Raids question about class diversity

[zealex.9410]

@CptAurellian.9537 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@CptAurellian.9537 said:What I'd like to see? All classes being fully replaceable without substantially impacting your squad.

that would mean that all the classes are equally strong at everything. Ppl would be playing the same thing then with just a diff coat of paint.Nope. NotOverlyCheesy already mentioned many important things, unique buffs being the main offender. Don't have a warrior in your squad and you lose 10% of the total squad damage in a single hit, give or take a bit depending on condi vs power ratio. Go without a ranger and you'll lose quite a bit, too. Go without a thief/guard/ele/... and ... no one will give a kitten. Ironically, mesmer actually is replaceable, as LN showed us (although it's too early to draw far-reaching conclusions from their Sab kill). Stuff like spirits and banners may or may not be iconic to their respective class, but either changing the buffs they grant to something "normal" or copying the buff effects to some other class will not impact the playstyle of the class.

Apart from buffs, it is not necessary that everyone is equally good at everything. Variations can be there (and are unavoidable, anyway), although I'd definitely love to see gross outliers like weaver vs. big hitbox removed. There are enough examples out there which show you can have better balance without homogenising classes.

well classes should have their dmg balanced in mind with said buff so it would be up to the group wether they want a weaksauce class (dmg wise) that brinds dmg buffs or classes with low group support but more personal dmg. And yes the whole idea of big/small hitbox imo needs to go.

[CptAurellian.9537]

I won't argue about your suggestion that you should have to choose between support or personal damage (cough BS), since it's imho very reasonable. But as I said, I don't think it's good for balance to have overpowered and unique buffs on just a few classes - especially when there are 9 classes and just 5/10 spots.

[Astralporing.1957]

@zealex.9410 said:

@CptAurellian.9537 said:What I'd like to see? All classes being fully replaceable without substantially impacting your squad.

that would mean that all the classes are equally strong at everything.No. It would mean that at everything you'd have more than one class strong at it, without a situation where there are roles at which one class clearly outshines all others. DPS is currently at that point, but other roles aren't.

[Azoqu.8917]

@NotOverlyCheesy.9427 said:There should be another class that can do what chrono does currently or they have to take a serious look at unique buffs and remove most of them.

Just make Quickfire give Alacrity instead of burning (and be able to give 100% like Chronos can) and you'll have a viable replacement for the Chronos in the group. Whether the Chrono or the Firebrand would be better doesn't matter because at least you'd have a replacement option.

[zealex.9410]

@CptAurellian.9537 said:I won't argue about your suggestion that you should have to choose between support or personal damage (cough BS), since it's imho very reasonable. But as I said, I don't think it's good for balance to have overpowered and unique buffs on just a few classes - especially when there are 9 classes and just 5/10 spots.

Idd. My fear is that the unique buffs will be like with bs and u will be better off juzt stacking them all ontop of eachother. And since i dont see then adding any ti core classes i fear that some classes will be stuck to 1 role.

[Feanor.2358]

@CptAurellian.9537 said:An all time high doesn't mean it is great. But if they continue the path of the last balance patches, there's some hope it may finally become good.

To be fair, it is actually good diversity. We've had diversity in the dps role for months. Since PoF we also have alternative supports that are actually viable.

[CptAurellian.9537]

@zealex.9410 said:

@"CptAurellian.9537" said:I won't argue about your suggestion that you should have to choose between support or personal damage (

cough

BS), since it's imho very reasonable. But as I said, I don't think it's good for balance to have overpowered and unique buffs on just a few classes - especially when there are 9 classes and just 5/10 spots.

Idd. My fear is that the unique buffs will be like with bs and u will be better off juzt stacking them all ontop of eachother. And since i dont see then adding any ti core classes i fear that some classes will be stuck to 1 role.Oh, they definitely shouldn't introduce new powerful and unique buffs. Rather copy the effects of spirits, banners etc. to some skills of other classes and make them mutually exclusive. Or simply kill those buffs and make them standard stuff like "10 stacks of might".

@"Feanor.2358": Judgement of the present situation probably depends on the benchmark you use. GW2 struggled long enough to reach the current level, Blizzard realised more than 10 years ago that giving too much unique stuff to single classes is a bad idea, Wildstar never made this kind of mistake (though enough others). ANet had more than enough time to learn from other people's mistakes. With regard to support "diversity", there simply is no replacement for BS and you cannot simply replace a chrono by a FB, but will need to bring FB+Ren, since chrono/druid and FB/Ren don't mix.

