Every single class should have a build which allows them to play i any gamemode. Change my mind.

[Zok.4956]

@"anduriell.6280" said:i think every single class should have access to a build which allows them to be efficient to different scenarios.As such i think every single class, and this includes thieves and rangers to have the opportunity to build to be able to play any game mode you want

yes they should. and yes they have alrady.

and be wanted because your class has the potential to be efficient.

That depends how high you raise the bar for efficency.

I don't like to be told the way i must enjoy the game, I don't mind to have to change my build to adapt my class to the game mode, but i don't like to be forced to use other class and play style which i don't enjoy to have an spot.

Every class is viable in every game mode. But not every play style is.

And of course, some classes are better fulfilling some roles than others. If you want to eliminate that, you have to eliminiate the build diversity and maybe also reduce all classes into only one class. I do not think, that this would be a good idea.

As long as there is class and build diversity in the game, there will always be a single "most efficiant" build/class for a given task/role.

As such i think all and every single one of the classes should have access to a build which allows them to play every single game mode in the game and to have theopportunity to be efficient and not be despised or insulted because of the terrible performance that class as a hole has in that game mode.

No player should be insulted (not for the class he plays and not for other things):

Maybe it is not purely the (theoretically achievable) efficiency of a class that leads to that (not nice) behaviour. Maybe it is more the playstyle of players that play those classes. And maybe some classes attract some player-types and playstyles more than other classes.

As an example: I have stopped counting (because it happens all the time) when a ranger uses his shortbow-4 knockback and pushes the enemy away from his fellow melee-players.

Playing a bad ranger is quite easy. Playing is good ranger is possible, but much harder and it requires a much more skilled player.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

Want to know how to make a Druid a viable zerg build? Easy. Diminishing returns. Make it so that each class caps out their AoEs, Boons, Heals, and Corrupts at a certain amount and then after that amount is reached the benefits of using more from those classes actually becomes less beneficial. That way you are guaranteed to have more Rangers, Engineers, Guardians, and Elementalists healing the zerg. You'll get more build diversification in the zerg because to max out the Boons you'll need Soulbeasts. There is a way to make it so that all classes will be welcome in a zerg. It's just nobody wants to do it. Diminishing returns would do just the thing though.

[subversiontwo.7501]

Want to know how to make a Druid a viable zerg build?

It already is viable. It just isn't popular. There is no need to reinvent the wheel for that.

As has been stated over and over, classes does not stop being viable just because a commander does not slot you in a Firebrand-party or kicks you out of a full squad (when you don't need the boons or are supposed to lead a subsquad or party). People keep making the mistake of assuming that a lack of appreciation from a commander makes the class inviable.

Druids aren't in good shape right now, being given the stick over and over because of PvE raids but no other class excels in its role of range-party support.If you wish to discuss the balance of rangers in WvW then do so with arguments rooted in concrete gameplay, not player-behaviour or -preference.

I don't mean to come off harsh or finger pointing here. It's just that we adress that "nobody wants to do it" differently, I don't see that situation as a lack of viability or something that needs to be designed around. I see it as the onus being on you to change that nobody to a somebody. It is possible, for as much as other players may tend to to be less appreciative of certain classes, players of those classes also tend to lack the willpower to play past that impression. If you take the initiative to help the commander and voice your intention to do so, while proving the ability to, you and the class will become more appreciated. The class isn't in the meta simply because it isn't a class you that anonymously park on the tag to make useful. That is all there is to it. Classes who are in the top tier of meta allows for you to do that - they can all be useful on a very basic level by only pushing two-three buttons. That is what makes them "meta". I'm not saying that is all they do, but that is what makes them meta.

Assume in any given squad that 33% are all over the place and does not listen at all, 33% tries to listen and learn while 33% already know all they need and more. Then you understand the reason as to why meta exists and why certain classes have bad reputation in a meta. The commander attempts to get the bottom third to the middle third through the medium of a meta. The top third can play in meta or out of meta. That is in or near the squad.

That goes for soulbeasts too, given its overall popularity, and appeal in a burst meta, you see very few groups of players who use them dedicated and well. It is not just the commanders who are at fault of that, it is the players on the class too. There is a difference between playing a class your own way and expecting everyone else to adapt to one's own way. Either adapt to their way if it is their squad or actually go play it your own way and create the requisites to do so (again, this is the general "you", appealing to all players [of a class] and not necessarily aimed the the qouted player, I have no idea how he plays I just respond to what can be inferred through the arguments made).

 

[subversiontwo.7501]

@steki.1478 said:Alternatively we need meta to shift to full melee so /axe soulbeast can achieve its full potential along with reaper, daredevil and holosmith.It is highly doubtful that a shift to a full melee meta would include such specs in a meta simply because they are presumtively played in melee.

[Psaro.6178]

I think what you're trying to say is that every class should be viable in every game mode.Every glass should be able to full fill all roles.Sounds okay to me.