Guild Wars 2 Balance Philosophy

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

(eg. for power ranger dagger, sword and axe all used to be viable mainhand choices for a power dps builds. sword was the burstiest option, dagger the best in prolonged fights and axe had the range advantage. Now axe has the range and the best dmg, so the other options are basically useless.)

What you meant to say is that ranger mainhand sword and axe used to be equally bad, so you could choose between them. Now that axe has been buffed and is actually good, that choice is gone, because who would use a bad weapon instead of a good one? Notice your mention of soulbeast mainhand dagger, which is a condi weapon, and yet you considered it a good choice for power builds. Doesn't that tell you something about how bad power build weapon choice for ranger was at some point?

The problem is not the axe. The issue is that sword is still bad and needs improvements.

[Jski.6180]

I wish they would update how supporting ai to let the player have a better chose of whom they want to support. At least let the person target take piroitnly over your group. Better yet have an chose of how you want the AI support targeting to work such as being able to simply support ppl whom are near to you, the pt support aimed ai or even a full "i chose my 5 targets" though person target sets.

Support in gw2 feels like more of an after though that was not a thing at the start of gw2 but now it seems to be nearly every thing in there philosophy so there is a much need update for how targets are chosen.

[Nash.2681]

After reading through that design philosophy post (and I think I really get where you come from and what I can say- in theory I pretty much agree with most if not everything, or at least don't disagree) I have just one simple question:

How was it possible that mechanist was ever added to this game? It contradicts your philosophy in so many ways, even after some slight nerfs, it leaves me stunned.

[Tokizo.8917]

49 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

No, there is still no intention to change GW2 into one of those other games that use that kind of "holy trinity". And I am glad about it.

I don't want a holy trinity either. Remove all the healers and boon supporters and implement tanks. Why would you need a buffer and looking at your health while fighting is way more fun and you have no one else do blame if you die

[Flapjackson.1596]

I wanted to go deeper on the "Minimize Bad Choices" section. It's really good to mention that there are synergies in the game and it should be encouraged to use those synergies. I think labeling weapons as power, condi, support, hybrid, etc would help with that.

 

What I want to mention is that this section is not only about making existing things safer options. It's also about recognizing how the game is full of traps. The variety of the buildcraft is often praised, but how varied is it when a lot of it is bloat and bad choices? I think minimizing bad choices also means cutting down on useless stat combos that never see play in any context. It means assessing runes and sigils. It means assessing if runes should even be a six-stack system (can't think of a single context where you want different superior runes). The game is diverse because the game is bloated. Cut down on the bloat and you cut down on traps that lead players down bad paths. This is as important as improving things. We don't need FFXIV levels of the game has one gear stat your job gets, but lets not pretend the current variety is entirely helpful.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Flapjackson.1596

[Zyreva.1078]

29 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

What you meant to say is that ranger mainhand sword and axe used to be equally bad, so you could choose between them. Now that axe has been buffed and is actually good, that choice is gone, because who would use a bad weapon instead of a good one? Notice your mention of soulbeast mainhand dagger, which is a condi weapon, and yet you considered it a good choice for power builds. Doesn't that tell you something about how bad power build weapon choice for ranger was at some point?

The problem is not the axe. The issue is that sword is still bad and needs improvements.

Good and bad are all relative. Power soulbeast was good before the nerfs (and subsequent weapon buffs), so it doesn't make sense to label it's weapon choices bad at that time. Also all of those weapons are technically hybrid weapons (tho sword has never been a good choice for condi in PvE). I also never said the problem is axe, so idk what you are on about to begin with.

Edited October 29, 2022 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[Chant.2073]

22 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

Goals

Fundamentally, our goal is to ensure that the moment-to-moment gameplay in Guild Wars 2 is enjoyable for as many players as possible. To that end, we want to capitalize on the depth of the combat system to build a fluid and fast-paced combat experience that allows players to express their mastery of mechanics. We also want to create a substantial number of viable build options and allow for a broad set of combat strategies in order to enable a wide range of playstyles.

I like these goals! I'm a player who likes to have interesting choices to make, on build, equipment, and playstyle, so "a broad set of combat strategies in order to enable a wide range of playstyles" is something I value a lot.

