Raids are not balanced when there is a 9-10k Difference between professions.

[Obtena.7952]

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:You do know that EVERY single RPG out there has that one 'given': that every single class is able to clear (endgame) content, right?

.. and GW2 isn't exceptional in that regard because people clear endgame content with every single class all the time. For the people that can't do that ... it's due to something THEY are doing, not something wrong with the game that Anet has to fix for them. From where I sit, that 'something' is how they try to team with people that tell them how to play. Don't do that, and the problem is addressed.

If Anet weren't happy with the game, they would change it. We know they do. The fact we have class DPS differences for 7 years indicates Anet doesn't think it's the big problem you want to believe it is. You think I'm making assumptions about what they want because they don't change that? OK ... from where I sit, it's a really good assumption to make because they aren't changing to be something else like you think they should be doing. I mean, we already established it's not hard to fix it ...Where do I say it's NOT HARD to fix that? That's exactly the opposite what I'm trying to say, really. I've got a feeling it's quite hard, actually.

OK ... even more of a reason for them not to do it. Whether we think it would be hard or easy to do ... the fact is that the game is designed so that Anet doesn't have to do it. Equivalent DPS on classes isn't necessary to allow people to play classes they want and be successful in endgame content.

so there is a reason they haven't done it. You aren't asking yourself why this difference exists. You just assume like everyone else it's some sort of mistake that needs to be fixed. Bad assumption.Read above, I

believe

(not an assumption, just an opinion) that is the real reason!

Ow and fun fact, which might put things in perspective for you (and maybe others as well) on how heavy and complex this beast of a GW2 is: Guess on what game engine it's designed on? Hint: it dates back to 2005. Balancing a game like this is NOT easy! But they still should do it. Imo it's paramount, definitely now!

Right. I get you FEEL they should do it but what is relevant here is what the game mechanics allow. What you and others feel is not relevant to how the game works and what players can accomplish with the class tools that already exist, EVEN with the wide range of performance. The fact is that every single class is able to clear endgame content and that optimized builds are not necessary for end game content to be completed either. That's clear from how the game has worked for 7 years.

I read your reason you believe we don't have balance; frankly it doesn't make sense because Anet are making changes to class skills all the time for many years now ... and none of them are leading to closing any DPS gap; you aren't asking yourself why that's happening ... but I am. I also still don't see a reason from you why we need Anet to fix DPS gaps. Why after 7 years this game working the way it does with all the existing and changing DPS gaps and people succeeding with whatever class they want, we need DPS equivalence on Classes?

[Sobx.1758]

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:You do know that EVERY single RPG out there has that one 'given': that every single class is able to clear (endgame) content, right? I mean, that's literally the first rule of designing a class based RPG game. That every single class has a place in the game.

That's also true for gw2, not sure what you're trying to argue here, but it seems you don't understand the responses you keep reading. At least the ones from the earlier stages of the thread.

Huh? Yea, that's what I'm saying. It's an argument that some of the people here use a LOT to try to silence any class balance related criticism here on these forums, while it's a complete blank. I'm pretty sure the game wouldnt even exist if that wasnt the case (as of any other RPG for that matter). So it's imo a complete non-argument in ANY balance related discussion!

Not when the claim is that something's not viable because it's not at the top of dps table, which is a straight up lie.

[Agrippa.1693]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:You do know that EVERY single RPG out there has that one 'given': that every single class is able to clear (endgame) content, right? I mean, that's literally the first rule of designing a class based RPG game. That every single class has a place in the game.

That's also true for gw2, not sure what you're trying to argue here, but it seems you don't understand the responses you keep reading. At least the ones from the earlier stages of the thread.

Huh? Yea, that's what I'm saying. It's an argument that some of the people here use a LOT to try to silence any class balance related criticism here on these forums, while it's a complete blank. I'm pretty sure the game wouldnt even exist if that wasnt the case (as of any other RPG for that matter). So it's imo a complete non-argument in ANY balance related discussion!

Not when the claim is that something's not viable because it's not at the top of dps table, which is a straight up lie.

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:You do know that EVERY single RPG out there has that one 'given': that every single class is able to clear (endgame) content, right? I mean, that's literally the first rule of designing a class based RPG game. That every single class has a place in the game.

That's also true for gw2, not sure what you're trying to argue here, but it seems you don't understand the responses you keep reading. At least the ones from the earlier stages of the thread.

Huh? Yea, that's what I'm saying. It's an argument that some of the people here use a LOT to try to silence any class balance related criticism here on these forums, while it's a complete blank. I'm pretty sure the game wouldnt even exist if that wasnt the case (as of any other RPG for that matter). So it's imo a complete non-argument in ANY balance related discussion!

