Balance Notes Preview - Discussion

[otto.5684]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@otto.5684 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Misquesh.9504 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Misquesh.9504 said:That crit nerf just killed the Guardian for me in PvE. No fun allowed I guess, unless you want to "pley with other pleyers" 24/7. Oh well, good thing I have all the other classes. I'll miss my gem aura sylvari guard tho.

Really? That's nonsense because you can still permanently cap crit rate stupidly easy in PVE while maintaining massive amounts of DPS and supplementing your sustain. In fact, the inability to dump precision is what holds you back from optimizing a build to do that.

The only barrier to actually do it is you, not the game.

Of course you can cap crit easily. By replacing most of your gear with either assassin, berserker or marauder gear, lul. So much sustain compared to what I had already and was perfectly fine with.

Considering no other class had any kind of buff even close to that and they do just fine in PVE, there is no reason to think this 'kills' Guardian in PVE for anyone.

@otto.5684 said:

@Leafstorm.1349 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Misquesh.9504 said:That crit nerf just killed the Guardian for me in PvE. No fun allowed I guess, unless you want to "pley with other pleyers" 24/7. Oh well, good thing I have all the other classes. I'll miss my gem aura sylvari guard tho.

Really? That's nonsense because you can still permanently cap crit rate stupidly easy in PVE while maintaining massive amounts of DPS and supplementing your sustain. In fact, the inability to dump precision is what holds you back from optimizing a build to do that.

The only barrier to actually do it is you, not the game.

….Do you even PvP? You realize that's pretty much what this whole thing is about right? If you do and if you're even remotely decent, then you'd realize you're wrong in every aspect.

Good talk.

Do not argue with Obtena. However you respond Obtena will say he/she meant something else, you did not read what someone wrote 10-15 posts ago or some secret logic that only he/she and Anet understand.

Your assessment is pretty fair. Regardless of what % RI should be, as guardian stands right, there are no dps builds that can compete in P2 and beyond. What ever diversity song Anet is singing, it has nothing to do with reality. It will take minimum till May before there are any new changes. And even then, changes are not likely to work as intended cuz Anet does bother to test or understand the changes impact on existing builds.

Actually, he shouldn't respond to me if he can't be bothered to follow the conversation; I was replying to someone who was talking about PVE. If people were remotely decent as he claims, they wouldn't be crying about losing 25% crit rate in any game mode. This is the same dooffery when Guardians were crying about Pure of Voice getting fixed to convert one one condition.

“If people were remotely decent they would not be crying about losing 25% critical rate in any game game mode.” How can you describe this statement but a failed trolling attempt?

I already explained it many times ... no other class needs a 50% crit buff crutch to be good in PVP. As I said, you don't realize it but if this 50% crit rate buff is so important to the class in PVP that it does terrible without it, you are justifying the need to nerf it, just like Pure of Voice.

And as already explained many times you cannot make any change in isolation. Before Anet makes any changes they have to understand how it impacts all builds in all game modes. Then assess these builds performance before and after the change. Having performance hinging heavily on one trait is not good. But nerfing it without creating alternatives or reshuffling other traits, for dps builds that were middle of the pack in PvP, is either laziness or incompetence.

And this is the primary point of this thread. Anet nerfing the class as whole under the guise of “diversity” or “this trait does too much” is half-assed work, that should be heavily criticized.

[RevanCorana.8942]

As for the "it's op at low-tiers" argument lets review it for a second. As the only semi-viable free build, how do they know that its over-representation is not due to an influx of f2p players coming to try pvp with it?

[Obtena.7952]

You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

[RUNICBLACK.7630]

Actually it may disengenuous to say that no other class has any other buff even remotely like the original RI in that Warrior has Burst Precision, Ranger has Precise Strike, and Thief has Hidden Killer. Where the failure in design happened on RI and their failure on a correction is in to how it comes into play on the original bonus. In all of the previous mentioned traits while they are 100% critical chance they are limited in how often they are available be that from the Warrior's Burst skills, the Ranger on Opening Strike and if the GM trait was taken they could regain Opening Strike any time they gain Fury along with a 25% damage increase, or a Thief's while they are Stealthed and for 2 after being revealed. Now the error on RI came into play on that it was constant as long as you kept up Retal with no other limitations if they instead of lowering it had placed a limiting factor on it say of when your Virtue of Justice triggers possibly as an example with maybe it either giving you a 2 to 3 second window or your next 3 attacks with the bonus then honestly this would have been a none issue (you could have even made it a 100% critical chance but that you had to have Retal up when the Virtue triggered) but they didn't see the short sightedness of this choice for a fix and here we are

[Arken.3725]

Damn, this thread has turned into something else....

[Sorem.9157]

@Arken.3725 said:kitten, this thread has turned into something else....

I guess sometimes we expect too much out of some people.

It's hard to keep it constructive.