 

22 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

Gameplay Roles

[...]

This section seems very ... observational, and that worries me. I tend to expect that game designers have opinions about what roles their game should offer, and to try to shape the game so that those roles emerge. Instead, it looks like you're simply echoing back what the community has decided, and our "decisions" are just responses to the game's selection pressures. Was it your intent that these would be the roles?

 

What attracts me to this game, and distinguishes it from other MMOs I'm aware of, is the apparent flexibility and nuance to the choices players are invited to make. Looking at the skill and trait systems, it seems natural for players to come up with builds that can't readily be described with a simple, generic label like "healer". Every class has a specialization that rewards hybrid builds. Every trait line offers synergies that diverge from its core purpose. That's really cool, and I've always interpreted it as a thoughtful and intentional aspect of your design.

 

I appreciate you mentioning that "not every build needs to perfectly fit into a role". I hope that remains true as you approach your ideal form of balance.

 

23 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

Skill and Trait Design Guidelines

The following are a few key ideas that we consider when balancing skills and traits. This list isn't intended to be absolute in all cases, but there should be a strong reason when a skill breaks one of these rules.

Purity of Purpose

Purity of purpose is the idea that a skill (or trait, or weapon, etc.) should have a well-defined identity. In other words, skills should not do too many different things at once. Some common skill identities include damage, defense, support, control, and mobility.

How strict is this "purity of purpose" principle? There are lots of skills, traits, and weapons that fit two or three of these labels. I think this is essential to the game's nuance, and I think it supports your goal of having a diverse set of good choices available.

 

The combo system is particularly "impure". Depending on the combo field, a blast finisher could be boon support, soft control, or healing. Depending on the finisher, a fire field could be damage, boon support, or both. How does purity of purpose apply to skills with combo fields or combo finishers?

 

My hope is that this principle is aimed at each choice in isolation, and won't prevent interesting synergies that expand a choice's purpose beyond its core identity. My fear is that this principle will rob the game of its identity; it seems like a threat to the trait system, the combo system, and the elementalist profession, all of which I adore.

[Voraxen.2035]

Thanks for the communication. Please stop nerfing thieves. Please give us the first new spvp map since 2018. That's 4 full years of no new content in spvp.

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

3 hours ago, ericpeggy.8206 said:

Condi Mech still can hit 36k DPS or more I think.

But they don't overwhelm anything now.

Yes, if you run 2 kits, which immediately disqualifies it from the "one button class" classification OP is calling Mech.

[Pie.2167]

A little alarming that "Roamer" was not listed as a Role for WvW

[Svarty.8019]

55 minutes ago, For The Love Of Pie.3240 said:

A little alarming that "Roamer" was not listed as a Role for WvW

Oh look, Ganker isn't a role either, nor is Commander-Pulling Troll.

 

I'm not saying you're a basket of deplorables.

[Leo Schrodingers Cat.2497]

So... Im guessing complaints from thief players are commonly ignored during player feedback incorporation. Cuz the common pain point still hasn't been touched.

 

Also please, PLEASE do not force roles. The game was inteneded to avoid these things, allowing a player to do a little bit of everything defined within their class mechanics. As a thief yes Im a single target damage dealer. But I am tired kf being forced into a +1 fighter because you decided Im not allowed to effectively duel anyone without being eons above them in skill.

 

Additionally, you remove the players abilities to adapt dynamically without being forced to completely change characters. Remember that whole thing about having no healers? You forced them against player choice. Reducing them i to a stack fest where you're required to wait for specific professions.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Leo Schrodingers Cat.2497

[Sobx.1758]

9 hours ago, Bakeneko.5826 said:

Play mechanist then

No, when the goal is having a fast paced combat system encouraging the players to express mastery over the game's mechanics, the solution isn't to "just play mechanist".

[HotDelirium.7984]

3 hours ago, Gibson.4036 said:

Especially when they had a Halloween party to get to

If you are implying they had "better things to do" than be on this stream....that's very unbecoming.