[Eramonster.2718]

@"CptAurellian.9537" said:What I'd like to see? All classes being fully replaceable without substantially impacting your squad.

By making every class replaceable without substantially impacting your squad, will also allow overlapping classes since everything is "balanced".

[STIHL.2489]

Look, you can't have "class diversity" and "Roles" in the same situation, if you want a bunch of classes to all be able to do the same thing, then you have what Core was, everyone could fill all roles to some extent or another, people complained they needed class specific roles, so now we have that.. if this was not what you wanted, too bad.

[Agrippa.1693]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@"CptAurellian.9537" said:An all time high doesn't mean it is great. But if they continue the path of the last balance patches, there's some hope it may finally become good.

To be fair, it is actually good diversity. We've had diversity in the dps role for months. Since PoF we also have alternative supports that are actually viable.

Where do you get those statistics? Because if I have a look at real statistics instead of stories and such I get complete different numbers in the DPS role alone:https://gw2raidar.com/global_stats/5

Have a look, and you'll see differences going up to 20% or even 25% between some of what you call 'dps' classes ... And that's not just the difference between big and small hitboxes.

Please ppl (and especially ANet) take a look at statistics ... not at sentimental stories!

[Xcorpdog.2840]

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@"CptAurellian.9537" said:An all time high doesn't mean it is great. But if they continue the path of the last balance patches, there's some hope it may finally become good.

To be fair, it is actually good diversity. We've had diversity in the dps role for months. Since PoF we also have alternative supports that are actually viable.

Where do you get those statistics? Because if I have a look at

real

statistics instead of stories and such I get complete different numbers in the DPS role alone:

https://gw2raidar.com/global_stats/5

Have a look, and you'll see differences going up to 20% or even 25% between some of what you call 'dps' classes ... And that's not just the difference between big and small hitboxes.

Please ppl (and especially ANet) take a look at statistics ... not at sentimental stories!

You can't claim to be good at analytics and make the claim you just did.First of all raidar is not a good measure of the community since it's a horribly user unfriendly site compared to dps.report, so many raid groups don't use raidar.In addition the numbers can only represent what a pug might get on some random build that uses a given elite spec not an actual comparison, since you can't tell someone running a bad build from a good one. Since a good player with a bad build does better than a bad player with a good build.In addition the numbers shown don't take into account any factors beyond final dps, players playing odd builds may often given up on proper raid roles resulting in lower possible outputs, where a better player makes sure all the things are covered, like buffs.You fixate on the "diversity" of raid META but you don't even understand that it's player constructed out what we're given. Make it so you have no difference between class outputs? Now you never see the hard classes played. Make it so everything is needed for buffs? Now only 1 person can play any class in raids.The current META balance is in a good spot, what really needs to change is the challenges presented to us in raids, since unique buffs and effects are why you bring a given class. Most every encounter we have had with limited exception is a single boss tank and spank with little else needed. Dhuum was a good step forward but it will take more than 1 decently involved boss to make things better.

[Feanor.2358]

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@"CptAurellian.9537" said:An all time high doesn't mean it is great. But if they continue the path of the last balance patches, there's some hope it may finally become good.

To be fair, it is actually good diversity. We've had diversity in the dps role for months. Since PoF we also have alternative supports that are actually viable.

Where do you get those statistics? Because if I have a look at

real

statistics instead of stories and such I get complete different numbers in the DPS role alone:

https://gw2raidar.com/global_stats/5

Have a look, and you'll see differences going up to 20% or even 25% between some of what you call 'dps' classes ... And that's not just the difference between big and small hitboxes.

Please ppl (and especially ANet) take a look at statistics ... not at sentimental stories!

I don't think Raidar is a trustworthy source when it comes to popularity. It is a very useful tool, but keep in mind not nearly all logs get uploaded there. It will be primarily used by the more competitive people, so it only makes sense that the top-performing professions will be over-represented there. I may be wrong, but please at least consider it. Only ANet have the actual statistics.

