Rifle Mech is now 28k DPS with 0 input from the player.

[Treacy.4067]

6 minutes ago, Tails.9372 said:

Because nothing about that term implies the presence of an actual imbalance and thus nothing you said in your previous post relates to what you are responding to at all.

And your response just now does not pertain to you asking me if I know what bandwagon means.  So I'll repeat the question: Do you seriously think people should remain loyal (i.e. not bandwagon) to their preferred class no matter how bad balance gets?  

 

[Obtena.7952]

12 minutes ago, Treacy.4067 said:

No the question isn't why it exists, auto attack already existed.  

No, you didn't understand my point. The question is why the LI power rifle build exists because it's entirely reasonable these changes are intended based on the explanation I gave. 

I know it's convenient for you to ignore the possibility this is all intended or avoid a discussion about things that poke holes in what you want so you can argue it shouldn't exist, but you have to address it. You can't just pretend it's unhealthy for the game  because you ignore the ways it's existence is a positive change for some people. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Treacy.4067]

5 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

No, you didn't understand my point. The question is why the LI power rifle build exists because it's entirely reasonable these changes are intended based on the explanation I gave. 

I know it's convenient for you to ignore the possibility this is all intended so you can argue it shouldn't exist, but you have to address it. You can't just pretend it's unhealthy for the game  because you ignore the ways it's existence is a positive change for some people. 

How many times do I have to explain my stance?  I'm not talking about LI, I'm talking about No Intensity.  And something positive for one person doesn't meant it's inherently good.  I've addressed it but you've changed your argument and also edited your responses so many times. 

[Obtena.7952]

1 minute ago, Treacy.4067 said:

How many times do I have to explain my stance?  I'm not talking about LI, I'm talking about No Intensity.  And something positive for one person doesn't meant it's inherently good.  I've addressed it but you've changed your argument and also edited your responses so many times. 

You don't have to explain your stance at all because the label you apply this is a no intensity build doesn't make sense in the first place. That's not how the build works when used in non-trivial content. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Treacy.4067]

1 minute ago, Obtena.7952 said:

You don't have to explain your stance at all because the label you apply this is a no intensity build doesn't make sense in the first place. That's not how the build works when used in non-trivial content. 

Yes it does make sense when there's no input other than the one button press.

[Obtena.7952]

4 minutes ago, Treacy.4067 said:

Yes it does make sense when there's no input other than the one button press.

No, again, there is more than just pressing one button involved when players have to engage with the content. Again, the measure of what the build does in trivial content is a dishonest approach to justify changing it. Implying there is an equivalence between non-trivial and trivial content where AFK DPS is relevant to each is also dishonest. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Treacy.4067]

2 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

No, again, there is more than just pressing one button involved when players have to engage with the content. Again, the measure of what the build does in trivial content is a dishonest approach to changing it. 

How many times do we have to go through this?  AFK means away from keyboard.

[Obtena.7952]

The performance of a build can't be divorced from the encounters it's used in to claim it needs to be changed. That's just dishonest. It's nonsense to claim power rifle mechanist needs to be nerfed, affecting PVE encounters, because of what it's capable of doing AFK. That's just not reflective of how it's used. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Treacy.4067]

2 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

The performance of a build can't be divorced from the encounters it's used in to claim it needs to be changed. That's just dishonest. 

Makes no sense.  We're talking about baseline dps for auto attack which can be used in any encounter.

[Obtena.7952]

14 minutes ago, Treacy.4067 said:

 We're talking about baseline dps for auto attack which can be used in any encounter.

Except the DPS originates from more than just that source. What makes no sense is to just isolate one source of DPS related to core engi and claim it needs to be nerfed because of a mainly irrelevant use case of being AFK to balance ONE specific spec for the class. That's just nonsense. 

Do you actually know the DPS breakdown of power rifle mechanist? I do.  

Edited August 11, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Tails.9372]

24 minutes ago, Treacy.4067 said:

Do you seriously think people should remain loyal (i.e. not bandwagon) to their preferred class no matter how bad balance gets?

Ofc. they should, if there is an actual balancing issue with their preferred class than that's A-Nets problem to fix.

