Scourge might be a bit too strong (49k dps)

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

2 minutes ago, Asum.4960 said:

Actually you are right, that's my bad. I'm very glad you pointed that out actually, it's nice to learn something new and I don't think I'd ever have looked that closely at those numbers otherwise. I was aware it wasn't raw second by second data, as that would be impossible to follow, but I actually didn't realise it was getting averaged out completely before display either, rather than being an aggregate of the last few seconds or something. 

Thanks for clearing up the misconception on my part!

The math to figure out your average DPS in the fight is far simpler. Divide how much damage you dealt to the boss with the length of the fight.
With benchmarks like this it's even simpler since. Boss health/time = deeps.

Edited October 11, 2023 by IAmNotMatthew.1058

[Asum.4960]

On 10/11/2023 at 1:21 PM, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

The math to figure out your average DPS in the fight is far simpler. Divide how much damage you dealt to the boss with the length of the fight.
With benchmarks like this it's even simpler since. Boss health/time = deeps.

While my math skills are quite terrible, they aren't that bad^^ I frankly just never bothered to check that/actually closely look at the logs. 

I'm not sure what it says about me or the game that @Passerbye.6291 's post and the following realisation plus discovery of/actually looking at the Arc Graph section was more exciting to me than the last expansion launch - but I'll take it. 

E:

Although I am now somewhat confused about Arc's workings, considering I've seen literally hundreds of times over the years that the player with the highest total damage done in the encounter wasn't currently the player with the highest DPS - which I think is where my assumption of it being "current" DPS displayed came from. 

That made sense under the assumption of the displayed DPS being an average of recent numbers, and one player for example pumping harder towards the end of the fight/benefitting from low boss health Traits/mechanics and the like, while another player did more DPS over the whole course of the fight, leading to more total damage done. 

But if Arc always displays the average DPS done over the whole encounter, it should be impossible for the highest DPS player not to also always have the most total damage done as well. 

Niche combat break bugs in some encounters aside, does anybody know the cause of that then?

Edited October 15, 2023 by Asum.4960

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

17 hours ago, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

Boss health/time = deeps.

Keep in mind, that this eq is only true if you are fighting an enemy by yourself. Other people in a group also damage the boss.

The thing you said first…personal total damage/time is what you want to put across.

Edited October 12, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

50 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Keep in mind, that this eq is only true if you are fighting an enemy by yourself. Other people in a group also damage the boss.

The thing you said first…personal total damage/time is what you want to put across.

Quoting part of my comment to try to correct me by saying exactly what I said:

18 hours ago, IAmNotMatthew.1058 said:

With benchmarks like this it's even simpler since. Boss health/time = deeps.

 

[Sansar.1302]

Necro is so op and have been for ages.

[Puck.3697]

On 8/25/2023 at 5:56 AM, Maultrace.5761 said:

Instead on nerfing necro to the ground, can we just buff the rest up? Necro getting murderized kinda getting old at this point...

Because the games so in need of additional power creep 😂😂

[Passerbye.6291]

Since I kind of started this entire back and forth, let me try to put a stop to it, this entire discussion about DPS calculation started over a discussion on how arcdps and the golem in the game calculates damage, I corrected a misconception while using the time to kill on golem to clarify that the end number you get upon killing the training golem is your average dps across the entire fight. Matthew then responded to it with the simple yet correct equation of "total damage/time to kill in seconds=dps", at no point was this ever a discussion on calculating damage in actual combat when a lot of variables such as more people, phases, varying amounts of mitigation, be it through armor or mechanics unique to each boss are involved.

I truly do not see the point in "helping" by saying, a simple equation for determining dps while benching on a golem can't be used after introducing more variables, but you do you. Reminds me of that "people die if they are killed" meme.

 

Edited October 12, 2023 by Passerbye.6291

[Obtena.7952]

Imagine a world where there was actually a decent correlation between boss kill time and golem benchmarks. Wouldn't that be embarrassing for some people complaining that golem is an inappropriate standard for balancing. 

