Let's discuss Quickness and Alacrity.

[rotten.9753]

1 hour ago, HnRkLnXqZ.1870 said:

Currently Quickness increases attack-speed by 50 % and Alacrity applies 25 % skill recharge rate. ANet and their balancing-team have modified all classes around the idea of having these two boons present all the time. Which means they feel slow and clunky when this is not the case.

Just so everyone is aware, quickness increases skill activation speed by 50% and alacrity increases skill recharge rate by 25%. This means that a skill with 1 second casting time will take 0.66s (33% reduction) and the skill with 1 second recharge will recharge in 0.8s (20% reduction).

1 hour ago, HnRkLnXqZ.1870 said:

When the boons were added to the game, they were only available for short times to enhance certain phases in encounters.

This isn't fully correct - quickness was at the launch of the game and was not a boon, however it used to increase skill activation by 100% (50% reduction in cast times). When it was made a boon (with HoT) it became permanently maintainable. When alacrity was introduced (also with HoT) it also wasn't a boon, it was stronger, similarly to quickness (recharge rate increased by 33% which means a reduction of 25%). It was later nerfed and turned to boon, but if I recall correctly it was permanently maintainable at the HoT launch, or close to it.

[Flapjackson.1596]

37 minutes ago, Atomnium.1532 said:

Oh I'm not excusing or advocating for the devs decision to put such an emphasis on these boons and have the game revolve around them.

What I'm saying is that pivoting away from that design is not a simple toggle. Huge work has to be done afterward to rebalance around the absence of these as the core of certain specs. It would be a big shift, I believe as most here that it would be a net positive to remove them altogether/make them baseline and that numerical outliers can be dealt with after quickness alac would be baseline.

Remember that it took YEARS for Anet to make enough specs provide them so that we don't have to stack the 1-3 specs that provide it and have some degree of diversity, I'm not expecting undoing the years of design around it to be done in a monthly balance patch, that's what I'm saying. I absolutely believe that eventually, quickness and alac will change or be removed, but I don't think it's likely that it'll come soon™.

I recognize the scope of the work necessary. The problem is changes like this patch don’t further that goal. If the devs were iterating in a way that projected an eventual resolution of this problem, then that would be one thing. 

Balancing the game so every profession can contribute to permanent boons does the opposite however. It contributes to the problem. It operates off the assumption that every profession must be able to give quick/alac permanently because it is acceptable that any profession can. They’ve already surrendered to the idea.

It would take a very long time to reach the point where the design of the game is in a workable state, but walking backwards is not iteration. 

[Atomnium.1532]

We're mostly in agreement. My prediction is that we'll have 1-2 years of iterration in that cursed direction until they realize that it was a poor design. I mean it's not like Anet is a stranger to drastic vision shifts.

[Cuks.8241]

3 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

 

Why not? There's already some massive splits between how mechanics work in PvE and PvP modes, we can easily add skill speed and cooldowns on top of that.

Most SPvP builds already do not have access to both those boons at a decent upkeep. Some do not have access to any of those boons at all. So, i'd not worry about it too much. WvW boonballs would get affected, but weakening those a bit would not necessarily be a bad thing, don't you think?

 

 

I wouldnt split the baseline tempo between pvp and pve modes. At least as far as quickness is concerned. We already have lots of CD splits so alac is not really an issue. 

It would just feel bad for pvp compared to pve. I think its also important that the base feel is consistent. 

I dont think it would be the end of the world for pvp if these 2 would be baseline. Yeah balance would suffer initialy, but that can be fixed over time. Much easier than other solutions and it wouldnt make your char worse compared to pve. 

[Flapjackson.1596]

23 minutes ago, Atomnium.1532 said:

We're mostly in agreement. My prediction is that we'll have 1-2 years of iterration in that cursed direction until they realize that it was a poor design. I mean it's not like Anet is a stranger to drastic vision shifts.

Ain’t that the truth. Maybe working on new combat features and trying to fit them into the tangled web they work with will eventually cause them to throw up their hands and resolve to just purge the system of the offending elements and make everyone’s lives easier.

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, Cuks.8241 said:

I wouldnt split the baseline tempo between pvp and pve modes. At least as far as quickness is concerned. We already have lots of CD splits so alac is not really an issue. 

