Balance Notes Preview - Discussion

[Obtena.7952]

The only evidence I have is what Anet has given us as the reason; unlike others, I'm not 'interpreting' that statement to suit my purposes. I didn't see anything in there about any game mode. So why would anyone assume the RI change is about PVP is only doing so to further some argument that makes sense to them that attempts to discredit Anet's intentions.

I think it sort of goes without saying that when Anet throws you broken tools, they become 'enormously important' parts of builds in any game mode. The point that the change has a detrimental effect on PVP isn't a point worth discussing at all, because obviously the intention was to take away something so fundamentally ridiculous that it would clearly be detrimental.

The diversity argument is weak; I acknowledge that, though with good changes to the other traits in the line ... I can see that being true at some point, just not now. Even without that diversity nonsense Anet tried to feed us, RI is fundamentally a ridiculous trait, just based on the ability to take advantage of it almost 100% of the time in combat for every game mode.

If there is an argument to be made for why the change is bad, it's because Anet failed to bring that diversity to bear with other good changes, not because RI shouldn't be changed. I for one WANT diversity, but I'm wise enough to recognize that with RI @ 50% crit rate, it was a barrier to that happening.

[Sorem.9157]

Is there anyway i can turn off notifications for making this thread?

I am tired of having my forum notification box spammed by Obtena's nonsense and lack of reasonable arguments.

[nativity.3057]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@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.

Either way you argue it, the effects of RI nerfs are felt primarily in PvP. RI was interchangeable with PI in PvE. A Guardian could get away with running either trait. RI's nerf in PvE primarily effects Valkyrie build variants. These builds were essentially a crutch for players in PvE instances where they could not run Berserkers. Berserkers were still meta for power guardian and dragonhunter. Taking Valkyries meant less flexibility in choosing between RI and PI.Taking Berserkers is unfeasible in PvP gameplay. Perfect Inscriptions was next to useless in a PvP setting.By backwards induction, we can conclude that RI was nerfed because of PvP. You're arguing semantics when it's painfully obvious to any guard main that RI was nerfed because of PvP. I shouldn't be surprised how it isn't obvious to you because you are a Mesmer main (yes, I've seen you defend Mesmers constantly in the PvP and WvW forums). If you want to contribute to the Guardian forum, please do with reasonable responses. It's tiresome to read your replies that don't further the discussion.

[Obtena.7952]

My response are not unreasonable. It's just as tiresome for you to read my replies as it is for me to read yours. The key difference is that one of us has an objective view of why this change makes sense in the bigger picture ... and the other doesn't.

if you 'backwards induction' yourself into believing Anet's intention was to nerf RI for primarily PVP reasons, that's your barrier to higher level understanding, not mine. I have a more 'observant' view of what's happening here; the fact that Anet didn't specify the game mode in the communication OR use splits to address this 'primarily PVP' problem tells us we probably shouldn't assume this is primarily a PVP nerf. The other hint that anyone can take is just to see how 50% is ridiculous in any game mode.

[otto.5684]

@Obtena.7952 said:My response are not unreasonable. It's just as tiresome for you to read my replies as it is for me to read yours. The key difference is that one of us has an objective view of why this change makes sense in the bigger picture ... and the other doesn't.

if you 'backwards induction' yourself into believing Anet's intention was to nerf RI for primarily PVP reasons, that's your barrier to higher level understanding, not mine. I have a more 'observant' view of what's happening here; the fact that Anet didn't specify the game mode in the communication OR use splits to address this 'primarily PVP' problem tells us we probably shouldn't assume this is primarily a PVP nerf. The other hint that anyone can take is just to see how 50% is ridiculous in any game mode.

We get it.

50 is high number.Anet logic is godly.You are two consumed in self aggrandizement.

Keep feeding this thread for more visibility.