And now, some sentimental stories. It is entirely possible to clear everything without noticeable difference in success rate or difficulty, using whatever dps you like. I know it because we've done it. It is also entirely possible to use Firebrand+Renegade combo to support, and get the same results. Again, I know it because we've done it.

[Agrippa.1693]

@"Xcorpdog.2840" said:You can't claim to be good at analytics and make the claim you just did.Wow, personal level, straight away ... anyway, 'ad hominem' is not particularly my forte, so I'm going to leave it with that.

First of all raidar is not a good measure of the communityI actually somewhat agree with you (and Feanor for that matter), it is not the best site (I just mentioned one as an example), and it's major issue is indeed the 'n' (population/sample size) not being 100%, and might probably even be far from it. But it's still SO MUCH better than any anecdotal story out there proving you that Cairn can even be defeated with 10 Necros (just saw the video :) ) or KC can be well done under 'xx' minutes with only 1 Weaver in your team. I know, and everyone knows by now ... It just doesn't say anything about optimal comps and imo doesn't even hint on it, cause it's just that: anecdotal ... n=1. At least Raidar has an 'n'!!!

since it's a horribly user unfriendly site compared to dps.report, so many raid groups don't use raidar.I might be missing the boat here, but is there an easy way to see all the (recent) dps.reports combined? I actually like dps.report as well, but it's also a good example of: n=1again. If you look at 1 report ... it just tells you something about that particular group, at that particular time at that particular boss. Lots of particulars there ...Again, if there's a good global statistic view of that, please let me know, I'm really keen to get a hand onto those numbers ...

In addition the numbers can only represent what a pug might get on some random build that uses a given elite spec not an actual comparison, since you can't tell someone running a bad build from a good one. Since a good player with a bad build does better than a bad player with a good build.That's where you use the 99th percentile (or even 90th) and the popularity numbers ... It's actually even better, cause the VERY best (oh so secret) build, might not even be META after all, but still being captured by statistics like these ...

In addition the numbers shown don't take into account any factors beyond final dps, players playing odd builds may often given up on proper raid roles resulting in lower possible outputs, where a better player makes sure all the things are covered, like buffs.I agree, again, it's still not the best site ... but at least it's a start to get a better overall understanding of well, at least the global raids DPS performance (which I was commenting at, in the first place)Benchmarking guilds (and sites) which test a certain build and comp over and over again (and actually put some real effort in it), which by accident also use many dps.reports to back their claims are not even that far from those 20% differences as well .....

You fixate on the "diversity" of raid META but you don't even understand that it's player constructed out what we're given. Make it so you have no difference between class outputs? Now you never see the hard classes played. Make it so everything is needed for buffs? Now only 1 person can play any class in raids.I actually really never said anything like that (and if I implied, I'm sorry, didn't mean to). I actually think it's not that black and white. But to be fairly honest, I don't even have a very clear opinion or solution on the whole 'diversity' matter. Just a lot of questions. Sometimes it's good to not have all the answers (yet). Like I said before: a full team or maybe even department of analysts might help to get to those answers though.

The current META balance is in a good spot,Well that's where I heartily disagree ... but it actually may get better soon(ish), the current frequent balance updates is imo at least a start!

what really needs to change is the challenges presented to us in raids, since unique buffs and effects are why you bring a given class. Most every encounter we have had with limited exception is a single boss tank and spank with little else needed. Dhuum was a good step forward but it will take more than 1 decently involved boss to make things better.:thumbs up: Maybe not that black and white after all! (Again: agree with you)

[Obtena.7952]

Don't be under the illusion that Anet is going to proceed with balance patches with the premise that we don't have enough class diversity in challenging content. That's a huge fallacy; Anet doesn't design the game so that all classes are equally competitive in the challenging content in the first place. If they did, we would have it by now, or it's such a long timeline that you just need to wait more ... LOTS more.

The current state is simply a reality you need to accept because it's based on how the game is designed, not because Anet makes some decisions on what classes are the haves and have-nots. Who is haves and have-nots is simply a consequence of how the mechanics evolve. The state of any class is a consequence of the game, not the other way around.

[Feanor.2358]

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Xcorpdog.2840 said:You can't claim to be good at analytics and make the claim you just did.Wow, personal level, straight away ... anyway, 'ad hominem' is not particularly

my

forte, so I'm going to leave it with that.