Not when the claim is that something's not viable because it's not at the top of dps table, which is a straight up lie.

I'll never use the word viable: I think it might be THE most misused word on this forum: with both sides to blame for that matter. People saying that a class is NOT viable is at all times a false statement! But on the other side saying that every class is viable, doesn't add anything to ANY discussion. It's like so p(l)ainly stating the obvious that it doesn't hold any value at all! Read above: This game or any other game (RPG) wouldn't exist if classes weren't viable to begin with.

No, this discussion is about huge gaps between classes. The good and the bad (still viable though). The (benchmarked) tops and bottoms. Optimal and far from it. Etc.

[Noodle Ant.1605]

@ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:

@Noodle Ant.1605 said:Reaper/necro’s design has little do with the current disparity between classes.

In case it slipped anyone’s mind, a number of the specs in question are carried by ‘attack of opportunity’ or similar interactions which function as intended in PvP, but translate poorly throughout PvE - quite literally making up the entire difference between reaper-level dps and the supposed 38k standard, due to their supposed difficulty to satisfy (but can be achieved in organised raid conditions). If it weren’t for these interactions, the playing field in terms of dps would be much more level, since other professions wouldn’t have felt the need to buffed to the same bloated state.

But instead of raising the fact that these conditions were naturally difficult to satisfy, we decided to completely warp the concept of ‘realistic’ conditions in order to facilitate these broken interactions. Instead of asking for an appropriate fix, we decided to list these as proper, ‘this is how X ultimately performs’ benchmarks. And instead of questioning this decision, we accepted it as the new standard and disregarded opinions that argued otherwise.

And so it shouldn’t really be a surprise that Anet decided to follow through with this design and standard. And reaper is left behind because it lacks such interaction.

That being said, reaper is currently in a fairly ideal state if it were in a less volatile environment - an acceptable >30k dps, naturally hardy and reasonably self sufficient, has a variety of important tools e.g. decent amount cc, stab (all of which could’ve been another balance direction for other classes to achieve instead of randomly pushing dmg numbers around). It would be a shame to see reaper ruined by ‘that one janky interaction’ which plague the other professions, because

that’s

actually what’s missing between current reaper and 38k.

Most of the classes are balanced, necro is only one left behind. The reason is that it allows to ignore some mechanics and it is generaly safe. If you take defense on other classes then you could go way lower then necrodps and still be less tanky

How is ‘inherent tankiness’ or related a balancing factor?

Condi weaver is significantly tankier than power weaver and yet does more dps. It even has more utility for some unknown reason.Power weaver on the other hand, is the legitimate definition of ‘squishy’, yet still loses to/is on par with a now increasing number of other specs (including notably different builds of the same profession).

Is this balanced?

Regardless, we can’t say for sure if anet is following any balancing factors - e.g. some specs reach 38k with just realistic boons, whereas others require a specific conditions related to team composition, positioning, target hitbox size, etc. We also have anet releasing content which deviates from the dps golem experience - deepstone boss generates might on autoattack and ruins every boonless modifier, siren’s reef with addspam (with related inconveniences such as bodyblock and or eating up dmg intended for boss), phases with teleportation, strikes - in particular, the kodans which can be cleaved, etc. All supposed ‘balancing factors’ can be thrown out the window at this point; there’s too many to account for.

In the end, even if we do buff reaper to this possibly overblown(?) 38k ‘standard’, we’re still stuck with people who’d rather prefer to play scourge, spellbreaker, herald, non-heal druid(?), scrapper, who are also mostly stuck at the 30k mark (with the exception of druid). By extension, any future especs can then see the trashcan because according to the gw2 community, the ‘dps espec’ already exists for each profession (because by the context of this thread, you won’t be able to play it).

[Sobx.1758]

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:You do know that EVERY single RPG out there has that one 'given': that every single class is able to clear (endgame) content, right? I mean, that's literally the first rule of designing a class based RPG game. That every single class has a place in the game.

That's also true for gw2, not sure what you're trying to argue here, but it seems you don't understand the responses you keep reading. At least the ones from the earlier stages of the thread.

Huh? Yea, that's what I'm saying. It's an argument that some of the people here use a LOT to try to silence any class balance related criticism here on these forums, while it's a complete blank. I'm pretty sure the game wouldnt even exist if that wasnt the case (as of any other RPG for that matter). So it's imo a complete non-argument in ANY balance related discussion!

Not when the claim is that something's not viable because it's not at the top of dps table, which is a straight up lie.

