This "balance" philosophy is a bunch of BS

[JTGuevara.9018]

Yeah, I'm going to come out and say it. Hate to break the positivity, but there has been no objective analysis of the current state of the game and current design "philosophy". No mention of professions. No mention of the elephant in the room: the obvious dominance of these three professions (guardian, necro, engineer) in all three game modes. The glorified macro abomination that is mechanist. Rabid hostility to the concept of roles in an RPG. Instead, it's been the same old slogans: "diversity", "metagame", "play styles". I'm sick of it. After 10 freakin' years, you'd think gw2 would actually get it together. But no...it's a "living philosophy" aka no consistency and just make it up as we go along because we don't want to do the work of untangling this mess. "Balance" based on developers' and players' whims. This is the biggest load of BS I've ever read.

To all warriors who are considering plunking your money down this rabbit hole and to any future Anet products, I wish you luck. I, on the other hand...am done. Oh...I'll still play gw2 with the stuff I already bought (HoT and PoF), but beyond that, nah. No EoD, no 4th expansion, no nothing. NCSoft can hawk their cheap grind-fests without me. I got other games to play.

I know that this is the warrior forums, but I care more about the state of the game even over my own class. The overall game matters, folks. So, THIS is how gw2 is going operate? More of the same? A new "philosophy" every 2-3 years? What of warrior? I made this class 7 years ago to play a heavy-melee who can dish it out and take some hits, as in a standard RPG. But now, who's to say what the hell warrior is going to be in the future? Whatever the devs feel like? Because we know that anything regarding balance philosophy is hollow and their philosophy contradicts the application.

Discuss.

(Edit): (checking back on my initial post after some time) Aw man...this juicy like-to-dislike ratio! I got fifteen confused emojis! With a ratio like that, you know you're on to something...What's the big controversy here, folks?

Edited November 5, 2022 by JTGuevara.9018
add

[draxynnic.3719]

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. As much as it would be nice for them to say 'these things are on the radar as too strong, these things as too weak', the document and associated stream appear to be looking at things on a more conceptual level, which will still be relevant even if there's a major upheaval in which professions are considered to be good and which aren't.

It does, however, give an indication of what the general goals are. We can read in there that builds, elite specialisations, or even entire professions that are seen as doing too much will likely be pared back a bit. We can also read in there that according to the new philosophy, skills, traits, and weapons that have been left unused in all modes for years should be made useful at least somewhere.

Yes, there is a mismatch between philosophy and past application. It's pretty clear the previous guy wasn't following this philosophy. If the philosophy had been written out and was being followed before, I don't think it would have taken this long to present it. Judge whether they're following the philosophy based on what happens in the future rather than the past.

[JTGuevara.9018]

9 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. As much as it would be nice for them to say 'these things are on the radar as too strong, these things as too weak', the document and associated stream appear to be looking at things on a more conceptual level, which will still be relevant even if there's a major upheaval in which professions are considered to be good and which aren't.

It does, however, give an indication of what the general goals are. We can read in there that builds, elite specialisations, or even entire professions that are seen as doing too much will likely be pared back a bit. We can also read in there that according to the new philosophy, skills, traits, and weapons that have been left unused in all modes for years should be made useful at least somewhere.

Yes, there is a mismatch between philosophy and past application. It's pretty clear the previous guy wasn't following this philosophy. If the philosophy had been written out and was being followed before, I don't think it would have taken this long to present it. Judge whether they're following the philosophy based on what happens in the future rather than the past.

I don't care. Talk is cheap.

Show me the goods. That's all that matters. They've NOT done that, therefore they're not entitled to my money.

[Warscythes.9307]

Have you thought maybe you are just wrong?

 

Where's this necro dominance in PvE and PvP? Because other from WvW, is pretty mediocre at the moment. Holo is decent in PvP but dominant? Lol no, scrapper and mech are generally range from no good to ok Even guardian in PvP I think can only be seen as pretty good via support or dps willbender. Dominant? Where did you even get that from? When was the last time you played the game? Pre-EoD beta?

Edited October 30, 2022 by Warscythes.9307

[eXruina.4956]

3 hours ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

I don't care. Talk is cheap.

yep. exactly this.

 

we need timely results, this is a good opportunity for them to regain their credibility, and if they still give a poor showing, at least speaking for myself, it will be set in stone, i'd be hard-pressed to trust them again..

