What is Anet's data so far on the WvW meta?

[Dagger.2035]

On 12/31/2022 at 7:33 AM, subversiontwo.7501 said:

However, most of what we see drive popularity today is not what is good (effective) but rather what is simple (effective) because ambition is at an all-time low.

This is nonsense.  Popularity is driven by what is both good (effective) and simple (effective) and this has nothing to do with ambition.  Certain professions aren't part of the meta since there aren't any good tradeoffs to playing them.  It doesn't make sense to take higher risks for less rewards.  Take Daredevil for example.  It doesn't support the group, it is primarily melee, it has tiny AOEs so you won't hit 5 targets, and the damage tradeoff isn't there.  It seems like it can only excel when you are w-keying tightly packed enemies, but in that case anything will work.  I feel like this is part of the discussion.  These specializations need improvements to make them worth playing.

 

On 12/31/2022 at 8:15 AM, subversiontwo.7501 said:

That meta isn't getting more fun if all we do is shoehorn eg., Rangers into the G-role and Thieves into the N-role.

This is exactly what we need.  It doesn't mean thief/necro or rangers/guardians will play identically.  It just means other roles are available to these professions which improves build diversity.  More build diversity equals more fun.  For example, I may get bored of playing a necromancer so now I can try out a Specter

 

On 12/31/2022 at 8:15 AM, subversiontwo.7501 said:

For the same reason I prefer to see balancing encouraging the Elementalists nominal Weaver role above its Tempest role.

You must not play Elementalist.  If you did you would know that Weaver is already in a good spot and is part of the meta.  It is one of the highest DPS options available and can do it from 1200 range.  It just off-tag build so you won't see it part of a traditional 5-man party.  Buffing the Tempest role is a good thing too.  It allows Elementalists so switch builds on the fly to fulfill needed roles.

 

On 12/31/2022 at 7:33 AM, subversiontwo.7501 said:

That argument also extends into the whole boon-discussion that keeps popping up, because while there are issues with the whole boon-play, that issue is not that there is imbalance because random dunces can't solo through double-supported parties on their own - without building such purpose-built parties for damage of their own.

I feel like the boon blob issue is annoying people since balance patches keep reducing damage and boon strips.  This makes WvW just a numbers game where more numbers guarantee a win.  God forbid that you ask a boon blob to re-position and move together to win a fight.  Now it's easier to stand still and try to out sustain damage.  In 2021, the balance was better since pug clouds had more damage and were more of a threat.

[Kozumi.5816]

On 12/27/2022 at 6:24 AM, Dawdler.8521 said:

As I've said before: Anet has balanced themselves into a corner. 

There is no way to "fix" anything anymore due to Anet octopling down on boons and overcomplicated skills that should do 1 thing but does 3 things and can be traited to do 6 things and then geared to do 9 things.

Any "fix" for WvW would cause an uproar for PvE folks and Anet will never, ever do that. 

Weird that SPvP doesn't have this issue.

  

On 12/28/2022 at 4:28 PM, Aeolus.3615 said:

TDLR Ktrain or gfto, when EOTM was a thing devs said they loved and wanted that gameplay into wvw some dev's even "soft bashed" players that defended entire keeps against zergs on EOTM, that's the lamer mentality this company gained over the years.

 

 

Yeah it's pretty obvious numbers > all is the design intent for WvW.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Kozumi.5816

[Dawdler.8521]

49 minutes ago, Kozumi.5816 said:

Weird that SPvP doesn't have this issue.

Yeah sPvP seems perfectly balanced aside from the constant screaming coming from the sPvP forums.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[Riba.3271]

As I see it, data has its uses at spotting obvious mishaps in the system: *cough cough* linking system *cough cough* Desert Border *cough cough*. No one can look at those numbers and say they are fine as it is.

 

For more delicate matters like what meta is fun, it is definitely more intricate and they could use hiring more brainpower for that part instead of trying to shoehorn in unfun and unkilled builds for a struggling class. As an example, everyone here knows that warrior off hand sword and both maces need a rework, right? No had used them since condi berserker in 2016. Rework the weapons, all gamemodes will be happy, people will buy character slots and devs will be loved. It is really not that hard. I have lot more ideas that would make gamemode shine like a diamond but I just chose this one because there is no one that can deny this one even if they're incapable of seeing the cause and effect.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Grand Marshal.4098]

I mean screw the meta and whatnot, the gamemode needs to just be more fun even if it's always going to be unbalanced in all aspects. 

