Please nerf this abomination of a staff warrior ASAP

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

2 minutes ago, Flowki.7194 said:

I have no problem at all with simplicity, but when its effectiveness isnt capped to compensate, then thats a blatent pandering to casual mentality, the every child is a winner bs that creates weak men. Blade, SPB and Czerker have been good to very good over the last 2 years, and the 3 specs combined are basically the equivilent complexity of hammer cata or power untamed. For the low complexity relative to sustain/utility/dps output, Blade & Czerker should have been hard capped to D tier at best, and SPB at C. They are way over performing in effort/reward, not that they are the only ones. There are a number of god aweful low effort builds (like core condi thief) just festering in the woodwork, waiting to infest the game with yet more dumbledore level gameplay after some random unralted ANet change.

Which warrior build would deserve to be A tier? 

[Flowki.7194]

6 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

Which warrior build would deserve to be A tier? 

Of the currently most played warrior specs? none. All warriors ever do is conflate general game sense with warrior specs to hide the fact the specs are low effort. The same with necros always defending how kitten the second life bar is with "we so squishy".

Edited April 5 by Flowki.7194

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

Just now, Flowki.7194 said:

Of the currently most played warrior specs? 

No, in general~

[Flowki.7194]

Just now, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

No, in general~

That is in general.. if you are talking about some power zerker build, those are (or were?) the exception, yet they are not suddenly harder to play becuase you sacrificed some brainded sustain for more damage. Those power zerker specs are far more risky, but obviously not consistantly rewarding enough to stop people dry humping blade or SPB.

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

9 minutes ago, Flowki.7194 said:

That is in general.. if you are talking about some power zerker build, those are (or were?) the exception, yet they are not suddenly harder to play becuase you sacrificed some brainded sustain for more damage. Those power zerker specs are far more risky, but obviously not consistantly rewarding enough to stop people dry humping blade or SPB.

No, I was just talking in general. Just wanted to confirm something. 

[Flowki.7194]

5 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

No, I was just talking in general. Just wanted to confirm something. 

You are doing that condescending thing again, speak plainly, I always do to you.

[Kuya.6495]

On 4/4/2024 at 5:42 PM, Kitty.4806 said:

Yes man, ignore willbender, dragonhunter, invis classes, mesmer, and necromancer. The ONE decent build warrior has is the problem. Hopeless community.

It takes a certain level of bitter and resentful to point the finger at builds that aren't even meta when discussing staff spellbreaker. 

[Gotejjeken.1267]

54 minutes ago, Kuya.6495 said:

It takes a certain level of bitter and resentful to point the finger at builds that aren't even meta when discussing staff spellbreaker. 

WB sure, DH maybe isn't as meta as it was a few months ago but--Reaper and Support Chrono are about as meta as it gets.  Reaper more in non-tourney situations but chrono is like everywhere in any comp now.  

Staff Spb isn't far behind in tourney comps, which is kind of the point of the topic I'd think.  

Edited April 5 by Gotejjeken.1267

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

2 hours ago, Flowki.7194 said:

You are doing that condescending thing again, speak plainly, I always do to you.

It's not condescension, it's resignation. If you take it as the former, it's because I was weighing whether or not it was worth getting into another argument even though we're fundamentally opposed to how to approach this. What I mentioned before was what I meant. I'll speak plainly though:

Your balancing philosophy is shortsighted.

The reason for this is, imo, obvious.  Hard capping general class effectiveness around the number of buttons they press, when balancing is so much more fractal than that and can take into account positioning, point rotation, cooldown counting, etc. ignores much of pvp to focus specifically on the aspect -you- recognize, mechanical complexity. Classes with less buttons  (if they are well designed, let me add) always have other restrictions that balance out the straightfowardness of their kits, and the complexity for them then stems from devising how to work with those restrictions and manage to function. 

If I can be frank, you seem uniquely blind to this, or you wouldn't be arguing that because certain spec loops are simple on the surface, they shouldn't work as well on the players they manage to hit, as if complex classes by their existence should afford an easier matchup.

Classes range from simple to complex in every combat genre, because that's how you get non homogenous (and, therefore, non-boring) games. You think people will play simple kit classes if they're hard-locked to c tier no matter how they build? you'll get nothing but ele dittos in game and be sick of it in a week.

It's just wild to me, y'know? You're talking about condescension but also arguing that every warrior in the game should be c tier, no matter how they build, because they were designed with less buttons than ele or vindi. I respect your right to think that, I just think it's wrong, and that we will probably not see eye to eye on this anytime soon.  

