At this point, ranger will be just a better warrior AND a better thief

[Gotejjeken.1267]

1 hour ago, Vancho.8750 said:

For beginner professions Necro and Guardian are probably the one of the worst starts for pvp

lol, yeah that's why every silver and low gold runs reaper, DH, or mech.  You know, low skill ceiling classes with huge payoffs at lower levels (and higher ones in case of Reaper).  

G2's and above you start seeing ranger, usually soulbeast, then like g3-p1+ you will see your druid's and untameds.  

For NA.

3 hours ago, Flowki.7194 said:

Or look, chrono is meta support, but in solo ranked we all know full support is aweful. So to say chrono support is meta in sPVP, just becuase it is meta in MATs, is absolutely redundent. No points can be made like for like.

Having support chrono, FB, whatever turns a lot of games even if just randomly because the enemy comp has a support and yours doesn't. 

When looking at comps lately I look to see if enemy has a support, outnumbers my comp in either reapers or wb, or is running two thieves (because typically they are coordinated now).  I don't really care about the other classes, outside of if someting like Vindi is present in a higher-level match on a non-random account--counter ranger is never really something to care about.  

I say this because at my current g2-g3 level the counter ranger is almost always going to be a soulbeast or a bad druid--if I see counter untamed or core I do pay attention slightly more.

5 hours ago, youle.5824 said:

This is based from eu mat final which was admitted as a cheeze tactics full bunker win by the French which only worked because it was hammer and vs some last sec class swaps. 

Yes, and EU will say NA comps are terribad and lead to blowouts...it never really ends, does it?

9 hours ago, Terrorhuz.4695 said:

mesmer\guardian\thief get to choose 1 or 2 things at any given time. A ranger can do several at once.

Sure, yeah.  Just like in WvW, thieves that run tanky (toughness, ports, cleanse, blind spam, etc.) but are doing some pretty incredible bursts from stealth are only doing one thing.  Ranger and thief are two sides of the same coin, even moreso now that spear gives increased stealth access for ranger.  It's almost like they are built as counters to each other--no way.  

[Flowki.7194]

1 hour ago, Vancho.8750 said:

kitten dude "I play this so its harder and more complicated and there is no issues at all with it and I'm the bestest and so I'm right" get off your high horse and play the rest of the spec you complain about. Getting tired something something mains screeching when somethings beats their build.

For beginner professions Necro and Guardian are probably the one of the worst starts for pvp, even though Necro works only with HP management that translates easier for people from other games, but both are all about positioning and most definitely are getting a target on their head the moment they step in a fight. Ranger is more appropriate since it has more variety of builds to choose from and it works on all modes. 

First thats a strawman, and no, necro/gaurd are not the worse at all.. they are repeatedly reccomended, and constantly high in representation, one spec or another. Are you even playing gw2?

[Gotejjeken.1267]

2 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

I'm gonna say something controversial. 

Every class in this game has a high skill ceiling. 

Agree if we are talking about builds.  As in every class has a high skill ceiling build somewhere.  

But for specs, like Mech, Bladesworn are so special needs that the skill floor and ceiling are equal.  

Not saying that's a great thing btw lol

[Flowki.7194]

6 minutes ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

lol, yeah that's why every silver and low gold runs reaper, DH, or mech.  You know, low skill ceiling classes with huge payoffs at lower levels (and higher ones in case of Reaper).  

G2's and above you start seeing ranger, usually soulbeast, then like g3-p1+ you will see your druid's and untameds.  

For NA.

Having support chrono, FB, whatever turns a lot of games even if just randomly because the enemy comp has a support and yours doesn't. 

When looking at comps lately I look to see if enemy has a support, outnumbers my comp in either reapers or wb, or is running two thieves (because typically they are coordinated now).  I don't really care about the other classes, outside of if someting like Vindi is present in a higher-level match on a non-random account--counter ranger is never really something to care about.  

I say this because at my current g2-g3 level the counter ranger is almost always going to be a soulbeast or a bad druid--if I see counter untamed or core I do pay attention slightly more.

Yes, and EU will say NA comps are terribad and lead to blowouts...it never really ends, does it?