I think it's very doable to make Untamed zerg-material and to make Specter a viable alternative to Scourge, or introduce a different role between Catalyst and Weaver with a staff. Virtuoso DPS/Strip is precicely what mesmer players could play as if the Chrono tank is simply not their cup of tea for a day. 

Since Anet formed defined roles for the mode, might as well put every single large-scale capable spec in them.

[Xenesis.6389]

6 hours ago, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

Virtuoso DPS/Strip is precicely what mesmer players could play as if the Chrono tank is simply not their cup of tea for a day. 

And that would be asking for mesmers to get nerfed again.

🤭

[Grand Marshal.4098]

Just now, Xenesis.6389 said:

And that would be asking for mesmers to get nerfed again.

🤭

I mean I see no reason for a nerf if Rain of Swords and Decimation as well as the Elite receive big damage buffs ffor more sustained DPS, coupled with the Core mesmer's ability to remove boons on shatter and Null field, it would be asking for no nerfs imo. 

Making dagger mainhand strip would be the only way for Virtuoso to get a boonrip buff outside of Core, make the weapon more appealing but odds are that would not happen, while the Psionic buff is very well needed and possible imo.

[subversiontwo.7501]

On 1/2/2023 at 3:42 PM, Dagger.2035 said:

You must not play Elementalist.  If you did you would know that Weaver is already in a good spot and is part of the meta.  It is one of the highest DPS options available and can do it from 1200 range.  It just off-tag build so you won't see it part of a traditional 5-man party.

 

This is exactly what we need.  It doesn't mean thief/necro or rangers/guardians will play identically.  It just means other roles are available to these professions which improves build diversity.  More build diversity equals more fun.  For example, I may get bored of playing a necromancer so now I can try out a Specter.

Me? In just the past week I have played both Weaver and Specter in large-scale content. You don't see me complaining on forums about how it would be impossible.

I'm not sure if you understood what you were quoting, but that was the very point of the post that you quoted. A Weaver is "just an off-tag build". So is a Specter, it is an off-tag support build. It is, for example, good at supporting such Weavers. You can try out a Specter today, it does not need to be changed into a Scrapper for you to play it. The meta is something different...

Spoiler

The meta is simply what the meta sites lists as the meta; any more convoluted definition is mainly rooted in what can be played, subjectively, and more things can be played than what your average forum-goer believes viable so it is a rather moot point: eg., suggesting that Weaver is meta but Specter not, while the meta sites do not list either as meta; Weaver is currently listed as "good but not meta".

... but if you want to build a healthy meta, you best do that by making such "off-tag" (or off-meta) parties popular so we end up with a meta that includes multiple types of parties and not just one type of party (like in late vanilla). That was the conclusion of the post that you cited from. That is also how you encourage what is better over what is simpler because purpose-built parties are better than just stacking everyone on tag, despite what the average forum-goer, who leads no guilds, squads or parties of their own, believes. It is uncommon because it is more demanding/complex, not less effective.

Ed. It feels like it is rooted on a common misconception here on the forums. People understand meta parties and they understand solo clouding. However, there always seems to be problems connecting that to how it is possible to build full parties out of typical clouding builds to enhance- and purpose what they do: to be more effective, impactful or successful.

Edited January 6, 2023 by subversiontwo.7501

[Dagger.2035]

54 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Me? In just the past week I have played both Weaver and Specter in large-scale content. You don't see me complaining on forums about how it would be impossible.

I'm not sure if you understood what you were quoting, but that was the very point of the post that you quoted. A Weaver is "just an off-tag build". So is a Specter, it is an off-tag support build. It is, for example, good at supporting such Weavers. You can try out a Specter today, it does not need to be changed into a Scrapper for you to play it. The meta is something different...

You kept mentioning that everything is more complex and equally effective.  You even mentioned that again before you edited your post.  I did understand what you wrote.  I'm not arguing about whether we need an off-tag meta.  I'm pointing out that certain classes just aren't worth playing.  When you play multiple classes, it is clear to see which work and don't work.

[subversiontwo.7501]

1 hour ago, Dagger.2035 said:

You kept mentioning that everything is more complex and equally effective.  You even mentioned that again before you edited your post.  I did understand what you wrote.  I'm not arguing about whether we need an off-tag meta.  I'm pointing out that certain classes just aren't worth playing.  When you play multiple classes, it is clear to see which work and don't work.

And that's where we disagree because far more classes than people assume are worth playing. They just excel at things like purpose-built parties. Classes like Rangers and Thieves are the most obvious examples because they are the classes people assume have no place in large-scale content while they also overlook what they excel at and try to cram them (or things they excel in parties with) into meta parties where neither is optimised.