[the krytan assassin.9235]

Correct me if im wrong, but shouldn't a balance design philosophy be somewhat in line with the current state of a 10 year old game? Even in the latest 2 balance updates there are plenty of adjustments that aren't in line with this proposed design philosophy. Many professions will require a complete overhaul to be even remotely near the proposed balance design. 

So if the balance philosophy isn't for the players or devs and is (nearly) impossible to implement into the game, what purpose does it serve? Just more empty words that will be completely ignored the moment the next balance patch releases 

[Vyr.9387]

1 hour ago, the krytan assassin.9235 said:

Correct me if im wrong, but shouldn't a balance design philosophy be somewhat in line with the current state of a 10 year old game? Even in the latest 2 balance updates there are plenty of adjustments that aren't in line with this proposed design philosophy. Many professions will require a complete overhaul to be even remotely near the proposed balance design. 

So if the balance philosophy isn't for the players or devs and is (nearly) impossible to implement into the game, what purpose does it serve? Just more empty words that will be completely ignored the moment the next balance patch releases 

Going by exactly that definition, then not in the slightest.
Even if you paid no attention to news within the company, people changing their minds on basis of evidence should be applauded, because dying on decade(s)-old hills helps no one, especially if you're interested in living some (and/or much) more.

At this point, the idea "acta non verba" - deeds, not words - is what matters the most.
'Cuz "nobody can give you as much as I'm able to promise".
Muk, for example, poked fun at deleting guardians and mechanists outright, but that's pretty much the most succinct and precise form of this entire philosophy made manifest.

Whether it happens...
People had those ten (or pretty much any number of) years to get as jaded as they are, and the cynicism is hardly unwarranted.
Momma sed changes come, though.
All ANet have to do now is stand tall behind said principles, even if every guardian/mechanist main starts throwing tantrums 24/7 on every social medium in existence.
Easier said than killed, considering they stand before the task of un-breaking specs which happen to have entire traitlines of other classes in single utility skills, but that's currently the name of the game.

I, for one, am rather curious if the balance team can indeed dance to the tunes they're singing.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Vyr.9387
grammuh

[Killthehealersffs.8940]

For some reason, when some1 else tells that your build (Warrior+Axe+Condition gear) is "wrong choice",  I get furious! 

 

/throw glove at his feet

I demand a duel dear sir! 

At dusk, near the oak, no cloths, final destination 

[Felices Bladewing.3914]

after the mentioning of the condi axe warrior thing, i hope there will be a at least a minor revisit on the few hybrid weapons to give them a more clear identity instead of leaving them as they are with just saying yeah this is a wrong choice

[Shena Fu.5792]

just play mechanist and pretend balance issues don't exist

[Svarty.8019]

15 hours ago, VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig. said:

You want 'fun'? Diversity? Options for 'everybody'? Then why did you nerf ele for years? Why did you ignore all the blatant problems with stealth? Firebrands&scrappers strangle hold in wvw?

And the most egregious fun-killer:

When is mechanist removed from the game? It is really demotivating to have to play piano, while being outdone by a one button class. Besides half of the screen being taken up by jade bots is not fun

Re: Mechanist, here in WvW I can't move for all the jade bots!

 

Anet wants to be all things to all (wo)men and it seems like an impossible task, judging by their criteria. 

 

If you watch the stream you'll hear them talk about low-intensity builds. You'll still be bettered by gankers because the devs have to also pander to so-called "skilled" players, making the whole endeavour completely pointless. 

 

If they want to improve it, something's gotta to give. Or... nothing will be done. My money is on the latter.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Svarty.8019

[April.4765]

In my opinion,  commander tag and their squad  have been the main components of WvW and thats what keeping the community going. But the number of commander tags has dwindled down over the years,  reason because the ability to pull commander tag from 1200 range from random single enemy has fustrated them.

 

my suggestion will be rework the pull mechanism for WvW. 

For example

1. give it a shorter pull range

2. Commander with over certain squad threshold has a break bar

 

Overall, good streaming content and keep up the good work. Glad that devs wanted our feedbacks on these matters.

 

[Batalix.2873]

Another related post to my first observation, perhaps reframing from another angle, is looking at unique weapons as a source of retooling underperforming or over performing especs.