Sure, yeah.  Just like in WvW, thieves that run tanky (toughness, ports, cleanse, blind spam, etc.) but are doing some pretty incredible bursts from stealth are only doing one thing.  Ranger and thief are two sides of the same coin, even moreso now that spear gives increased stealth access for ranger.  It's almost like they are built as counters to each other--no way.  

Support only turns games when the DPS are relatively matched in skill. I got to g3 so many times on support solo, the same thing happens every time. The higher you get as support, your rating obviously counts to the overall, and then that increases the chance that the enemy team will have a p1/2 dps, rather than a support (support is rare), while you will have multiple <g3 dps. You can't support through that kind of skill gap.

 

It is like my current hybrid build. I can give my team mates 15 seconds straight of 3stack stab (every 5 seconds), but they have to do something with that stab. A g1 with stab vs p1 enemy dps, means nothing, the g1 won't land damage, and will take huge damage in return.

Edited July 30 by Flowki.7194

[Flowki.7194]

On 7/29/2024 at 6:34 PM, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

I don't play spb, so none taken. 

What I said applies to more builds than just spb though, and those builds, while still limited, get steamrolled by classes with more kit space that put out less effort. 

But I presume in those cases you would claim that's how it's supposed to be because small kit loses to big kit if the game is balanced. 

I missed this sorry.

Ive made it quite clear that is where I stand on things. More risk should be more reward. More mechanical difficulty should be more reward. Or, in a nutshell, I don't see why my core rev build should be better than power herald/vindi, when both of those specs are far more punishing for mistakes. If core rev was better @lower risk, then what on earth is the insentive to play specs with more risk? The same applies with mechanical difficulty. If a very simple spec (like condi zerker) is as/more effective than say, power untamed, then wtf is the point of playing power untamed? You are litterally getting punished for working harder.. makes no fkign sense.

 

Now you could say people would play those riskier/mechanically more difficult specs just becuase they find them more fun, but that is bs. I have seen time and time again in this game, that all great/meta specs with a higher skillfloor/punishing for mistakes are vastly under represented compared to the less risky/difficult specs. The issue now is that multiple lower risk/difficult specs are as/more impactful, which is why 80% of games are now basically WB/DH/reaper/spb/virt and ofc, the low risk +1 thief jumps to top it off.

 

If mechanical difficulty/risk is rewarded properly, more people would play such specs, but it doens't mean they would be any good at them, an easier spec would still be able to win them if the player is better. That is where MMR/rank would come in.. which is another Anet failure. If it gets to a point where you really want to climb ranks and get to p2, then it would mean its time to nut up, stop playing condi mech, and start playing holo. Or do you think condi mech should be p2 viable just like holo, with a fraction of the required skill?

Edited July 31 by Flowki.7194

[Sahne.6950]

15 hours ago, aymnad.9023 said:

Dh unable to kill? Get off your tank build and go on something with berserker for a moment to check…

nah nah... Terrorhuz is right.

DH on its own isnt very tanky at all, outside of the window of F3.  

A DH can get crazy tanky, when building around the Relic of Defender.   (The relic that heals you when you block).

this allows the DH to have alot of sustain, simply because of the interaction with Aegis<->Relic of defender.

If the DH choose to go down that route, they sacrifice alot of dmg.

A DH with good dmg, wont be very tanky.... and vice versa.    

 

If you think they are tanky WITH great dmg... you are either mixing two builds up, or you are bursting into their defensive windows and then wonder why they dont die.

Edited July 31 by Sahne.6950

[Hotride.2187]

12 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

I'm gonna say something controversial. 

Every class in this game has a high skill ceiling. 

No player is inherently better than another because of the class they play. We don't need to pretend that class X is secretly played by brainlets while class y are piloted by un-lucky geniuses in order to point out that Anet's balance team is run by a bunch of unpaid interns throwing darts at sticky notes on the wall. 

This is very true, a build has to be really broken to stand above big player skill differences.

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

12 hours ago, Flowki.7194 said:

If it gets to a point where you really want to climb ranks and get to p2, then it would mean its time to nut up, stop playing condi mech, and start playing holo. Or do you think condi mech should be p2 viable just like holo, with a fraction of the required skill?