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:You do know that EVERY single RPG out there has that one 'given': that every single class is able to clear (endgame) content, right? I mean, that's literally the first rule of designing a class based RPG game. That every single class has a place in the game.

That's also true for gw2, not sure what you're trying to argue here, but it seems you don't understand the responses you keep reading. At least the ones from the earlier stages of the thread.

Huh? Yea, that's what I'm saying. It's an argument that some of the people here use a LOT to try to silence any class balance related criticism here on these forums, while it's a complete blank. I'm pretty sure the game wouldnt even exist if that wasnt the case (as of any other RPG for that matter). So it's imo a complete non-argument in ANY balance related discussion!

Not when the claim is that something's not viable because it's not at the top of dps table, which is a straight up lie.

I'll never use the word viable: I think it might be THE most misused word on this forum: with both sides to blame for that matter. People saying that a class is NOT viable is at all times a false statement! But on the other side saying that every class is viable, doesn't add anything to ANY discussion. It's like so p(l)ainly stating the obvious that it doesn't hold any value

at all

! Read above: This game

or

any other game (RPG) wouldn't exist if classes weren't viable to begin with.

No, this discussion is about huge gaps between classes. The good and the bad (still viable though). The (benchmarked) tops and bottoms. Optimal and far from it. Etc.

Ok, so your claim is a bit different from the creator of this thread. But I'm not sure what you mean by "class being viable" not adding anything to the discussion. OP literally claims a class isn't viable if it doesn't contest top of the dps meters. Then some other people claim that their guilds "don't want x because it's not on top of dps meters", so the class "isn't viable". Those claims ARE just false and that's the fact. Viability isn't somehow misunderstood "all around", it's an incorrectly used term by people like OP, which doesn't make it an overally meaningless word. It's just that some people clearly don't understand what it means.

I also think that it really doesn't matter because of the type of the content raiding is. It's a non competitive mode, closer to co-op than anything else. Sure, it doesn't mean you're not allowed to want each class deal almost the same amount of damage or put your own ideas about what disparities are acceptable for one reason or another, but in the end it's an endless topic where some classes/builds will always be more desirable than the others, so I guess have fun with that.

[ButcherofMalakir.4067]

@Noodle Ant.1605 said:

@ButcherofMalakir.4067 said:

@Noodle Ant.1605 said:Reaper/necro’s design has little do with the current disparity between classes.

In case it slipped anyone’s mind, a number of the specs in question are carried by ‘attack of opportunity’ or similar interactions which function as intended in PvP, but translate poorly throughout PvE - quite literally making up the entire difference between reaper-level dps and the supposed 38k standard, due to their supposed difficulty to satisfy (but can be achieved in organised raid conditions). If it weren’t for these interactions, the playing field in terms of dps would be much more level, since other professions wouldn’t have felt the need to buffed to the same bloated state.

But instead of raising the fact that these conditions were naturally difficult to satisfy, we decided to completely warp the concept of ‘realistic’ conditions in order to facilitate these broken interactions. Instead of asking for an appropriate fix, we decided to list these as proper, ‘this is how X ultimately performs’ benchmarks. And instead of questioning this decision, we accepted it as the new standard and disregarded opinions that argued otherwise.

And so it shouldn’t really be a surprise that Anet decided to follow through with this design and standard. And reaper is left behind because it lacks such interaction.

That being said, reaper is currently in a fairly ideal state if it were in a less volatile environment - an acceptable >30k dps, naturally hardy and reasonably self sufficient, has a variety of important tools e.g. decent amount cc, stab (all of which could’ve been another balance direction for other classes to achieve instead of randomly pushing dmg numbers around). It would be a shame to see reaper ruined by ‘that one janky interaction’ which plague the other professions, because

that’s

actually what’s missing between current reaper and 38k.

Most of the classes are balanced, necro is only one left behind. The reason is that it allows to ignore some mechanics and it is generaly safe. If you take defense on other classes then you could go way lower then necrodps and still be less tanky

How is ‘inherent tankiness’ or related a balancing factor?

Condi weaver is significantly tankier than power weaver and yet does more dps. It even has more utility for some unknown reason.Power weaver on the other hand, is the legitimate definition of ‘squishy’, yet still loses to/is on par with a now increasing number of other specs (including notably different builds of the same profession).

Is this balanced?

Regardless, we can’t say for sure if anet is following any balancing factors - e.g. some specs reach 38k with just realistic boons, whereas others require a specific conditions related to team composition, positioning, target hitbox size, etc. We also have anet releasing content which deviates from the dps golem experience - deepstone boss generates might on autoattack and ruins every boonless modifier, siren’s reef with addspam (with related inconveniences such as bodyblock and or eating up dmg intended for boss),

phases with teleportation,

strikes - in particular, the kodans which can be cleaved, etc. All supposed ‘balancing factors’ can be thrown out the window at this point; there’s too many to account for.