It would just feel bad for pvp compared to pve. I think its also important that the base feel is consistent. 

I dont think it would be the end of the world for pvp if these 2 would be baseline. Yeah balance would suffer initialy, but that can be fixed over time. Much easier than other solutions and it wouldnt make your char worse compared to pve. 

The base feel is already not consistent so i would not worry about it. Remember, that PvP does not really have rotations the way PvE does - it's a more dynamic gameplay with a completely different feel. Besides, again, that split already exist since those boons are not so prevalent in SPvP as they are in PvE.

1 hour ago, Cuks.8241 said:

I dont think it would be the end of the world for pvp if these 2 would be baseline. Yeah balance would suffer initialy, but that can be fixed over time. Much easier than other solutions and it wouldnt make your char worse compared to pve. 

It would not make the char any worse than nerfed split versions of skills/trait make it feel currently. It will make it feel different than PvE - which it already is.

 

 

[erapago.4387]

Definitely excited for the day when ArenaNet realises that balancing the game and redesigning specializations around two boons isn't a great path to follow

[howdy.7604]

I read somewhere above me that someone proposed quickness and alacrity not as player-generated boons, but as "rewards" for, say, correctly dealing with boss mechanics. I do like this idea. A lot. Both get a set duration *independently from concentration*, and both revert to their original pre-nerf state.

Boss encounter enters burst phase. You've done the mechanics correctly, gain Upper Hand, or something like that, so you've got a 5 seconds window to burst hard, and you're rewarded for minding how the encounter works. Pvp and wvw: downstate has been a topic of salt for long. You down someone? Upper Hand, finish the job, five seconds to get the kill. Manage to kill by stomping instead of button mashing? Cake, other five seconds of quickness and alacrity. Rez a teammate? Reward with quickness and alacrity. Capture a point/kill a dolyak? Upper hand! Maybe five seconds is too much. 3? 2? Could vary based on game mode, I guess. I'd go for a set number so that concentration doesn't kitten everything up. 

Whatever the number, I like the idea of taking quickness and alacrity out of "player generation" as it is now, and use it to reward specific actions. I dare even say that, regarding warrior, gaining both for the duration of revenge would make it legitimately scary, and possibly justify that ludicrously low chance to rally and the related trait. 

[SponTen.1267]

Am I the only one who would love having Quickness and Alacrity as temporary boons? I love how it feels to have them now, and the contrast between not having them and then having them is stark and noticeable. The boost in power is fun, but it becomes meaningless when it's permanent. It's already like this in PvP, and sometimes when playing solo or in very small groups in PvE/WvW, and it's so much fun.

Why can't classes be designed so that they can provide these boons temporarily, but no individual build can provide either of them permanently, and there's quite an opportunity cost to doing so? It would create interesting hybrid roles, where someone in your group notes that they can provide some Quickness with their build, so they will apply in a burst window (eg. when breaking a Defiance Bar), but maybe they can't provide enough for the full burst phase, so you have to actually consider giving up some personal dps in order to provide more Quickness to your group.

Sure, roles would be less defined, but wasn't that the original design philosophy of GW2? Soft roles, hybrid builds, and diversity, instead of "dps or support, and quick or alac"? I don't want everything to be defined by these two boons either, but surely there's a middle ground between "permanent both" and "remove them from the game".

[Jobber.6348]

35 minutes ago, SponTen.1267 said:

Am I the only one who would love having Quickness and Alacrity as temporary boons? I love how it feels to have them now, and the contrast between not having them and then having them is stark and noticeable. The boost in power is fun, but it becomes meaningless when it's permanent. It's already like this in PvP, and sometimes when playing solo or in very small groups in PvE/WvW, and it's so much fun.

Which Anet deems it not to be and rather have Quick/Alac balanced and integrated into the game as an essential boon which must be upkept all the time, least you lose optimal DPS due to these boons.

If Quick/Alac were tweaked to be temporary and can't be maintained, it will cause more problems because now people only care about classes that can have higher upkeep of Quick/Alac, solving nothing. 

This is why people want, in general, to have firstly Quick/Alac removed from the player's hands. They initially never existed as Player given Boons. A more extreme desire is to have it purged from the game entirely or made baseline. Personally I think the best way to go about it is to first remove it from players, then tuck Quick/Alac into encounters as "Mechanic rewards" for tackling an encounter the way it's meant to be. 