I think a condi mech should have access to tools, traits and synergies that let it beat out holosmiths if the condi mech player plays more intelligently than the holo.

Edges should be borne from complexity, but there are more types of complexity than mechanical.  Mechanical complexity should open up more avenues for creativity when it comes to combat, but in the current balance classes with more buttons often come paired with trivialized interactions, such as the case with vindi and maceranger. In the current scenario, it requires more skill, in some cases, to win with less resources, and those players should be respected also. Who are you to tell people to swap specs? 

If a player of simpler kits knows every button on a complex kit players bar, stuffs out their skills when they use them, and rotates in a way that puts pressure on the latter, the latter should lose if they don't have conparable game sense, regardless of how many options they have available to press.

Game sense is more important than mechanical complexity. That's why people play smash and divekick and lethal league in addition to tekken and streetfighter. If the scenario is such that game knowledge and aptitude are the same for both players, the holo player should have the edge, sure, but it should never be more of a lead then a few misinputs or a bad terrain whiff. otherwise you get exactly what most dying competive games get: mirror matches of the most effective, most complex characters with hundreds of unplayed kits by the wayside.

If you're good enough to know when to move around on the map, know your enemies buttons and what stops them, and know how to leave fights you can't win and press ones you can, not only do I think that the game should provide a mech player the tools to do so (with additional complexity of course), but I think that they should comfortably sit in plat if the other plat players dont know that mechs buttons and can't suss out any positioning tricks they may leverage.

Edited July 31 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Flowki.7194]

34 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

I think a condi mech should have access to tools, traits and synergies that let it beat out holosmiths if the condi mech player plays more intelligently than the holo.

Yes, and with more tools comes more complexity and chance of mistakes, which means the condi mech has to earn the kill more. Thats the point, same applied to SPB.

48 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

Game sense is more important than mechanical complexity.

Everybody needs game sense. So its game sense + varying degree of mechanical difficulty

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

13 minutes ago, Flowki.7194 said:

Everybody needs game sense. So its game sense + varying degree of mechanical difficulty

Let's say one person is playing a holo, and one person is playing a mech. The holo player never looks at the map and doesn't know what shift signet is. The mech player knows where all his teammates are and rotates in to fight the holo only when he knows the holos stunbreaks are burned and his heat is half full or more. 

Who should win?

Edited July 31 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Frequency.6407]

19 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

Let's say one person is playing a holo, and one person is playing a mech. The holo player never looks at the map and doesn't know what shift signet is. The mech player knows where all his teammates are and rotates in to fight the holo only when he knows the holos stunbreaks are burned and his heat is half full or more. 

Who should win?

Holo ofc.

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

1 hour ago, Frequency.6407 said:

Holo ofc.

I'm  sure people think so and to those people I wish a very merry saltmas tbh.

People just wanna chase the meta forever instead of working to get the playstyle quality that lets you have more satisfying matchups where you're fighting the player and not their bundle of mechanics. I would watch/fight an interesting mechanist a hundred times before I watch a flowchart holo. 

If you feel you're entitled to wins because you picked the morebutton class you're going to be unpleasantly surprised forever, no matter what shackles you try to put on specs you think are beneath competitive. Fox mains having jigglypuff nighmares isn't new.

Edited July 31 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Swagg.9236]

Thief and mid-range Elementalist were the only two real classes in GW2 PvP.  Eventually, you were going to get a class that basically blended the two due to lack of development in gameplay loop complexity and roles.

[Flowki.7194]

5 hours ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

Let's say one person is playing a holo, and one person is playing a mech. The holo player never looks at the map and doesn't know what shift signet is. The mech player knows where all his teammates are and rotates in to fight the holo only when he knows the holos stunbreaks are burned and his heat is half full or more. 

Who should win?

 

I don't understand why you are giving that example, it has nothing to do with mechanical difficulty. If he jumped the holo when the holo had CDs then well played mech, from a "game sense" point of view. However, if it was a equal dual in skill level, and both players played "flaswlessly" relative to his spec, then I think holo should have the win in that situation, becuase it is a harder spec to play flawlessly.