[RUNICBLACK.7630]

Hey to be honest I am furstrated and it is an inconvience for me in how it impacts my personal playstyle in different game modes but beyond that it doesn't amount to much more for me personally , my previous comment was just more of an observational statement. Admitedly adjustments in MMO programing environment are rather problematic being as it sort of a matter of hitting moving target with ALOT of interdependances and for all of my grumbling I still find this game and its community(both dev's and players) to be one of the best so I sure am not going to be one of those Rage Quits types ( I kind of find them to be silly anyway).

[nativity.3057]

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

50% crit chance on a Grandmaster trait is strong. I won't deny that fact, and I do believe the Radiance traitline was the best traitline for any power Guardian build. Righteous Instincts allowed Guardians to cover one of the core weakness Anet created when they first launched GW2: low base health pool.But you have to realize why Anet gave Guardians a low health pool. Aegis during GW2's core phase was strong, and the scarcity of unblockable attacks was balanced around it. Now, almost all classes have access to unblockable attacks, and the value of aegis was decreased due to expansion power creep.

I used to run full Berserker core guardian in WvW roaming before RI was added to the game. It worked before the HoT expansion, but with the power creep and new unblockables, it's not a build that will work now. The mechanics of the class didn't change (burst the enemy before they burst you), but I can't get away with running full Berserkers now, even considering how my skill level improved since those days.

In my opinion, I don't think RI should have been nerfed. While it was the best trait to use for power builds (due to other traits not being worth using; imagine having the Zeal traitline yet not using it in PvP because it is hot garbage), the main issue was the access and duration to Retaliation. Healer's Retribution could have been discarded, and guardians didn't need Retaliation on Virtue of Resolve and Courage. We can argue between CoP and Save Yourselves, but the real problem was boon duration, which affects all professions.

And let me address core guardians in PvP. It wasn't FoTM because it was strong, but because it had the utility to deal with other FoTM classes. Someone in a low rating could use core Guardian effectively because of the low skill floor, and it was able to deal with conditions unlike other specs that filled the role they shared. I honestly think that core guardians only rose in popularity because of Mesmers. If you killed the mesmer, you could enable your team to win. Look at how core guardians have fallen when Mirage became less FoTM than Boonbeasts.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

im still mad about the shattered aegis nerf. didn't care that it was lackluster - along with the entire zeal traitline - it was fun for what it did and there was no reason to nerf it. meanwhile lost time in chrono is arguably better, in a class that is notorious for 1 shotting.

[Obtena.7952]

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

No one is dismissing discussion about nerfs. The problem is that no one is addressing the fundamental reason Anet nerfed the trait; it's not because of PVP, so the continuous references to how it shouldn't have happened because PVP don't make sense. You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; I don't actually disagree with that ... but that doesn't actually hold much water here because big nerfs = big impacts ... it goes without saying. Repeating how bad it is doesn't not make a compelling argument against change for something that would obvious have a large negative impact. The fact is that the 25% decrease in crit rate as bad as it is ... is

intended

. I think the real problem here is that there aren't many people here willing to acknowledge that there are good reasons for the change because they aren't willing to adapt to it and only see the sky falling around them.

[nativity.3057]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

No one is dismissing discussion about nerfs. The problem is that no one is addressing the fundamental reason Anet nerfed the trait; it's not because of PVP, so the continuous references to how it shouldn't have happened because PVP don't make sense. You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; I don't actually disagree with that ... but that doesn't actually hold much water here because big nerfs = big impacts ... it goes without saying. Repeating how bad it is doesn't not make a compelling argument against change for something that would obvious have a large negative impact. The fact is that the 25% decrease in crit rate as bad as it is ... is

intended

. I think the real problem here is that there aren't many people here willing to acknowledge that there are good reasons for the change because they aren't willing to adapt to it and only see the sky falling around them.

But RI was nerfed because of PvP.In PvE, I believe the DPS showed that taking Perfect Inscriptions edged out ahead in group DPS. You would gain a moderate increase in personal DPS when taking RI, but Perfect Inscriptions was meta for static Fractals because it provided increased group DPS in addition to a lower CD on breakbar damage (you would never really use it, but for PUGs, the lower CD helped). The RI changes won't hurt PvE guardians. The buff to Perfect Inscriptions (and the nerf to RI) makes PI the go-to for PvE Dragonhunters.Taking Valkryie in PvE was a crutch. The real effects of the RI nerf are seen in PvP and WvW.

[Obtena.7952]

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

No one is dismissing discussion about nerfs. The problem is that no one is addressing the fundamental reason Anet nerfed the trait; it's not because of PVP, so the continuous references to how it shouldn't have happened because PVP don't make sense. You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; I don't actually disagree with that ... but that doesn't actually hold much water here because big nerfs = big impacts ... it goes without saying. Repeating how bad it is doesn't not make a compelling argument against change for something that would obvious have a large negative impact. The fact is that the 25% decrease in crit rate as bad as it is ... is

intended

. I think the real problem here is that there aren't many people here willing to acknowledge that there are good reasons for the change because they aren't willing to adapt to it and only see the sky falling around them.