It was never a question of being equally effective. That was you misunderstanding what was said, and if a clarification helped you understand it then I presume it was a good thing that a clarification was made, no? It wasn't me who walzed into this constructive thread a few days later, with a "hurr durr nonsense, do you even play"-attitude after cherry-picking a few qoutes from their context and giving them my own reading. Nore is it me falling back to some "no you, backtracked, edited, said before" kind of cop-out when kindly being explained and clarified the things misunderstood. I'll do you one better, here's the conclusion from the post you first quoted:

Quote

Similarily it isn't more effective to have 10 parties with that kind of support than it is to have say 7 parties of whatever simplified meta and 3 parties with something more risky off-meta: It is rather the opposite, it is better (more effective) to have diverse purpose-built parties but it is not as simple (effective).

That post isn't edited and it was always the same argument. You just misunderstood it and that wouldn't be a problem for you to swallow without that attitude.

Even the whole misunderstanding things was never a dig at you. However, you did come into a thread, qouting a post talking about playing Weavers off-tag and trying to correct it by commenting about Weavers being played off tag. That suggests a misunderstanding. Similarily saying that Weavers are meta, is conflating that with them being viable or good. They are not meta. However, that too is a misunderstanding since the argument the entire time was that Weavers are viable and good, yet if people want to make them meta, the best option is to popularise them by promoting their role as Weavers (multi-party meta) over their role as Tempests (single-party meta).

That's how the two discussions connect. They are two parts of one argument. They are not detached from each other. You came in here qouting me and now say you're not arguing about one (or either) of those things anyway. Then why did you qoute me to begin with and make my notifications flare up? You, asked, me ☺️. Even if I take this last post at face value and we assume that all you came to say was that some classes are not seen as worth playing in a single-party meta, well, then yes. However they are still viable, good and could be meta in a multi-party meta. That's it.

Edited January 6, 2023 by subversiontwo.7501

[Dagger.2035]

13 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Even if I take this last post at face value and we assume that all you came to say was that some classes are not seen as worth playing in a single-party meta, well, then yes. However they are still viable, good and could be meta in a multi-party meta. That's it.

This is where we disagree and have fundamental differences in the direction we want balance to go. I don't agree with wanting to have a multi-party meta where professions are forced into specialized roles.  This seems like it will get boring very quickly and defeats the purpose of introducing new specializations.

I also disagree with saying that certain specializations work well in a multi-party meta with the current state of balance.  When you look at larger fights say 50 vs 50 how much does a focus group really contribute to the outcome of the larger fight?  Let's even put the focus group in a bad spot by placing this fight in a Stonemist hallway.  I'm guessing the focus party will contribute much less than if you had another traditional 5-man party to replace them.

There is also a certain inequity to you suggesting that professions shouldn't have overlapping traditional 5-man party roles.  If you look at my Revenant, Guardian and Elementalist I have multiple large-scale builds to pick from.  I can choose to play DPS or support on these professions.  On my thief I can basically play DPS and it's a poorer DPS option than the alternatives.  I would rather play Reaper/Scourge or Berserker.  This is why Specter should be another source of boon removal.  Having access to multiple roles is a major quality of life issue since we have to deal with queues in WvW.

Allowing professions to fulfill multiple roles doesn't mean the different professions will become homogeneous.  I expect them to play differently and have tradeoffs which make them all worth playing.  This adds depth to the game and will give us more options to explore especially since most of us have legendary armor at this point in the game's life.  Hopefully having access to multiple roles will make the game more fun and cause more of us to purchase additional template slots.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Dagger.2035 said:

I also disagree with saying that certain specializations work well in a multi-party meta with the current state of balance.  When you look at larger fights say 50 vs 50 how much does a focus group really contribute to the outcome of the larger fight?  Let's even put the focus group in a bad spot by placing this fight in a Stonemist hallway.  I'm guessing the focus party will contribute much less than if you had another traditional 5-man party to replace them.

Bad spot?

Thats like the perfect spot for a 5 man to get behind the enemy group and distract/hammer the backline - maybe even forcing the enemy zerg to do a 180 and making an opening wider than the grand canyon in the choke for their own zerg. If you can get the zerg moving you win.

Realistic scenario? No because a vast majority of commanding fools dont know how to do anything other than boonball facetank and wouldnt even see such a tactical opening if it had neon signs pointing right at it.