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

While results matter, but if they follow through with this method, the big three offenders will get nerfed, and classes like warrior should get buffs.

[prototypedragon.1406]

Who is to say this "philosophy" is not another concoction in a secret discord once again as the community is fed tidbits of information to make them complacent while others pupateer the devs once again🤔? If they don't have a clear direction anet could just come out and say it and take recommendations and go from there. Ever since the 2020 incident anet created the love hate relationship with the warrior class itself due cc being nerfed entirely. One hand I can understand utility to a extent but weapons really? I have used Hammers and Maces for 10 years in competitive modes which can be fun for some players with their desired play styles. I still wonder if dodging a Hammer or mace is like dodging a wrench🤔or is it easier to dodge the wrench and get tickled by a Hammer? All warriors wanted to do was fight in tense battles and go toe to toe with enemies and outnumbered fights with any weapons that said warrior would like to try. It's still sad that hammers and maces of all weapons that have cc build into them and are literally blunt weapons have their damage removed entirely just because people don't know how to dodge a nonthrowable slow motion wrench that the weilder of it must  literally be eye on eye contact just to be able to tap someone with them. Given the fact that stability is alot more accessible now along with stacks of 3 to 5 being more common along with boon duration blunt force weapons still are useless and it's still hard to see why anet can't see that in their "vision" quickness yeah.... cool....  my auto attack now matches the mechanist rifle at half the speed while all of my other skills still do 15 damage . Oh and that glorious 2 skill that does double damage? How does one fight someone with a warrior Hammer when they have 30plus seconds of stability with 5 to 10 stacks?  Boon removal nah they target the trash boons first .Hammer has improved I guess with the burst skill actually being a burst skill 🤔. But given the fact that all armour repairs are now free and we as players have to use anvils on our own are we able to use different materials for Hammers and Maces in competitive modes so their other skills that are cc can actually be of use? Even some Elmer's glue with some feathers would suffice. ....oh wait...  Huh . Let alone other weapons that have still been left outside in the rain to decay over the years.

[felix.2386]

in PvP, the dominance is thief and rev.

in terms of all time.

while engi/guard goes one tier below

if thief/rev are SS tier, engi guard are S tier.

ele in it's current form is also S tier, tho for all time, ele is max A tier, same for necro A tier.

ranger B tier, mesmer B tier

warrior C tier.

this is all time btw, not current meta only.

 

 

also want to add, currently hammer is ok/decent, but it is hideously unfun to play. every skills are so slow with huge after cast and taking way longer to finish then it is listed on the tooltip.

definitely feels like it's from 2012. i'd rather take some nerfs to make the hammer actually fun again.

Edited October 30, 2022 by felix.2386

[thaniretouni.4762]

i kinda agree. its their last chance in my book. either give us proper balance in all modes and allow for true diversity or bb. i dont mind what they give compared to standard roles, but if they say warrior is a tank with cc i want to see a true tank. if it is dmg i want to see numbers. why guardian can play all roles perfectly fine in all modes and warrior is all about dmg which is not true in wvw and pvp. one true dmg dealer who is 95% melee should not be able to get outhealed by one support. breaching strike bug gave pve dmg in wvw for a few days and i had a blast. i could take down people. even fight 3v1 and get two people down. yes in the end the support barely managed to get them up and ultimately lost the fight but it was feeling nice after 2.5 years of bad dmg. also, why does necro has to be so insane in wvw forever. why is thief getting destroyed in wvw and pve. not to mention the insane mobility on classes like holosmith or willbender. they are basically faster than thief. this is bs atm

 

[oscuro.9720]

I would not say it’s “BS”. Given it’s a new balance team, you can think of it as a sort of “manifesto” for what they intend to do moving forward. We saw the Oct. 4 patch was an overall well executed patch and the first of the balance team. 

The things they said are actually quite important, they explicitly stated a lot of things we took for granted but Anet would never formally commit to, and stated some things that are quite a direction shift, such as there being wrong choices. They also talk about a power budget and a proper implementation of “tradeoffs” (which is opportunity cost; the cost of not being able to select the other options). 

Is this anything substantive? No, not at all. The only substantive thing this team has done is the Oct. 4 patch, which, as I previously stated, was a very encouraging patch. We will see in 2 weeks what the next patch is going to look like. 

