they implemented one of your suggestions, however we have multitudes of past experience and past changes with their "intention" and it not being terribly good. They have a few nice spots, but majority of it is not great, especially when it comes to Warrior changes. The amount of times they drop the ball when it comes to Warrior balance passes I don't think we can even count them at this point, there are too many.

People vehemently disagree with the "intent" ANet seems to have with Warrior because over the past several years now this "intent" has not shown really any positive tangible results which is why people are so annoyed and disheartened; this is not a one time thing, it is a trend, a pattern, a repeating series of events.

The way Warrior plays, its presence in the game, its place on the ladder in terms of balance, its overall feel in the game is genuinely, as to my experience with a vast number of other MMORPGs, the worst implementation and continued "treatment" of the "Warrior" archetype of classes. Even just comparing it to GW1 Warrior was a vastly more enjoyable experience that had better "treatment" or "upkeep"; WoW does it better, ESO does it better (that is the "archetype" of how you can build a character as a "warrior"), Lost Ark does it better, FFXIV does it better, BDO does it better (now at least, it was rough for a couple years there), Blade & Soul, TERA, Rift, Wildstar (when it was around RIP), etc.

I don't think I have seen this kind of dissatisfaction with just how the Warrior class plays in any other MMORPG and the devs just so consistently dropping the ball on it. In all kinds of content too. In others you may see it flounder in either PvE or PvP, but not both typically and that tends to get mostly remedied in a balance patch later or in the next expansion/huge content update.

So clearly the "intent" they have should probably get reevaluated.

[Obtena.7952]

7 minutes ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

You didn't claim they read your suggestions, you're just repeatedly reminding everyone that one of your suggestions was implemented into the game as a change. That is where people are getting the "arrogance" and "boosting your ego" things from because you have mentioned it multiple times now. 

OK. I don't have a problem with that label .. it's made by angry people that simply don't want to face their reality. Of course I didn't claim they read it; I have no evidence they did. 

What's important here is to see that suggestions and feedback aligned to game intent have lots of value as feedback, because it's clear those kinds of suggestions/feedback have a chance in hell of being considered by Anet. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Fwog.9387]

Banner slaves now have to actually slave to manage the banner. Good changes. Also half the banner boons are completely irrelevent anyway at least in pve. And in wvw you probably aren't dropping multiple banners. 

Imagine for a second. If most classes got a passive, zero brain activity way to provide what looks to be 50% fury uptime with zero boon investment. Why would a boon class bother with fury at all? If you do not have healing power, you aren't providing regen because of how regen works. Resistance is meh, could have been protection or resolution and it might have actually done something but maybe pvp will like it idk. And battle standard has been nerfed into complete trash.

Were i to suggest fixes. Undo the banner pick up mechanic or let warriors move their banners once every 15 seconds (seriously why is moving a banner a big deal at all?) and make it less of a chore you have to slave over to maintain. With the banner changes warrior is going to be one of the weakest pve class picks. They just gave quickness to mechanist in a way that just lets them pump out damage with a 1 button rotation and bombs. Why would you ever pick a warrior for the group over them? 

[KryTiKaL.3125]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

OK. I don't have a problem with that label if it illustrates that aligned suggestions to the intent of the game are more meaningful than people thinking the game should work how they think it should. 

Sure, but how about you just don't also ignore that there are absolutely reasonable, and meaningful changes that ANet can make and just simply haven't while also acknowledging that maybe the "intent" they view for Warrior in the game itself is maybe...not so great and that is why people are having problems with these decisions.

This isn't about "Just make fast hands baseline" suggestions which I agree are a bit too blunt and possibly won't be "the fix" to anything, the issue with Warrior is more expansive than that; its about far more because Warrior is not in a terribly good state in this game and has not been for a good long while now. Far too long to be considered acceptable. Lack of access (especially consistent access) to certain boons, dead or utterly useless traits, dead trait lines, out of date/worthless weapons or weapon skills, extremely small offering of Utility skills in both PvE and PvP, lack of damage due to CC skill changes, underwhelming damage from so called "burst" skills that don't even remotely feel that way anymore, and the list can go on.