But RI was nerfed because of PvP.

Anet didn't say it was nerfed for PVP. That's a player construct. In fact, Anet's statement is very NOT game mode specific.

[RUNICBLACK.7630]

@"Obtena.7952" said:You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; that's true and it's intended because traits like RI as they were do not allow Anet headroom to make other changes to provide meaningful choices for players.

But honestly how much in the way of truely meaningful improvements have they made when you look at it in regard to the last 4 balance patches that have been put out starting back in Aug 28. (that was when we finally got our Staff back as something that was usable)If you don't remember here they areAug 28GuardianWave of Wrath: This skill has been reworked into a ranged multipart autoattack.

Bolt of Wrath: Fire a bolt that damages foes.Searing Light: Fire a projectile that explodes on impact, damaging enemies in a radius of 120.Seeking Judgment: Fire a homing projectile that explodes on contact, damaging enemies in a radius of 180.Orb of Wrath: This skill has been reworked into a ground-targeted ranged attack and has been renamed Holy Strike. Holy Strike marks an area for judgment, rapidly healing allies and then blasting foes in the area. This skill has a radius of 240 and an 8-second cooldown.

Orb of Light: This skill has been reworked into a ground-targeted ranged attack and has been renamed Holy Strike. Holy Strike marks an area for judgment, rapidly healing allies and then blasting foes in the area. This skill has a radius of 240 and an 8-second cooldown.Empower: Might duration has been increased from 10 seconds to 12 seconds. This skill is no longer split between game modes and will now use the 100% increased base healing value from PvP in all game modes.Mighty Blow: The damage dealt by this skill has been increased by 20% in PvE only.Signet of Courage: Reduced the passive healing multiplier on this skill by 70%, and reduced the passive base heal value by 75%. The passive healing will now pulse every 3 seconds instead of every 10 seconds.Perfect Inscriptions: Clarified the tooltip to include the duration the signets' passive effects are shared with allies.True Shot: The damage of this skill has been increased by 10% in PvE only.Defender's Dogma: Blocking attacks now reduces the cooldown of Spear of Justice by 3 seconds (to a limit of no more than once every 3 seconds) in addition to its current effect.Shield of the Avenger: Increased the shield dome duration from 4 seconds to 5 seconds.Bow of Truth: Increased the radius of this skill by 50%.Sword of Justice: This skill now applies cripple for 3 seconds in addition to its other effects.

Oct 2GuardianSword of Wrath: The damage of this skill has been reduced by 18%.Sword Arc: The damage of this skill has been reduced by approximately 10%.Sword Wave: The aftercast of this skill has been reduced by about 0.25 seconds. Its attack point has been slightly increased.Symbol of Punishment: The random damage of this skill has been reduced by 25% in PvE only. Steady pulsing damage remains the same.True Shot: This skill will now use a 4-second cooldown and a 10% higher damage value in WvW, matching the PvE version.Symbol of Energy: The aftercast of this skill has been reduced by 0.25 seconds.Zealous Blade: This trait no longer heals the guardian when they strike while wielding a greatsword. It now heals significantly more whenever the guardian combos in a light field.Soaring Devastation: In addition to its other effects, this trait now grants an increased 25% movement speed when Wings of Resolve is not on cooldown.Mantras: Fixed a bug in which mantras were not respecting party and squad prioritization.Mantra of Liberation—Portent of Freedom: Boon duration has been reduced from 5 seconds to 3 seconds in PvP and WvW.Mantra of Liberation—Unhindered Delivery: Boon duration has been reduced from 8 seconds to 5 seconds in PvP and WvW.Empowering Might: Increased the duration of might granted by this skill from 5 seconds to 8 seconds, and increased the radius from 240 to 600.Big Game Hunter: The damage increase this skill causes to tethered targets has been increased from 10% to 20%.

Dec 11GuardianA major goal for guardian in this update was to give it a more solid flow of firebrand combat in raid scenarios. This involved reducing some cooldowns, giving more access to group quickness and fury, and allowing stability to affect a full ten allies. Next, access to tomes has been too high and allowed for little to no counterplay. To remedy this, we adjusted cooldowns in the game modes we deemed problematic and tweaked some traits that automatically refresh defensive virtues. Glacial Heart has had a larger rework based on adjustments made to both weapon and instant-damage traits and will now directly affect the hammer weapon itself.