[soul.9651]

Yes please keep defending your rifle mech 

 

How kittening delusional you have to be to even dare to say that this is balanced and intented...

[Treacy.4067]

11 minutes ago, Tails.9372 said:

Ofc. they should, if there is an actual balancing issue with their preferred class than that's A-Nets problem to fix.

Edit: Read that wrong because what you were countering with was exactly what I've been saying in terms of anet needing to fix the balance. lol  

And this is the issue, people are waiting long periods of time to get the balance they need so they are swapping to the same class.  That's not their fault it's broken, don't blame them.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Treacy.4067

[Treacy.4067]

15 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Except the DPS originates from more than just that source. What makes no sense is to just isolate one source of DPS related to core engi and claim it needs to be nerfed because of a mainly irrelevant use case of being AFK to balance ONE specific spec for the class. That's just nonsense. 

Do you actually know the DPS breakdown of power rifle mechanist? I do.  

Do you?  You don't seem to be understanding the situation, also look at the other video just posted by someone else.

[Obtena.7952]

2 minutes ago, Treacy.4067 said:

Do you? 

Yes I do. I've tested it. 

2 minutes ago, Treacy.4067 said:

You don't seem to be understanding the situation, also look at the other video just posted by someone else.

Yeah, I can see from that video that the person playing wasn't AFK. yet, you are going to claim that's EXACTLY why the spec he was playing needs to be nerfed. I understand the situation. I'm not questioning the fact that it's overtuned. I'm challenging the nonsensical claim this is all just about AFK DPS. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Treacy.4067]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

Yeah, I can see from that video that the person playing wasn't AFK. yet, you are going to claim that's EXACTLY why the spec he was playing needs to be nerfed. 

There's multiple issues at hand and it's not just afk.  I know that seems a tough concept for you to grasp.

[Kozumi.5816]

On 8/2/2022 at 5:57 PM, Anscenic.3268 said:

If this is intended design choices, I really want to know why.

Game producer mains Eng.

[Obtena.7952]

2 minutes ago, Treacy.4067 said:

There's multiple issues at hand and it's not just afk.  I know that seems a tough concept for you to grasp.

No, it's a tough concept for you to comprehend because I've stated Mechanist has it's problems, but AFK is the least of all of those because no one is playing mechanist AFK to get the DPS that people are offended by in non-trivial encounters. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Treacy.4067]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

No, it's a tough concept for you to comprehend because I've stated Mechanist has it's problems, but AFK is the least of all of those. 

So you admit that it's a problem at least.  That's good.  I tend to think it's a big problem but we disagree on the severity.

[Obtena.7952]

1 minute ago, Treacy.4067 said:

So you admit that it's a problem at least.  That's good.  I tend to think it's a big problem but we disagree on the severity.

If AFKing is a problem, I expect it to not be solved changing builds because the problem is trivial encounters, not the builds that can AFK them. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Treacy.4067]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

If it is, I expect it to not be solved changing builds because the problem is trivial encounters, not the builds that can AFK them. 

So the solution isn't to fix the problem? 

[Obtena.7952]

1 minute ago, Treacy.4067 said:

So the solution isn't to fix the problem? 

If AFKing is a problem in encounters, that's not addressed with changing builds. It's not the builds that allow those encounters to be AFKed. It's the lack of engagement the encounter demands from players.  

Edited August 11, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Treacy.4067]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

If AFKing is a problem in encounters, that's not addressed with changing builds. 

The encounters didn't all of a sudden break.  It's a problem with the recent changes in the balance patches.  

[Obtena.7952]

6 minutes ago, Treacy.4067 said:

The encounters didn't all of a sudden break. 

That's true the encounters didn't change. That doesn't mean they weren't trivial in the first place though. Just because you can execute a complicated DPS rotation doesn't mean the encounter wasn't designed in a way that made non-trivial. 

I mean, I can do a DPS rotation on an OW veteran mob ... doesn't mean it's difficulty of that mob is changed if I take a LI build and press 1 on the same mob. You're just massively downplaying the encounter interaction to claim the problem is addressed by nerfing the build.  That's a massive misunderstanding in what the most significant issue is here. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Treacy.4067]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

That's true. That doesn't mean they weren't trivial in the first place though. 

Thank you.