Edited April 5 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

2 hours ago, Flowki.7194 said:

I have no problem at all with simplicity, but when its effectiveness isnt capped to compensate, then thats a blatent pandering to casual mentality, the every child is a winner bs that creates weak humans. Blade, SPB and Czerker have been good to very good over the last 2 years, and the 3 specs combined are basically the equivilent complexity of hammer cata or power untamed. For the low complexity relative to sustain/utility/dps output, Blade & Czerker should have been hard capped to D tier at best, and SPB at C. They are way over performing in effort/reward, not that they are the only ones. There are a number of god aweful low effort builds (like core condi thief) just festering in the woodwork, waiting to infest the game with yet more dumbledore level gameplay after some random unralted ANet change.

 

I say this becuase I agree with you, Anet couldnt even redo core mechanics at this poin even if they wanted to, the problems are way too deep, based on the complete lack of defined role ethos "anything goes" that the game was based on. Great concept and a bold effort, but here are the rewards for litterally designing certain specs to be "noob friednly", respect the time of casuals.. spit in the face of regulars, or those who prefere complexity, etc. They can, and should buff and nerf directly in line with effort of the given class/spec. A decently capped MMR system would sort the rest of it out, easy specs would cap out around low gold, but they get to play each other + others on harder specs who are not as good (yet). Those who are good and on more complex specs go high gold/plat, around similar skill levels with similar spec difficulties allowing more room for spec based errors etc.

 

But then, I get the feeling staff warriors getting to plat think they deserve to be there.

I encourage you to entertain the thought that perhaps the lack of a solid defense/sustain set like staff may have been the gatekeeper keeping players from plat that otherwise, on a different class probably would have made it to plat easily. 

[Myror.7521]

@Flowki.7194 so you want basicly every warr build to be stuck into non existence? xD

[Fellknight.4820]

6 hours ago, Myror.7521 said:

@Flowki.7194 so you want basicly every warr build to be stuck into non existence? xD

There is tons of viable warrior builds they just don't perform at the same lvl as Staffbreaker.

StaffBunker is essentially the only bunker in a bunkerless meta, if allowed to grow in representation, and it is, it will be a kitten that will choke the meta.

It's clearly overperforming and everyone should ignore the weak pvpers who rush to defend the FOTM build, these class hoppers are a bane on balancing. 

Edited April 6 by Fellknight.4820

[Myror.7521]

@Fellknight.4820 well its just the 2 blocks that making it this tanky and a buggy Sword 4 (that is now official said that its wanted in this state) that making the dmg this high. I think simply nerfing the buggy Sword 4 and maybe tourn down the healing (without heal stats using) would be good way to Nerf it without actually killin it ^^

[Lonecap.4105]

The healing is fine imo, the cast times are pretty slow on staff 2 and 3. Just reduce Path to Victory coefficient + tune down sword offhand coefficient. 

[Flowki.7194]

17 hours ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

It's not condescension, it's resignation. If you take it as the former, it's because I was weighing whether or not it was worth getting into another argument even though we're fundamentally opposed to how to approach this. What I mentioned before was what I meant. I'll speak plainly though:

Your balancing philosophy is shortsighted.

The reason for this is, imo, obvious.  Hard capping general class effectiveness around the number of buttons they press, when balancing is so much more fractal than that and can take into account positioning, point rotation, cooldown counting, etc. ignores much of pvp to focus specifically on the aspect -you- recognize, mechanical complexity. Classes with less buttons  (if they are well designed, let me add) always have other restrictions that balance out the straightfowardness of their kits, and the complexity for them then stems from devising how to work with those restrictions and manage to function. 

If I can be frank, you seem uniquely blind to this, or you wouldn't be arguing that because certain spec loops are simple on the surface, they shouldn't work as well on the players they manage to hit, as if complex classes by their existence should afford an easier matchup.

Classes range from simple to complex in every combat genre, because that's how you get non homogenous (and, therefore, non-boring) games. You think people will play simple kit classes if they're hard-locked to c tier no matter how they build? you'll get nothing but ele dittos in game and be sick of it in a week.

It's just wild to me, y'know? You're talking about condescension but also arguing that every warrior in the game should be c tier, no matter how they build, because they were designed with less buttons than ele or vindi. I respect your right to think that, I just think it's wrong, and that we will probably not see eye to eye on this anytime soon.  