Break a defiance bar? Everyone gets Quick/Alac for the duration the boss is downed. 
Resolve a mechanic properly? Everyone gets Quick/Alac for a few seconds.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Yasai.3549

[Greyrat.2378]

The alac/quick buff for breaking defiance bar is a nice idea.

Perhaps it would also finally teach people to use their CC skills properly.

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, Yasai.3549 said:

Break a defiance bar? Everyone gets Quick/Alac for the duration the boss is downed. 
Resolve a mechanic properly? Everyone gets Quick/Alac for a few seconds.

Again, the problem is hat this "reward" would disrupt and derail the player rotation. That's bad. Quickness and Alac are desirable only if you get them on constant and consistent basis. Short bursts of them are actually worse than not having them at all. It worked in dungeon times (with time warp) only because it was being used in very short burns (after which the boss was dead). And there was no Alac then, which creates a much bigger change in skill flow.

The very few players at the very top might be able to adjust and use that to their advantage, but for huge majority of players that "reward" would actually be more of a hindrance than help.

[Zok.4956]

13 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

1 hour ago, Yasai.3549 said:

Break a defiance bar? Everyone gets Quick/Alac for the duration the boss is downed. 
Resolve a mechanic properly? Everyone gets Quick/Alac for a few seconds.

Again, the problem is hat this "reward" would disrupt and derail the player rotation. That's bad. Quickness and Alac are desirable only if you get them on constant and consistent basis.

I understand your point. However, breaking a defiance bar or resolve a game mechanic could be implemented in a consistent way and players could prepare (mentally) for quicker skill rotation when it happens.

 

13 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

The very few players at the very top might be able to adjust and use that to their advantage, but for huge majority of players that "reward" would actually be more of a hindrance than help.

Maybe you are right. But I believe otherwise, that a lot of players could adapt and benefit from this "reward" even if they could not use it in the same perfection top players would.

Even players who only do "button smashing" (no disrespect) off-cooldown could smash buttons faster and benefit from it.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Zok.4956

[Jobber.6348]

23 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Again, the problem is hat this "reward" would disrupt and derail the player rotation

I think this is something that players will have to adapt from an encounter to encounter basis. We already have players needing to adapt their rotation based on what their fighting, because not every fight is a Training Golem.

For instance, we have things like Sloth which doesn't really have everyone going through the rotation motions due to reaction to puddles or the need for dodging shake or to spend skills to kill Evo slubs. Or what about encounters like CM 99? Do people not have to interrupt their rotation in order to resolve explode dome? 

Small momentary gaps in rotation like these are what I'm talking about, and could be resolution of these mechanics which rightfully reward players with Quick/Alac to make up for DPS lost resolving mechanics. 

But if there really is just no way about it for you, I guess a generic damage boost for the party will suffice, though the rotation argument isn't really convincing me. 

[SponTen.1267]

2 hours ago, Yasai.3549 said:

If Quick/Alac were tweaked to be temporary and can't be maintained, it will cause more problems because now people only care about classes that can have higher upkeep of Quick/Alac, solving nothing. 

But if Quick and Alac were removed, then players would move on to only caring about the next best thing for dps, which would be Might and Fury. And we're back to having all classes must be able to permanently upkeep some offensive boon. A subset of players will always work out the optimal strategies and share the knowledge online, and then a ton of the playerbase will just follow suit.

1 hour ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Again, the problem is hat this "reward" would disrupt and derail the player rotation. That's bad. Quickness and Alac are desirable only if you get them on constant and consistent basis. Short bursts of them are actually worse than not having them at all.

The vast majority of the playerbase doesn't execute a perfect rotation, like, ever. Hell, most players don't even run pure meta builds.

Or are you referring to only min/maxing Raiders?

Having temporary access to Quick/Alac would only negatively affect the tiny sliver of the playerbase who are unhappy unless they are executing the perfect rotation, and honestly, they'd probably adjust their comps and eventually optimise groups that allow for more static rotations.

For everyone else, the contrast between the (relatively) slower gameplay without these boons and the quick gameplay with the boons would be fun af. Most players love feeling powerful, and the best way to do that is to give them a burst window where they wreck face; this is why gamers love Meteor Shower, or the dodge-burst window in Breath of the Wild, or...