In the end, even if we do buff reaper to this possibly overblown(?) 38k ‘standard’, we’re still stuck with people who’d rather prefer to play scourge, spellbreaker, herald, non-heal druid(?), scrapper, who are also mostly stuck at the 30k mark (with the exception of druid). By extension, any future especs can then see the trashcan because according to the gw2 community, the ‘dps espec’ already exists for each profession (because by the context of this thread, you won’t be able to play it).

Each class have strenghts and weakneses. If everything was the same everywhere, the game would be boring because there would be only 1 class with 9 possible particle efects.Is reaper balanced? I think it is. Not because it can compete at top level with other classes. But if you are not on the top level, then reaper will be better then any other class.If you buff reaper to 38k, then there is no reason to play anything else. Reaper would provide everything while it eliminates all possible mistakes that can happen when going all out on ofense.

Inherent tankiness is a thing. For example DH can pull extremly ahead on gorseval just because it can ignore retaliation untill the bar is broken.

Also dont forget that some classes require specific conditions to reach high numbers.Slow uptime, big hitbox, longer phases, fast atacks ...Reaper doesnt need anything like that.

If you want reaper to be better at top level without making it btoken on middle to low, you need to remake whole class. No build that has so much atack chains in its optimal rotation will be top

[Agrippa.1693]

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:You do know that EVERY single RPG out there has that one 'given': that every single class is able to clear (endgame) content, right? I mean, that's literally the first rule of designing a class based RPG game. That every single class has a place in the game.

That's also true for gw2, not sure what you're trying to argue here, but it seems you don't understand the responses you keep reading. At least the ones from the earlier stages of the thread.

Huh? Yea, that's what I'm saying. It's an argument that some of the people here use a LOT to try to silence any class balance related criticism here on these forums, while it's a complete blank. I'm pretty sure the game wouldnt even exist if that wasnt the case (as of any other RPG for that matter). So it's imo a complete non-argument in ANY balance related discussion!

Not when the claim is that something's not viable because it's not at the top of dps table, which is a straight up lie.

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:You do know that EVERY single RPG out there has that one 'given': that every single class is able to clear (endgame) content, right? I mean, that's literally the first rule of designing a class based RPG game. That every single class has a place in the game.

That's also true for gw2, not sure what you're trying to argue here, but it seems you don't understand the responses you keep reading. At least the ones from the earlier stages of the thread.

Huh? Yea, that's what I'm saying. It's an argument that some of the people here use a LOT to try to silence any class balance related criticism here on these forums, while it's a complete blank. I'm pretty sure the game wouldnt even exist if that wasnt the case (as of any other RPG for that matter). So it's imo a complete non-argument in ANY balance related discussion!

Not when the claim is that something's not viable because it's not at the top of dps table, which is a straight up lie.

I'll never use the word viable: I think it might be THE most misused word on this forum: with both sides to blame for that matter. People saying that a class is NOT viable is at all times a false statement! But on the other side saying that every class is viable, doesn't add anything to ANY discussion. It's like so p(l)ainly stating the obvious that it doesn't hold any value

at all

! Read above: This game

or

any other game (RPG) wouldn't exist if classes weren't viable to begin with.

No, this discussion is about huge gaps between classes. The good and the bad (still viable though). The (benchmarked) tops and bottoms. Optimal and far from it. Etc.

Ok, so your claim is a bit different from the creator of this thread. But I'm not sure what you mean by "class being viable" not adding anything to the discussion. OP literally claims a class isn't viable if it doesn't contest top of the dps meters. Then some other people claim that their guilds "don't want x because it's not on top of dps meters", so the class "isn't viable". Those claims ARE just false and that's the fact. Viability isn't somehow misunderstood "all around", it's an incorrectly used term by people like OP, which doesn't make it an overally meaningless word. It's just that some people clearly don't understand what it means.

Imo it is completely meaningless in the context it's always been used in on these forums: Is a class viable or not?! It is; simple; now move on with the discussion!But that's the thing, some people are using this as a defence mechanism to silence every form of constructive criticism: "Yea, but the class is viable right, so stop complaining"!It's a non-argument, and it's actually quite annoying that people still use it as an argument. It's the same as asking your boss for a raise, and your boss replies, well, your current income is enough to provide you food and shelter, so there's the door: leave yourself out, please! It's everything BUT contributing to any form of discussion.