 

One of the most awesome things about weapons in GW2 and especially especs, is using weapons in unconventional ways. Examples include DH's longbow (light arrows), BS's gunsaber (gunsword), Druid's staff (healrod), DE's rifle (kneel sniper), Scrapper's hammer (lightning rod), all of Revenant's weapons being very ranged and Mist-hopping themed, and pretty much all of Mesmer, Ele, and core Necro weapons being used to throw projectiles (greatsword, hammer), as projectiles themselves (daggers, axes), or having magical effects (torch).

I see most of the more troublesome especs not adopting this innovative design philosophy, instead using their weapons conventionally, even when the archetype somewhat begs for a more distinct variation on the weapon's use. Put another way, despite having clear design space for expanding on weapon combat in interesting ways, they stay in the "safe zone" of just using the weapon normally, to deal damage normally, which in turn creates too high a DPS baseline on especs that (a) are mostly designed around magey, support concepts and (2) prove to be overpowered having that in conjunction with large boon suites.

The very simple question I am asking, therefore, is why do so few "heal/support"-aligned especs not take a similar approach? Why do *they* have the privilege (or lack of consideration) of doing flat, basic, underwhelming damage on top of bloated support kits, when so many DPS especs AND support especs compare disfavorably because they cannot, and ideally were not designed, to do both well?

I think it is no coincidence that most of the OP/overplayed specs all share this same "unimaginative weapon" problem. If these especs instead leaned into implementing a "new weapon" using their unique weapon as a base (most of which are practically there anyway by design), inamuch as they can continue GW2's trend of putting "spins" on weapons, the less DPS balancing complications they would generally present. This sounds like an unfounded generalization, but in fact the natural consequence of designing weapon away from *anything other than basic DPS* will reduce an espec being primarily defined by DPS, and broaden support roles. The more a weapon does with respect to movement, shielding, boons, etc.,, the less incentive there will be for players to define it by a DPS metric. We, in fact, already see that with things like Druid staff and Herald shield, both of which are still very viable weapons to bring as support, and both of which pretty solidly tank those especs' DPS outputs. 

The answer, and the problem, in a nutshell, is that many of our best especs have boring, straight-up weaponskills that provide far too consistent and high DPS for especs that are better suited for support or heal archetypes.

 

Examples:

 

Firebrand: axe is straight-up melee condi damage ( a little flair with axe summoning, but functionally still very standard axe-swinging with slight range increase) which shares a lot of conceptual overlap with Mirage, as well as Ranger. But as a Scholar class, making the axe work more like a wand or cane, maybe developing a feedback loop about scooping allies up with Axe 3 to get them inside a more defensive Axe 2 rune (great for saving noobs in strikes lol), would be a distinct use of Axe that is more aligned with Firebrand's concept than just "does damage". It wouldn't feel like any other axe, and it would create the very interesting changeup in Firebrand which would be to limit most, if not all of its DPS, to tome and mantra use as a true "spellbinder".

 

Mechanist: mace does straight-up melee condi damage (albeit with barrier/Regen) which shares a lot of overlap with Revenant and Guardian. But as a Puppeteer (Golemancer) class, using it as a sort of wand or remote control  to make your J-Bot perform attacks would more align with Mech's concept, tie the weapon in better with the job's class fantasy, and make it a unique use of mace that no other profession has. (This also happens to align with my view that ALL weapon damage for Mech should be done through the Mech, not done by the player on top of Mech's passive damage; Mechanist's larger problem is that it is the only espec with practically two separate pools of damage/boons/HP and admittedly it is the weapon that least concerns me, but still somewhat fits the pattern).

 

Harbinger: straight-up ranged condi damage which is run-of-the-mill for Mesmer, Thief, and Engi, surprisingly uninspired. But as an Alchemist/Apothecary class, using it as an injector, a means of shooting enemies with debuffs or allies with boons, would be a use of pistol unique to Harbinger that better defines the job fantasy. Harbinger is a bit too convenient a source of ranged damage, so limiting "bullet/poison" damage to Shroud abilities could pull its ranged DPS back just enough.