CD counting and all of that is general game sense, it benefits you to do it on any class/spec. I can partly agree with one thing, warrior having less CD's would makes them easier to predict, thats not good for the warrior, but it only plays into my argument.. make warrior more complex, helps them as much as it makes them less annoying to play against.

I then flat out disagree with your statement on less buttons means "wiser choices" (essentially). What you are really getting at there is limitation, not difficulty. We can get into that more if you disagree. I do partly agree that if you only have 1 big hitter, you have to use it wisely, know when to not blast it into a block etc. However, that problem also exists for multiple lower damage hitters, where you have to land more to secure a kill, its really swings and roundabouts all in all. We could argue for hours over which virsion is more/less reliable, those are conversations of effectiveness.

Using more abilitys adds complexity, and complexity possitively corrolates with difficulty in all domains, which inversely means simplicity implies lower difficulty, and again, difficulty and effectiveness are not the same construct. With that said, difficulty and reliability also correlate, easier normally means more consistant, however, more consistancy (of a low dmg ability) does not mean more effective, but it can.  That now is the problem with Gw2. Specs are harder, making them less consistant and have X effectiveness. But you now also have specs like staff warrior, that are easier, consistant and also have X effectiveness. If you don't see that issue after this you never will, and we should just stop these talks.

If you cap spec difficulty relative to spec effectiveness then three things result. 1: Effort is proportiantely and properly rewarded 2: If you are unhappy with warrior being capped at C, advocate for more complexity to up its cap. 3: If you want more reward, play a harder spec, HOWEVER.. if you lack the skill, you lack the reward PERFECT. Right now? jump on staff warrior, the easiest kitten in game and become a 1v2 monster? Absolute bs.

We won't see eye to eye, becuase ive played all the classes and almost all the specs. I do not speak only as an ele, I speak collectively from the experiance of playing all specs, and if you read my posts, you will also see critisisms of both ele and rev mechincs/abilitys. Team wide mag? bs.. damage for doding? bs.. etc.

 

Finally, let me put it in the perspective of core ele. If you play core it has 4 attunements, 1 weapon set, utility slots. It is reasonably effective if you take time to learn the abilitys. Now, step upto cata, its more effective, but its also a lot more complex, with jade/combo manedgement, double utility from the ultimate etc. To unlock that greater effectiveness you need to learn another curve, and despite the haters, its a steep curve. What is the step up from core warrior to staff SPB, and what is the effectiveness increase?

17 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

I encourage you to entertain the thought that perhaps the lack of a solid defense/sustain set like staff may have been the gatekeeper keeping players from plat that otherwise, on a different class probably would have made it to plat easily. 

I know kitten well there were plenty of plat level warriors stuck in gold, I faught many of them, I was playing core rev for a good while, and was in the same boat. That does not exlusively mean spec difficulty, as you need to also include spec effectiveness (I cannot comprehend why so many people do not see this difference). Or let me put it like this, if they buff condi mech numbers, and condi mechs are now getting into plat, are you going to pretend condi mech is hard? and they deserve to be in plat? Becuase in reality they are plat level players who chose a limited effectiveness spec (and it kitten well should be limited).

9 hours ago, Myror.7521 said:

@Flowki.7194 so you want basicly every warr build to be stuck into non existence? xD

It is not about what I want, its about what is right; Low effort = low reward. Would you like to work a job where you put in 100% to get payed, and the next guy puts in 50%, and still gets payed the same? It fundementally fks with peoples sense of fairness, and the only people who would ever defend it, obviously.. are the people putting in less work. Communism failed for many reasons, and that was one of them, the people putting in 100% stop trying (or in Gw2 case, gravitate to an easier spec for same effectiveness). Systems based on that principle spiral down into a provarbial shitbowl, until sombody finally realises its time to flush. People play game/map/modes that have barely changed in many games if the pvp mechanics are sound, if they are not, the playerbase dies, is sPVP thriving? obviously not, the MMR is now widening/salting the wounds, and the kitten is spinning even fater toward the flush.

Edited April 6 by Flowki.7194

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

2 hours ago, Flowki.7194 said:

CD counting and all of that is general game sense, it benefits you to do it on any class/spec. I can partly agree with one thing, warrior having less CD's would makes them easier to predict, thats not good for the warrior, but it only plays into my argument.. make warrior more complex, helps them as much as it makes them less annoying to play against.