Searing Slash: The burning duration of this skill has been increased from 1 second to 2 seconds per hit.Symbol of Vengeance: This symbol now applies fury for 1.5 seconds on each pulse in addition to its other effects. The number of targets (both enemies and allies) this skill can affect has been increased from 3 to 5.Mantra of Potence—Potent Haste: The quickness duration of this skill has been increased from 2 seconds to 2.5 seconds.Mantra of Potence—Overwhelming Celerity: The quickness duration of this skill has been increased from 4 seconds to 5 seconds."Stand Your Ground!": The number of targets this skill affects has been increased from 5 to 10.Tome of Justice: The base cooldown of this skill has been increased from 30 seconds to 40 seconds in PvP and WvW only.Tome of Resolve: The base cooldown of this skill has been increased from 40 seconds to 50 seconds.Tome of Courage: The base cooldown of this skill has been increased from 50 seconds to 75 seconds.Courageous Return: This trait no longer fully refreshes the cooldown of Virtue of Courage and instead reduces the cooldown of Virtue of Courage by 10 seconds for each ally who is successfully revived. The internal cooldown for Courageous Return has been removed.Glacial Heart: This trait no longer inflicts area damage upon critically hitting a foe. Instead, it now inflicts a single strike that chills enemies for 2 seconds if they have been disabled by the guardian, regardless of which weapon is equipped. The base damage of this trait has been reduced by 50%, and it can no longer critically hit. Equipping this trait now modifies Mighty Blow into Glacial Blow, increasing damage by 17% while chilling enemies it hits for 2.5 seconds at the cost of an increased recharge time that is now 6 seconds instead of 4 seconds. The baseline hammer skills have a reduced recharge time because this trait no longer reduces cooldowns.

Mighty Blow: The cooldown of this skill has been reduced from 5 seconds to 4 seconds.Zealot's Embrace: The cooldown of this skill has been reduced from 15 seconds to 12 seconds.Banish: The cooldown of this skill has been reduced from 18 seconds to 15 seconds.Ring of Warding: The cooldown of this skill has been reduced from 40 seconds to 30 seconds.Liberator's Vow: Reduced the internal cooldown of this trait from 8 seconds to 7 seconds.

Loremaster: The recharge reduction of this trait has been split between game modes and will now use a 20% cooldown reduction in PvP while keeping a 33% cooldown reduction in PvE and WvW.Quickfire: The internal cooldown of this trait has been reduced from 8 seconds to 7 seconds.Shattered Aegis: The damage of this trait has been increased by 20% in PvE only. This trait can no longer critically hit.Stalwart Speed: The internal cooldown of this trait has been reduced from 8 seconds to 7 seconds.Unbroken Lines: The cooldown of this skill has been increased from 12 seconds to 15 seconds in PvP only.Chapter 1: Unflinching Charge: The duration of stability that this skill grants is now 4 seconds in PvE and WvW. Its duration in PvP has been reduced from 3 seconds to 2 seconds.

March 5GuardianRighteous Instincts has been an incredibly potent trait since it was reworked to grant a large boost to the player's critical-hit chance. Because of this, it has crowded out other grandmaster options for the radiance build. In this update, we're bringing down the power of this trait to be more in line with other grandmaster traits and to give a little boost to its competition. Furthermore, we are giving a small boost to staff and torch weapons and enhancing Hallowed Ground to help it achieve its purpose: to help allies manage crowd control.

Symbol of Vengeance: Fixed a bug that caused this skill to function improperly with the Symbolic Avenger and Symbolic Power traits.True Shot: This skill's range has been increased from 1,200 to 1,500.Tome of Justice—Chapter 2: Igniting Burst: Fixed a bug that could cause this skill to fail to hit foes at the center of its radius.Cleansing Flame: Increased this skill's damage per hit by 21%. The final hit of this attack inflicts 2 stacks of burning for 4 seconds.Hallowed Ground: Increased this skill's radius to 360.Amplified Wrath: Instead of burning foes that the guardian blocks, this trait now increases the duration of the burning passive effect applied by Virtue of Justice by 20%.Honorable Staff: This trait now grants 120 concentration, plus an additional 120 concentration while wielding a staff, in addition to reducing staff skill recharge times.Lesser Smite Condition: The damage of this trait has been reduced by about 40% in PvP only.Perfect Inscriptions: This trait now applies its shared signet passive effect to the guardian in addition to their allies.Radiant Fire: Fixed a bug that caused this trait to occasionally fail.Righteous Instincts: This trait's critical-chance bonus has been reduced from 50% to 25%.

All this being said they have pushed to give them this so called headroom but when you look and it all from these last almost 8 months it still comes across like they haven't made any real effort to fill that void. Please remember that they wiped the Guardian staff Aug 8 2017 when they changed the Wave of Wrath from 600 to 300 and we did get a rework on that until Aug 28 2018 so we were waiting for over a year them to revisit and revise the Staff.I'm not condemning them here but I honestly feel that they are not addressing some of the issues that are fundemental with the classes .

[nativity.3057]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

No one is dismissing discussion about nerfs. The problem is that no one is addressing the fundamental reason Anet nerfed the trait; it's not because of PVP, so the continuous references to how it shouldn't have happened because PVP don't make sense. You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; I don't actually disagree with that ... but that doesn't actually hold much water here because big nerfs = big impacts ... it goes without saying. Repeating how bad it is doesn't not make a compelling argument against change for something that would obvious have a large negative impact. The fact is that the 25% decrease in crit rate as bad as it is ... is

intended

. I think the real problem here is that there aren't many people here willing to acknowledge that there are good reasons for the change because they aren't willing to adapt to it and only see the sky falling around them.