[Obtena.7952]

5 minutes ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

Sure, but how about you just don't also ignore that there are absolutely reasonable, and meaningful changes that ANet can make and just simply haven't while also acknowledging that maybe the "intent" they view for Warrior in the game itself is maybe...not so great and that is why people are having problems with these decisions.

This isn't about "Just make fast hands baseline" suggestions which I agree are a bit too blunt and possibly won't be "the fix" to anything, the issue with Warrior is more expansive than that; its about far more because Warrior is not in a terribly good state in this game and has not been for a good long while now. Far too long to be considered acceptable. Lack of access (especially consistent access) to certain boons, dead or utterly useless traits, dead trait lines, out of date/worthless weapons or weapon skills, extremely small offering of Utility skills in both PvE and PvP, lack of damage due to CC skill changes, underwhelming damage from so called "burst" skills that don't even remotely feel that way anymore, and the list can go on.

I'm not ignoring that at all. What is happening is that people are ignoring the fact that out of all the reasonable and meaningful changes Anet could make, they can only choose ONE of those. If they have to choose one, I can assure you it's the one THEY want. There is no other way for this to work. 

If players want to lobby that change and influence it as best they can, they are going to pay attention to the intention Anet has for that feature in the first place. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Double Standards should double up on the boons provided:

In addition to 50% increase of boon durations on banners they grant the following:

Strength: 5 might stacks per pulse (5 extra on top of what they present on Tuesday)

Discipline: Alacrity 1s

Tactics: protection 1s

Defense: Resolution 1s.

Battle Standard: stability, 2 stacks for 1s.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

I'm not ignoring that at all. What is happening is that people are ignoring the fact that out of all the reasonable and meaningful changes Anet could make, they can only choose ONE of those. If they have to choose one, I can assure you it's the one THEY want to choose. 

Wait you think they can only choose one? Why is it that they have to choose only one? They've clearly not chosen just one for other classes, they've made huge changes, multiple changes, to other classes in the same balance patch before. That logic doesn't track. Also it doesn't mean its correct, and again I stipulate that the consistency with which it either makes things worse or doesn't help the Warrior class is...well consistent and that maybe this "intent" they have needs to be reevaluated.

[Obtena.7952]

3 minutes ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

Wait you think they can only choose one? Why is it that they have to choose only one? 

This doesn't make sense. We are talking about Anet having to choose from many reasonable, meaningful choices to implement a feature, like banners. How many ways can anet implement a feature in this game? The answer is just one. The same version for everyone. This isn't BK. I don't get it my way. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[KryTiKaL.3125]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

This doesn't make sense ... if Anet is going to change how banners work, how many ways can they make that happen? Just one. 

Oh, thats what you meant. I was thinking more along the lines of not just banners, why couldn't they do something with the Defense line? Change up some utility skills? Weapon skills? They have had plenty of time to do so and simply haven't. One could make the argument "They just didn't get to it in this patch", but they have had plenty of patches to do it in over the years now that they've needed to do, well, better when it comes to Warrior balance and they haven't. Kind of only gotten worse, or in the case of banners specifically they really only went part of the way to what would probably help that skill type the most on the class.

[Fwog.9387]

8 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Double Standards should double up on the boons provided:

In addition to 50% increase of boon durations on banners they grant the following:

Strength: 5 might stacks per pulse (5 extra on top of what they present on Tuesday)

Discipline: Alacrity 1s

Tactics: protection 1s

Defense: Resolution 1s.

Battle Standard: stability, 2 stacks for 1s.

They wont give you a reliable source of alacrity and quickness in the same build. Oddly rev is kind of going to be able to provide both with tablet and dragon stance but the alacrity on tablet has always been terrible, and fixating on the tablet heal too long will cause the quickness to fall off so it probably works for now. Protection and or resolution i could get behind though. 