And if we really want to get into the nitty gritty of the word "viable" itself, it's literally meaningless without a context! Now I know the context on these forums is pretty much always the same, but who knows??? Some people might mean if a class is viable in a speed-run or (benchmarked) optimal setting. Which completely changes the context! But oh no, asking some other people on these forums to think a little bit outside their neatly constructed box (mostly aided by ANet themselves and their set of rules) is a radical question to ask!Either way: I constrained myself a long time ago to even try to use that word here in a constructive matter: I learned that the hard way.

[Sobx.1758]

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:You do know that EVERY single RPG out there has that one 'given': that every single class is able to clear (endgame) content, right? I mean, that's literally the first rule of designing a class based RPG game. That every single class has a place in the game.

That's also true for gw2, not sure what you're trying to argue here, but it seems you don't understand the responses you keep reading. At least the ones from the earlier stages of the thread.

Huh? Yea, that's what I'm saying. It's an argument that some of the people here use a LOT to try to silence any class balance related criticism here on these forums, while it's a complete blank. I'm pretty sure the game wouldnt even exist if that wasnt the case (as of any other RPG for that matter). So it's imo a complete non-argument in ANY balance related discussion!

Not when the claim is that something's not viable because it's not at the top of dps table, which is a straight up lie.

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:You do know that EVERY single RPG out there has that one 'given': that every single class is able to clear (endgame) content, right? I mean, that's literally the first rule of designing a class based RPG game. That every single class has a place in the game.

That's also true for gw2, not sure what you're trying to argue here, but it seems you don't understand the responses you keep reading. At least the ones from the earlier stages of the thread.

Huh? Yea, that's what I'm saying. It's an argument that some of the people here use a LOT to try to silence any class balance related criticism here on these forums, while it's a complete blank. I'm pretty sure the game wouldnt even exist if that wasnt the case (as of any other RPG for that matter). So it's imo a complete non-argument in ANY balance related discussion!

Not when the claim is that something's not viable because it's not at the top of dps table, which is a straight up lie.

I'll never use the word viable: I think it might be THE most misused word on this forum: with both sides to blame for that matter. People saying that a class is NOT viable is at all times a false statement! But on the other side saying that every class is viable, doesn't add anything to ANY discussion. It's like so p(l)ainly stating the obvious that it doesn't hold any value

at all

! Read above: This game

or

any other game (RPG) wouldn't exist if classes weren't viable to begin with.

No, this discussion is about huge gaps between classes. The good and the bad (still viable though). The (benchmarked) tops and bottoms. Optimal and far from it. Etc.

Ok, so your claim is a bit different from the creator of this thread. But I'm not sure what you mean by "class being viable" not adding anything to the discussion. OP literally claims a class isn't viable if it doesn't contest top of the dps meters. Then some other people claim that their guilds "don't want x because it's not on top of dps meters", so the class "isn't viable". Those claims ARE just false and that's the fact. Viability isn't somehow misunderstood "all around", it's an incorrectly used term by people like OP, which doesn't make it an overally meaningless word. It's just that some people clearly don't understand what it means.

And if we really want to get into the nitty gritty of the word "viable" itself, it's literally meaningless without a context! Now I know the context on these forums is pretty much always the same, but who knows??? Some people

might

mean if a class is viable in a speed-run or (benchmarked) optimal setting. Which completely changes the

context

! But oh no, asking some other people on these forums to think a little bit outside their neatly constructed box (mostly aided by ANet themselves and their set of rules) is a radical question to ask!Either way: I constrained myself a long time ago to even

try

to use that word here in a constructive matter: I learned

that

the hard way.

True, but then -for example- OP should provide the context instead of just claiming it's not viable for raids. I also disagree with the notion that we should stop using words because some people use it incorrectly, but I get what you're saying. Have fun with deciding what magnitude of dmg disparities in a pretty much co-op mode makes sense I guess :p

[Erzian.5218]

People keep repeating that necro (reaper) is better when you aren’t talking about top-level but that isn’t necessarily true. It might be better in groups where boons aren’t covered but if you are in one of those groups, it’d be a lot better to just bring a class that covers them or parts of them instead of a reaper. Reaper does not deal more damage than other classes when played by mediocre/decent players. In fact it is better to play a mediocre radiance dh than a benchmark level reaper as you don’t even need to know your exact rotation to outperform the reaper benchmark. According to other people in this threat, gw2raidar has proven that this holds true for the more difficult builds like condition weaver as well. I am part of the people who do not hit benchmark numbers on any class but still, i can easily hit higher numbers on weaver, soulbeast and radiance dh (haven’t tried anything else) than any reaper benchmark I could find.I honestly fail to understand why so many people in here are desperately arguing that it is fine that necro dps is not competitive nor desirable in optimized groups and with ‘optimized’ I am referring to pug level optimization as in having boons and other necessary support (heals in raids, reflect at Matthias, etc) covered, not speed clear optimization.