 

Scourge: Torch does (albeit satisfying) straight-up fire damage like Ranger, to a lesser extent Mesmer and Guardian. But as a Priest, it would make more sense to make torch work more like incense, revolve around things like boonstrip, barrier application, or resurrection. You get a torch that feels totally different from other torches, and can start in a direction of pulling back Scourge DPS to better align with a support role.

 

Berserker: Torch does fire and cleanses, very similar to Guardian. It's...fine, but imo the animations convey smashing as much as burning, Berserker practically uses it as a mace. And it feels really bad that the only use for torch is condi berserker, which spends most of its time in melee greatbow which feels awful. MELEE. GREATBOW. By contrast, axe/axe berserker obviates offhand torch on power builds despite axe/axe being the primary power build across all especs. Torch adds virtually nothing to berserker, but as an espec weapon it is already begging to be used differently than torches by being used more like an earth-shaking mace. If Weaver and Virtuoso, the other two "pure DPS" builds, can use their unique weapon on both power and condi builds, then Torch should be just as viable as oh axe for power builds. Tune up torch 4 and torch 5 power damage to be comparable to oh axe (which even if overtuned would not obviate axe/axe on core, SB, or BS), simple fix with excellent dividends for Berserker's class fantasy.

 

Specter: I admit, I am not totally sure what to do with Specter yet. It is part Assassin (which implies a focus on condi, esp. poison damage, and stealthy, quick melee attacks), and part Shadow Mage (giving us perhaps the only magical Thief espec, with focus on shadow barrier and ranged attacks). I think the two identities are fundamentally opposed and just cover too many concepts like Scourge, Firebrand, and Harbinger.  But if I were to apply this "unique weapon" philosophy to Specter, I notice that across all other builds, even on Guardian and Water Ele (mostly), scepter is an attack weapon. So if Specter were to abandon scepter DPS and lean fully into granting barrier and healing through life-sap, we would have both our unique magical Thief weapon, *and* a scepter class like no other. This also seems the fairest of the two directions, as Thief generally gets access to poisons, and Specter still has shroud abilities that could do limited poison damage for flavor. It's also the closest Thief will ever come to a healer role so it might as well go all in.

 

Catalyst: Hammer is halfway to a concept. As a Geomancer/Shaman (with a hint of summoner) I see hammer acting as a mallet, used partly to sling orbs around the field as an interesting ranged twist on the weapon, and also suggesting terrain-pounding for AoE support effects to synergize with the archetype's tendency to zone terrain with augmenting fields. The problem is that only hammer 3 makes use of orb-slinging in a very rigid and limiting way (collect one of each element, no more, no less), and the hammer itself doesn't actually generate any fields to my knowledge (because the jade sphere does that instead). I also think that energy, while a great concept, is too slow to build up for the boons it presents and heavily cripples Catalyst's core job fantasy of slapping down totems/luopans for AoE fun.

 

There are so many directions to take Catalyst due to assembling so many different elements (heh) so inelegantly, which I think is the most complicated puzzle to untie. But prioritizing this philosophy of making hammer into a new weapon, some things to consider:

 

* Give hammer weaponskills some combo (not boon) fields so that Catalyst can generate fields faster and more on demand than waiting on jade sphere energy, as well as making hammer feel more like it does something unique.

* Remove Grand Finale from Hammer 3, allow players to camp elements to pump/augment boons of the same element, and feel like they have more agency over the orbs than just doing "Worse Weave Self" every 45 seconds. Put Grand Finale as a follow-up to jade sphere on F5, or wherever you like, just not on hammer 3.

* Make Jade Sphere more consequential to non-hammer builds. Allow players to "reattune" to their current element to pump energy faster, where "reattuning" also makes your jade sphere (the primary bauble/summonstone) single pulse out a minor boon effect centered on you.

* Heavily consider if, to make these changes more viable than piano attunement-swapping, removing access to all four elements on Catalyst (or Ele generally, outside of Weaver). Part of why Ele damage across the entire profession underperforms, is the logical conclusion of "press highest DPS off cooldown" and having twice as many weaponskills on hand requiring heavily undertuned damage coefficients. Abandoning 4-elements-all-the-time for alternative tradeoffs would be another, adjacent, obvious way of better defining distinct Ele espec roles (and regardless of whatever you do with Ele, Virtuoso needs a ranged tax and Weaver needs a piano rebate).