But RI was nerfed because of PvP.

Anet didn't say it was nerfed for PVP. That's a player construct. In fact, Anet's statement is very NOT game mode specific.

What? I literally outlined how RI wasn't meta in PvE, and its main advantage was used in PvP. You're saying the nerf wasn't targeted towards a build that was primarily used in PvP, but instead targeted towards a lesser tier build in PvE?We don't need Anet to specify what their nerf is intended for.

Seriously. If you're going to quote the first line of my post and only respond to that, why are you here?

[kasoki.5180]

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

No one is dismissing discussion about nerfs. The problem is that no one is addressing the fundamental reason Anet nerfed the trait; it's not because of PVP, so the continuous references to how it shouldn't have happened because PVP don't make sense. You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; I don't actually disagree with that ... but that doesn't actually hold much water here because big nerfs = big impacts ... it goes without saying. Repeating how bad it is doesn't not make a compelling argument against change for something that would obvious have a large negative impact. The fact is that the 25% decrease in crit rate as bad as it is ... is

intended

. I think the real problem here is that there aren't many people here willing to acknowledge that there are good reasons for the change because they aren't willing to adapt to it and only see the sky falling around them.

But RI was nerfed because of PvP.

Anet didn't say it was nerfed for PVP. That's a player construct. In fact, Anet's statement is very NOT game mode specific.

What? I literally outlined how RI wasn't meta in PvE, and its main advantage was used in PvP. You're saying the nerf wasn't targeted towards a build that was primarily used in PvP, but instead targeted towards a lesser tier build in PvE?We don't need Anet to specify what their nerf is intended for.

Seriously. If you're going to quote the first line of my post and only respond to that, why are you here?

RI was and always will be meta for any power dps build in PvE. PI was meta for support firebrand, never for core or dragonhunter power builds.

[otto.5684]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

No one is dismissing discussion about nerfs. The problem is that no one is addressing the fundamental reason Anet nerfed the trait; it's not because of PVP, so the continuous references to how it shouldn't have happened because PVP don't make sense. You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; I don't actually disagree with that ... but that doesn't actually hold much water here because big nerfs = big impacts ... it goes without saying. Repeating how bad it is doesn't not make a compelling argument against change for something that would obvious have a large negative impact. The fact is that the 25% decrease in crit rate as bad as it is ... is

intended

. I think the real problem here is that there aren't many people here willing to acknowledge that there are good reasons for the change because they aren't willing to adapt to it and only see the sky falling around them.

There are not any good reasons for the change expect removing power guardian from PvP. Regardless of whatever bullshit Anet claims that is result. The only adaptation you can do in PvP is to play another class or switch to support FB. There are not any other options. > @Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

No one is dismissing discussion about nerfs. The problem is that no one is addressing the fundamental reason Anet nerfed the trait; it's not because of PVP, so the continuous references to how it shouldn't have happened because PVP don't make sense. You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; I don't actually disagree with that ... but that doesn't actually hold much water here because big nerfs = big impacts ... it goes without saying. Repeating how bad it is doesn't not make a compelling argument against change for something that would obvious have a large negative impact. The fact is that the 25% decrease in crit rate as bad as it is ... is

intended

. I think the real problem here is that there aren't many people here willing to acknowledge that there are good reasons for the change because they aren't willing to adapt to it and only see the sky falling around them.

But RI was nerfed because of PvP.

Anet didn't say it was nerfed for PVP. That's a player construct. In fact, Anet's statement is very NOT game mode specific.

Anet can claim whatever the fuck they want. The result of the change is what matters. In fact, if Anet written statement regarding “diversity” was the intended purpose of the change then We have a way more serious problem; major incompetence. You can deal with disingenuous devs. You can hammer them in the comments and on any social media/forums. Incompetence has no cure.

[RUNICBLACK.7630]

Ok to be blunt Otto calling the Dev's disingenuous and incompetent is going way beyond the Pale, none of us know what restriction are placed on them from outside their dept. from personal work experience I am fully aware of instances in work where decisions are made by Supervisors and much higher than that are for reasons am not going to be informed of EVER! You can and have every right to be unhappy with whatever they have or will change or modify to the game but to assume that it was entirely how they wanted to or were allowed to do it is rank presumpution on our part and resorting to name calling and out right insulting them is in no way furthering the discussion, please Otto I fully understand that we all have some very strong opinions on this issue but letting the conversation degrade to this level doesn't help anyone.(Please Note my earlier calling out of disingenuous was directed to Obtena comment on March 7 stating that no other class had trait buff that was equal to RI.)I may not always agree with many of my fellow forum members but I respect their opinion even when I disagree with them because it forces me to evaluate my own views and to defend them after due evaluation or to reassess them if they fail to be defensible against well thoughtout criticism.

