Mech haters - Do you really want harder builds to be stronger?

[Kuma.1503]

I know that's what many claim. Lately Mech has been a hot topic in just about every aspect of the game. Issues mainly stem from it's ease of use and general durability, but to all the people complaining that mech is too easy and too effective, I have to ask. 

Where were all of you during PoF?

For the longest time, for the 3-4 years since I've been playing this game, Engineer has been among the least desirable classes in PvE. It only excelled in the DPS role, and even at this job, it was outclassed. You never LFG'd for an engineer, we didn't have that special mechanic, unique buff, or boon that had groups looking for us. We were warm bodies to fill in space one you managed to fill all of the important roles in your group. 

And sitting comfortably at the bottom of the barrel in the list of "Warm bodies" to choose from, was Core condi engineer. 

A high intensity, high APM, high skill build. 

With mediocre dps. 

It was also so undesirable, that snowcrows eventually dropped it from their benchmark list. Despite the effort that went into playing it, it wasn't considered worth the effort. 

 

Yet everyone complaining about Mech today were more than happy to go about their day, ignoring this dead build, happily out dpsing the enigneer players attempting to play it despite the fact that their build was not only easier, but provided far more value. 

To this day, core condi engineer is still a dead build, and even condi holo has fallen out of favor, but I don't hear people arguing how that's a problem, how either of these high intensity builds should be rewarded for the effort they put in.

So for people who want Mech nerfed, ask yourself, are you so upset about it because an easy build is outperforming a harder build? Or is it because you're upset that YOUR build isn't able to be top dog on the DPS charts as often as you'd like? 

[Holly.8190]

I wasn't playing at PoFs launch i left just after Season 1 and returned almost 3 years ago, Engineer was the first class i gravitated towards. When i first started playing i had a Scrapper Healer(Pre-Quick) and a Condi Holo, I still play both of these builds a lot. I regularly Top the DPS in Raids/Strikes on my Condi Holo using 3 kits but since then i have also started playing both Power Scrapper and Holo with a Hammer and Sword/Pistol respectively. I hated Mechanist the moment it was announced but i tried to give it a fair shake in the Betas, I started to hate it more after actually playing it. 

My Issue with Mechanist isn't so much that it is easy but that it doesn't feel like Engineer, I have long said that Mechanist is basically what the Ranger Elite should have been. A Super strong pet in a beastmaster role, instead they got Untamed which until recently has been nothing but a joke. If i wanted to play a pet based class i would play Ranger but I don't, If Mechanist was top DPS as a Ranger spec i would be annoyed at it dominating the meta but not because its LI but because it outperforms classes that have to try hard. 

Maybe the way isn't to nerf mechanist but to buff Higher APM classes, I don't know I am not a dev. But anyone who says that Mechs being 25% of the Player Base in Raids/Strikes is healthy for the game is just wrong imo, Build diversity is what Anet is going for but Mechanist and Firebrand are making that Obsolete. I know my opinion is Probably controversial as i have spoken to guild members in game and on discord about this but that's just how i feel.

[coro.3176]

1 hour ago, Kuma.1503 said:

To this day, core condi engineer is still a dead build, and even condi holo has fallen out of favor, but I don't hear people arguing how that's a problem, how either of these high intensity builds should be rewarded for the effort they put in.

So for people who want Mech nerfed, ask yourself, are you so upset about it because an easy build is outperforming a harder build? Or is it because you're upset that YOUR build isn't able to be top dog on the DPS charts as often as you'd like? 

 

I'm sad that standing and auto-attacking is better than trying to use mechanics that *should* be good but are ultimately worse.

Example: Thermal Release Valve . This is such a cool trait. You're gambling your survival resource to do damage and keep your heat down. If you aren't careful, you won't be able to manage your heat or move out of mechanics when you need to. Risk/reward! .. except no. Even with full condi stats and full burn duration, it's not worth spending the 0.75s to dodge when you and your mech could be auto-ing.