[Cyninja.2954]

2 hours ago, Dagger.2035 said:

This is where we disagree and have fundamental differences in the direction we want balance to go. I don't agree with wanting to have a multi-party meta where professions are forced into specialized roles.  This seems like it will get boring very quickly and defeats the purpose of introducing new specializations.

What you fail to realize, the specialization which happens is not based around class balance, it's based on game design balance.

You don't get firebrands give stability because they do it the best (which they do). You get that because the core design of how cc and stability works makes it necessary to have that stab, thus a slot in the team composition is set.

The same goes for conditions and healing. You have dedicated slots in larger groups because it is vastly more efficient to bring cleanse and healing on some classes versus everyone. That's not a class balance issue, that's a game design issue.

The multi party meta is entirely based around how the combat in this game is designed and NOT based around how classes are designed. Now yes, combat design can be altered or changed (such as it has been in the past, say with changing how stability works) but that is a very different beast than class balance, which sets in AFTER combat design.

2 hours ago, Dagger.2035 said:

I also disagree with saying that certain specializations work well in a multi-party meta with the current state of balance.  When you look at larger fights say 50 vs 50 how much does a focus group really contribute to the outcome of the larger fight?  Let's even put the focus group in a bad spot by placing this fight in a Stonemist hallway.  I'm guessing the focus party will contribute much less than if you had another traditional 5-man party to replace them.

This is where actual class balance is favored by how well it applies to current game design. Specific composition WILL work far better in specific scenarios versus other setups. Most notably if you have a well rounded primary and secondary support with ideally best in slot dps. This is very noticeable if you say lack stability in sub groups which will be one of the most dramatic changes in how your experience will play out against a similar sized opponent (with cleanse support coming in second).

2 hours ago, Dagger.2035 said:

There is also a certain inequity to you suggesting that professions shouldn't have overlapping traditional 5-man party roles.  If you look at my Revenant, Guardian and Elementalist I have multiple large-scale builds to pick from.  I can choose to play DPS or support on these professions.  On my thief I can basically play DPS and it's a poorer DPS option than the alternatives.  I would rather play Reaper/Scourge or Berserker.  This is why Specter should be another source of boon removal.  Having access to multiple roles is a major quality of life issue since we have to deal with queues in WvW.

Agreed, especially on the boon removal aspect. I personally believe we are in dramatic lack of boon removal/denial specialization options currently. Big focus on denial here, since that is a very underutilized feature I think.

I disagreed with the spellbreaker changes to bubble, not because I thought the bubble was to strong/weak (it was far to strong as unique skill), but because there was no alternative to it. There needs to be MORE boon denial options to combat the insane boon creep we have seen. Ideally with both more boon removal and other forms of denial being implemented.

In the past, smaller groups could outplay larger groups due to better:

- focused damage, guilds would have more damage on the same spot

- higher target caps on skills which allowed larger impact

- better boon up-time on their members versus the larger party (both in self application as well as removal/denial)

- higher siege damage, no shield gens

 

Most of those advantages have disappeared by now for better and worse.

- focused damage suffered from higher cooldown, which while providing a more tactical approach does not compensate for the amount of skills advantage the larger side has. It is not uncommon for "just W over them" to be a thing at critical mass simply because the small side has no way to outplay this size disadvantage

- target cap reductions on some heavy hitters made the game more balanced but also removed any possibility for smaller groups to make use of this benefit

- boon creep makes current boon removal near irrelevant versus a larger side

- boon creep makes self application of boons a near non factor currently. You will have those critical boons near all the time even if stripped

 

As such smaller guilds are forced to either:

- blob up, which many did. The average guild size on border in EU has increased by 5-10 players easy

- look for equal fights outside of border (aka scrims)

 

Adding some element of boon denial/removal which distinguishes and rewards player skill could alleviate this issue.

2 hours ago, Dagger.2035 said:

Allowing professions to fulfill multiple roles doesn't mean the different professions will become homogeneous.  I expect them to play differently and have tradeoffs which make them all worth playing.  This adds depth to the game and will give us more options to explore especially since most of us have legendary armor at this point in the game's life.  Hopefully having access to multiple roles will make the game more fun and cause more of us to purchase additional template slots.

It's both actually. Homogeneity would set in for part of the classes role, distinguished only via how they differ in providing their main function. Ease of use might come into play here after up-time issues. Most often ease of use dictates which class sees the most play, followed by other unique benefits (sneak gyro for example on old scrapper or 10 player target cap on tempest before) followed by over-proportionate amount of said utility, balanced via harder use (say you can theoretically provide the most of said utility, but the class is rather difficult to play, it evens out the usefulness compared to easier classes).

