What do you think about increasing radius of all buffs?

[Astralporing.1957]

7 hours ago, Linken.6345 said:

Yea sure just give melee pierce that you take away from ranged and it stay the same anyway.

Half of ranged does not pierce at all. Half of the remaining cases need to be traited for that. As long as you are fine with this, i am too - honestly, pierce is a poor man's cleave anyway.

[Astralporing.1957]

52 minutes ago, Mariyuuna.6508 said:

This is objectively false.

 

As shown with Machinist and Virtuoso, range has significant advantages such as a high DPS uptime as you weave in and out of attacks on the battlefield, instead of stacking in melee and hoping you dodge the attack or your healer provides Aegis or your teammates pick you back up after you get one hit by it.

My experience with virtuoso and mechanist pugs is that the high dps is being done by those that stay in stack. Those that go out of stack usually have to be picked up from the floor at some point.

52 minutes ago, Mariyuuna.6508 said:

Melee being safer is a myth, its safer because that's where all the heals, buffs and revives are.

Yes. precisely. Ranged has none of those. In general, danger in and out of stack is about the same, actually - but within stack it gets mitigated by all of the abovementioned things. I mean, it might be different at the very top of the skill range, the top 0.5% or something, but those players will be able to utilize the highest dps options with no problem - and at the moment those are all melee. Not ranged.

52 minutes ago, Mariyuuna.6508 said:

A good example is how useless Reaper is right now since incoming damage is tied to their outgoing damage.

Reaper's problem are not tied to it being melee. They are tied to shroud mechanic and reaper being overnerfed for years. If Reaper was a ranged class, all those problems would be there still. And its dps would likely be even lower.

52 minutes ago, Mariyuuna.6508 said:

The ideal scenario is always to play some kind of class with at least mid-range capabilities so that you can have the best of both worlds, and its been repeatedly shown these are the strongest classes in real-world scenarios.

 

If melee was always safer, do you think so many would be pushing for higher melee damage due to the many risks factors they have to take in order to deal that damage?

People are always pushing for bigger damage for the classes they play in. That power mechanist build you complain about? At 33k it is very low on the benchmark pole. It's being taken not because it's big dps (it's not), or because it's safe. It's being taken because it's extremely easy to play. Which is not the same. Virtuoso, which you also mentioned? It has significantly better dps, but in general it's the same thing - it's just relatively easy to play. Top dps builds are all melee however.

What else do you want? Relegate ranged dps to the poor joke levels? Sure, some melee builds (especially Reaper) are definitely deserving of major buffs, but that's on individual basis. It's those builds in specific that are bad, not melee in general. Also, i would not mind some higher dps melee LI builds as well, but that again is not a general complain, but a matter of introducing/adjusting specific builds. Buffing Reaper to ~35k range (and downplaying its dependency on shroud for that) would do just fine for that, for example.

[ZloyMakak.1429]

18 hours ago, Khisanth.2948 said:

Standard buff radius is 600. That makes a diameter of 1200. Maximum range of most ranged skills is also 1200(on paper at least).

"Melee" range is 130. If you insist on standing in 130 range despite having 600+ to work with then that is not an issue with the buff range.

I don't know how this topic became about ranged VS melee dps so I'd like to return to main discussion. So about buff radius (not the amount BTW) it is mostly 300 radius (600 diameter) is really small (mesmer, thief, engi, firebrand., herald). Don't remember about renegade but willbender sits at quiet comfortable radius of 600.

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

14 minutes ago, ZloyMakak.1429 said:

I don't know how this topic became about ranged VS melee dps so I'd like to return to main discussion. So about buff radius (not the amount BTW) it is mostly 300 radius (600 diameter) is really small (mesmer, thief, engi, firebrand., herald). Don't remember about renegade but willbender sits at quiet comfortable radius of 600.