I dunno. It's a tough problem. Thermal Release Valve doesn't need to be buffed. It does enough damage actually. It's the boons (quickness and alac were a mistake) and all the stacking power multipliers that are too good. It's frustrating because with the pace of balance in this game, it'll probably never change. All in all, it means I just play PvE less because I don't want to play boring builds like mech, but I don't want to play fun builds like condi holo and feel like I'm letting down the team.

Edited August 5, 2022 by coro.3176

[Kuma.1503]

12 minutes ago, coro.3176 said:

 

I'm sad that standing and auto-attacking is better than trying to use mechanics that *should* be good but are ultimately worse.

Example: Thermal Release Valve . This is such a cool trait. You're gambling your survival resource (dodge energy) to do damage and keep your heat down. If you aren't careful, you won't be able to manage your heat or move out of mechanics when you need to. Risk/reward! .. except no. Even with full condi stats and full burn duration, it's not worth spending the 0.75s to dodge when you and your mech could be auto-ing.

I dunno. It's a tough problem. Thermal Release Valve doesn't need to be buffed. It does enough damage actually. It's the autoattacks, boons (quickness and alac were a mistake), and all the stacking power multipliers that are too good.

I always saw Thermal Release valve as a utility trait more than dps. It was something you used to stay in forge for extended periods of time (There are builds to take full advantage of this, either by using energy or stamina sigils), but I definitely see where you're coming from. 

It's not an issue "this class is better than mine". It's an issue of "why bother branching out? Mech does it better". In this instance, Holo has been lagging behind the curve as of late. 

Definitely agree that quickness and alac were a mistake. Especially as someone who plays C weaver on occasion. Weave self falls apart if you don't have perfect alac uptime, and it feels terrible. 

If the game feels bad without the boons, make the boons baseline and balance from there. Removing alac would also bridge the gap between HAM and other supports, since that's one major spot where Mech does it easier. 

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by Kuma.1503

[Reinforcments.5713]

As someone who mained Engineer and only Engineer right up until PoF, I got to say the bitching is really pathetic considering I remember how people used to joke how useless engineer was in every category. Back when people would complain about kittening HGH for craps sake.

 

It's like they just hate engineer because it wasn't cool.

 

Now it's cool and they're like oohhhhhh engineer is trash because it's so cool.  Hehe.

[XenMaster.7165]

5 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

I know that's what many claim. Lately Mech has been a hot topic in just about every aspect of the game. Issues mainly stem from it's ease of use and general durability, but to all the people complaining that mech is too easy and too effective, I have to ask. 

Where were all of you during PoF?

For the longest time, for the 3-4 years since I've been playing this game, Engineer has been among the least desirable classes in PvE. It only excelled in the DPS role, and even at this job, it was outclassed. You never LFG'd for an engineer, we didn't have that special mechanic, unique buff, or boon that had groups looking for us. We were warm bodies to fill in space one you managed to fill all of the important roles in your group. 

And sitting comfortably at the bottom of the barrel in the list of "Warm bodies" to choose from, was Core condi engineer. 

A high intensity, high APM, high skill build. 

With mediocre dps. 

It was also so undesirable, that snowcrows eventually dropped it from their benchmark list. Despite the effort that went into playing it, it wasn't considered worth the effort. 

 

Yet everyone complaining about Mech today were more than happy to go about their day, ignoring this dead build, happily out dpsing the enigneer players attempting to play it despite the fact that their build was not only easier, but provided far more value. 

To this day, core condi engineer is still a dead build, and even condi holo has fallen out of favor, but I don't hear people arguing how that's a problem, how either of these high intensity builds should be rewarded for the effort they put in.

So for people who want Mech nerfed, ask yourself, are you so upset about it because an easy build is outperforming a harder build? Or is it because you're upset that YOUR build isn't able to be top dog on the DPS charts as often as you'd like? 

Devs need to make turrets great. I picked engineer because they spawn turrets. But they cant scale with your armor stats. Like bro.

[Sahne.6950]

5 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

I know that's what many claim. Lately Mech has been a hot topic in just about every aspect of the game. Issues mainly stem from it's ease of use and general durability, but to all the people complaining that mech is too easy and too effective, I have to ask. 