 

I make this same comparison as core rev vs meta vindi. They are different roles, so put that aside. They are both around the same mechanical difficulty within their roles, but power vindi is far more punishing for mistakes. If I dueled an equally skilled vindi, and we both played flawlessly, I would expect to lose that duel, becuase he is on the more punishing spec. If it is in sPVP, I time my CC to set him up for other team mates to kill, becuase in reality, I will not, and should not be able to solo an equally skilled vindi as a lower punishing core rev.

 

Unfortunately this isn't how the game works, and more forgiving/less difficult specs are more than able to handle their own vs more difficult/risky specs @same skill level, which I flat out disagree with, and always will.

Edited July 31 by Flowki.7194

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

7 minutes ago, Flowki.7194 said:

 I will not, and should not be able to solo an equally skilled vindi.

I can't get behind that ngl.

If the skill level is the same the matchup should be 50 50 unless your build is a mechanical counter, because at that point I'm assuming both players know each other's kits and have the tools to move or place themselves where they are most impactful in the match. 

I'm not into priority by class pedigree. 

If you know that vindis buttons, you should be able to 1v1 them on core or renegade if you built right, especially if you know the game fundamentals better than them. Specs should be playstyle enabling flavor, not force multipliers organized by rank. Otherwise your endgame is all vindis because it's not difficult to learn. 

Edited July 31 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Flowki.7194]

7 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

I can't get behind that ngl.

If the skill level is the same the matchup should be 50 50 unless your build is a mechanical counter, because at that point I'm assuming both players know each other's kits and have the tools to move or place themselves where they are most impactful in the match. 

I'm not into priority by class pedigree. 

The vindi takes more risk and hit to sustain to do more damage, and that has to be rewarded. I take less risk and gain more sustain with a hit to damage as core rev, and that MUST be punished with a reduction in the effectiveness of killing. Sorry but this really is 101 good balance ethos, this is why mace untamed and staff SPB create such a problem, becuse their sustain-dps-cc ratios were/are broken, crept.

 

You can suggest vindi does too much damage atm, I won't argue. But to say vindi should not be more rewarding than core rev for taking more risk? Cmon man, take a break 😜 

Edited July 31 by Flowki.7194

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

6 minutes ago, Flowki.7194 said:

The vindi takes more risk and hit to sustain to do more damage, and that has to be rewarded. I take less risk and gain more sustain with a hit to damage as core rev, and that MUST be punished with a reduction in the effectiveness of killing. Sorry but this really is 101 good balance ethos, this is why mace untamed and staff SPB create such a problem, becuse their sustain-dps-cc ratios were/are broken, crept.

 

You can suggest vindi does too much damage atm, I won't argue. But to say vindi should not be more rewarding than core rev for taking more risk? Cmon man, take a break 😜 

I'll agree to disagree, I guess we're just built different.  I'm not trying to arrive at "reroll" as the answer to competitive.

Edited July 31 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Flowki.7194]

1 minute ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

I'll agree to disagree, I guess we're just built different

If ANet offered you the ability for a 3rd weapon slot to swap too <insert CD swapping factors for balance> would you take it?

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

11 minutes ago, Flowki.7194 said:

If ANet offered you the ability for a 3rd weapon slot to swap too <insert CD swapping factors for balance> would you take it?

Instantly, and I'd be nerfed next month. 1000%. Ask any warrior that. They dare not unchain me. 

Give me a weapon set as a kit/swap anet I double dog dare you. I really don't care how we get there, but class x should be able to fight class y unless class x by design is countered by class y.

Quote

The vindi takes more risk and hit to sustain to do more damage,

More like the sustain has shifted from being mitigated by damage reduction (and condi reflection) into long term evasion (but less condi mitigation). But~

Edited July 31 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Flowki.7194]

54 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

Instantly, and I'd be nerfed next month. 1000%. Ask any warrior that. They dare not unchain me. 

Give me a weapon set as a kit/swap anet I double dog dare you. I really don't care how we get there, but class x should be able to fight class y unless class x by design is countered by class y.

More like the sustain has shifted from being mitigated by damage reduction (and condi reflection) into long term evasion (but less condi mitigation). But~

Right, so answer this. Just imagine more of warrior sustain/utility was based around weapons via buffing weapon numbers a little, and reducing trait proc impact on healing/stab etc

 

If you had a third weapon slot (with balance factors in place) Would that incrase your options vs different spec fights/phases of the fight?