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Erzian.5218 said:Most people aren't asking for all classes to be optimal, they want the gap between the top and the bottom to be smaller, so you lose less group dps by brining a subpar class. As it was said earlier, there are games who do a better job at that and gw2 itself had periods of time where the gap was much smaller as well. Necro as a pure dps does less damage than a banner slave. There is an issue with that.

There isn't an issue there because the game is designed so that it doesn't require playing optimal DPS classes in teams to succeed. If losing group dps by bringing a subpar class bothers you, choose better. If it bothers the people you team with ... team with people that it doesn't bother. Not being optimal DPS is definitely NOT a barrier to completing content unless you make choices where it is.

I didn’t say it was a barrier to completing content. I said it is a balance issue. There are people who would prefer not hampering their group just because of their chosen class in an rpg. Imagine playing a racing game with 9 different vehicles, 8 of them are about equally fast while yours, which you choose for aesthetic reasons, is significantly slower. Yes, you could chose one of the 8 fast ones but you shouldn’t have to. This is gw2 pve necromancer for you.

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

just asking, why should an easy, high hp, roll-your-face-on-the-keyboard class even approach the DPS of a low hp, hard to get the rotation right class?

doesn't sound fair, does it?

[Obtena.7952]

@Erzian.5218 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Erzian.5218 said:Most people aren't asking for all classes to be optimal, they want the gap between the top and the bottom to be smaller, so you lose less group dps by brining a subpar class. As it was said earlier, there are games who do a better job at that and gw2 itself had periods of time where the gap was much smaller as well. Necro as a pure dps does less damage than a banner slave. There is an issue with that.

There isn't an issue there because the game is designed so that it doesn't require playing optimal DPS classes in teams to succeed. If losing group dps by bringing a subpar class bothers you, choose better. If it bothers the people you team with ... team with people that it doesn't bother. Not being optimal DPS is definitely NOT a barrier to completing content unless you make choices where it is.

I didn’t say it was a barrier to completing content. I said it is a balance issue.

OK .. then define that ... how is it an issue? just because it's different? If it's not a barrier to completing content, there isn't really a reason to change it just because it's different. It's not high enough? Based on what? Who's standard determines how high it should be? Yours? At what point is a DPS difference acceptable? Do you think players determine that too?

There are people who would prefer not hampering their group just because of their chosen class in an rpg. Imagine playing a racing game with 9 different vehicles, 8 of them are about equally fast while yours, which you choose for aesthetic reasons, is significantly slower. Yes, you could chose one of the 8 fast ones but you shouldn’t have to. This is gw2 pve necromancer for you.

The things is that you are never hampering your group just because you aren't top DPS because that would mean 9 of the 10 people in the group are 'hampering' EVERY group and that doesn't prevent a team from succeeding at content.. That's a false statement and it doesn't make sense in the content of a team. Your analogy is poorly chosen as well. You AREN'T playing a racing game against other people in your team ... you are playing cooperatively. How fast you want to go relative to your team mates is irrelevant, as long as you all get over the finish line and even if you aren't a 'top speed' vehicle, the fact is that this game is designed so that a wide range of 'vehicles' can get over the finish line, so no one needs to be sped up by Anet.

[Agrippa.1693]

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:just asking, why should an easy, high hp, roll-your-face-on-the-keyboard class even approach the DPS of a low hp, hard to get the rotation right class?

doesn't sound fair, does it?

we're talking about Necro here, not Warrior!

[Emberheart.8426]

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:just asking, why should an easy, high hp, roll-your-face-on-the-keyboard class even approach the DPS of a low hp, hard to get the rotation right class?

doesn't sound fair, does it?

we're talking about Necro here, not Warrior!

If anything warrior and guardian need nerfs in certain places instead of reaper needing buffs. If you want necro to have higher potential dps, ask for an elite spec designed for it. It is clear that Anet does not want reaper to have access to such high potential dps, and this is for many reasons.

[Erzian.5218]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Erzian.5218 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Erzian.5218 said:Most people aren't asking for all classes to be optimal, they want the gap between the top and the bottom to be smaller, so you lose less group dps by brining a subpar class. As it was said earlier, there are games who do a better job at that and gw2 itself had periods of time where the gap was much smaller as well. Necro as a pure dps does less damage than a banner slave. There is an issue with that.