But there seems to be some aware people posting in this thread. We have the means to measure DPS ingame, on golem or anywhere else. Has there been any evidence to suggest Golem ISN'T an appropriate standard for balancing, other than the obvious "it's not a real encounter" rhetoric?

I know many people won't understand what I'm talking about here but here it goes anyways: Theoretically consider:

I can consistently do 50K on a golem, go in an encounter and do 25K. Say Anet nerfs my DPS on golem 20% to 40K ... and my DPS in the encounter DPS goes to 20K. Say that DPS scaling between golem/encounters happens to everyone in a similar way ...

How is golem not an appropriate standard in that case?

Edited October 12, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

35 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Imagine a world where there was actually a decent correlation between boss kill time and golem benchmarks. Wouldn't that be embarrassing for some people complaining that golem is an inappropriate standard for balancing. 

But there seems to be some aware people posting in this thread. We have the means to measure DPS ingame, on golem or anywhere else. Has there been any evidence to suggest Golem ISN'T an appropriate standard for balancing, other than the obvious "it's not a real encounter" rhetoric?

Since I’m here, I might as well give my thoughts on this:
 

golem benchmarks is just “a” standard. An arbitrary one that makes some sense to the game Anet built for it to make sense…where damage is only as important as people want it to be…in many games bosses don’t even have real health they have phases where you have to solve a puzzle and push a button or something and you gotta do it 3 times to beat the boss.
 

“Benchmarks” make no sense in games of that design and in extension, there is no objectivity to “balance of a game” where benchmarks are the standard.
 

I think benchmarks have a minor correlation to a game balance…it is just one factor of what might be an infinite number of possible factors…and whether those factors even have a state in which one could claim they are “balanced” …damage is just a smidgy widgy in the grand scheme of things. 
 

For ex, Most of us aren’t complaining about the DPS of support Druid or Heal Tempest right now. Shouldn’t  we give them 40k DPS like everyone else on the golem? but everyone knows that is silly. Because other factors are involved in balancing, and not just benchmarks.

Oh this also ignores some of the ridiculous calculation bending people do to inflate DPS numbers or scewing data to show higher than normal performance on classes. The common theme: “in this particular situation the guy does 30k damage burst, so OP.” Emphasis on “this particular situation.” Because in 99.9% of scenarios it wouldn’t work.

Also funny story to share: there exists a perma invulnerability build that you could play in WvW zerg, where the zerg can not be beaten in principle. Contains 25 mesmers chaining distortion one after the other.

on paper this sounds like the most broken thing in the universe…and it would be…but in reality people have to coordinate at such a high level that it’s almost not possible to do in any practical scenario… it was done once though so it is possible…sounds oddly like something we’re all familiar with.

Is this a statement that Mesmer is OP? A minor one maybe…but I can hardly see anyone justifying that because this comp exists that that should be the reason Mesmer gets a shaft. Just cause the .01 percentile can pull off some amazing feats…it isn’t a strong enough correlation. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Forum Moderator.3419]

Hi Everyone,

Just a reminder to keep it civil. I've removed some posts.

Regards.

[Puck.3697]

4 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Imagine a world where there was actually a decent correlation between boss kill time and golem benchmarks. Wouldn't that be embarrassing for some people complaining that golem is an inappropriate standard for balancing. 

But there seems to be some aware people posting in this thread. We have the means to measure DPS ingame, on golem or anywhere else. Has there been any evidence to suggest Golem ISN'T an appropriate standard for balancing, other than the obvious "it's not a real encounter" rhetoric?

I know many people won't understand what I'm talking about here but here it goes anyways: Theoretically consider:

I can consistently do 50K on a golem, go in an encounter and do 25K. Say Anet nerfs my DPS on golem 20% to 40K ... and my DPS in the encounter DPS goes to 20K. Say that DPS scaling between golem/encounters happens to everyone in a similar way ...