Unique abilities would be based around fringe aspects to the combat system. We see this currently with the availability of secondary supports: most bring a similar amount of cleanse (at differing levels of complexity but still their primary function), differing amounts of healing (druid being top spot I believe at some additional complexity) and some unique benefits which are tertiary (druid glyph and roots versus pop on scrapper and alacrity and auras on tempest).

It's very important to distinguish between which elements can be changed/balanced around class balance, and which around combat design.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[nthmetal.9652]

On 12/27/2022 at 1:12 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

Anet doesnt do small changes.

Unless they do. I remember plenty, and I mean really plenty of meaningless changes like "adjusting damage modifier from 1.35 to 1.38" (or vice versa) because skill xy dealt "slightly too much/too little damage". Or inceasing / decreasing cooldowns by 2s on 30+s CD skill. Changes that are basically meaningless. Wasting development effort on things no one really feels.

[Dagger.2035]

5 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Bad spot?

Thats like the perfect spot for a 5 man to get behind the enemy group and distract/hammer the backline - maybe even forcing the enemy zerg to do a 180 and making an opening wider than the grand canyon in the choke for their own zerg. If you can get the zerg moving you win.

Nah, it's more likely the focus group will be ignored or not contribute much, then larger group will wipe each smaller group one at a time.  The focus party would do more for their server by simply logging out. 🙂

[nthmetal.9652]

15 minutes ago, Dagger.2035 said:

Nah, it's more likely the focus group will be ignored or not contribute much, then larger group will wipe each smaller group one at a time.  The focus party would do more for their server by simply logging out. 🙂

That, I would argue, depends on the quality of your focusgroup. If they can't focus properly or coordinate well with the main zerg, so that their focus creates a tail, but no downies, then yes. Fully agreed. However if they can, ignoring said focus group would be a bad idea.

Generally the meta of big numbers is an issue and can only be countered by looking at the underlying game design, not at the class or skill design.

[Grand Marshal.4098]

Whether or not people identify niche roles as worth mentioning and including in the current zerg environment, is frankly partially subjective. I can have great success with my Untamed build and consider its role as viable and useful, but without factoring in the learning process behind it, it's as good as useless in the grand scheme of things. 

A well-seasoned player will tend to pick a more obscure spec to perform a similar or hybrid role in the zerg, out of sheer boredom for the classic party composition which is meta in terms of playability and performance.

Sure thing, if Specter plays very similarly to Scourge, why should you play either over the other? Well that is up to a whole design team to figure out. How to create an identity for a spec, without compromising its assets. You need alternative playstyles that can be rewarding in different ways in order to successfuly have a more fun experience for players. 

Sure the gameplay restrictions will always dictate the mai roles behind specs, but that isn't really inherently a negative thing. I chose to play WvW because I saw the appeal to this form of combat, to the potential diversity within this large-scale fights with the pool of tens of elite specs to play with. 

What tactics are implemented, what havoc parties you got, doesn't impact the bigger picture.

You will not fight without FB/Chrono/Scourge/Rev/Ele. Otherwise you aren't zerging.

So the ideal scenario is: properly identify roles and create a table of where elite specs allow themselves to be put with potential tweaks in their traits/weapons/playstyles.

The WvW stream did a poor job describing the roles that have surfaced and yes, you need stability due to the CC in the game, but you also use Firebrand because of Aegis/Prot/Cleanse/Heal/Rez/CC utility. 

From my personal understanding after 4 years of open field zerging the roles I identify are as follow:

1. Stability Provider
2. Cleanser/Healer 
3. Boonrip/DPS - Boonrip/Utility
4. DPS/Boonshare
5. Raw DPS (rare because you need more than jsut DPS to offer to your party, although the ideology does exist in the Core classes since early release to be able to do a bit of everything)
6. Niche roles for 5th slot: Immob Spam/Specific Boon Support (big Alac/Quick)/Utility

By no means would I pioneer the meta in WvW, but I have understood that much in my gaming experience and the simple thing I'd ask from the devs would be to make an Excel board and simply shove all specs within these roles and how they envision them to be able to execute their roles.

A melee DPS should have higher burst damage than a ranged DPS option, while a ranged DPS should have more reliable ticking damage.

A raw DPS should do very high DPS on it's own, but fall short on basically any other aspect (which is true), but a DPS that doesn boon support on top, should not be massively above a raw DPS in numbers, as that would invalidate the role of say, a Staff Daredevil in favor of a Herald in any given scenario (which is exactly what's happening rn). 