Where were all of you during PoF?

For the longest time, for the 3-4 years since I've been playing this game, Engineer has been among the least desirable classes in PvE. It only excelled in the DPS role, and even at this job, it was outclassed. You never LFG'd for an engineer, we didn't have that special mechanic, unique buff, or boon that had groups looking for us. We were warm bodies to fill in space one you managed to fill all of the important roles in your group. 

And sitting comfortably at the bottom of the barrel in the list of "Warm bodies" to choose from, was Core condi engineer. 

A high intensity, high APM, high skill build. 

With mediocre dps. 

It was also so undesirable, that snowcrows eventually dropped it from their benchmark list. Despite the effort that went into playing it, it wasn't considered worth the effort. 

 

Yet everyone complaining about Mech today were more than happy to go about their day, ignoring this dead build, happily out dpsing the enigneer players attempting to play it despite the fact that their build was not only easier, but provided far more value. 

To this day, core condi engineer is still a dead build, and even condi holo has fallen out of favor, but I don't hear people arguing how that's a problem, how either of these high intensity builds should be rewarded for the effort they put in.

So for people who want Mech nerfed, ask yourself, are you so upset about it because an easy build is outperforming a harder build? Or is it because you're upset that YOUR build isn't able to be top dog on the DPS charts as often as you'd like? 

core condie engie is kitten   ->  logical consquenze  ->  Mechanist just setting everything to autocast and reaching a dps of... 20k+ WHILE LITERALLY NOT PRESSING ANYTHING is okay.

 

top tier logic!    if anything that is a reason to buff core condi... but no justification for a build with ZERO, nada, niente actions per minute produce this high amount of dps.

[Kuma.1503]

25 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

core condie engie is kitten   ->  logical consquenze  ->  Mechanist just setting everything to autocast and reaching a dps of... 20k+ WHILE LITERALLY NOT PRESSING ANYTHING is okay.

 

top tier logic!    if anything that is a reason to buff core condi... but no justification for a build with ZERO, nada, niente actions per minute produce this high amount of dps.

I'm not a fan of pet Autocast on mech. 

That aside, you've sidestepped the question. Notice the disproportionate amount of outrage towards a few weeks of mech performing well  vs several years of piano kit engi underperforming. 

I believe reward -> effort ratio is not the true motivation for the outrage. Core condi engi's 2+ years of underperformance with no community backlash is evidence of that. 

 Be honest, if I never brought up core engi, and Anet gutted Mech tomorrow. Lets say they even nerf core  as collateral (as they often do), would you have complained about a high intensity build being unfairly punished?

Or would you celebrate Mech getting nerfed out of the meta and remai gleefully ambivalent to core?

 

There's a reason why I'm asking this and it's not for the reasons you might think.

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by Kuma.1503

[Sahne.6950]

6 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

I'm not a fan of pet Autocast on mech. 

That aside, you've sidestepped the question. Notice the disproportionate amount of outrage towards a few weeks of mech performing well  vs several years of piano kit engi underperforming. 

I believe reward -> effort ratio is not the true motivation for the outrage. Core condi engi's 3 years of underperformance with no community backlash is evidence of that. 

 Be honest, if I never brought up core engi, and Anet gutted Mech tomorrow. Lets say they even nerf core  as collateral (as they often do), would you have complained about a high intensity build being unfairly punished?

Or would you celebrate Mech getting nerfed out of the meta and remai gleefully ambivalent to core?

 

There's a reason why I'm asking this and it's not for the reasons you might think.

 

i am having a diffrent opinion than you might think on the topic. i am ALL OKEY with mechanist performing the way it currently does. I also do not think that higher complexity builds should always perform better. i just wanted to point out the flawed logic.

my opinion: (you doesnt mean YOU in particular, its just a theoretical person)

If someone thinks mechanist is boring... okey. Go play weaver or something. You can perform on the same level with weaver? thats NICE! your a good player.

But why would you be upset about mechanist being good? who is upset? the pve mobs?