I then flat out disagree with your statement on less buttons means "wiser choices" (essentially). What you are really getting at there is limitation, not difficulty. We can get into that more if you disagree. I do partly agree that if you only have 1 big hitter, you have to use it wisely, know when to not blast it into a block etc. However, that problem also exists for multiple lower damage hitters, where you have to land more to secure a kill, its really swings and roundabouts all in all. We could argue for hours over which virsion is more/less reliable, those are conversations of effectiveness.

Using more abilitys adds complexity, and complexity possitively corrolates with difficulty in all domains, which inversely means simplicity implies lower difficulty, and again, difficulty and effectiveness are not the same construct. With that said, difficulty and reliability also correlate, easier normally means more consistant, however, more consistancy (of a low dmg ability) does not mean more effective, but it can.  That now is the problem with Gw2. Specs are harder, making them less consistant and have X effectiveness. But you now also have specs like staff warrior, that are easier, consistant and also have X effectiveness. If you don't see that issue after this you never will, and we should just stop these talks.

If you cap spec difficulty relative to spec effectiveness then three things result. 1: Effort is proportiantely and properly rewarded 2: If you are unhappy with warrior being capped at C, advocate for more complexity to up its cap. 3: If you want more reward, play a harder spec, HOWEVER.. if you lack the skill, you lack the reward PERFECT. Right now? jump on staff warrior, the easiest kitten in game and become a 1v2 monster? Absolute bs.

We won't see eye to eye, becuase ive played all the classes and almost all the specs. I do not speak only as an ele, I speak collectively from the experiance of playing all specs, and if you read my posts, you will also see critisisms of both ele and rev mechincs/abilitys. Team wide mag? bs.. damage for doding? bs.. etc.

Finally, let me put it in the perspective of core ele. If you play core it has 4 attunements, 1 weapon set, utility slots. It is reasonably effective if you take time to learn the abilitys. Now, step upto cata, its more effective, but its also a lot more complex, with jade/combo manedgement, double utility from the ultimate etc. To unlock that greater effectiveness you need to learn another curve, and despite the haters, its a steep curve. What is the step up from core warrior to staff SPB, and what is the effectiveness increase?

I know kitten well there were plenty of plat level warriors stuck in gold, I faught many of them, I was playing core rev for a good while, and was in the same boat. That does not exlusively mean spec difficulty, as you need to also include spec effectiveness (I cannot comprehend why so many people do not see this difference). Or let me put it like this, if they buff condi mech numbers, and condi mechs are now getting into plat, are you going to pretend condi mech is hard? and they deserve to be in plat? Becuase in reality they are plat level players who chose a limited effectiveness spec (and it kitten well should be limited).

It is not about what I want, its about what is right; Low effort = low reward. Would you like to work a job where you put in 100% to get payed, and the next guy puts in 50%, and still gets payed the same? It fundementally fks with peoples sense of fairness, and the only people who would ever defend it, obviously.. are the people putting in less work. Communism failed for many reasons, and that was one of them, the people putting in 100% stop trying (or in Gw2 case, gravitate to an easier spec for same effectiveness). Systems based on that principle spiral down into a provarbial shitbowl, until sombody finally realises its time to flush. People play game/map/modes that have barely changed in many games if the pvp mechanics are sound, if they are not, the playerbase dies, is sPVP thriving? obviously not, the MMR is now widening/salting the wounds, and the kitten is spinning even fater toward the flush.

Okay man. Probably a lost cause.

When Anet decides to bridge the ten available button gap between ele and warrior, we can go from there. 

I'm definitely up for having more buttons to press. I don't think everyone else is though. Time will tell. 

Edited April 6 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Flowki.7194]

35 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

Okay man. Probably a lost cause.

When Anet decides to bridge the ten available button gap between ele and warrior, we can go from there. 

I'm definitely up for having more buttons to press. I don't think everyone else is though. Time will tell. 

I don't think so either, why would most people not want warrior as it is. Rock counts as scissors if the enemy draws paper.. but it still counts as rock if they draw scissors. The joys of few buttons doing many things.

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

21 minutes ago, Flowki.7194 said:

I don't think so either, why would most people not want warrior as it is. Rock counts as scissors if the enemy draws paper.. but it still counts as rock if they draw scissors. The joys of few buttons doing many things.

Are both of these true to you?

* warrior should be hard capped in effectiveness

* warrior should not have an inroad to  additional complexity, despite complexity being the justification for effectiveness

I'm just... yknow triple making sure that "warrior should just be worse" is your main point. You can just say that if so. 