Finally I'd say that providing ranged and melee options for a single role is a big thing, since it allows for ease of play in any scenario, propping up the spec considerably, compared to options that are either melee or ranged focused. This becomes more prevalent with Rev and Guard being that and quite evidently so, pushing off the board most DPS alternatives, due to the sheer role compression and reach of abilities. Range + Melee + Potent boons + consistently top 1 or top 3 DPS. 

So the more you introduce specs into the meta, which can perform similar or hybrid roles, the more diversity increases and you can start balancing out the options given, without affecting the smaller-scale content much, since you should focus on specific sets of utilities and traits during large-scale. You have the other options too, but they should be of lesser importance depedning on build. 

Anyway that's my improved take on it, interesting points from everyone, but let's remember that what we really need is not just the players' opinion and views, but Anet's, which is convoluted at best and did not clarify things enough for me to believe that they aim to diversify WvW largescale, let alone introduce more specs into play.

 

 

[Xenesis.6389]

1 hour ago, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

A melee DPS should have higher burst damage than a ranged DPS option, while a ranged DPS should have more reliable ticking damage.

Uh reliable ticking damage in what way? through conditions? that gets cleansed right away, through pulsing aoes? that gets run over easily. So what way do you vision the delivery of tickling damage? 

 

I don't know if I agree with that, but also we're close to that already anyways. The devs have already nerfed most of the big aoe damage skills to the ground so boon balls can relax and run over everything, especially when superspeed was more available, now it's just a matter of how many can be thrown down in the same spot at the same time to effective.

Boon balls are also built to be more melee-mid range oriented, but obviously nothing close to the long range backline of the old days. Most fights now end up in melee range with each side just testing who has the better sustain standing in the bomb spot. Adding more melee burst might get some to shy away from entering melee range in the first place when they know their sustain isn't that good.

[Grand Marshal.4098]

53 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Uh reliable ticking damage in what way? through conditions? that gets cleansed right away, through pulsing aoes? that gets run over easily. So what way do you vision the delivery of tickling damage? 

 

I don't know if I agree with that, but also we're close to that already anyways. The devs have already nerfed most of the big aoe damage skills to the ground so boon balls can relax and run over everything, especially when superspeed was more available, now it's just a matter of how many can be thrown down in the same spot at the same time to effective.

Boon balls are also built to be more melee-mid range oriented, but obviously nothing close to the long range backline of the old days. Most fights now end up in melee range with each side just testing who has the better sustain standing in the bomb spot. Adding more melee burst might get some to shy away from entering melee range in the first place when they know their sustain isn't that good.

Access to numerous large constant AoEs. Power damage is obviously the way to go in WvW, so I won't touch on conditions.

If conditions were incorporated it would be interesting, but I'd prefer condition balance over whatever abuse Burn Guard can do (tho tbf that's mostly an anti-cloud tool).

As for what you describe as per movement and escape from aoes, well you either cook cripples/immob in said large aoes or go the dragon's tooth approach but you'd have to lower coeffs a lot with that.

But overall, the ability to escape that pack of dmg by walking away is part of the counterplay and I think is a tested and successful thing: CC at the same time as dmg drops to make most out of it.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Grand Marshal.4098

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

The WvW stream did a poor job describing the roles that have surfaced

You put this in a rather kind format I would say. The fact that they broke WvW down to, what was it 2, was kind of telling.

 

2 hours ago, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

From my personal understanding after 4 years of open field zerging the roles I identify are as follow:

1. Stability Provider
2. Cleanser/Healer 
3. Boonrip/DPS - Boonrip/Utility
4. DPS/Boonshare
5. Raw DPS (rare because you need more than jsut DPS to offer to your party, although the ideology does exist in the Core classes since early release to be able to do a bit of everything)
6. Niche roles for 5th slot: Immob Spam/Specific Boon Support (big Alac/Quick)/Utility

 

Both Zerg/Large scale and Havoc can fall into similar roles so though you indicated not really talking Havoc, its close to the same. When talking Roamer it expands further as the roles get more specialized depending on what you might be hunting or if if you are building for an all purpose build. Some all purpose roamer builds also fit well in Havoc and Zerg play as well as roaming. 

 

2 hours ago, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

in WvW, but I have understood that much in my gaming experience and the simple thing I'd ask from the devs would be to make an Excel board and simply shove all specs within these roles and how they envision them to be able to execute their roles.