There isn't an issue there because the game is designed so that it doesn't require playing optimal DPS classes in teams to succeed. If losing group dps by bringing a subpar class bothers you, choose better. If it bothers the people you team with ... team with people that it doesn't bother. Not being optimal DPS is definitely NOT a barrier to completing content unless you make choices where it is.

I didn’t say it was a barrier to completing content. I said it is a balance issue.

OK .. then define that ... how is it an issue? just because it's different? If it's not a barrier to completing content, there isn't really a reason to change it just because it's different. It's not high enough? Based on what? Who's standard determines how high it should be? Yours? At what point is a DPS difference acceptable? Do you think players determine that too?

The issue is that the difference is too big. In my opinion necro dps should be somewhere in the middle as it has high health (a reason for lower dps) but also low group support (a reason for higher dps) compared to other classes. When a class provides low dps and low support while other classes provide higher dps, higher support and similar or only slightly lower defense, then there is no reason to pick that class. The bigger the gap, the better it is to avoid playing with said class.

@Obtena.7952 said:The things is that you are never hampering your group just because you aren't top DPS because that would mean 9 of the 10 people in the group are 'hampering' EVERY group and that doesn't prevent a team from succeeding at content.. That's a false statement and it doesn't make sense in the content of a team. Your analogy is poorly chosen as well. You AREN'T playing a racing game against other people in your team ... you are playing cooperatively. How fast you want to go relative to your team mates is irrelevant, as long as you all get over the finish line and even if you aren't a 'top speed' vehicle, the fact is that this game is designed so that a wide range of 'vehicles' can get over the finish line, so no one needs to be sped up by Anet.

When you pick a class that isn't optimal for dps to fill a dps slot, you are in fact slowing down your group. Now, this doesn't matter too much outside of the very top when dps difference is very small as player performance will be responsible for the majority of the dps difference anyway. However, necromancer dps right now is significanlty lower than

any other class

(not specilization); less even than banner slave which is a support build. Picking a non-necromancer class is more impactful than the difference between 90th and 99th perctiles, which is an enourmous difference.The analogy is perfectly fine. You aren't racing against your team but against time. Even if you aren't pushing kill times, faster clear times result in more time for other stuff. There are people who want to clear raids but only have a limited amount of time, either because they have very limited playtime in general or because they also want to do other stuff. For those people, having a necromancer instead of a better class might be the difference between success (clearing all bosses) and failure (missing a weekly kill).

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:just asking, why should an easy, high hp, roll-your-face-on-the-keyboard class even approach the DPS of a low hp, hard to get the rotation right class?

doesn't sound fair, does it?

we're talking about Necro here, not Warrior!

I am sorry, necro does not faceroll, necro does face smash the keyboard....

[Erzian.5218]

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

@Agrippa Oculus.3726 said:

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:just asking, why should an easy, high hp, roll-your-face-on-the-keyboard class even approach the DPS of a low hp, hard to get the rotation right class?

doesn't sound fair, does it?

we're talking about Necro here, not Warrior!

I am sorry, necro does not faceroll, necro does face smash the keyboard....Take your nonesense somewhere else. Other classes can make plenty of mistakes in their rotation and gameplay and still out dps a perfectly played necro. You can be 6k (that is more than 15 %) below the power soulbeast benchmark and still have higher dps than a perfectly executed reaper rotation.

[Obtena.7952]

@Erzian.5218 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Erzian.5218 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Erzian.5218 said:Most people aren't asking for all classes to be optimal, they want the gap between the top and the bottom to be smaller, so you lose less group dps by brining a subpar class. As it was said earlier, there are games who do a better job at that and gw2 itself had periods of time where the gap was much smaller as well. Necro as a pure dps does less damage than a banner slave. There is an issue with that.

There isn't an issue there because the game is designed so that it doesn't require playing optimal DPS classes in teams to succeed. If losing group dps by bringing a subpar class bothers you, choose better. If it bothers the people you team with ... team with people that it doesn't bother. Not being optimal DPS is definitely NOT a barrier to completing content unless you make choices where it is.

I didn’t say it was a barrier to completing content. I said it is a balance issue.

OK .. then define that ... how is it an issue? just because it's different? If it's not a barrier to completing content, there isn't really a reason to change it just because it's different. It's not high enough? Based on what? Who's standard determines how high it should be? Yours? At what point is a DPS difference acceptable? Do you think players determine that too?

The issue is that the difference is too big. In my opinion necro dps should be somewhere in the middle as it has high health (a reason for lower dps) but also low group support (a reason for higher dps) compared to other classes. When a class provides low dps and low support while other classes provide higher dps, higher support and similar or only slightly lower defense, then there is no reason to pick that class. The bigger the gap, the better it is to avoid playing with said class.