31 minutes ago, Yasai.3549 said:

I think this is something that players will have to adapt from an encounter to encounter basis. We already have players needing to adapt their rotation based on what their fighting, because not every fight is a Training Golem.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

How many players have been asking for more adaptive/reactive gameplay? Games are more fun when there's more diversity of gameplay loops and encounters, not less.

Edited June 13, 2023 by SponTen.1267
spelling

[Jobber.6348]

13 minutes ago, SponTen.1267 said:

But if Quick and Alac were removed, then players would move on to only caring about the next best thing for dps, which would be Might and Fury. And we're back to having all classes must be able to permanently upkeep some offensive boon. A subset of players will always work out the optimal strategies and share the knowledge online, and then a ton of the playerbase will just follow suit.

Fury and Might is hardly as game breaking as you think it is. At least regarding those 2 boons, we have many options who can do it as well as each other, making it more of flavour of choice instead of choice of necessity. That imo will be infinitely much healthier than keeping player Quick/Alac. 

There's a very big difference between "there's obviously a better one, but hey this one's fine too" and "No or Low maintenence Quick/Alac? Get out, don't even wanna hear of it" 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Yasai.3549

[ericpeggy.8206]

Actually, Low maintenance Quick/Alac is the least common reason for people get kicked.

Maintaining buff is easier than Maintain DPS or deal with mechanics.

I really distrust people who can't maintain buff can maintain their DPS.

If maintaining buff is a difficult thing for people, they can join the party or squad as a DPS.

I'm pretty sure we will see people ask for some classes who can do high maintenance Might/Fury when Anet delete Quick/Alac.

And if Anet let all classes can do high maintenance  Might/Fury, we still have the problem of class homogenization.

Maybe teach people how Quick/Alac important or how to maintain Quick/Alac will be easier.

[Lily.1935]

The way the game is currently designed these boons are essential. They've become baked into the experience and it wasn't their sudden spread that caused this but dates back to the HoT release. During that time we had more unique buffs with spirits and banners and other passive traits which adjusted stats or gave chance to proc. Arena net wanted to move away from that and go with their more universal design with boons.

A consequence of that is these professions lose some of that uniqueness they once had. The problem with just removing those boons or making the buffs they provide baseline is it can warp builds in an unhealthy way. The burden shifts to might and fury much like it used to be and the best profession at providing that will become the new Quickness and if a profession can give out aegis and stability that'll be the other side and these boons will need to be built for once again and we'll run into the same situation were professions have to build to provide fury and might much like we have to build for Quickness and Alacrity now.

I don't need to speculate about this potential future because this was the case pre-HoT. Phalanx warrior was an essential build for a long time before HoT. Now not saying it'll be exactly the same, because it wouldn't be. However I see it as a little less interesting than it is now.

Two alacrity builds can dish out the same boons but feel quite different much like two DPS builds could do the same damage and feel quite different.

The problem you're looking at is much deeper than you think and its not something that can be solved or even should be solved with GW2. Honestly, its a design choice that would be corrected for in a future title if that was a thing not in the current title.

[SponTen.1267]

27 minutes ago, Yasai.3549 said:

Fury and Might is hardly as game breaking as you think it is. At least regarding those 2 boons, we have many options who can do it as well as each other, making it more of flavour of choice instead of choice of necessity. That imo will be infinitely much healthier than keeping player Quick/Alac.

I don't think they're game breaking, nor do I think Quickness and Alacrity are game breaking. I think there are too many permanent exponential scaling mechanisms in GW2, leading to this issue where not having one of them cuts your dps by such a drastic amount that players feel like they'd be crazy to not have them... which is why we are where we are.

My point was just that you can remove the worst offenders, sure, but players will find the next best thing to optimise. Part of the fun of theorycrafting is working out how you can optimise, and trying to minimise what you have to give up in order to reach the optimal level. Removing Quickness and Alacrity from players' hands entirely would reduce a decent amount of the exponential scaling, sure, but what roles and builds players are after would likely just switch to Might + Fury + whatever (maybe Vuln).