If anything people should be happy that finally all the bad players can pull their own weight in pve content.

if the real factor why people are mad, is that they are not being accepted to pve groups because its full of mechanists... thats a community made problem.

play what is fun, and be happy that finally people be able to pull their own weight.

aslong as the dps is waguely in line with the other specs... its all fair and square.

thats my opinion

Edited August 5, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

I think Machinist is fine, except for the Mech getting too much damage and not behaving like the other pet classes, which is a bit unfair especially to Ranger, whose pet does basically nothing in comparison.

 

(I mean, it can't even be CC'ed, while Ranger pets get thrown around like ragdolls.)

 

But class-wise Holosmith, Machinist and Scrapper are all in a good place now and its definitely something that Engis deserved after suffering for so long post-turret nerf around 2014. I'd maybe move the Rifle autoattack into an attack chain (slightly higher skill floor), but that's about it.

 

Should Core Engineer be competitive? Its been clear for a long time now that the devs want you to buy an expansion, and play the subclasses. They were overly generous even giving us a source of Alacrity and Quickness on core classes through Warrior and Ranger, given that its F2P content.

 

But yeah, builds like this are fine, but its important they don't crush every other build either.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Mariyuuna.6508

[Tails.9372]

It's neither about the actual performance, the actual effort required to play this build nor how their own build performs in comparison. If it were then there would have been other, more applicable things to complain about which ofc. most of them never do. The true thing that ticks these people off seems to be a combination of "big mech pet looking big" and "gun go brrr" (in a visual and auditory sense), everything else is generally just a pretext.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Tails.9372

[Nash.2681]

7 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

(...)

Where were all of you during PoF?

For the longest time, for the 3-4 years since I've been playing this game, Engineer has been among the least desirable classes in PvE. It only excelled in the DPS role, and even at this job, it was outclassed. You never LFG'd for an engineer, we didn't have that special mechanic, unique buff, or boon that had groups looking for us. We were warm bodies to fill in space one you managed to fill all of the important roles in your group. (...)

Bold claim. Yes, engi was the least seen profession for a long time due to it's complexity. Holosmith however gave you a save spot in pretty much any endgame content aside from min maxing record runs. Even some scrapper builds were absolutely viable. Not BiS, not for speedruns, but more than sufficient for the majority that just want things get done. I had yet to see any Engi being kicked from a squad just for the sake of playing engi, as long as he did his job. Ppl also rarely were looking for specific dps classes, 99% of time it's just looking for dps, no matter what class.

Reason why there still wasn't so many Engis be seen might be the (un)popularity of the class itself. Not everyone likes that steampunk tech theme in a fantasy environment. Ofc that's subject to individual taste, but my impression was always that Engi was thematicly the least desired spec, especially after the invention of Holo which already allowed for relaxed LI gameplay, yet there wasn't a big change in the amount of Engis seen.

And now? Things got completely flipped upside down. Suddenly everyone seems to play mech and it's very likely the reason is not that the same people that had no intention to play Engi suddenly fell in love with cogs and gunpowder. My guess is, it's about how absurdly easy it is to get decent results with it. Want decent dps? Activate Auto-Cast, press 1, go grab some coffee. Want to support? Here, go HAM and provide everything but quickness, you're welcome. 

So it's the ideal class for everyone looking for the path of least resistance. Unfortunatly this player group seems to have a large intersection with those players that are not ready for endgame for different reasons (can't / don't want to learn mechanics, etc.), which in return leads to an increase of clown fiestas. And imo having increasing numbers of players that can suddenly do one job to a sufficent level, since the game itself does the work for them, yet not acknowledging that they're still terribly lacking in other areas, just because "but my dps is gud!" is not healthy for the game. 

So yes, you can say I hate Mech with a passion since imo this spec is completly unhealthy for the game. And it's not, I repeat it is not because I have a problem with LI builds, it's because there shouldn't be any No intensity builds or specs that simply overperform. And I haven't even started with the added visual noise of those ugly omnipresent mechs....