First of all raidar is not a good measure of the communityI actually somewhat agree with you (and Feanor for that matter), it

is

not the best site (I just mentioned one as an example), and it's major issue is indeed the 'n' (population/sample size) not being 100%, and might probably even be far from it. But it's still SO MUCH better than any anecdotal story out there proving you that Cairn can even be defeated with 10 Necros (just saw the video :) ) or KC can be well done under 'xx' minutes with only 1 Weaver in your team. I know, and everyone knows by now ... It just doesn't say

anything

about optimal comps and imo doesn't even hint on it, cause it's just that: anecdotal ... n=1. At least Raidar

has

an 'n'!!!

Oh, I fully agree. But I wasn't talking about optimal comps. Let's be clear there will always be a single optimal comp. Sure, the magnitude of the margin does make a difference, but still not my point. My point is, the majority of the raiding scene are probably better off sticking with their preferred class. Sure, it might be suboptimal in many cases, but the difference won't be a make-or-brake one, especially considering the differences between playing something you're proficient with and something you aren't. So Raidar is a good tool to get a sense of the top-end meta. It is even a good tool to get a feel of how the average players performs on specific builds/bosses. It gives excellent figures to set your own goals and measure your performance against the averages. But it isn't a metric to base balance on, or to judge diversity.

There's something else about build diversity, too - momentum. There are an awful lot of chronos, druids and eles out there. Geared and played. It is so much easier to just grab the toon you already have and know works, jump in and get the job done, than it is to piece together and test a different build, on a different class. And it gets worse for supports, because you have to find or persuade another person to do the same, as they aren't 1:1 replacements. Give it more time. [LN] did a great job showing the potential of Firebrand + Renegade support pair. There will be people eager to play that, if only for the sake of playing something new. But I expect it will take time for the community to shift and start accepting these freely.

[Laila Lightness.8742]

1 reason for lack of diversity is that its a group wich means all got a role too fill it for example as a healer ele would be superior but they dont grant as much might as the druid wich makes druid the healer and a guard could tank but they have less control skills and no alarcity solution would be make all classes do all things equally

[Agrippa.1693]

@Feanor.2358 said:Oh, I fully agree. But I wasn't talking about optimal comps. Let's be clear there will always be a single optimal comp. Sure, the magnitude of the margin does make a difference, but still not my point. My point is, the majority of the raiding scene are probably better off sticking with their preferred class. Sure, it might be suboptimal in many cases, but the difference won't be a make-or-brake one, especially considering the differences between playing something you're proficient with and something you aren't.I wonder what you find an acceptable margin?Because (again, talking about DPS only in this case) if it's max. 5% difference between all DPS classes, I agree that that's an acceptable difference. But that's why I mention this particular site (raidar.com) ... the 99th percentile in combination with a bigger than 0.30 popularity number is actually a good indicator (providing the sample size is large enough .... something I just don't know) of the players who master/min-max their class in a good practical environment (with a good team by their side, in actual raids, not vs. a golem only, etc.). Just browse through the bosses or global stats and make sure you have the recent patch statistics on, and you'll be surprised of the huge differences between classes/specializations in DPS alone! They sometimes go up to 30% difference. And if you think the best DPS class is always different per single boss, you'll also be surprised there: it's a lot of the same classes at top (Weaver, Mirage ...). To keep things simple let's not go as deep as balancing ALL the different specializations, but even class balance is very far off atm if it comes to dps ... Which is fine, if they have a good other role that they can perform ... like: Druid, BS, Chrono (ANet: you piece of ... ;), mesmer: your favorite much?!!! .... but please don't nerf, I play it the most lately, and everyone loves me ;) ), but that's just 4 classes: where are the other 5?: in general, the Holo and in a lesser degree the FB/DH is mostly within the 5% dps range (for almost every single raid boss). So, I agree, if you fully master that build, please come with that one instead of that of a weaver, that you don't master. But the 3 classes left ... they have to be really good in order to make up a 20% difference in most cases. I don't say: buff these classes (in dps) or nerf the top ones ... That's very black and white again. And again, I don't have all the answers (or pretty much any, for that matter), but I do see a problem ... imo the first step! (Next one: ANet to see it as well)

[Feanor.2358]

Depends on the content. At the current level of raid difficulty? Honestly, even 30% is fine. In general, anything that still allows you to do the content without making it noticeably harder is acceptable.