And then players will find the optimal build, and then everything else will be "unviable" compared to it, and then we'll see the same issue where players are only asking for that one build. And then ANet would have to either make all classes output the same Might/Fury/Vuln/whatever, or look at removing them... and thus the cycle repeats.

What I'm asking for instead, is balancing build and combat mechanics so that you can't just do everything, and if something is very powerful, it comes with high opportunity cost; this actually ties in with ANet's own Holes in Roles section in their Balance Philosophy:

Quote

Holes in Roles

This is an idea similar to purity of purpose, but applied to builds or professions. As we touched on when discussing identity, we want every profession to have distinct strengths and weaknesses. Professions should have things that they excel at, things that they are less effective at than other professions, and some things that they simply cannot do. If one profession does everything and has no holes, there's no reason for players to play anything else.

So why not lean into this? Some builds can provide 20% Quickness uptime, but they don't have the ability to provide much Might. Swap some traits and a similar build provides 30% Quickness uptime, but gives up 5k dps.

Quickness still a problem? How about making its maximum duration only 10 seconds then. Or it could stack intensity up to 2 stacks, for 25% per stack; now it's more mechanically similar to Might in terms of application, yet still provides that super fast blasting feel, but only temporarily, and you have to time your application better.

There's just so much design space that still retains the full boon system while also allowing for class identity, which are both, imo, two of the best systems I've experienced in any game, and a huge part of what keeps me playing GW2. 

27 minutes ago, Yasai.3549 said:

There's a very big difference between "there's obviously a better one, but hey this one's fine too" and "No or Low maintenence Quick/Alac? Get out, don't even wanna hear of it" 

Sorry, I don't get what you mean by this?

3 minutes ago, Lily.1935 said:

The burden shifts to might and fury much like it used to be and the best profession at providing that will become the new Quickness and if a profession can give out aegis and stability that'll be the other side and these boons will need to be built for once again and we'll run into the same situation were professions have to build to provide fury and might much like we have to build for Quickness and Alacrity now.

I don't need to speculate about this potential future because this was the case pre-HoT.

Yes, thank you. I was pretty sure this was the cast, but I only started playing 18 months ago, so I don't have personal experience with how the old metas used to be; I've only heard about them.

5 minutes ago, Lily.1935 said:

The problem you're looking at is much deeper than you think and its not something that can be solved or even should be solved with GW2.

I agree that it's deeper, but that's why I'd argue that we shouldn't keep going the direction of showering boon application on everyone just because the issue is difficult to solve. I believe the community has to be okay with some level of imbalance; that's going to be the case in any game, and frankly is part of what keeps things interesting; you have a unique experience every time you play, even if that means it's sometimes harder and sometimes easier.

However, I also believe there's so much more room for unique class identity without homogenising boons. If one or two things are too powerful, the answer isn't to make everything that overpowered; it's to nerf those one or two things lol.

[Astralporing.1957]

38 minutes ago, Lily.1935 said:

I don't need to speculate about this potential future because this was the case pre-HoT. Phalanx warrior was an essential build for a long time before HoT.

Not due to Might or fury, though - those boons could have been obtained from other sources, and when Druid took those over due to the Grace of the Land rework, that role shifted... but the banner warrior remained as desirable as before. Because of the banners, that were the truly essential part of that build. Also, Phalanx Strength wasn't even a thing until very shortly before HoT.

Notice, that even currently players generally don't complain about less than full might upkeep, but give them holes in Alac coverage, and they may start raging about it right away. that's because Might is just numbers (and most groups are already significantly below benchmarks), while quickness and alacrity is the feel and flow of the fight. The latter is much more noticeable than the former.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Astralporing.1957

[Jobber.6348]

9 minutes ago, SponTen.1267 said:

My point was just that you can remove the worst offenders, sure, but players will find the next best thing to optimise.

Which means you lost the point of this thread, and why we're having this discussion. Optimization is fine. Options are fine. Homogenizing everything so everything has to pump out Quick/Alac is not fine. This was how the game was prior to Quick/Alac, and that should be how the game returns to. 

 

[The Boz.2038]

43 minutes ago, SponTen.1267 said:

My point was just that you can remove the worst offenders, sure, but players will find the next best thing to optimise. Part of the fun of theorycrafting is working out how you can optimise, and trying to minimise what you have to give up in order to reach the optimal level. Removing Quickness and Alacrity from players' hands entirely would reduce a decent amount of the exponential scaling, sure, but what roles and builds players are after would likely just switch to Might + Fury + whatever (maybe Vuln).