Also somewhat importantly, it lays out clear criteria across which players can evaluate their profession. A lot of people evaluate professions with a whole host of different considerations. We now know the actual considerations Anet uses, and how to actually look at professions. 

Edited October 30, 2022 by oscuro.9720

[Widebody.5071]

No comment...

The last time I made a build related idea I suggested that warrior need a 3 second  and maybe a war cry that stunned out 3 times melee range.

Next update we got the 3 second stun along with a 1 second self stun.

Since then I realized it was futile fighting for warrior's play status.

[eXruina.4956]

the philosophy i understand, will be a new implementation, a new vision for balancing the game, and not what previous balance teams were based on or worked with, so in this sense, it will be fair to look at it with a "from this point onwards."

 

sadly this is not the first time such promises were made, so the question is, will we see its actual implementation this time around, or will this another disaster like feb 2020 all over again.

 

anet's balance team has had a terrible showing over the years, and specially in light of recent happenings has lost much if not all their credibility.

 

but still as players who are invested in this game, we all want the state of balance to get better, i'm not about to say i trust them, because i don't at this point. after years of disappointment, but i'm willing to give it some more patience and judge them by the results of their work in coming months.

[CalmTheStorm.2364]

2 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

I would not say it’s “BS”. Given it’s a new balance team, you can think of it as a sort of “manifesto” for what they intend to do moving forward. We saw the Oct. 4 patch was an overall well executed patch and the first of the balance team. 

The things they said are actually quite important, they explicitly stated a lot of things we took for granted but Anet would never formally commit to, and stated some things that are quite a direction shift, such as there being wrong choices. They also talk about a power budget and a proper implementation of “tradeoffs” (which is opportunity cost; the cost of not being able to select the other options). 

Is this anything substantive? No, not at all. The only substantive thing this team has done is the Oct. 4 patch, which, as I previously stated, was a very encouraging patch. We will see in 2 weeks what the next patch is going to look like. 

Also somewhat importantly, it lays out clear criteria across which players can evaluate their profession. A lot of people evaluate professions with a whole host of different considerations. We now know the actual considerations Anet uses, and how to actually look at professions. 

This.  

 

There's a new balance and skills team.  We actually have to give them a chance to implement their philosophy and shape the game they way they see fit before we can judge it.

 

It's analogous to your sports team firing their old coach and hiring a new one.  You've gotta give the new coach some time to build their own systems, recruit their own players, etc., before you can truly evaluate how well they're doing their job.  That takes time, and we need to be patient.  Back to GW2, there's only so much they can reasonably change in every patch (and you wouldn't want them to change EVERYTHING all at once...can you imagine the balance problems and bugs that would happen from adjusting all those variables at once?), so we need to accept that this is going to be the work of many months, if not years.  We didn't get here overnight, and it won't be fixed overnight, either.

Also, realize that philosophy does not equal policy.  A lot of people have been freaking out because the specifics of X or Y weren't addressed in the livestream.  Chill out.  Philosophy is a set of principles that should guide your actions going forward.  Policy is the "if we see this, then we do that," practical, letter-of-the-law stuff.  They set out to give us their philosophy, and that's what they did (and it's a pretty good philosophy, too).  They probably don't have some magical equation for weighting every variable in a profession's power budget, or a company memo regarding how much stab guardian is allowed to give out, etc.  The number of variables in this game is immense, and it would probably be impossible (or at least incredibly unwieldy) to make a one-size-fits-all policy to determine every aspect of the game.  There's going to have to be a lot of trial and error and tweaking of numbers to get the balance just right.  We have to patient while that shakes out.  

[JTGuevara.9018]

3 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

I would not say it’s “BS”. Given it’s a new balance team, you can think of it as a sort of “manifesto” for what they intend to do moving forward. We saw the Oct. 4 patch was an overall well executed patch and the first of the balance team. 

The things they said are actually quite important, they explicitly stated a lot of things we took for granted but Anet would never formally commit to, and stated some things that are quite a direction shift, such as there being wrong choices. They also talk about a power budget and a proper implementation of “tradeoffs” (which is opportunity cost; the cost of not being able to select the other options). 

Is this anything substantive? No, not at all. The only substantive thing this team has done is the Oct. 4 patch, which, as I previously stated, was a very encouraging patch. We will see in 2 weeks what the next patch is going to look like. 

Also somewhat importantly, it lays out clear criteria across which players can evaluate their profession. A lot of people evaluate professions with a whole host of different considerations. We now know the actual considerations Anet uses, and how to actually look at professions. 