 

 

[Tails.9372]

14 minutes ago, Nash.2681 said:

So yes, you can say I hate Mech with a passion since imo this spec is completly unhealthy for the game. And it's not, I repeat it is not because I have a problem with LI builds, it's because there shouldn't be any No intensity builds or specs that simply overperform.

Then the "hatred" for the "NI" build in question is fundamentally misguided. The true reason why there are "no interactions" with the encounter is because either A: the encounter itself is nothing but a glorified DPS golem or B: the defensive support reduces the thread level of the encounter to such a degree that it effectively turns it into the former.

15 minutes ago, Nash.2681 said:

And I haven't even started with the added visual noise of those ugly omnipresent mechs....

Well the solution for that one is simple: make mechs dyeable and offer the player some mech skins like most mech players have been asking for since its initial reveal.

[Zok.4956]

7 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

So for people who want Mech nerfed, ask yourself, are you so upset about it because an easy build is outperforming a harder build?

I welcome the idea of having a low-intensity build with mechanist and good DPS. Because the DPS-gap between low-intensity and high-intensity builds and classes in the game was (and is for some) way too high and those low-intensity build could be used to reduce the DPS-gap.

But the general rule of "higher risk/effort" (build, complex rotation) gives "higher reward" (in form of achievable DPS, if it is played well) is important for a game and should not be broken.

I am not upset, but t think, as a conclusion of the above, that an easy build should not outperform a harder build. If it does, it's a balancing bug (in my opinion). This is, of course, not only about Engi/Mechanist but every class/elite.

 

[AliamRationem.5172]

Almost all core specs are terrible.  It's something most players consider a failure of the elite spec design.  Obviously, it's difficult for a core spec to compete when elite specs get everything that's available to the core spec plus a new (and usually more powerful) class gimmick, weapon unlock, and a full set of utilities.  In order for core to even stand a chance the elite spec trait line would have to be worse than at least 3 of the core trait lines.

If you haven't seen this issue discussed repeatedly on this forum you just haven't been paying attention.

You want to make this about my class vs. yours.  It isn't.  It's about the design direction.  Advantages should come with tradeoffs.  With mechanist they just don't.  It gets everything for free in a package that practically plays itself.  That isn't just a problem for non-engineers.  It's a problem for the other engi specs (including core engi) as well.

[Valisha.8650]

I am very thankful for Mech's existence - That way, no one complains about my Specter being overpowered ;*

[AliamRationem.5172]

11 minutes ago, Valisha.8650 said:

I am very thankful for Mech's existence - That way, no one complains about my Specter being overpowered ;*

Oh, we do.  I see a lot of this "Well, if you think mechanist is a problem what about virtuoso or specter?"  It's a lot of the same issue with a lack of tradeoffs.  In the case of virtuoso and specter, they are ranged specs that deal top tier damage.  I'm all for ranged specs having some relevance in the meta, but it should be obvious that you can't have ranged specs topping benchmarks. 

As benchmarks represent a best-case scenario for comparison, the problem with top tier benchmarks from ranged specs is that it doesn't take into account the inherent advantage of range.  How can a melee-locked class with a lower benchmark possibly be competitive with the ranged spec?  It can't.  And that's a problem that this current dev team has largely been ignoring in their push to prioritize ease of play. 

[Valisha.8650]

9 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

Oh, we do.  I see a lot of this "Well, if you think mechanist is a problem what about virtuoso or specter?"  It's a lot of the same issue with a lack of tradeoffs.  In the case of virtuoso and specter, they are ranged specs that deal top tier damage.  I'm all for ranged specs having some relevance in the meta, but it should be obvious that you can't have ranged specs topping benchmarks. 

As benchmarks represent a best-case scenario for comparison, the problem with top tier benchmarks from ranged specs is that it doesn't take into account the inherent advantage of range.  How can a melee-locked class with a lower benchmark possibly be competitive with the ranged spec?  It can't.  And that's a problem that this current dev team has largely been ignoring in their push to prioritize ease of play. 

I can't speak for the full DPS variant, but the condi-alac one forces you to stay close to melee range anyways - Your alac wells teleport you to target location, times three for all of them, or even four if you decide to run the elite skill well.