How is golem not an appropriate standard in that case?

Because different classes and elite apeccs vary in damage loss when translating to a real fight. Its that simple. 

Golem passes are set with permanant uptime in boons permanant vun applied, no deaths, in a ideal static situation. 

The vast majority of players this is simply Never the case in a standard fight. 

The damage loss in a actual fight for example is likely far lower for a scourge then it is a power dps warrior. Thjs is because scourge can do a full rotation without comitting to statically being melee. 

Also several DoT types don't always function as intended against a golem due to the nature of the damage. 

For example, confusion and torment 

 

Edited October 12, 2023 by Daddy.8125

[Obtena.7952]

2 hours ago, Daddy.8125 said:

Because different classes and elite apeccs vary in damage loss when translating to a real fight. Its that simple. 

Golem passes are set with permanant uptime in boons permanant vun applied, no deaths, in a ideal static situation. 

The vast majority of players this is simply Never the case in a standard fight. 

The damage loss in a actual fight for example is likely far lower for a scourge then it is a power dps warrior. Thjs is because scourge can do a full rotation without comitting to statically being melee. 

Also several DoT types don't always function as intended against a golem due to the nature of the damage. 

For example, confusion and torment 

 

The point I'm making here is that as much as people SAY it's not appropriate, no one has actually determined it's not. The difference between golem and real encounters DPS outputs isn't enough to conclude golem isn't an appropriate standard to balance with if the ration of encounter-to-golem performance ratio is known for a spec. I have no evidence to suggest it golem standard is appropriate BUT ... I do see lots of people who have SOMEHOW concluded the golem isn't appropriate. 

The differences between spec DPS isn't a barrier to golem being a standard. As long as the individual spec performance rations are known, equivalent DPS outputs could be targeted for each. It's a simple matter of using the ratios to convert the desired encounter DPS for each into golem targets. 

Again, I'm not suggesting Anet has done anything this sophisticated, or that the underlying assumption that these performance ratios are even workable BUT ...  the point is that no one should be concluding the golem standard can't be used to balance DPS between specs in real encounters without SOME critical thinking that determines it can't be done. I mean, we aren't talking EXACT DPS equivalence here either. That would be unreasonable BUT ... it's not unreasonable to think DPS specs couldn't be balanced against a golem standard to within ... the DPS spreads we are seeing we have now. 

Another interesting question. If golem isn't an appropriate standard, what is a BETTER standard?

Edited October 12, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Puck.3697]

4 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

The point I'm making here is that as much as people SAY it's not appropriate, no one has actually determined it's not. The difference between golem and real encounters DPS outputs isn't enough to conclude golem isn't an appropriate standard to balance with if the ration of encounter-to-golem performance ratio is known for a spec. I have no evidence to suggest it golem standard is appropriate BUT ... I do see lots of people who have SOMEHOW concluded the golem isn't appropriate. 

The differences between spec DPS isn't a barrier to golem being a standard. As long as the individual spec performance rations are known, equivalent DPS outputs could be targeted for each. It's a simple matter of using the ratios to convert the desired encounter DPS for each into golem targets. 

Again, I'm not suggesting Anet has done anything this sophisticated, or that the underlying assumption that these performance ratios are even workable BUT ...  the point is that no one should be concluding the golem standard can't be used to balance DPS between specs in real encounters without SOME critical thinking that determines it can't be done. I mean, we aren't talking EXACT DPS equivalence here either. That would be unreasonable BUT ... it's not unreasonable to think DPS specs couldn't be balanced against a golem standard to within ... the DPS spreads we are seeing we have now. 

Another interesting question. If golem isn't an appropriate standard, what is a BETTER standard?

But it does. 

If 2 classes can do 50k stationery on a target. 

While one achieves 40k in a realistic fight while the other manages 27k theres a clear design flaw in place lol. 