If it is not substantive, then it's BS. This game, once and for all, needs to lay out a detailed vision of what it IS and what it wants to achieve. It's only been 10 years, after all! Enough of this PR.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: talk is cheap. Yes, the warrior changes from Oct 4 are fine, you know why? Because it is what we expect for a melee archetype class in an RPG: a sturdy fighter who can dish it out and take some hits. However, given the disastrous spam-fest and powercreep this game is in, more needs to be done. And finally, it's not just warrior either...this entire game is a mess since there is no unified design that everybody can rely on. They said it themselves: "a living philosophy", aka whatever we, Anet, feel like doing. I mean...my god...just look at freakin' mechanist. You mean to tell me with a straight face that this needs to be in the game? Miss me with that "accessibility" nonsense. Mechanist is there to drive up sales, that's it. Look at what it's doing to pvp modes.

As for "considerations" and "manifesto"...pffft...those are only as valid as Trump's tax returns. (Y'all do the math...) Have we not learned anything from 2013? At what point do people become skeptical and start asking questions and stop with the excuses for this game? Can anybody with a straight face tell me that this current state of affairs is fine? Changing design philosophies every 2-3 years? It's just dikking around players at this point.

I know this response of mine is extreme. It may be off-putting for some. It's for a reason. I have no patience left as a 10-year player. If gw2 cannot get it together its basic design together after 10 years, then I will spend my money elsewhere. Even with warrior buffs, for example, will warrior be the mere guinea pig for this new "philosophy"? Are we sure that the same "big 3" classes won't still dominate?

[Warscythes.9307]

40 minutes ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

Mechanist is there to drive up sales, that's it. Look at what it's doing to pvp modes.

I am sorry your entire post credibility is up in question because of stuff like this. What exactly is mech doing to pvp modes? Because mech is not that great in pvp. Is it dominating ladder or monthly AT or something cause I don't see it anywhere.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Warscythes.9307

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

55 minutes ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

Y'all

Your face when you encounter a fellow southerner 🧐

[Infinity.2876]

yes, the balance philosophy is a bunch of bladesworn 😉

[Solvryn.3287]

18 hours ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

Yeah, I'm going to come out and say it. Hate to break the positivity, but there has been no objective analysis of the current state of the game and current design "philosophy". No mention of professions. No mention of the elephant in the room: the obvious dominance of these three professions (guardian, necro, engineer) in all three game modes. The glorified macro abomination that is mechanist. Rabid hostility to the concept of roles in an RPG. Instead, it's been the same old slogans: "diversity", "metagame", "play styles". I'm sick of it. After 10 freakin' years, you'd think gw2 would actually get it together. But no...it's a "living philosophy" aka no consistency and just make it up as we go along because we don't want to do the work of untangling this mess. "Balance" based on developers' and players' whims. This is the biggest load of BS I've ever read.

To all warriors who are considering plunking your money down this rabbit hole and to any future Anet products, I wish you luck. I, on the other hand...am done. Oh...I'll still play gw2 with the stuff I already bought (HoT and PoF), but beyond that, nah. No EoD, no 4th expansion, no nothing. NCSoft can hawk their cheap grind-fests without me. I got other games to play.

I know that this is the warrior forums, but I care more about the state of the game even over my own class. The overall game matters, folks. So, THIS is how gw2 is going operate? More of the same? A new "philosophy" every 2-3 years? What of warrior? I made this class 7 years ago to play a heavy-melee who can dish it out and take some hits, as in a standard RPG. But now, who's to say what the hell warrior is going to be in the future? Whatever the devs feel like? Because we know that anything regarding balance philosophy is hollow and their philosophy contradicts the application.

Discuss.

It's something to do till Ashes of Creation. 

[KryTiKaL.3125]

27 minutes ago, Solvryn.3287 said:

It's something to do till Ashes of Creation. 

Don't unload all of your hopes onto Ashes of Creation. People know even less about that game than we do about what changes we'll be getting to balance in GW2 going forward.