[Obtena.7952]

Just now, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

Oh, thats what you meant. I was thinking more along the lines of not just banners, why couldn't they do something with the Defense line? Change up some utility skills? Weapon skills? They have had plenty of time to do so and simply haven't. One could make the argument "They just didn't get to it in this patch", but they have had plenty of patches to do it in over the years now that they've needed to do, well, better when it comes to Warrior balance and they haven't. Kind of only gotten worse, or in the case of banners specifically they really only went part of the way to what would probably help that skill type the most on the class.

 The reasons they don't do something? I'm going to guess (wait for it) ...

... it's not how they want it to work. 

[Morghulis.5923]

9 minutes ago, Jaricko.6143 said:

They wont give you a reliable source of alacrity and quickness in the same build. Oddly rev is kind of going to be able to provide both with tablet and dragon stance but the alacrity on tablet has always been terrible, and fixating on the tablet heal too long will cause the quickness to fall off so it probably works for now. Protection and or resolution i could get behind though. 

They removed alac from tablet, only Renegade has alac now. Herald and Vindicator can not provide alacrity anymore.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

10 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

 The reasons they don't do something? I'm going to guess (wait for it) ...

... it's not how they want it to work. 

Right, we know that, and them "not wanting it to work that way" has very consistently not played out all that well in terms of actually helping the Warrior class. You keep making the argument for "intent" and "them wanting it to be this way or that way" or "not want it to work this way" and I think the point that isn't coming across to you isn't "Oh we just want it our way"; more precisely its a frustration stemming from "Them doing it this way is clearly not working". I think that is what you're not quite grasping; to reiterate it is that them doing it "this way" and whatever "intent" they have is very tangibly, and clearly, not working.

[Obtena.7952]

13 minutes ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

Right, we know that, and them "not wanting it to work that way" has very consistently not played out all that well in terms of actually helping the Warrior class. You keep making the argument for "intent" and "them wanting it to be this way or that way" or "not want it to work this way" and I think the point that isn't coming across to you isn't "Oh we just want it our way"; more precisely its a frustration stemming from "Them doing it this way is clearly not working". I think that is what you're not quite grasping; to reiterate it is that them doing it "this way" and whatever "intent" they have is very tangibly, and clearly, not working.

Sure, but here is the problem ... things 'not working out for warrior class' doesn't mean Anet are going to decide to relinquish their job as class designer over to some lobbyist faction of players to tell them what to do. That doesn't work either; there is no guarantee that's any better. Whether what Anet does works or not, THAT is the version we get in the game, because that's the business side decision making. Customers simply DON'T dictate to companies how they have to do things.

If we want to influence class design, we work within the framework THEY have, not the one we want to impose on them. We don't get to tell them how to run their business. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

11 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Sure, but here is the problem ... things 'not working out for warrior class' doesn't mean Anet are going to decide to relinquish their job as class designer over to some lobbyist faction of players to tell them what to do. That doesn't work either; there is no guarantee that's any better. Whether what Anet does works or not, THAT is the version we get in the game, because that's the business side decision making. Customers simply DON'T dictate to companies how they have to do things.

If we want to influence class design, we work within the framework THEY have, not the one we want to impose on them. We don't get to tell them how to run their business. 

 

"How dare you give me feedback on how I can make minor improvements to better sell my product to you. I didn't even pay you to do that." 

 

"Now buy this thing I made that is not at all what you want."

 

"...What do you mean, 'no'? "

[KryTiKaL.3125]

1 minute ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Sure, but here is the problem ... things 'not working out for warrior class' doesn't mean Anet are going to decide to relinquish their job as class designer over to some lobbyist faction of players to tell them what to do. That doesn't work either. 

No one is saying for them to "relinquish their job" over to players, more that they should reevaluate how they are approaching what to do with Warrior balance; they don't have to use every suggestion by players obviously and that isn't the intended outcome, but they should look through the many examples of reasonable changes suggested by the community and evaluate how to change their approach based on that. That isn't signing the design intent over to the players, it is simply taking into account what the players of this particular class are looking for and then coming to a conclusion as to how to proceed. Again, this is because clearly whatever the "intent" ANet has right now is way off or bizarre or not helping whatsoever.