Edited April 6 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Myror.7521]

@Flowki.7194 well i think still...... if they would balance it around how many buttons you have to press..... warr would be dead. The difficulty from warr is not based on how many buttons you have to press. Its difficulty is into beeing forced to Play 100% melee and playing around skills with big telegraphs plus one mechanic that is basicly an all or nothing thing. This ends up in warriors difficulty beeing:

1. Play around blind Builds

2. Force the enemy to dodge you bader dmging skills so they are forced to eat you big dmging ones

3. Make sure you hold the enemy in range to yourself

4. Make sure your burst skills actually hit their targeds

[Flowki.7194]

22 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

Are both of these true to you?

* warrior should be hard capped in effectiveness

* warrior should not have an inroad to  additional complexity, despite complexity being the justification for effectiveness

I'm just... yknow triple making sure that "warrior should just be worse" is your main point. You can just say that if so. 

Warrior in its current state should be hard capped in effectiveness (not the only one), and the fact that none of the specs really change the complexity of the overall warrior class speaks for itself. With most classes, they have at-least 1 spec that noticably ups the skill floor and ceiling from core, even firebrand does. Again answer my question, what is the fundemental differences between core warrior and staff SPB, and what is the increase in effectiveness? And then compare that difficulty and effectiveness of staff SPB to something like holo.

 

Warrior should have an inroad, but you said it yourself, why would the current average staff SPB want to work twise as hard for the same reward? They are happy with easy and effective, no matter the cost to fair play and overall player retention. So what ever, same kitten different spec, players coping ever more on easier and easier specs that are more and more effective. Even the risk to reward is out the window now, look at DE.. effective HP; INFINATE, if you have a brain.

[Flowki.7194]

30 minutes ago, Myror.7521 said:

@Flowki.7194 well i think still...... if they would balance it around how many buttons you have to press..... warr would be dead. The difficulty from warr is not based on how many buttons you have to press. Its difficulty is into beeing forced to Play 100% melee and playing around skills with big telegraphs plus one mechanic that is basicly an all or nothing thing. This ends up in warriors difficulty beeing:

1. Play around blind Builds

2. Force the enemy to dodge you bader dmging skills so they are forced to eat you big dmging ones

3. Make sure you hold the enemy in range to yourself

4. Make sure your burst skills actually hit their targeds

I lost count how many games I played as hammer cata, and all of the things you just said apply to that spec one way or the other. It has more damage options, but a lot less CC/mobility. It is also a lot more complicated, so that all adds upto: A mechanically difficult spec that is easily kited = low effectiveness in a mobility crept meta. Yet, SPB is, and has for a long time.. been more represented, despite that on paper, hammer cata "was" the better spec (And only if you had p1+ skill on it). But now SPB is more effective than it was, for the same effort. Easy <check> Reliable <chech> Effective <check>. So who on earth would play something like hammer cata, and go up against specs like that on sides every game? Have you ever tried to play hamme cata vs an spb/druid? And have you ever tried to take a hammer cata into a group fight? You will recognise some flaws very similar to warrior, and then the mechanical level difficulty of how you self sustain, go and try it. I played SPB for long enough to make these claims, and I only had to duel a staff SPB once to see how busted its effort-sustain-reliability-effectiveness ratios are.

 

Make it harder, or make it less effective.

Edited April 6 by Flowki.7194

[Myror.7521]

@Flowki.7194 the thing is still you compare Hammer Catalyst to Spellbreaker....... while spellbreaker in itself is actually a hard counter to catalyst in its main mechanic. Besides this. Hammer Catalyst is just different in terms of...... it does Overall more DMG (specialy AoE). Catalyst got more self defence against CCs. It also has more defensives against projectiles. Spellbreaker on the other hand get more CC, self sustain in terms of healing and boon Rips. Just basicly everything to counter Hammer Catalyst....... . Soooo in the end Hammer Catalyst get hard countered by Spellbreaker over all...... but you could in the end also simply Play fresh air Catalyst and clap the Spellbreaker on it....... its just the games mechanic that some stuff get countered by others 

[Flowki.7194]

1 hour ago, Myror.7521 said:

@Flowki.7194 the thing is still you compare Hammer Catalyst to Spellbreaker....... while spellbreaker in itself is actually a hard counter to catalyst in its main mechanic. Besides this. Hammer Catalyst is just different in terms of...... it does Overall more DMG (specialy AoE). Catalyst got more self defence against CCs. It also has more defensives against projectiles. Spellbreaker on the other hand get more CC, self sustain in terms of healing and boon Rips. Just basicly everything to counter Hammer Catalyst....... . Soooo in the end Hammer Catalyst get hard countered by Spellbreaker over all...... but you could in the end also simply Play fresh air Catalyst and clap the Spellbreaker on it....... its just the games mechanic that some stuff get countered by others 

I was not specifically comparing hammer cata to SPB in terms of counters, but simply in terms of effort, becuase SPB is the topic (for us at-least), and hammer cata is a good comparison.