3 hours ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

If it is not substantive, then it's BS. This game, once and for all, needs to lay out a detailed vision of what it IS and what it wants to achieve. It's only been 10 years, after all! Enough of this PR.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: talk is cheap. Yes, the warrior changes from Oct 4 are fine, you know why? Because it is what we expect for a melee archetype class in an RPG: a sturdy fighter who can dish it out and take some hits. However, given the disastrous spam-fest and powercreep this game is in, more needs to be done. And finally, it's not just warrior either...this entire game is a mess since there is no unified design that everybody can rely on. They said it themselves: "a living philosophy", aka whatever we, Anet, feel like doing. I mean...my god...just look at freakin' mechanist. You mean to tell me with a straight face that this needs to be in the game? Miss me with that "accessibility" nonsense. Mechanist is there to drive up sales, that's it. Look at what it's doing to pvp modes.

As for "considerations" and "manifesto"...pffft...those are only as valid as Trump's tax returns. (Y'all do the math...) Have we not learned anything from 2013? At what point do people become skeptical and start asking questions and stop with the excuses for this game? Can anybody with a straight face tell me that this current state of affairs is fine? Changing design philosophies every 2-3 years? It's just dikking around players at this point.

I know this response of mine is extreme. It may be off-putting for some. It's for a reason. I have no patience left as a 10-year player. If gw2 cannot get it together its basic design together after 10 years, then I will spend my money elsewhere. Even with warrior buffs, for example, will warrior be the mere guinea pig for this new "philosophy"? Are we sure that the same "big 3" classes won't still dominate?

What you're saying isn't incorrect. They do need to show it, but I think the leak from not that long ago showed us why they have fallen over themselves with balance for so long; there were undoubtedly more than just that one dev present that were playing favorites with classes. Even just the one can throw a huge wrench into balance efforts due to that level of favoritism.

This is a newer balance team that is at least trying to showcase what they want their goals to be going forward, which is something more than they've done at any point prior when it comes to communication. People seem to forget that ANet isn't really much different from other game studios, they fall victim to the same things that plague any other studio. Their degrees of ignoring feedback and their community hit Blizzard levels, and even Blizzard now at this point at least went through I don't know how many iterations of changes on class talent trees for their return in Dragonflight, all based on community feedback.

It is, after all, just a video game at the end of the day and while I as well feel an attachment to this franchise, after 15 or so years of being a fan of it, I'm still able to at least give them the chance to make efforts to better the situation and what I've seen so far is genuinely somewhat promising. Don't get me wrong, I also refuse to give them money; I still do not own EoD and will continue to not own it unless someone else decides to get it for me as I will not spend my own money on it. Not until I see much more significant improvements and changes. I also don't buy anything from the gem store ever; again I refuse to spend money on this game until such a point as I personally feel like its in a better state.

[JTGuevara.9018]

2 hours ago, Warscythes.9307 said:

I am sorry your entire post credibility is up in question because of stuff like this. What exactly is mech doing to pvp modes? Because mech is not that great in pvp. Is it dominating ladder or monthly AT or something cause I don't see it anywhere.

A mechanist defender calling out MY credibility? Hah! Best laugh I've had all day!

Well, Mr. Warscythes, I shall tell you for the benefit of the audience. Mechanist is ruining pvp modes with its pew-pew build that spikes even high-armor targets while having the best mobility in the game and having an AI that is basically the equivalent of a 2nd player.

Don't take my word for it. Go see Anet and its intended use for mechanist: an easy-to-play, low-effort build.

16 minutes ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:

What you're saying isn't incorrect. They do need to show it, but I think the leak from not that long ago showed us why they have fallen over themselves with balance for so long; there were undoubtedly more than just that one dev present that were playing favorites with classes. Even just the one can throw a huge wrench into balance efforts due to that level of favoritism.

This is a newer balance team that is at least trying to showcase what they want their goals to be going forward, which is something more than they've done at any point prior when it comes to communication. People seem to forget that ANet isn't really much different from other game studios, they fall victim to the same things that plague any other studio. Their degrees of ignoring feedback and their community hit Blizzard levels, and even Blizzard now at this point at least went through I don't know how many iterations of changes on class talent trees for their return in Dragonflight, all based on community feedback.

It is, after all, just a video game at the end of the day and while I as well feel an attachment to this franchise, after 15 or so years of being a fan of it, I'm still able to at least give them the chance to make efforts to better the situation and what I've seen so far is genuinely somewhat promising. Don't get me wrong, I also refuse to give them money; I still do not own EoD and will continue to not own it unless someone else decides to get it for me as I will not spend my own money on it. Not until I see much more significant improvements and changes. I also don't buy anything from the gem store ever; again I refuse to spend money on this game until such a point as I personally feel like its in a better state.