The topic became about it because support range and DPS range are inherintly linked. You can't change one without affecting the other, since if melee doesn't do more DPS then everyone will just range. The only reason that doesn't happen right now is because its possible due to the low range on support skills.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Mariyuuna.6508

[dace.8019]

By degrees, ArenaNet managed to completely screw up their vision for GW2's professions and combat dynamics. The boon range is one of the things they completely misjudged and led us into the boon-role meta. It started by simply making it so that 25 might and perma fury was simple and worth occupying the same nanometer of space. It killed ranged options in group content. For awhile, it also meant conditions were useless (along with the bizarre original design choice regarding the old caps on conditions).

 

Instead of addressing this mistake, they doubled down and pandered to the "cheese it down" crowd. And, why not? Burning a boss down in 2 minutes does feel better than taking 4 minutes to do it. Unique boons became spread around to promote inclusion, especs became known by these meta boons instead of by their unique mechanics or designs. The game, heavily promoted on its departure from the "holy trinity" just created a new holy trinity. Healer, DPS alac, DPS quick. 

 

The point of all this is to demonstrate that they will not increase boon ranges. There's 2 camps ANet are keen to keep happy; the open world zerg player (there's enough of them in the blob that boon range is sort of irrelevant) and the meta instance crowd (who are stacking on the sacred spot in every encounter). 

[Linken.6345]

14 hours ago, dace.8019 said:

By degrees, ArenaNet managed to completely screw up their vision for GW2's professions and combat dynamics. The boon range is one of the things they completely misjudged and led us into the boon-role meta. It started by simply making it so that 25 might and perma fury was simple and worth occupying the same nanometer of space. It killed ranged options in group content. For awhile, it also meant conditions were useless (along with the bizarre original design choice regarding the old caps on conditions).

 

Instead of addressing this mistake, they doubled down and pandered to the "cheese it down" crowd. And, why not? Burning a boss down in 2 minutes does feel better than taking 4 minutes to do it. Unique boons became spread around to promote inclusion, especs became known by these meta boons instead of by their unique mechanics or designs. The game, heavily promoted on its departure from the "holy trinity" just created a new holy trinity. Healer, DPS alac, DPS quick. 

 

The point of all this is to demonstrate that they will not increase boon ranges. There's 2 camps ANet are keen to keep happy; the open world zerg player (there's enough of them in the blob that boon range is sort of irrelevant) and the meta instance crowd (who are stacking on the sacred spot in every encounter). 

You do know that the healer usualy bring alac or quick so no thats not the 3 roles at all.

heal alac/quick , dps and dps alac/quick are the 3.

[MedievalThings.5417]

The game launched with the premise that there was no trinity and that everyone was self-sufficient.  Now, we have a half-assed trinity and the boon creep is ridiculous, especially in some modes, like wvw.  Honestly, I wish they would just go all in with a proper trinity, or remove boon sharing completely.

[Hashberry.4510]

Just a mess squeezing this vibrant combat system into a raid sized hole.

[Astralporing.1957]

7 hours ago, Ubi.4136 said:

The game launched with the premise that there was no trinity and that everyone was self-sufficient.  Now, we have a half-assed trinity and the boon creep is ridiculous, especially in some modes, like wvw.  Honestly, I wish they would just go all in with a proper trinity, or remove boon sharing completely.

It's not the boon sharing that is the issue. It is the strength of boons that is a problem. In many cases, boons are responsible of the majority of damage. And that's when counted per each person. If we consider that it's usually just 2 players that are responsible for doubling or tripling whole squad damage, the OPness of boons becomes even more visible.

[Kozumi.5816]

Won't happen, Anets vision for the game is everyone stacking on top of each other with zero self positional awareness.

  

7 hours ago, Ubi.4136 said:

The game launched with the premise that there was no trinity and that everyone was self-sufficient.  Now, we have a half-assed trinity and the boon creep is ridiculous, especially in some modes, like wvw.  Honestly, I wish they would just go all in with a proper trinity, or remove boon sharing completely.

Yeah, instead of no holy trinity we have the worst group gameplay in the genre.

I'd rather have a trinity.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Kozumi.5816

[kharmin.7683]

1 minute ago, Kozumi.5816 said:

Yeah, instead of no holy trinity we have the worst group gameplay in the genre.

I'd rather have a trinity.

That may be true for instanced content like strike/raids, but I very much prefer there being no trinity for PvE as it allows me to play any profession and still be successful without having to rely on specific roles to get by. 