But since you mentioned it, do you think SPB is hard enough to earn that counter? I most certainly don't, after playing both.

Hammer cata does not have more defense vs CC, not even close, try it, check how long the stab lasts (nerfed), check how many combos you can do before jade is done.. yet you need that jade also for hp sustain, not just stab, and the stab is not on demand, its not reactive. Take for example your stab on stun, if they break the stun, they cannot counter-CC you, that is very reliable to allow you more pressure time. You need to try hammer to see how RNG the stab mostly is. Now try hammer cata vs other classes too, and you will see the same thing. SPB stab on stun is backloaded yes, but when you land CC it is a relaible anti-counter CC vs all specs (unless boon rip). I hope you follow what I mean here, it is very difficult to counter pressure SPBs with CC, unlike all other melee classes/specs, along with warriors that don't use that trait. In-fact I think that is the fundemental reason I dislike dueling warriors, that trait.

You also have just as many blocks/counter and physical immune. You also have more CC, and if the enemy is CCd, they can't CC you, which definately counts as defense against CC. I played a core rev build for a while that revolved around CC, I undrstand very well how defensive CC is, and offensive at the same time.

Hammer cata needs projectile defense becuase it has 0 mobility, yet, I would trade that projectile defense for a mobility button on one of the hammer attunements in a second. Projectile reflect is nothing if you can't capitalise on it, which hammer cata can't in a mobility crept meta. The only way around that mobility issue is to spec FA and TP, but at that point youre better off playing scepter cata.

I also played a lot of scepter cata, and smart SPBs terrain/los kite you. Try to cap, they return to point and you have to get off it, start attackign, they go back to los kiting. They are not free kills at all, they are massive time wasters, which I dare say got even worse with staff.

Edited April 7 by Flowki.7194

[Myror.7521]

@Flowki.7194 Well you should not even 1v1 a spell on fresh air. I just said its more easy on it to kill spell than on Hammer Catalyst (cause he can not free cast his full counter on your AoE skills). This been said fresh air Catalyst is more like a plus one/ roam thing that can also sometimes win 1v1s. 

Also to answer the question. It has realy nothing to do with: "should it be allowed to". It would be the same if i would cry for nerfs to ranged classes cause they are meant to counter me and are more easy to Play.

[Flowki.7194]

10 hours ago, Myror.7521 said:

@Flowki.7194 Well you should not even 1v1 a spell on fresh air. I just said its more easy on it to kill spell than on Hammer Catalyst (cause he can not free cast his full counter on your AoE skills). This been said fresh air Catalyst is more like a plus one/ roam thing that can also sometimes win 1v1s. 

Also to answer the question. It has realy nothing to do with: "should it be allowed to". It would be the same if i would cry for nerfs to ranged classes cause they are meant to counter me and are more easy to Play.

 

I actually disliked fighting SPB on multiple other power and condi specs. The reason why is as I pointed out. On sides, they can use that low effort mitigation to LOS abuse while you aproach the point, if you then go on the point, they get back on it, and you can't toe to toe it (unless they suck), and IF they start losing, or you start kiting, they can go back to LOS abusing (most points allow it). The issue here is that SPB is too simple, so that average to good spbs RARELY make big mistakes when toe to toe. Yet, even if they do, counter and stun break offers an instant recovery vs physical melee. That means it is an EASY and RELIABLE spec for point contestion. SPB is not the only spec that has this aweful easy and reliable area denial, but it was up there in the top 5 before staff... let alone after.

 

Do me a favour, go on hammer cata, go on sides, and see how many times you get pushed of point by ANY spec, melee or ranged. The spec is complicated enough that mistakes happen often until you get to p1 level at it, and those mistakes cost you. Owning the point as hammer cata is entirely dictated by your skill and consistancy on it, and even then its not garunteed. You seem to think its fine for a staff SPB (one of the easiest specs in the game) to role upto a point and just own it, with minimal effort. Thats an aweful game. Or let me put it like this, if staff SPB had to work as hard as a hammer cata to own that point, to deny that area, you would not see me complaining <insert all other low effort area denial specs>.

Edited April 7 by Flowki.7194