[Obtena.7952]

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

No one is dismissing discussion about nerfs. The problem is that no one is addressing the fundamental reason Anet nerfed the trait; it's not because of PVP, so the continuous references to how it shouldn't have happened because PVP don't make sense. You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; I don't actually disagree with that ... but that doesn't actually hold much water here because big nerfs = big impacts ... it goes without saying. Repeating how bad it is doesn't not make a compelling argument against change for something that would obvious have a large negative impact. The fact is that the 25% decrease in crit rate as bad as it is ... is

intended

. I think the real problem here is that there aren't many people here willing to acknowledge that there are good reasons for the change because they aren't willing to adapt to it and only see the sky falling around them.

But RI was nerfed because of PvP.

Anet didn't say it was nerfed for PVP. That's a player construct. In fact, Anet's statement is very NOT game mode specific.

What? I literally outlined how RI wasn't meta in PvE, and its main advantage was used in PvP. You're saying the nerf wasn't targeted towards a build that was primarily used in PvP, but instead targeted towards a lesser tier build in PvE?We don't need Anet to specify what their nerf is intended for.

Seriously. If you're going to quote the first line of my post and only respond to that, why are you here?

RI not being meta in PVE (which is a highly questionable statement in the first place) doesn't mean Anet nerfed RI because of PVP. The fact is that you THINK Anet nerfed it because of PVP because that makes it easy for you to argue it was the wrong thing to do, not because it's true. Nothing Anet has told us should give anyone the impression they changed RI because of PVP.

[Obtena.7952]

@otto.5684 said:Anet can claim whatever the kitten they want. The result of the change is what matters. In fact, if Anet written statement regarding “diversity” was the intended purpose of the change then We have a way more serious problem; major incompetence. You can deal with disingenuous devs. You can hammer them in the comments and on any social media/forums. Incompetence has no cure.

I would agree if that was the only reason Anet provided for the nerf ... but it wasn't. As I've already said many times already, the 'diversity' reason is weak and I don't buy it myself, not until the other two GM traits compete with RI. Maybe you just want to hammer the 'bad for PVP' idea home but RI was nerfed at it's face value in all game modes, not just because 'PVP' and not just because 'diversity'. I really don't get your position; you're arguing points that don't even register on the scale; I guess it's worth saying again, there are good reasons for changing RI; if you don't see them, it's because you don't want to. I only suspect the purpose to that is to ignore the idea that Anet doesn't balance to relative class performance,as your posts clearly indicate you're still hanging onto the idea.

[Obtena.7952]

@RUNICBLACK.7630 said:All this being said they have pushed to give them this so called headroom but when you look and it all from these last almost 8 months it still comes across like they haven't made any real effort to fill that void. Please remember that they wiped the Guardian staff Aug 8 2017 when they changed the Wave of Wrath from 600 to 300 and we did get a rework on that until Aug 28 2018 so we were waiting for over a year them to revisit and revise the Staff.I'm not condemning them here but I honestly feel that they are not addressing some of the issues that are fundemental with the classes .

I agree with that ... it does seem to take Anet a long time to 'fill' that void but it still remains the case that if there isn't a void to fill, Anet doesn't have the room to make the changes they want. I do think it's possible for Anet to make the nerf AND the improvements to fill that void at the same time, though I can they don't do so because it has something to do with not wanting to create too many changes at once, or perhaps it's a resource bandwidth issue.

I think it's frustrating for everyone that these class changes are this long winding road of uncertainty, but we know it's how Anet operates and I see little reason for certain individuals to get snarky about it. If Anet's approach to balancing bothers people that much, speak with your bux and your time.

[otto.5684]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@otto.5684 said:Anet can claim whatever the kitten they want. The result of the change is what matters. In fact, if Anet written statement regarding “diversity” was the intended purpose of the change then We have a way more serious problem; major incompetence. You can deal with disingenuous devs. You can hammer them in the comments and on any social media/forums. Incompetence has no cure.

I would agree if that was the only reason Anet provided for the nerf ... but it wasn't. As I've already said many times already, the 'diversity' reason is weak and I don't buy it myself, not until the other two GM traits compete with RI. Maybe you just want to hammer the 'bad for PVP' idea home but RI was nerfed at it's face value in all game modes, not just because 'PVP' and not just because 'diversity'. I really don't get your position; you're arguing points that don't even register on the scale; I guess it's worth saying again, there are good reasons for changing RI; if you don't see them, it's because you don't want to. I only suspect the purpose to that is to ignore the idea that Anet doesn't balance to relative class performance,as your posts clearly indicate you're still hanging onto the idea.

You clearly miss understand the point of this thread or feedback in general. I do not expect Anet is going to listen to me or anyone here really, and I dunno what matrix Anet uses and neither do you.