[nativity.3057]

@"Obtena.7952" said:My response are not unreasonable. It's just as tiresome for you to read my replies as it is for me to read yours. The key difference is that one of us has an objective view of why this change makes sense in the bigger picture ... and the other doesn't.

if you 'backwards induction' yourself into believing Anet's intention was to nerf RI for primarily PVP reasons, that's your barrier to higher level understanding, not mine. I have a more 'observant' view of what's happening here; the fact that Anet didn't specify the game mode in the communication OR use splits to address this 'primarily PVP' problem tells us we probably shouldn't assume this is primarily a PVP nerf. The other hint that anyone can take is just to see how 50% is ridiculous in any game mode.

You don't have an objective view because of your previous posts. You're pretty much in the camp of "good guardian nerfs" because it is a nerf towards a class that counters Mesmers.

Regardless of your biases, you haven't responded to my previous response. Instead you chose to quote one sentence (which I remind was the literal beginning of my post) and went off from there. Another poster put it adequately. Nerfing RI by looking at it in isolation was flawed. You say that RI should be nerfed because Guardians relied on it too much for PvP. If you played the class, you'd realize there were no other options to take, and even then, RI builds were decent at best, not broken in any sense. There were clear deficiencies in the class' mechanics that led to Anet introducing RI in the PoF expansion in the first place. You're ignoring history and building your opinion on one season of RI Guardian being FoTM (which I remind you, if you read my previous post, that had nothing to do with guardian being strong and mostly caused by the profession meta).

My barrier to higher understanding? You lack the basic understanding of the guardian class to logically come to the conclusion that RI was nerfed due to PvP. It is an obvious observation that could be reached by playing the class for more than a day. Your barrier to understanding the nerf comes from your shallow understanding of the guardian class.

Please try the contribute your reasoning as to why the RI was necessary, and try to respond to the other guardian players who have laid out their opinions. You have yet to respond to anybody with a reasonable, thorough response without resorting to ad-hominems. I would really like to read your in-depth retaliations to the points outlined by me and my fellow Guardian players.

[Obtena.7952]

@nativity.3057 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:My response are not unreasonable. It's just as tiresome for you to read my replies as it is for me to read yours. The key difference is that one of us has an objective view of why this change makes sense in the bigger picture ... and the other doesn't.

if you 'backwards induction' yourself into believing Anet's intention was to nerf RI for primarily PVP reasons, that's your barrier to higher level understanding, not mine. I have a more 'observant' view of what's happening here; the fact that Anet didn't specify the game mode in the communication OR use splits to address this 'primarily PVP' problem tells us we probably shouldn't assume this is primarily a PVP nerf. The other hint that anyone can take is just to see how 50% is ridiculous in any game mode.

Please try the contribute your reasoning as to why the RI was necessary,

Simple ... because getting 50% crit buff on a 100% boon uptime is a ridiculous and unprecedented damage buff, in any game mode.Also, because there is no headroom in Radiance to allow Anet to make changes to improve the lineAlso, because it trivialized choices for stats.

That's all I have ... so far. For the most part, I find the points laid out by you and others mostly irrelevant. PVP performance is your big issue ... RI wasn't nerfed because of PVP performance from what I can see. There is no evidence to indicate it, based on what Anet said, how it was implemented and how it impacts every game mode ... other than some contrived, backwards-induced logic you have figured out to prove it.

Not sure what actual argument this PVP performance route has ... indented crit rate drop = intended DPS drop. There isn't any argument to be made for complaining about a drop in PVP performance if the change was an intended drop in performance. /shrug The diversity thing is just deflection; you guys are too focused on it. There wasn't an increase in diversity, that's true but there wasn't a drop either.

[Ragnarox.9601]

you still arguing with this dude obtena who has no clue about Guardian class except to troll you around? man you ppl are persistent xD but gg :D

[otto.5684]

@Ragnarox.9601 said:you still arguing with this dude obtena who has no clue about Guardian class except to troll you around? man you ppl are persistent xD but gg :D

He back paddles the same shit Anet says. It is good to deconstruct that crap plus it keeps the thread active, and thus higher visibility.

[Obtena.7952]

@otto.5684 said:

@Ragnarox.9601 said:you still arguing with this dude obtena who has no clue about Guardian class except to troll you around? man you ppl are persistent xD but gg :D

He back paddles the same kitten Anet says. It is good to deconstruct that kitten plus it keeps the thread active, and thus higher visibility.