I have absolutely no respect for this kind of thinking.
It is logically unsound, based on faulty ideas, and follows faulty logic to reach faulty conclusions. 

 

[Zok.4956]

2 hours ago, SponTen.1267 said:

My point was just that you can remove the worst offenders, sure, but players will find the next best thing to optimise.

Variety and optimization are fine.

It's also part of this discussion that Alac/Quick isn't good for the game because it reduces diversity (and class fantasy) because diversity is sacrificed to add Alac/Quick to more and more classes to solve a problem which was created by Anet's focus on Quick/Alac.

[Helgaley.3619]

On 6/11/2023 at 1:14 PM, Helgaley.3619 said:

Honestly, I want them both removed. They aren't healthy for the game, the new support builds they're adding specifically to provide one or the other don't feel good to play, and if it doesn't feel good to play, obviously nobody is going to play it. 

Too many professions already have horrible playability, and trying to incorporate quickness and alacrity into every profession is just compounding on that problem. Like the upcoming alacrity change for bladesworn honestly sounds awful, and I don't even play warrior... 

Replying to myself because I still would prefer they be removed, but I was trying to think of some middle ground solutions that would reduce their impact without removing them entirely. WoW players no that several classes have a similar buff called heroism/bloodlust/time warp that provides like a group wide 20% haste buff on a 3 minute CD, but after it's used, it also applies a 10 minute debuff to the entire group that prevents players from benefitting from it again. 

I don't think it would be practical to have that exact mechanic in GW2, but what do you guys think about having some kind of diminishing returns on quickness and alacrity? For example, the first time they're applied, they provide their full effect at 25% alacrity/50% quickness, but the 2nd time, it's reduced to 12%/25%, but then the forum has to wait maybe 30-60 seconds before they can benefit from either buff again, regardless of source, and then it starts over with full effect, half effect, etc. 

They'd be more impactful this way since a group would have to think about when to use them during a fight rather than spamming them off CD. I know there have been some complaints about them being tied to utility skills that you just press whenever, but it doesn't really feel much better having to apply them via clunky mechanics like the jade sphere, and I think giving every specialization the ability to provide one or the other via an elite spec utility skill, when traited, with a diminishing returns mechanic would kind of address this since even though you could press them off CD, the group wouldn't benefit from it until maybe 30-60 seconds have passed. 

[Lily.1935]

8 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Not due to Might or fury, though - those boons could have been obtained from other sources, and when Druid took those over due to the Grace of the Land rework, that role shifted... but the banner warrior remained as desirable as before. Because of the banners, that were the truly essential part of that build. Also, Phalanx Strength wasn't even a thing until very shortly before HoT.

Notice, that even currently players generally don't complain about less than full might upkeep, but give them holes in Alac coverage, and they may start raging about it right away. that's because Might is just numbers (and most groups are already significantly below benchmarks), while quickness and alacrity is the feel and flow of the fight. The latter is much more noticeable than the former.

I Don't disagree. However, it gives players something to do. Before Phalanx it was blast finishers for pre-buffing, so getting that 25 might before the fight was still essential in most groups at the time. GW2 pre-HoT was very elitist, a lot more so than it is now surprisingly enough. But that might be due to shifting demographics over the years and the audience maturing but that's hard to speculate on.

I personally like quickness and alacrity builds. It gives us something to do. Guild Wars doesn't have interesting tank mechanics and CC skills are all pooled into the defiance mechanic for bosses so most cases without boon support we have DPS and Healers which doesn't provide enough diversity for a group in my opinion. Its part of the reason I say the issue is much deeper than people might think. A lot of systems would need to be redesigned to create meaningful fights that use different mechanics to create more than just those two roles in most cases. And yes I am aware of the few fights with different roles like Kiter for Deimos or the ranged DPS for Qadim the Peerless but those are the exceptions and not the rule in encounter design.

And relying on allies for your DPS is a debate all on itself. I know there are people who really don't like it, they want to be more self sufficient and I can respect that perspective. I don't personally feel that way. I like relying on my allies or having them rely on me. But that's personal preference and not everyone is going to agree with that.