The DPS benchmark for that build is about 26,4k dps, presuming all of your venoms get applied to whole party. Each missed ally is a noticeable DPS loss, which leads us to another "issue" - You can't really stack Specters for DPS. Venoms don't add up beyond a certain level.

Meanwhile, the benchmark of condi-quickness Firebrand (with allies) is about 29k DPS. So not only does Firebrand apply a more QoL boon (quickness) - It also brings more utility to the table and benches higher when doing so.

Specter's main competitor - Alac Renegade, benches way over 30k DPS as long as there are at least 5 allies in his range, while providing much better utility and CC than Specter. Yes, it requires more effort to play, but that only means the more skilled/experienced groups will pick it over Specter anytime, as they don't quite need extra heals/barriers Specter offers.

Now, if there are no allies around, alac Specter benches a pathetic 23k DPS, which is below... quickness Herald - one of the most abandoned, dust-gathering elite specs of recent years. Herald though, can provide plenty of additional boons, such as protection, which already makes it a favorite for solo play, presuming you don't feel like investing in second build on your Specter for open world conditions.

 

TLDR; Yeah, full DPS Specter is kinda busted, but knowing anet, nerfing it would hit the already situational alac-dps version with a massive ricochet. 

[Zok.4956]

26 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

How can a melee-locked class with a lower benchmark possibly be competitive with the ranged spec?  It can't.

In theory, it can, depending on the encounter design / fight mechanics. In GW2: Not really.

[Obtena.7952]

3 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

I welcome the idea of having a low-intensity build with mechanist and good DPS. Because the DPS-gap between low-intensity and high-intensity builds and classes in the game was (and is for some) way too high and those low-intensity build could be used to reduce the DPS-gap.

But the general rule of "higher risk/effort" (build, complex rotation) gives "higher reward" (in form of achievable DPS, if it is played well) is important for a game and should not be broken.

I am not upset, but t think, as a conclusion of the above, that an easy build should not outperform a harder build. If it does, it's a balancing bug (in my opinion). This is, of course, not only about Engi/Mechanist but every class/elite.

 

There is some merit to this effort/DPS relation BUT it's a complex issue that is a function of the difficulty of the content as well as the capability of the playerbase. That effort/DPS relationship tends to be a hallmark of a well designed game but if that relationship is preventing your playerbase from engaging in content that makes the game sustainable ... I see no reason to preserve the sanctity of such a thing, especially if the playerbase still has choices to maintain it. 

Anet has done the smart thing here; the difficulty is baked into the encounters. The level that the players can engage with that difficulty is based on choices players can make with their builds. It's ... innovative. Most games just give you the same build with different levels of encounter. Anet has recognized it's good to have both. It's radical and it threatens people's ideas of how things should work. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[AliamRationem.5172]

18 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

In theory, it can, depending on the encounter design / fight mechanics. In GW2: Not really.

I suppose if you wanted to contrive anti-ranged solutions, but that seems a bit convoluted?  The fact is we wanted range to play a bigger role in the meta.  GW2 has long been criticized for its lack of support for range (i.e. area spam healing/support forcing stack-in-a-pile gameplay).  But rather than address that their solution was to create overtuned ranged DPS specs and design encounters with tons of movement and area denial.

That's a big part of the reason specs that might appear okay by the numbers like mechanist, specter, and virtuoso are too dominant currently.  There's nothing particularly crazy about DPS benchmarks in the 36-39k range, right?  But it's hard for most specs to be competitive in actual gameplay because again we've tossed out the window the idea of having tradeoffs for advantages like the ability to deal damage from range.  Mechanist double-dips in the sense that not only can the mechanist himself deal damage from range, but the mech can completely ignore mechanics and just plug away for you while you dodge around.

[Valisha.8650]

2 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

That's a big part of the reason specs that might appear okay by the numbers like mechanist, specter, and virtuoso are too dominant currently.  