The whole idea is that when devs fuck up cuz they did not do enough testing or analysis is to create large enough player backlash to force them to take action. As much as I prefer providing constructive feedback, it’s not like Anet has any open channels for it. In addition, most game devs do not get the off their high hourse except when there is a huge boulder of player backlash.

So thanks for helping with your poorly constructed attempts on.. not sure what really. It is a mix of Anet defending and self aggrandizement. They only serve in making this thread larger and thus having higher visibility.

[Obtena.7952]

Yes, they did mess up, but it wasn't this patch ... it was the patch that gave us RI at 50% crit rate in the first place

Look, they are going to mess up and when it gets fixed, it's going to bother people. If devs messing up is a problem for you, you are playing the wrong genre of game. There is no huge boulder of player backlash here; being sensational doesn't make a stronger case for RI nerf being wrong here.

Yeah long threads ... the solutions to people complaining about game changes since never ... :astonished:

[nativity.3057]

@kasoki.5180 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

No one is dismissing discussion about nerfs. The problem is that no one is addressing the fundamental reason Anet nerfed the trait; it's not because of PVP, so the continuous references to how it shouldn't have happened because PVP don't make sense. You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; I don't actually disagree with that ... but that doesn't actually hold much water here because big nerfs = big impacts ... it goes without saying. Repeating how bad it is doesn't not make a compelling argument against change for something that would obvious have a large negative impact. The fact is that the 25% decrease in crit rate as bad as it is ... is

intended

. I think the real problem here is that there aren't many people here willing to acknowledge that there are good reasons for the change because they aren't willing to adapt to it and only see the sky falling around them.

But RI was nerfed because of PvP.

Anet didn't say it was nerfed for PVP. That's a player construct. In fact, Anet's statement is very NOT game mode specific.

What? I literally outlined how RI wasn't meta in PvE, and its main advantage was used in PvP. You're saying the nerf wasn't targeted towards a build that was primarily used in PvP, but instead targeted towards a lesser tier build in PvE?We don't need Anet to specify what their nerf is intended for.

Seriously. If you're going to quote the first line of my post and only respond to that, why are you here?

RI was and always will be meta for any power dps build in PvE. PI was meta for support firebrand, never for core or dragonhunter power builds.

PI worked in fractals, PUG and static runs because of the low CD knockdown (CC for PUGs) and boost in power for other DPS classes in your party.It was a tradeoff between a marginal increase in self DPS due to the might effect, and increase in group DPS (gave more power than Banner of Strength).Now, with Bane Signet passive affecting guardians, the benefits of decreased CD on a strong breakbar skill plus free power makes it a meta choice.

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

No one is dismissing discussion about nerfs. The problem is that no one is addressing the fundamental reason Anet nerfed the trait; it's not because of PVP, so the continuous references to how it shouldn't have happened because PVP don't make sense. You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; I don't actually disagree with that ... but that doesn't actually hold much water here because big nerfs = big impacts ... it goes without saying. Repeating how bad it is doesn't not make a compelling argument against change for something that would obvious have a large negative impact. The fact is that the 25% decrease in crit rate as bad as it is ... is

intended

. I think the real problem here is that there aren't many people here willing to acknowledge that there are good reasons for the change because they aren't willing to adapt to it and only see the sky falling around them.

But RI was nerfed because of PvP.

Anet didn't say it was nerfed for PVP. That's a player construct. In fact, Anet's statement is very NOT game mode specific.

What? I literally outlined how RI wasn't meta in PvE, and its main advantage was used in PvP. You're saying the nerf wasn't targeted towards a build that was primarily used in PvP, but instead targeted towards a lesser tier build in PvE?We don't need Anet to specify what their nerf is intended for.

Seriously. If you're going to quote the first line of my post and only respond to that, why are you here?

RI not being meta in PVE (which is a highly questionable statement in the first place) doesn't mean Anet nerfed RI because of PVP. The fact is that you THINK Anet nerfed it because of PVP because that makes it easy for you to argue it was the wrong thing to do, not because it's true. Nothing Anet has told us should give anyone the impression they changed RI because of PVP.

You're still arguing over the one line.The nerf is felt primarily in PvP aspects of the game. So we are discussing the results of the nerf based on how it affects PvP.You're arguing semantics when we're trying to discuss in-game effects. Could you please try and comment with relevant opinions?

[Obtena.7952]

@nativity.3057 said:

@kasoki.5180 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

No one is dismissing discussion about nerfs. The problem is that no one is addressing the fundamental reason Anet nerfed the trait; it's not because of PVP, so the continuous references to how it shouldn't have happened because PVP don't make sense. You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; I don't actually disagree with that ... but that doesn't actually hold much water here because big nerfs = big impacts ... it goes without saying. Repeating how bad it is doesn't not make a compelling argument against change for something that would obvious have a large negative impact. The fact is that the 25% decrease in crit rate as bad as it is ... is

intended

. I think the real problem here is that there aren't many people here willing to acknowledge that there are good reasons for the change because they aren't willing to adapt to it and only see the sky falling around them.