I actually think they are doing this. We have seen more options in Condi/Power mixs and though there have been options removed more options for Sustain builds as well. IMO they have been seeming to have power, condi, support,heal, tank and sustain builds for each class through the elites. 

 

2 hours ago, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

Anyway that's my improved take on it, interesting points from everyone, but let's remember that what we really need is not just the players' opinion and views, but Anet's, which is convoluted at best and did not clarify things enough for me to believe that they aim to diversify WvW largescale, let alone introduce more specs into play.

 

To add into it the same concept,  WvW will never be balanced. There is no way to balance things when a fight could be 5 vs 50 at a given time. Looking for outliers is a good thing. Many people complain about 1 shot builds but we don't really have that as much now as we might have back in the day. That said I would error on the side of fun and interesting versus make everyone a wet noodle. It still seems that the nerf patch was targeting people playing glass builds versus glass builds which was part of the issue. The same lens I would also say was applied to siege where as people should have geared out for the role they were looking to run versus going for max DPS. So when they consider new abilities and options factor in a more balanced gear set and don't cut fun and interesting because a glass build couldn't take a hit. 

[Grand Marshal.4098]

10 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

You put this in a rather kind format I would say. The fact that they broke WvW down to, what was it 2, was kind of telling.

At this point I think they are doing it on purpose.

10 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Both Zerg/Large scale and Havoc can fall into similar roles so though you indicated not really talking Havoc, its close to the same. When talking Roamer it expands further as the roles get more specialized depending on what you might be hunting or if if you are building for an all purpose build. Some all purpose roamer builds also fit well in Havoc and Zerg play as well as roaming. 

I think balancing the mode for large-scale to an acceptable degree of variety and then deciding to move downward to the more specific things like roaming would be great. Problem is they can't even figure out largescale. Or they could just make sure large-scale traits are large-scale only.

10 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I actually think they are doing this. We have seen more options in Condi/Power mixs and though there have been optionsremoved more options for Sustain builds as well. IMO they have been seeming to have power, condi, support,heal, tank and sustain builds for each class through the elites. 

In a more general scenario yeah, I'd agree. But as far as WvW open field zerg roles go, I don't think they understand the nuances of each role and how each class competes for it. Also, condi is just a no-discussion point in zergs so unless a condi rework happens (lol) I'd not even bring it up, would just make sure to not let it be busted in small-scale *cough* .

10 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

To add into it the same concept,  WvW will never be balanced. There is no way to balance things when a fight could be 5 vs 50 at a given time. Looking for outliers is a good thing. Many people complain about 1 shot builds but we don't really have that as much now as we might have back in the day. That said I would error on the side of fun and interesting versus make everyone a wet noodle. It still seems that the nerf patch was targeting people playing glass builds versus glass builds which was part of the issue. The same lens I would also say was applied to siege where as people should have geared out for the role they were looking to run versus going for max DPS. So when they consider new abilities and options factor in a more balanced gear set and don't cut fun and interesting because a glass build couldn't take a hit. 

Nah it won't, but it would be nice to play some different builds once in a while and other specs, while keeping everything viable, albeit nothing being optimal if that makes sense. 

Ever since I started, the only change that happened is Heal Scrapper going semi-extinct and Tempest even 4 years ago, was still capable asf. So druid only entering the fray and some hammer vindicator, doesn't count as very successful to me.

[TheGrimm.5624]

14 minutes ago, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

At this point I think they are doing it on purpose.

That or the environment. Trying to figure how best to put it.

Will use an example from another WvW game. The devs were playing with more causal groups and coming up with their changes. They were in a Warband of 24 people moving together and were trying to balance around that. They thought the changes were good since they could see how they played out. Then they connected with an organized guild where the 24 split into 4 groups of 6 and hit 2 other 24 player Warbands where they applied a pincer pattern to them both and saw them smash them in short order due to some of the changes. That made them stop and say, ok looked good on paper but....

It will never be balanced and trying to limit builds to prevent bad builds is also questionable. Looking for outliers is a good approach but I agree I would prefer more diversity because it is also more fun to find those combos that people might not try since it isn't meta and see what you can find to keep the fights fresh in the least. I have also seen the impact though when they kill off people's builds, that's not heathy for populations either. Nothing worse to lose people when they nerf a build out of existence especially if people don't have leggo gear. For those of us that do its not that big of an issue, but the Armory is still generally new so I would wager mores still don't have versus have and so those changes are magnified. Its a rough line to walk. 

[Xenesis.6389]

1 hour ago, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

Access to numerous large constant AoEs. Power damage is obviously the way to go in WvW, so I won't touch on conditions.