Believe it or not, not every player is simply out to try and make the class completely overpowered, but there is an issue right now where the class is not doing well and has consistently not been doing well in every piece of content, or is just not fun to play due to certain aspects of how the class works. It used to be...but then this "intent" ANet had for the class completely changed that and it hasn't gone away no matter what things they have "changed" in the resulting period of time. You even said yourself in this thread that you questioned the Banner changes and that the only one you support is the one that was similar to your own personal suggestion.

[Obtena.7952]

16 minutes ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

No one is saying for them to "relinquish their job" over to players, more that they should reevaluate how they are approaching what to do with Warrior balance; they don't have to use every suggestion by players obviously and that isn't the intended outcome, but they should look through the many examples of reasonable changes suggested by the community and evaluate how to change their approach based on that.

Based on what though? Let's think about this. What if Anet did re-evaluate it and players still didn't like it? It wouldn't look like they did anything right? How do you know that's not what is happening EXACTLY now?

I mean, if you think about it, that's exactly what Anet did with banners. Players complained they weren't engaging and they didn't like been 'slaves' to banners. Seems to me the changes DO go in the direction that addresses that. Where are all these people who complained about engagement and slavery now? I don't see them applauding the changes.

You know what I think? I don't think players know what they want until Anet gives it to them. I believe players know what they DON'T want but only AFTER they play it. That's why I think it won't be any better if players are more involved with the design process. We got 10 years here. This is how it works ... 

Anet continues to make changes until players adopt the builds Anet are enticing people to play with those changes. It's THAT simple. There isn't ever going to be a patch where Anet 'nails it' because players just told them exactly what they wanted and just Anet just does it. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Fwog.9387]

51 minutes ago, Morghulis.5923 said:

They removed alac from tablet, only Renegade has alac now. Herald and Vindicator can not provide alacrity anymore.

I missed that fair enough. Vindicator support waiting room continues. But that is for the rev forum not here. 

My point remains. No alacrity + quickness. Exceptions could be made for self-boons but not group boons. 

[KryTiKaL.3125]

10 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Based on what though? Let's think about this. What if Anet did re-evaluate it and players still didn't like it? It wouldn't look like they did anything right? How do you know that's not what is happening EXACTLY now?

I mean, if you think about it, that's exactly what Anet did with banners. Players complained they weren't engaging and they didn't like been 'slaves' to banners. Seems to me the changes DO go in the direction that addresses that. Where are all these people who complained about engagement and slavery now? I don't see them applauding the changes.

You know what I think? I don't think players know what they want until Anet gives it to them. I believe players know what they DON'T want but only AFTER they play it. That's why I think it won't be any better if players are more involved with the design process. We got 10 years here. This is how it works ... 

Anet continues to make changes until players adopt the builds Anet are enticing people to play with those changes. It's THAT simple. There isn't ever going to be a patch where Anet 'nails it' because players just told them exactly what they wanted and just Anet just does it. 

They didn't actually change banners, though. They still function the same way, they just changed the unique buffs to normal boons. That isn't any more engaging...its literally the same gameplay, they changed nothing which is why people are displeased with it.

Also of course players don't know what they want, but ANet doesn't seem to know what to do either or this "intent" you were previously proclaiming was present isn't actually present. What "builds" are there to even adopt with Warrior these days? Its lacking in all aspects and is consistently not fun to play and they changed nothing about these things and have changed nothing about these things since they scuffed it up in the first place. Clearly they are doing something wrong, whether its listening too much or too little or my theory which is they seem to not be willing to fully commit to some things out of concern of player reaction.

So I have a question for you; what would your suggestions be for how ANet might improve Warrior's current state in the game? You seem to have some degree of insight into why they do these things, at least by your own assertion in your posts here.