But RI was nerfed because of PvP.

Anet didn't say it was nerfed for PVP. That's a player construct. In fact, Anet's statement is very NOT game mode specific.

What? I literally outlined how RI wasn't meta in PvE, and its main advantage was used in PvP. You're saying the nerf wasn't targeted towards a build that was primarily used in PvP, but instead targeted towards a lesser tier build in PvE?We don't need Anet to specify what their nerf is intended for.

Seriously. If you're going to quote the first line of my post and only respond to that, why are you here?

RI was and always will be meta for any power dps build in PvE. PI was meta for support firebrand, never for core or dragonhunter power builds.

PI worked in fractals, PUG and static runs because of the low CD knockdown (CC for PUGs) and boost in power for other DPS classes in your party.It was a tradeoff between a marginal increase in self DPS due to the might effect, and increase in group DPS (gave more power than Banner of Strength).Now, with Bane Signet passive affecting guardians, the benefits of decreased CD on a strong breakbar skill plus free power makes it a meta choice.

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You cannot make a change in isolation? That's funny ... Anet does it all the time. You know why they can? Because they don't balance to equivalent performance between classes ... see how it all ties together yet or are you still in denial?

This isn't an exercise in MMO development best practices here. Maybe you ignore the reality of how Anet does things ... I'm not.

I think we all get the fact that Anet can balance the game however they want. But simply dismissing discussion about the nerfs by saying this is not helpful, and quite frankly, not relevant. You can't justify a nerf just because Anet implemented the nerf. The end result can't be an explanation for itself.

No one is dismissing discussion about nerfs. The problem is that no one is addressing the fundamental reason Anet nerfed the trait; it's not because of PVP, so the continuous references to how it shouldn't have happened because PVP don't make sense. You might complain it has serious negative impact on whatever game mode you want; I don't actually disagree with that ... but that doesn't actually hold much water here because big nerfs = big impacts ... it goes without saying. Repeating how bad it is doesn't not make a compelling argument against change for something that would obvious have a large negative impact. The fact is that the 25% decrease in crit rate as bad as it is ... is

intended

. I think the real problem here is that there aren't many people here willing to acknowledge that there are good reasons for the change because they aren't willing to adapt to it and only see the sky falling around them.

But RI was nerfed because of PvP.

Anet didn't say it was nerfed for PVP. That's a player construct. In fact, Anet's statement is very NOT game mode specific.

What? I literally outlined how RI wasn't meta in PvE, and its main advantage was used in PvP. You're saying the nerf wasn't targeted towards a build that was primarily used in PvP, but instead targeted towards a lesser tier build in PvE?We don't need Anet to specify what their nerf is intended for.

Seriously. If you're going to quote the first line of my post and only respond to that, why are you here?

RI not being meta in PVE (which is a highly questionable statement in the first place) doesn't mean Anet nerfed RI because of PVP. The fact is that you THINK Anet nerfed it because of PVP because that makes it easy for you to argue it was the wrong thing to do, not because it's true. Nothing Anet has told us should give anyone the impression they changed RI because of PVP.

You're still arguing over the one line.The nerf is felt primarily in PvP aspects of the game. So we are discussing the results of the nerf based on how it affects PvP.You're arguing semantics when we're trying to discuss in-game effects. Could you please try and comment with relevant opinions?

I am, because it's an important line. If your claim is that Anet nerfed RI because of PVP, that line demonstrates you aren't correct. I'm not arguing semantics because the reason Anet nerfs RI is really important if you want to argue it's a mistake and shouldn't have happened. If the reason isn't because of PVP, then you can't argue it's a mistake because of it's negative impact on PVP. That's a meaningless argument anyways because the fact that it was a negative impact on PVP (and all other game modes) was obvious when the nerf was decided on and implemented to begin with. The compelling reason to not change it can't be based on the actual reason it was changed.

[RUNICBLACK.7630]

I am curious Obtena what evidence are you using to determine that the nerf to RI wasn't primarily being driven by the PvP game over any others I'm fairly certain that you do not have any more information than anyone else and while it can be argued that the importance of RI in other game modes isn't trivial it is in no way as important nor as impactful as it is PvP. In Raids for example the Guardian can depend on other players for buffs to offset the 25% lose, in Fractals the same can be said and it is generally considerably more forgiving on player errors until you get into Tier 4 or Challenge Mode where the risk increases , WvW is a mixed environment depending on if you run as a Roamer or with the Zerg but RI while being useful was really not a make or break trait because sustain was often much more important, and Open World PvE most builds function quite well with or without RI. The only thing that almost everyone in this discussion has been bring up is that RI was enormously important in a great number of PvP builds and that by reducing it to the degree by which they did without any sort of counter balance improvement for this change was shortsighted in its implementation and while the game is not entirely driven by any one game mode in this the case the PvP game mode they failed to consider its overall impact and it was particularly alienating considering the argument they used to justify it implementation.