If conditions were incorporated it would be interesting, but I'd prefer condition balance over whatever abuse Burn Guard can do (tho tbf that's mostly an anti-cloud tool).

It already exist, Arc divider for melee, Scorched earth for carpet bomb and burn. CoR was already large constant aoes on low cooldown, we want the game filled with that? There's still plenty of skills that get me to wtf face when I get hit with it, stuff that hits for 5-9k that I think should be hitting for 1-2k given the primary purpose of those skills, but then again I don't run in easy mode in boon ball so. Take protection off these groups and you'll see damage is there still.

 

1 hour ago, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

As for what you describe as per movement and escape from aoes, well you either cook cripples/immob in said large aoes or go the dragon's tooth approach but you'd have to lower coeffs a lot with that.

Cleanse resistance aegis spam. Not like it matters most of the low level commanders are dumb enough to stand in stuff for too long.

 

1 hour ago, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

But overall, the ability to escape that pack of dmg by walking away is part of the counterplay and I think is a tested and successful thing: CC at the same time as dmg drops to make most out of it.

That's what dodge use to be for, now groups get carried with superspeed and 12 boons, people getting carried with boons instead of carrying themselves anymore. 🤷‍♂️

[Grand Marshal.4098]

6 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

It already exist, Arc divider for melee, Scorched earth for carpet bomb and burn. CoR was already large constant aoes on low cooldown, we want the game filled with that? There's still plenty of skills that get me to wtf face when I get hit with it, stuff that hits for 5-9k that I think should be hitting for 1-2k given the primary purpose of those skills, but then again I don't run in easy mode in boon ball so. Take protection off these groups and you'll see damage is there still.

Which is precisely why said AoEs should exist for a class that plays ranged at core (aka Weaver/Catalyst) instead of a Melee that also somehow does good at range (Rev and yes, even Berserker, tho Berserker has the raw DPS role so you can be a bit more lenient towards it's dmg). Basically, keep ranged assets on maily melee specs at a mediocre level and make ranged assets on ranged classes strong with constant dmg, while melee excels at bursting melee.

Aka, Berserker should be very good with Arc Divider and basically the most powerful cleaver in zerging, while Weaver should do massive Meteor shower damage, instead of say, Scorching Earth being above meteor shower and FGS doing better DPS than arc divider for example.

6 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Cleanse resistance aegis spam. Not like it matters most of the low level commanders are dumb enough to stand in stuff for too long.

Precisely why we need more specs in the boonrip area. So far I propose for Specter in the Scourge competition, Untamed in the Spellbreaker competition and Mallyx Rev in a more utility/support boonrip role like Chrono (but def not quite). Virtuoso also a potent boonrip spec if made for it, Catalyst needs it's boon identity refined or something else entirely for largescale, unless if boons are cut a lot and the role of DPS/Boon support becomes more needed in groups for the boons (instead of a firebrand and a tempest farting them).

6 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

That's what dodge use to be for, now groups get carried with superspeed and 12 boons, people getting carried with boons instead of carrying themselves anymore. 🤷‍♂️

They choose this balance, so it's up to them ultimately. 

[Cyninja.2954]

17 minutes ago, Grand Marshal.4098 said:

Precisely why we need more specs in the boonrip area. So far I propose for Specter in the Scourge competition, Untamed in the Spellbreaker competition and Mallyx Rev in a more utility/support boonrip role like Chrono (but def not quite). Virtuoso also a potent boonrip spec if made for it, Catalyst needs it's boon identity refined or something else entirely for largescale, unless if boons are cut a lot and the role of DPS/Boon support becomes more needed in groups for the boons (instead of a firebrand and a tempest farting them).

I like those ideas. I've mentioned in the past how I was assuming untamed would be the ranger equivalent of spellbreaker, which it was not and spellbreaker boon removal was nerfed.

The idea for specter sounds good, hadn't thought of that myself, would give thief a viable/desirable large scale build.

Mallyx boon removal is a tad to high in WvW for my liking (going along the lines of reducing boon removal across all classes instead of increasing it). It could use a reduction of 5 or even 10 points back to 25/20 energy in WvW.

My personal assumption is: they've been treating WvW balance similar to PvE balance when it comes to boons. Give everyone all boons to reduce performance fluctuation by assuring boons will be there. Which works for PvE, since enemies seldom boonrip but is a total disaster for spvp or wvw. That or they just haven't come around to reworking their design ideas for WvW after multiple years (some of which we know where not active development).

Edited January 7, 2023 by Cyninja.2954