Raid fights don't work like golem. And it doesn't faciliate every damage profile either. 

The real raid fights should be where statistics are drawn from, as balancing is more then a numerical adjustment. 

Role compression

Personal dps vs raid dps.

Utility. 

Kit

Dps

Damage profile

Are all balancing factors, for example, if we take another mmorpg like WoW, u will see classes with really high uptime generally do lower dps in benchmarks then classes wjth lower uptime. 

This is to make room for the factor one simply is simplying getting more hits in which equals out when translated to a actual fight. 

The golem simply ignores too many factors of a realistic situation to be taken into consideration when balancing, the practice golem is simply a display of comfort with your classes rotations. 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Daddy.8125

[Obtena.7952]

41 minutes ago, Daddy.8125 said:

But it does. 

If 2 classes can do 50k stationery on a target. 

While one achieves 40k in a realistic fight while the other manages 27k theres a clear design flaw in place lol. 

Raid fights don't work like golem. And it doesn't faciliate every damage profile either. 

The real raid fights should be where statistics are drawn from, as balancing is more then a numerical adjustment. 

Role compression

Personal dps vs raid dps.

Utility. 

Kit

Dps

Damage profile

Are all balancing factors, for example, if we take another mmorpg like WoW, u will see classes with really high uptime generally do lower dps in benchmarks then classes wjth lower uptime. 

This is to make room for the factor one simply is simplying getting more hits in which equals out when translated to a actual fight. 

 

I'm simply saying that no one actually knows enough about the correlation between golem and encounter performance to claim it's not an appropriate standard so the claims it's not appropriate aren't really valid. Whether a spec has a 13K DPS difference to another has nothing to do with my point. I'm not arguing that there are or aren't design flaws that lead to massive differences between specs or that there aren't lots of factors in how things are balanced. 

My whole problem with the 'golem isn't appropriate because it's not a real encounter' is that if you want to choose a single real encounter as a balancing standard, what one is it? I mean, what is the criteria that makes sense to choose a standard? 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Obtena.7952

[Maultrace.5761]

The problem is class design as a whole...

Target moves? Less damage from torment, need to reposition shades and you don't make damage with them while target still moving.

Harb doesn't have the shade problem, but torment is still there, reaper have neither of problems, but he has to be in melee.

Numerically speaking, same dps on static target will never mean same dps on moving target that has phases, boons and break bars.

Fix = just make a golem that runs around, sometimes stops, maybe have a break bar at certain % of hp? Problem solved, it's testing time.

[Dadnir.5038]

2 hours ago, Maultrace.5761 said:

The problem is class design as a whole...

I wouldn't say that. At 99% it's a player issue.

Truth is that, most of the content is doable with an actual dps per "dps role" character that's in between 15k and 20k. Truth is that those numbers are achievable at range by every single profession through auto attack alone. The irony is that some players are trying very hard and fail to follow complicated rotations when in reality they would peform better by just auto attacking their target.

The content of the game don't need meta builds to be completed, it doesn't need 40-50k dps either. All it need is a coherent team made of competent players aware of the mechanisms of the encounters.

All the bickering about "X being OP in PvE" is fluff born from prejudices and jealousy, enforced by a need for "results" that people feel yet doesn't exist.

[Passerbye.6291]

6 hours ago, Maultrace.5761 said:

Fix = just make a golem that runs around, sometimes stops, maybe have a break bar at certain % of hp? Problem solved, it's testing time.

You can already set the golem to run in a circle and have a breakbar in the training zone but that's not the point mate. 
The entire point of using golem numbers as benchmarks is because that is the most reliable way we have. When you are trying to make a direct comparison between two things, in order to have healthy results, first you eliminate uncontrollable variables. While what many people have said about boon uptime, erratic behaviours all around, the boss moving, phasing etc. indeed will affect the results, you can't realistically factor all those in when determining DPS numbers and expect your data to be useful. As many said, we do indeed need to take account of many auxiliary things that are outside of the benchmarks when balancing classes, things like dps uptime, ease of use, utility, boon output, mobility, self sustain/tankiness, access to range etc. But, first you get your numbers in a controlled environment without variables to determine the theoretical max dps of any given class, you then proceed to factor in said variables. While benches themselves are not the sole basis for balancing, they are by far the best baseline to go from.