 

Would those options require you know more about the match up, and when to use them (eg, when to swap to bow/rifle for blinds/ranged poke etc)?

 

If you swap out of, and into the wrong weapon at the wrong time (some CD penelty) would that lead to a firm punishment of lower damage or sustain or utility?

 

 

Edited July 31 by Flowki.7194

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

26 minutes ago, Flowki.7194 said:

If you had a third weapon slot (with balance factors in place) Would that incrase your options vs different spec fights/phases of the fight?

Sure.

Quote

Would those options require you know more about the match up, and when to use them (eg, when to swap to bow/rifle for blinds/ranged poke etc)?

No. If enemy far away you swap to the ranged weapon given the context of how fast that situation can change. It's just an extra option so you can cover more situations at once, instead of being obviously weak vs a specific playstyle or weapon type.

Warrior weapons arent esoteric. One weapon usually does one thing. 

Quote

If you swap out of, and into the wrong weapon at the wrong time (some CD penelty) would that lead to a firm punishment of lower damage or sustain or utility?

That punishment exists now. Misswapping gets you killed now on war in most cases, and that only changes marginally in this scenario. 

 

This is a direct buff for me. Being able to pull out a rifle on a fleeing ranger or thief in addition to doing damage up close is worth managing 5 more cooldowns, several times over. The complexity is in that I *dont* ordinarily have that option, and need to choose whether half my kit will be rifle and make me food for phase traversal, or all melee and now anything slightly faster than me with self preservation gets away.

If 5-6 more buttons on my bar gives me the green light to be broken, go for it. See you next week when players start complaining about getting blocked by staff, hit by decap then gunflamed if they try to leave without camming behind them. 🫡

Edited July 31 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Flowki.7194]

16 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

Sure.

No. If enemy far away you swap to the ranged weapon given the context of how fast that situation can change. It's just an extra option so you can cover more situations at once, instead of being obviously weak vs a specific playstyle or weapon type.

Warrior weapons arent esoteric. One weapon usually does one thing. 

That punishment exists now. Misswapping gets you killed now on war in most cases, and that only changes marginally in this scenario. 

I think you know where I am going with it, nice side step 😜 

 

The thing is, your logic is flawed, becuase you are saying using 1 weapon is the same difficulty as using 3 weapons. It litterally takes more knowledge of the game to use 3 weapons compared to 1, especially when each serves a different function.

 

Or look, are you saying core ele is the exact same mechanical difficulty as cata? That jade manedgement+additional combos don't up the mechanical difficulty? (and the effectiveness ofc). Core ele, cata, no difference in mechanical difficulty?

 

Edited July 31 by Flowki.7194

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

40 minutes ago, Flowki.7194 said:

I think you know where I am going with it, nice side step 😜 

No side steps here, I told you straight up that mechanical complexity is second to game sense imo. That doesn't change if its about theoretical buffs.

I already know what all my weapons do. Balancing a third one is memorizing and comfortably binding the "swap to 3rd kit" button, in exchange for winning being more flexible vs matchups I'd otherwise lose or struggle with. 

And, if by some stretch I, despite having those options, lose to or fail to catch a sword thief or whatever, that's on me, because I had twice the buttons and still got read like a book.

Quote

The thing is, your logic is flawed, becuase you are saying using 1 weapon is the same difficulty as using 3 weapons. It litterally takes more knowledge of the game to use 3 weapons compared to 1, especially when each serves a different function.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the difficulty between balancing three kits vs one is negligible if you know what all your buttons do (and if you don't know what all your buttons do that's a skill issue). Having a third kit won't make me forget shield stance is on cd for 30 seconds. 

Quote

Or look, are you saying core ele is the exact same mechanical difficulty as cata? That jade manedgement+additional combos don't up the mechanical difficulty?

Sure, it makes it more difficult. 

Quote

(and the effectiveness ofc).