Because that's what is relevant. The problem is that you guys have taken your objections to the change to some far off never never land that isn't speaking to the reason Anet made the changes in the first place.

oh and Bump for you because Visibility = RI getting 50% crit rate back :astonished:

[RevanCorana.8942]

@"Obtena.7952" said:Because that's what is relevant. The problem is that you guys have taken your objections to the change to some far off never never land that isn't speaking to the reason Anet made the changesNot sure if I'm reading this correctly but I guess by "the reason Anet made the change" he's refering to his original theory that "50% looks too big, need nerf, although fine balance wise, but balance does not matter"I cant wait for when he will delight us with another one of his masterpiece.

[Ghos.1326]

I'm not sure why Obtena is being regarded as the center of all of this hatred. I also thought 50% on a single trait was a little high, considering the uptime of the required boon is also really high.How RI was before, you could take some pretty neat amulets while taking the trait, which was awesome. The problem is, you pretty much didn't need to sacrifice anything in the process, which made it strong. high crit damage % because of the valk amulet used often with it, high vitality which also panned out to more survival on top of its passive/active effects from its mechanics/trait powered utilities, and then a good amount of power to add onto it. it sacrificed nothing of these three, unless you count toughness as survival which is a bit hard to do in this current power creep. it was a singular strong trait that, despite granted "build diversity" (i wouldn't consider nullifying other traits to be build diversity, more build dominance), also made other options unappealing to take. I think it was a fair change.

[Obtena.7952]

@RevanCorana.8942 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:Because that's what is relevant. The problem is that you guys have taken your objections to the change to some far off never never land that isn't speaking to the reason Anet made the changesNot sure if I'm reading this correctly but I guess by "the reason Anet made the change" he's refering to his original theory that "50% looks too big, need nerf, although fine balance wise, but balance does not matter"I cant wait for when he will delight us with another one of his masterpiece.

Right MY original 'theory' ... I just made completely made this up our of thin air ... OR wait

..... I MAY have read the statement Anet made about RI changes in the balance patch notes and observe how Anet behaves over the last 6+ years. You know, skills some people possess?

Interesting, I wonder which one of these it true ...

The fact is that the idea RI was balanced @ 50% crit rate allowing people to almost perma cap crit rate while ignoring precision is absolutely absurd and disingenuous.

[RevanCorana.8942]

@Ghos.1326 said:not sure why Obtena is being regarded as the center of all of this hatred.I dont hate Obtena, I think he's funny and his ability to contradict himself enlessly is some next lvl shit.

@Obtena.7952 said:Right MY original 'theory' ... I just made completely made this up our of thin air ... OR wait@Obtena.7952 said:as to the reason Anet gave ... seems like a stretch. Honestly, they should have just come out and said "WTH were we thinking ... 50% is too high"

@Obtena.7952 said:The fact is that the idea RI was balanced @ 50% crit rate allowing people to almost perma cap crit rate while ignoring precision is absolutely absurd and disingenuous.@Obtena.7952 said:isn't about how much DPS c;lasses do. It's about what reasonable crit buffs look like.

and ofc the masterful;

@Obtena.7952 said:I don't believe that balance is good for the game.

"just run marauder" boys, all is vain

[Obtena.7952]

None of that is contradictory. My position on the topic has been consistent.

[Arken.3725]

This thread is fairly comical, nicely done :smile:

[otto.5684]

@"Team USA.9482" said:My core guardian build that consistently gets 1700+ rating this season. Can 1v1, +1 similar to rev, and has great down-cleave racing. Downside is being very difficult to rez and get rezzed due to glassy.

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vVAQNAR8dnkICVDhdDBmDB8DhjBi6etNQFkLwFsBtBQ12mA-jZRaAB0eQAmd/BdfCAVeBAAoMAA

Not saying that this does not work (at least for you), but as low hp class you cannot have a reliable build with 11k hp.