To create more contrast, think of it this way, a lot of people mentioned boon uptime not being perfect in real encounters, having a decent quick herald and an heal mech will almost certainly mean 100% uptime on all the boons most dps builds require with the exception of things like dragonhunter with resolution and aegis. This being the case, why would you want to factor in support players' errors which results in less than ideal boon uptimes while balancing dps classes? Similarly, if we ignore benches and balance around dps uptime, basically making all ranged builds do less damage than melee, then our entire squad strategies will revolve around maximizing melee uptime, which we already do to a significant degree. A good example for this would be gorseval blacks, if you've ever done the content, in pug runs, people are usually instructed to avoid the black to not die, meanwhile, most groups that have a decent healer will entirely face tank them without worry, the knockbacks after each phase and after each black will also be ignored with stability, minimizing the advantage of range in said content. A similar strategy is commonly employed in other fights as well, take Vale Guardian greens for instance, not even pug groups tend to do vale guardian greens.
That said, I'm not implying range is not an advantage, there are multiple fights where range has a massive advantage. What I'm saying is, if you balance around being melee and make melee deal so much more damage that the range advantage becomes irrelevant, then that's killing the variety in the game. 

In an ideal world, melee should outperform range a bit, be it in damage or by having some extra survival, allowing for more mistakes, when a fight allows for high melee uptime, but range should outperform it where its advantages shine. A class like scourge with many auxiliary benefits and high uptime should come at the cost of some dps.
But for all of that to happen, you need a baseline, and that baseline is bench numbers.
The whole argument of you shouldn't consider benches when balancing, or you should balance around the average player is mind numbingly ignorant that I'm surprised we still need to have these discussions. Why would anyone want a class to be crippled because people who choose to play it are not performing well on average? Do we really want to have axe mirage and weaver bench 50k so that the average person can deal the same damage as a condi virtuoso?

Edited October 13, 2023 by Passerbye.6291

[Nephalem.8921]

On 10/13/2023 at 11:37 AM, Dadnir.5038 said:

I wouldn't say that. At 99% it's a player issue.

Truth is that, most of the content is doable with an actual dps per "dps role" character that's in between 15k and 20k. Truth is that those numbers are achievable at range by every single profession through auto attack alone. The irony is that some players are trying very hard and fail to follow complicated rotations when in reality they would peform better by just auto attacking their target.

The content of the game don't need meta builds to be completed, it doesn't need 40-50k dps either. All it need is a coherent team made of competent players aware of the mechanisms of the encounters.

All the bickering about "X being OP in PvE" is fluff born from prejudices and jealousy, enforced by a need for "results" that people feel yet doesn't exist.

This applies to old content. And do you know why it applies to old content? It was never balanced properly and is way too easy. Released so easy actually that most statics cleared the raids except w5 within 2h after release.

The harder content does not require 40-50k dps for sure but you really want to use meta builds in the recent content. HT cm has more than 100m health combined without the split phases and champions. KO cm too.

All the bickering about "balance does not matter" stems from casuals who might do a wing 1-4 once a year. If i can clear fractals or raids in half the time when i swap classes wouldn't that be much better? Yet alone reducing the risk of wipes.

Knowing mechanics and encounters is a given. Somebody has to do damage. Concentrating for 15min is hard. In other games you would just die with this mindset because bosses in other mmos do have real enrage timers which punish mistakes.

[mandala.8507]

On 10/15/2023 at 12:22 AM, Nephalem.8921 said:

In other games you would just die with this mindset because bosses in other mmos do have real enrage timers which punish mistakes.