I am not sure which game mode are you referencing, but if we talk Raids (possibly the thing elite specs get balanced around);

Mechanist - 24,18%

Firebrand - 16,67%

Virtuoso - 11,15%

Scourge - 8,11%

Soulbeast - 5,57%

Specter - 4,17%

I am not sure if slightly above 4% can be called "dominant" 😜 

Source: https://gw2wingman.nevermindcreations.de/popularity

[soul.9651]

13 hours ago, Valisha.8650 said:

I am not sure which game mode are you referencing, but if we talk Raids (possibly the thing elite specs get balanced around);

Mechanist - 24,18%

Firebrand - 16,67%

Virtuoso - 11,15%

Scourge - 8,11%

Soulbeast - 5,57%

Specter - 4,17%

I am not sure if slightly above 4% can be called "dominant" 😜 

Source: https://gw2wingman.nevermindcreations.de/popularity

Specter is as meta defining as catalyst,in the other hand look at mech, anet needs to fix this, clearly mech is not 100% yet poor mech players

Edited August 6, 2022 by soul.9651

[Zok.4956]

8 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

There is some merit to this effort/DPS relation BUT it's a complex issue that is a function of the difficulty of the content as well as the capability of the playerbase.

"It's never easy" (Dylan Hunt)  😎

 

10 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

That effort/DPS relationship tends to be a hallmark of a well designed game but if that relationship is preventing your playerbase from engaging in content that makes the game sustainable ... I see no reason to preserve the sanctity of such a thing, especially if the playerbase still has choices. 

I don't think that the effort/DPS relation is preventing the playerbase from enganging in content in GW2. It is more the HUGE difference in DPS (and a lot of other things) between different builds/classes (and easy/complex rotations).

 

40 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Anet has done the smart thing here; the difficulty is baked into the encounters. The level that the players can engage with that difficulty is based on choices players can make with their builds. It's ... innovative. Most games just give you the same build with different levels of encounter. Anet has recognized it's good to have both. 

I agree, in a way.

I think increasing the DPS of low-intensity builds and making the DPS gap smaller is a good/smart choice. With this players, i.e. who don't want to practice dps-rotations for hours at the special forces training golem, can engage in content and can focus on learning the encounter/fight mechanics they wouldn't otherwise.

But completely abandon the effort/DPS relationship would not be a smart move. It is not really required for reducing the DPS gap (and lowering the barrier to entry of content) but it would mean that putting more effort into something (a complex rotation, maybe) is not valued by the game anymore (which usually frustrates players who want to put more effort into this).

Of course, everything would be clearer and better if this game didn't have so many balancing issues and bugs that plague classes/elites/skills and I have some doubts that Anet can hit the "sweet spot" with this.

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

35 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

I don't think that the effort/DPS relation is preventing the playerbase from enganging in content in GW2. It is more the HUGE difference in DPS (and a lot of other things) between different builds/classes (and easy/complex rotations).

Well, prevent might be the wrong word but people are definitely reluctant to engage with team content where they might be called out for low DPS, especially if they have significant issue engaging with the encounter mechanic. Mechanist addresses both of those. 

Quote

 

I agree, in a way.

I think increasing the DPS of low-intensity builds and making the DPS gap smaller is a good/smart choice. With this players, i.e. who don't want to practice dps-rotations for hours at the special forces training golem, can engage in content and can focus on learning the encounter/fight mechanics they wouldn't otherwise.

But completely abandon the effort/DPS relationship would not be a smart move. It is not really required for reducing the DPS gap (and lowering the barrier to entry of content) but it would mean that putting more effort into something (a complex rotation, maybe) is not valued by the game anymore (which usually frustrates players who want to put more effort into this).

Of course, everything would be clearer and better if this game didn't have so many balancing issues and bugs that plague classes/elites/skills and I have some doubts that Anet can hit the "sweet spot" with this.

Sure, but we don't have Anet completely abandoning that effort/DPS relationship right? There are LOTS of choices that maintain that. Also, the LI mechanist builds are not even close to what anyone would consider meta level DPS. So basically, IMO, Anet hits the 'raising the skill floor' goal with this without impacting the skill ceiling.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Obtena.7952