Aht

Core ele, tempest, and weaver should be able to 1v1 a cata, and win if they play better. An extra box on your class shouldn't mean your winrate goes up vs people with different or fewer boxes, esp. If they play the game better than you.  Direct effectiveness is not and should not be coupled with complexity.  Flexibility should. 

The reward for mechanical difficulty is the space for adaptation, or filling a role or niche you otherwise could not, not superior pressure. The pressure is on the player to bring and manifest, ideally. Having less mechanical difficulty increases your predictability, which brings a different flavor of difficulty centered around controlling how your opponent behaves more than it revolves around controlling your kit.

Edited July 31 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Flowki.7194]

40 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

No side steps here, I told you straight up that mechanical complexity is second to game sense imo. That doesn't change if its about theoretical buffs.

I already know what all my weapons do. Balancing a third one is memorizing and comfortably binding the "swap to 3rd kit" button, in exchange for winning being more flexible vs matchups I'd otherwise lose or struggle with. 

And, if by some stretch I, despite having those options, lose to or fail to catch a sword thief or whatever, that's on me, because I had twice the buttons and still got read like a book.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the difficulty between balancing three kits vs one is negligible if you know what all your buttons do (and if you don't know what all your buttons do that's a skill issue). Having a third kit won't make me forget shield stance is on cd for 30 seconds. 

Sure, it makes it more difficult. 

Aht

Core ele, tempest, and weaver should be able to 1v1 a cata, and win if they play better. An extra box on your class shouldn't mean your winrate goes up vs people with different or fewer boxes, esp. If they play the game better than you.  Direct effectiveness is not and should not be coupled with complexity.  Flexibility should. 

The reward for difficulty is the space for adaptation, or filling a role or niche you otherwise could not, not superior pressure. The pressure is on the player to bring and manifest, ideally.

Yes game sense and mechanical difficulty are two different things, we agree on that. All I am simply stating is that as mechanical difficulty increases, error increases, and consistancy decreases <on average> due to "more moving parts", more can go wrong through increased choice/outcomes. It puzzles me why people argue agaisnt this, when it is a fundemental fact accpeted across engineering/science/psychology, but somehow does not apply to gw2.

 

Like I said, core ele is not overall as good as cata, and it is easier to play mechanically. Cata is harder to play, but when you get better at it, the spec has more answers to more situations. That is working as intended. If the cata is not very good, and the core ele is, then ofc the core ele is likely to win. However, at equal skill level, cata is harder to play, and should win, in order for cata to be worth the extra effort to learn. You don't agree with this though, which is upto you. I just know human nature, 99/100 people will play core ele, if it is easier, and just as effective as cata, only hipsters would play cata then. Spec diversity will always be better if risk/difficulty is proportionately rewarded becuase it gives a sense of fairness, I just can't tell you enough how written in stone that is for human nature.

Edited July 31 by Flowki.7194

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

18 minutes ago, Flowki.7194 said:

You don't agree with this though, which is upto you. I just know human nature, 99/100 people will play core ele, if it is easier, and just as effective as cata, only hipsters would play cata then. Spec diversity will always be better if risk/difficulty is proportionately rewarded becuase it gives a sense of fairness, I just can't tell you enough how written in stone that is for human nature.

If I can be crudely blunt: Let people win with their simple builds, this is a game for fun. I wanna tryhard anyway, especially if tryharding lets me pull out some wacky unheard of, unexpected play.

Making people lose to me because they don't wanna tryhard by picking meta build 0056 and playing that is a good way to minecraft their interest, my interest, and the population in general once the game gets solved. 

Casual builds should be effective, but disassembled by smart play more so than class. That's also a good way to get people to not be nipping at vindis heels when they realize it walks all over most mechanics when the person playing it knows what theyre doing. 

We're gonna be at odds with this, but I'm gonna keep saying it.  Mirror meta matches in a dying game sucks hard af. Everyone plays the same thing, the same way eventually. Mastery isnt as steep a gate as you think it is, and people arent so stupid as to feed matchups they cant win forever just to entertain metabuilds.

Its human nature to play low effort, sure, but if you believe that you should also see the danger of demanding they play high effort specs they may not be invested in playstyle wise, in order to have the tools they need to put up a fight. 

Edited July 31 by Azure The Heartless.3261