Well lucky for us we're playing GW2 then, where the precision of the balance is ultimately of little importance even on the hardest encounters because this game has actual combat system depth, and so playing your class perfectly shouldn't be the bar for being able to clear an encounter. No one's really talking about doing half damage on purpose when they say that "balance doesn't matter". They really just mean that one build doing 32k and another doing 35k isn't that important, because if it was, the encounter was too hard for it to be marketable anyway.

If group content compares in difficulty to KO CM or HTCM moving forward, I'd be very surprised. I don't know how I would sell allotting so much of the development time for cornerstone encounters in my game on difficulty scales so few people will end up even attempting, let alone completing. As cool and impressive as it was to see a GW2 encounter that required immense progression time from top players, it's no easy feat and imo they got super lucky that the fight didn't end up being impossible, because I don't actually think they knew experimentally if it even was possible when they released it.

For now those fights are the exception, not the rule, and I guess we'll be finding out in a few weeks whether or not Arenanet thought they went too far with them.

Personally, I'd like to see less focus on the dps output required for (and overall difficulty of) the encounters and more focus on the mechanical (and visual) depth, diversity, and intrigue of the fights; but hey. Maybe top players are happy with repetitive and immersion-stifling green and red AoEs as long as the dps checks are tight and the encounters adequately onerous.

[rotten.9753]

3 hours ago, mandala.8507 said:

Personally, I'd like to see less focus on the dps output required for (and overall difficulty of) the encounters and more focus on the mechanical (and visual) depth, diversity, and intrigue of the fights; but hey. Maybe top players are happy with repetitive and immersion-stifling green and red AoEs as long as the dps checks are tight and the encounters adequately onerous.

DPS checks are necessary for hard content if you don't want to have multiple one-shot mechanics. Currently, even if you fail mechanics you can often come back because the DPS checks are lenient, so that failing mechanics haven't really stopped you from completing the encounter. I doubt any decent player advocating for more rigorous DPS checks want to have more DPS golems.

[mandala.8507]

On 10/17/2023 at 6:46 AM, rotten.9753 said:

DPS checks are necessary for hard content if you don't want to have multiple one-shot mechanics.

This is false.

There are infinite ways you can have failing encounter mechanics make the fight harder without having to immediately oneshot the whole group when they fail. This is proven by all the encounters in the game already that no one ever sees the enrage timer for, they just lose the war of attrition with:

• Slothasor
• Matthias
• Cairn
• Mursaat Overseer
• Samarog
• Deimos
• Cardinal Adina
• Cardinal Sabir

You could remove the enrage timer from all of these raid bosses and it really wouldn't change how they play in the slightest.

And a tight enrage timer wouldn't make them better fights, it would just introduce rigidity to the encounters that would quash the variety of approaches for tackling them, remove the ability for strong individual players to make a meaningful impact on group success, and punish mechanics-focused defensive playstyles that could be equally as difficult to execute, just slower.

Not to mention it would make party-finding less welcoming and would raise the barrier to entry for content which too few people play already.

[Nephalem.8921]

2 hours ago, mandala.8507 said:

This is false.

There are infinite ways you can have failing encounter mechanics make the fight harder without having to immediately oneshot the whole group when they fail. This is proven by all the encounters in the game already that no one ever sees the enrage timer for, they just lose the war of attrition with:

• Slothasor
• Matthias
• Cairn
• Mursaat Overseer
• Samarog
• Deimos
• Cardinal Adina
• Cardinal Sabir

You could remove the enrage timer from all of these raid bosses and it really wouldn't change how they play in the slightest.

And a tight enrage timer wouldn't make them better fights, it would just introduce rigidity to the encounters that would quash the variety of approaches for tackling them, remove the ability for strong individual players to make a meaningful impact on group success, and punish mechanics-focused defensive playstyles that could be equally as difficult to execute, just slower.