[Astralporing.1957]

19 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

That may be true for instanced content like strike/raids, but I very much prefer there being no trinity for PvE as it allows me to play any profession and still be successful without having to rely on specific roles to get by. 

Yes, that's quite an important factor we can't forget about. In the end, high-end instanced content is only for a small part of the playerbase, so we really should not try to make the game revolve around it.

[Kozumi.5816]

27 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

That may be true for instanced content like strike/raids, but I very much prefer there being no trinity for PvE as it allows me to play any profession and still be successful without having to rely on specific roles to get by. 

Name a current holy trinity game that you need "specific roles" to do open world content in.

 I can name one, actually, this very game! GL doing DE meta without proper support!

What you don't want, is already in this game, because it's "holy trinity" system is actually worse than a real holy trinity.

[kharmin.7683]

33 minutes ago, Kozumi.5816 said:

Name a current holy trinity game that you need "specific roles" to do open world content in.

 I can name one, actually, this very game! GL doing DE meta without proper support!

What you don't want, is already in this game, because it's "holy trinity" system is actually worse than a real holy trinity.

DE meta is like instanced content tossed in to open world.  It's a one-off and not a valid comparison.

[Kozumi.5816]

1 hour ago, kharmin.7683 said:

DE meta is like instanced content tossed in to open world.  It's a one-off and not a valid comparison.

Yes, but you ignored the fact I said holy trinity games don't force it in open world. There's zero downsides to holy trinity, as I said, GW2's "holy trinity" is just a much worse version of the holy trinity.

[Astralporing.1957]

2 hours ago, Kozumi.5816 said:

Name a current holy trinity game that you need "specific roles" to do open world content in.

Name a holy trinity game with OW even half as good as GW2 one is.

[Cuks.8241]

I think extending boon range in pve would be good for the game. At least the ones that are super tight. Would it solve stacking by itself? Nope. But I don't see any downside only ups.

[Justforvisit.3709]

On 11/6/2022 at 12:06 PM, ZloyMakak.1429 said:

Hello. I've been playing on and off from release (9,5 years). And one thing still buggers me. Why buff radius is so small? Like in raids when you split from squad while doing mechanics you are out of buffs for quite a while. This ultimately leads to stacking in one spot for almost all fights in pve, visual clutter and so on. 

My idea is to at least double (if not triple) of buff radius (alacrity, quickness and others) so ppl can spread a little. 

I'm not talking about wvwvw and pvp by the way coz this change will give unpredictable relusts in those modes (may be good but mostly bad). 

I'm writing it because I really don't like stacking in one place gameplay and want to move freely around bosses while not worrying about am I still in buff radius or not. 

So what's your opinion? It would be great to here pros and cons from you. 

Welcome to Guild Wars 2, where we have the most versatile, dynamic and movement-based combat system.....

....that forces you to stay absolutely still  within your group for most of the time in serious fights, apart form 1 or 2 occassiinally dogdes 😄

[kharmin.7683]

2 minutes ago, Justforvisit.3709 said:

Welcome to Guild Wars 2, where we have the most versatile, dynamic and movement-based combat system.....

....that forces you to stay absolutely still  within your group for most of the time in serious fights, apart form 1 or 2 occassiinally dogdes 😄

Which assumes that you can see incoming attacks underneath all of the bloat and glitter.

[Justforvisit.3709]

2 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Which assumes that you can see incoming attacks underneath all of the bloat and glitter.

Didn't want my post to  drag out too long 😛

But yeah, seconded ^^

[Borked.6824]

On 11/9/2022 at 9:45 AM, Justforvisit.3709 said:

Welcome to Guild Wars 2, where we have the most versatile, dynamic and movement-based combat system.....

....that forces you to stay absolutely still  within your group for most of the time in serious fights, apart form 1 or 2 occassiinally dogdes 😄

Man, that might be the truest statement I've ever found about this game.  Belongs on the box.

[Vavume.8065]

On 11/6/2022 at 11:06 AM, ZloyMakak.1429 said:

And one thing still buggers me.

TMI.