I respect your patience, but you've made my point for me in the first paragraph. Changes are only being made because they were blindsided by the infamous summer "reveal". The cat is basically out of the bag. No words can assuage this.

Your second paragraph also sounds quite familiar. I could've sworn I heard it 6 years ago..

And regarding the rest, yes it is just a game at the end of the day. However, it is also a product that people buy. For me, it's less emotional attachment and more of being critical what companies are selling. See...it's NOT just Anet that I pick against, it's the entire game industry. The game industry basically gets away with murder day after day regarding shady business practices and nickel-and-diming the customer. And people either just passively, actively or defiantly accept it because they're emotionally attached to their franchises. They'll still line up and fondle these companies and let them get away with it. Game industry marketing machines grease those wheels. It's not just Anet that I attack, it's Ubisoft, Acti-blizzard, Bethesda, Epic, Tencent...etc. And yes, even Nintendo. And frankly, at my age(37), I've less tolerance for BS.

No, these companies need to be questioned. Hell, you could even extend this to tech. Tech itself needs to be questioned. Tech companies rival or even surpass the state in terms of power and influence in this information age.

3 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Your face when you encounter a fellow southerner 🧐

I am not a southerner! I really should just say 'everybody' instead of y'all so people don't get confused!

[draxynnic.3719]

19 hours ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

I don't care. Talk is cheap.

Show me the goods. That's all that matters. They've NOT done that, therefore they're not entitled to my money.

Sure. It's up to you when you consider the game to be worth investing in, and not. I've pulled the 'I'm not buying back into the franchise again until this list of greivances are addressed, including blatant favouritism of some options and neglect of others' with another franchise myself.

However, I do think it's unfair to pre-judge the new team based on the crimes of the old. We have a new team precisely because ArenaNet finally got the message that what the old team was doing was unacceptable to the point of undermining everything else that the company does. Like the coach analogy @CalmTheStorm.2364 made, you need to give them a few updates to evaluate how they're doing. There's a lot of rot they have to clear out. But at least the philosophy gives us an understanding of what they're aiming for and a bar from which we can evaluate whether the actions they take are in line with that philosophy.

But in either case, withholding investment until and unless they prove themselves is a perfectly valid approach.

[draxynnic.3719]

As an aside:

As someone who hasn't been playing mechanist - no, it's not dominating sPvP in general. However, it IS pretty domineering to warriors specifically because of the combination of being able to play keep-away and having more CC than any viable warrior build can deal with.

[Warscythes.9307]

2 hours ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

A mechanist defender calling out MY credibility? Hah! Best laugh I've had all day!

Well, Mr. Warscythes, I shall tell you for the benefit of the audience. Mechanist is ruining pvp modes with its pew-pew build that spikes even high-armor targets while having the best mobility in the game and having an AI that is basically the equivalent of a 2nd player.

Don't take my word for it. Go see Anet and its intended use for mechanist: an easy-to-play, low-effort build.

 

Where is this mech ruining PvP modes? Is this some fantasy land that you are referring to? Mech barely exist in PvP. Where did you even get that from? 

 

Best mobility in the game? pew-pew damage spike against even high armor targets? Mech that is basically a second player? What? That is completely wrong. Post in PvP forum that mech is broken and see yourself laughed out of the room. Mech is honestly I would consider the worst engie spec in PvP right now. Is probably not even B tier.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Warscythes.9307

[JTGuevara.9018]

3 minutes ago, Warscythes.9307 said:

 Mech barely exist in PvP. Where did you even get that from?

Oh...this is great...! cough...I can't contain all this laughter...

I guess at least 2 mechanists in every ranked game is a figment of my imagination! Bwahahahahhaa..

[Warscythes.9307]

21 minutes ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

Oh...this is great...! cough...I can't contain all this laughter...

I guess at least 2 mechanists in every ranked game is a figment of my imagination! Bwahahahahhaa..

There isn't at least 2 mechs in every ranked game. In fact I have seen maybe 2 in my past 20 games. So yes I think is a figment of your imgination.

If you don't believe me then just hop in literally any PvP streamer and check their videos and look at their past matches whether it be naru, vallun though he wvw more these days, grimjack or whatever take your pick. There are very few mechs in general. 

Edited October 31, 2022 by Warscythes.9307