Not to mention it would make party-finding less welcoming and would raise the barrier to entry for content which too few people play already.

Are you joking? Also i have seen multiple of these enrages with very special pugs. Usually did not even matter because the enrage is barely threatening.

Sloth was cleared by a necro stack camping in mid ignoring everything.

Matth is a joke and half the pugs shouldn't be allowed to clear it yet they do even if they mess up almost all mechanics. Pugs even take triple healer sometimes for pure braindead mode.

Cairn and MO are not even bosses. Those are golems without any mechanics. I haven't seen a proper cairn wipe in ages even with pugs. Like i wrote somewhere earlier i cleared sama with a pug where everyone except 3 people died before last phase and it still resulted in a clear. That should not be possible.

Sabir is one of the easiest bosses in the game. An enrage timer couldn't save that joke. Adina is also way too easy. The hardest part of that "boss" is the jumping puzzle in cm.

These bosses don't have a real enrage timer. That is the problem. The timer is WAY too lenient and even if you reach it you can just outheal it in most cases. A thighter enrage would stop the kills where half the squad dies yet still resulting in a kill somehow. Or even worse. Squads taking 3 healers to outheal everything without having to know how to play a healer. Do you think only "hi dps" exist? Arc can also track healing btw and most healers are barely doing anything.

In ff14 it is way harder to carry someone useless through savage because of tighter checks. Only experienced players or players with good gear could do it. In this game you can never be sure because so many people get carried through the bosses. Die every boss but does not matter, content is so easy that it still results in a clear.

With variety of approaches you mean complete healer meme comps right? Because outhealing and ignoring everything while doing barely more than autoattack is such a good and deserving strategy in the hardest pve content.

[mandala.8507]

2 hours ago, Nephalem.8921 said:

Are you joking?

No?

2 hours ago, Nephalem.8921 said:

Matth is a joke and half the pugs shouldn't be allowed to clear it yet they do even if they mess up almost all mechanics.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to clear it if they did enough of the core mechanics to stay alive and get the boss hp to zero?

2 hours ago, Nephalem.8921 said:

Pugs even take triple healer sometimes

I don't really mind that it's possible to take 3 healers on fights. It doesn't bother me that this happens.

2 hours ago, Nephalem.8921 said:

Cairn and MO are not even bosses. Those are golems without any mechanics.

I'm pretty sure they are bosses and that they do, in fact, have mechanics.

2 hours ago, Nephalem.8921 said:

In ff14 it is way harder to carry someone useless through savage because of tighter checks.

Again, this is GW2, not ff14. But good for them, I guess? Or bad for them? Who knows.

2 hours ago, Nephalem.8921 said:

With variety of approaches you mean complete healer meme comps right?

Nope, I sure don't.

3 hours ago, Nephalem.8921 said:

in the hardest pve content.

I don't care that encounters are hard; I care that they are interesting, immersive, and fun.

In fact, a lot of the hardest pve content in this game would be better if it were easier and more approachable so more players could experience it.

For instance, if Arenanet decided to repackage Sunqua Peak CM as an extended version of the level 25 fractal with all the story, mini-bosses, exploration, and the dark phase at the end, but in exchange they'd have to delete the T4 CM and all other versions of the fight, I'd take that trade without hesitating. The difficulty of that content isn't why it's good.

[rotten.9753]

32 minutes ago, mandala.8507 said:

For instance, if Arenanet decided to repackage Sunqua Peak CM as an extended version of the level 25 fractal with all the story, mini-bosses, exploration, and the dark phase at the end, but in exchange they'd have to delete the T4 CM and all other versions of the fight, I'd take that trade without hesitating. The difficulty of that content isn't why it's good.

Yeah, if Anet wants to make single-time instanced combat like in story journal instances, they should do it. If, however, they think a repeatable content is a better investment, then no 🙂 Thankfully, they identified that story and exploration isn't what drives CMs play rate but replayability.

Edited October 21, 2023 by rotten.9753