 

Resulting effect: Hammer now is much better feeling as orb-clinging and terrain-tapping mallet, jade sphere is more accessible, more regularly-used, and therefore better integrated into the core class concept and making other weapons viable.

 

Conclusion:

 

GW2's espec system's biggest strength is contorting weapons that usually *don't* work within a profession into totally new designs, thus creating, in effect, totally weapons and totally new job fantasies. It is where the best designed jobs shine, and it is where I think a lot of the most overperforming and underperforming jobs fail, both due to lacking a clearer identity/niche.

 

One of the things people are really hoping for in a fourth set of especs are just this sort of "new twist" on weapons. There is a lot of support behind a "bard" Mesmer espec that uses a shortbow as a harp, or an Ele espec that uses a longbow for elemental or arcane arrows. I personally am hoping for a Corsair Thief spec that uses an axe as a grappling hook, a Summoner Ranger that uses a focus as a summoning stone, and a Paragon/Tactician Warrior spec that uses a staff as a sort of commanding banner. I am sure there are other alternatives, but I hopefully I have illustrated that much of exciting espec design is found in not merely "adding a weapon" to a profession's arsenal, but "defining a new class archetype" using weapons against expectation.

 

I think this "unique weapon" is where newly added especs should be pushing for at all times where they can to maximize job diversity and fun factor. And my controversial opinion is that now, with 27 especs and possibly more to come, we should be approaching classes retrospectively with that same expectation/anticipation to better carve out unique identities. Wherever possible, any espec that "just adds a weapon" and that weapon *primarily" or *only* does DPS, and not even in a novel or interesting way, should get a hard look at if that weapon could be made more distinct and aligned with that espec's archetype.

 

I think there is a spectrum of how this can be done, varying degrees of adding effects (movement of the players and team members especially is generally underutilized on unique weapons), reduced DPS (be it number tweaking, removing certain damage typings but leaving others, or removing damage altogether from only certain skills but not all of them), even retooled animations. I do not think that it is necessary to completely deprive some classes of unique weapon DPS, although I am personally more in the camp that some classes are very bloated with features and could still be extremely interesting with substantially less DPS, and could always be gradually brought back up to parity.

 

Anyway, this is a very simple principle that I think would do a lot of heavy lifting for balancing, without constraining jobs too much to an idea of "roles", but instead looking at them on a case-by-case basis of what distinct weapon/job fantasy their designs seem to want to be. I think amplifying "harmonious" design like this and pruning away whatever "everyman" features do not reasonably contribute is a respectful way to ensure that the primary consideration is how good each espec feels doing its own thing, its own central, distinctly unique job fantasy, instead of measuring them against how they aren't Mech or Firebrand while aimlessly tacking on boon after boon, diluting the job fantasy.

 

I believe placing this "identity audit" at higher priority than "universal, baseline balance" will even a lot of peaks and valleys on jobs that do too much or are too ineffectual, that would then make it a lot easier to make considered and targeted buffs and nerfs. Perhaps even a second priority of the same approach to profession mechanics and slot abilities could yield similar benefits (making DH traps ranged is an example), although i think weapons are just such a central and obvious feature that they would have the greatest impact on rebalancing.

 

Personal Griping, Skip if You Only Care About Logos and Not Pathos

 

I do hope this approach is considered because it honestly is a little disappointing to, half the time, pick up a popular espec only to discover that I was already using the same weapon in a very similar way on another class. All while knowing that (a) this weapon really doesn't gel with the cool non-weapon mechanics I signed up to play, and (b) knowing that my core class weapon was only *only merely* fighting for DPS with minimal support utility, but on the aforementioned classes is a lazy source of passive damage to apply on top of overly robust support kits.

It is really hard to keep loving my axe Mirage and torch Zerker, especs designed to have  unique retoolings of axe and torch, when Firebrand and Scourge lazily feature the exact same weapons, intended use only, doing nearly as much damage as me or more, with far less effort and no thought to class fantasy, on top of doing every support under the sun. And it hurts because they don't need to. They are a librarian and a priest, they could be doing far more interesting, chess-level things with those weapons than strict DPS, and they both have sizeable damage opportunities through their tomes and sand shades. 

 

I love both Firebrand and Scourge as concepts, but I have both sitting waiting to be played because the core weapon/gameplay loop ("burn everything") is too at odds with the job fantasy they want to be (boon-casting and curses/barrier, respectfully). I would also argue that they are a substantial reason why Ele doesn't see much play, not just from a tuning standpoint but also as a job fantasy, and why Ele needs to move away from "fire or air DPS" into "all elements can be specialized in and do reasonable DPS" to carve itself a new niche as "the ranged/mage Warrior" with a wide variety of DPS options, something more than "kitten FB/Scourge/Zerker/Scrapper/Rev". 

I do not enjoy FB and Scourge in their current iteration, they are fire-condi mages first and only offhandedly have a job identity. And I can say the same for every other espec I listed in this post: I see so much potential design-wise but I do not want to play them in their current iterations. The immersion granted by focused design and meaningful tradeoffs just is not there, they are machines that meet baselines ABC and do functions XYZ, not fully embraced concepts.

Looking at weapon usage is I think the first start to fixing things. Plenty of players enjoy healer archetypes, in fact plenty of less experienced or casual players who prefer less stress supporting on the sidelines. But presently only Druid and Herald make any strong commitment to provide players that option. Firebrand, Scourge and arguably Specter, Harbinger, Mech to varying degrees, have concepts that are screaming to be used in this way, and in fact in the case of Firebrand and Scourge are often if not usually already used in this way and do negligible damage when they do. It makes no sense why they should also be able to do considerable DPS on top of that, not only marginalizing Herald and Druid, but also pure DPS specs like Axe Mirage (actually, take a look at staff mirage DPS while you are at it) and Berserker.

Edited October 30, 2022 by CourtJester.5908

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

10 hours ago, Killerblade.5612 said:

Sometimes i do wonder, If people even realize that this is the philosophy moving forward by a new team lead and not a retrospective view on what happened in the past. 

 

 

so many people comment on how "tgis philosophy wasn't uphold in the past" i mean yeah no kitten its the philosophy of  new balance team they cant affect the past. This post was fairly insightful and while they could have fed us more direct information as to what each point translates to (like Healers only offering "some" offensive boons in PvE?) it was certainly worth the insight and didnt have anything majourly bad in it moving forward

Cal Cohen is not new to the balance team. So he had a lot of time to fix some of the worst things already. But that did not stop ANET from releasing EOD with broken AF mechanist. 

[Xenesis.6389]

31 minutes ago, April.4765 said:

In my opinion,  commander tag and their squad  have been the main components of WvW and thats what keeping the community going. But the number of commander tags has dwindled down over the years,  reason because the ability to pull commander tag from 1200 range from random single enemy has fustrated them.

my suggestion will be rework the pull mechanism for WvW. 

For example

1. give it a shorter pull range

2. Commander with over certain squad threshold has a break bar

Overall, good streaming content and keep up the good work. Glad that devs wanted our feedbacks on these matters.

Did you bother to watch the video? A bunch of Firebrands were being pulled in the middle of combat, Firebrands, the class with the most stability available in the game. That isn't a pull problem, that's a player failing to use their protective tools at the proper times. Also keep in mind with a video like this, it's just a snap shot of the event happening doesn't mean it happens every single time, it could have been the one time they managed out of twenty times to pull that person from their group.

Commanders do have a harder time, they do come under pin snipe more often, but I would look at the evolution of combat as to the reasons why players are motivated to use those tactics. I see commanders that leave maps, or tag down almost immediately when they see certain organized groups enter a map, or after one fight they quit because they know there's no chance. Think about why a smaller guild commander or a pug commander would quit as soon as an organized guild of greater size shows up, it's not because of pulls.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Xenesis.6389

[Tycura.1982]

On 10/28/2022 at 4:56 PM, Gibson.4036 said:

New expansion e-specs get to beat up the old ones and take their tickets.

Of course, how else would they sell?