OK but that's not based on game mechanics and how the game works. The game isn't designed around what think based on what you feel. If YOU FEEL it's better to avoid playing said class because of the big gaps, then your answer to that already exists ... make choices based on what you feel is the way to address that. You have that choice.

@Obtena.7952 said:The things is that you are never hampering your group just because you aren't top DPS because that would mean 9 of the 10 people in the group are 'hampering' EVERY group and that doesn't prevent a team from succeeding at content.. That's a false statement and it doesn't make sense in the content of a team. Your analogy is poorly chosen as well. You AREN'T playing a racing game against other people in your team ... you are playing cooperatively. How fast you want to go relative to your team mates is irrelevant, as long as you all get over the finish line and even if you aren't a 'top speed' vehicle, the fact is that this game is designed so that a wide range of 'vehicles' can get over the finish line, so no one needs to be sped up by Anet.

When you pick a class that isn't optimal for dps to fill a dps slot, you are in fact slowing down your group.

OK ... so don't team with people that don't care about that. OR ... don't play classes that won't slow down your group if you want to play with those people. This problem you have is fixed with making choices.

[Erzian.5218]

Honest question: What is your purpose in this discussion? You don't provide any arguments why necro dps should be as low as it is. All you do is tell us that it does not personally bother you.It is great that you are happy with things as they are but as you see from this topic as well as the repeatedly upcoming topics about necromancer and it's state in pve, there are plenty of people who are unhappy with the situation, thus argue why the current state isn't acceptable in their opionin by looking at damage numbers from benchmarks, bringing up old damage numbers from raiders of different skill level and so on.

[Obtena.7952]

@Erzian.5218 said:Honest question: What is your purpose in this discussion? You don't provide any arguments why necro dps should be as low as it is. All you do is tell us that it does not personally bother you.

I sure the fuck have ... You must have a comprehension problem here because I have ALSO not given you or anyone else in this thread that this argument I have is based on my personal feelings. It's based on an observation of how this game has worked and continues to work, allowing players of any class to succeed endgame, for over 7 years. It's also based on the observation that this is only a problem if you make choices that allow other players tell you how to play. No game mechanic prevents ANY class in this game from being successful endgame.

Again, ask yourself why the game is this way for 7 years ... you don't ... you simply jump to the conclusion DPS difference is wrong and needs to be fixed, based on nothing but what you think is right.

[Obtena.7952]

@Erzian.5218 said:Honest question: What is your purpose in this discussion? You don't provide any arguments why necro dps should be as low as it is. All you do is tell us that it does not personally bother you.It is great that you are happy with things as they are but as you see from this topic as well as the repeatedly upcoming topics about necromancer and it's state in pve, there are plenty of people who are unhappy with the situation, thus argue why the current state isn't acceptable in their opionin by looking at damage numbers from benchmarks, bringing up old damage numbers from raiders of different skill level and so on.

The fact is that you aren't going to where this discussion ends; acknowledging that necros not getting teams is a player created and solved problem. because you know if you do that, you come to the same conclusion that ends it. CHOICE.

[Erzian.5218]

It's a player created problem caused by the current state of pve class balance. I have paid for this game. That includes all classes but now you are telling me that I cannot play one of them if I don't want to be selfish and slow other players down. It's fine if you don't see an issue with that, but I - and obviously many others - do.

[Obtena.7952]

@Erzian.5218 said:It's a player created problem caused by the current state of pve class balance.

That's not true. It's CAN'T be true, because PVE class balance doesn't prevent people from teaming necros and being successful endgame for the last 7 years. People do this all the time ... so why are you so exceptional?

Is there something deficient with your necro that you can't do this because mine and many other people's necros are just fine. The answer is no, we both play the same necro class ... so why do I not have problems and you do? It's definitely NOT because of the current state of PVE class balance. The root cause of this problem is not PVE class balance.

[Erzian.5218]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Erzian.5218 said:It's a player created problem

caused by the current state of pve class balance

.

That's not true. It's CAN'T be true, because PVE class balance doesn't prevent people from teaming necros and being successful endgame for the last 7 years. People do this all the time ... so why are you so exceptional?

Is there something deficient with your necro that you can't do this because mine and many other people's necros are just fine. The answer is no, we both play the same necro class ... so why do I not have problems and you do? It's definitely NOT because of the current state of PVE class balance. The root cause of this problem is not PVE class balance.

You just fail to acknowledge that there are also people who care about clear times and not just wether they are able to complete the content or not, thus dps. Either way, the fact that you tell people to just choose another class when they care about performance confirms that you do recognize an imbalance concerning pve dps class balance.Thank you, for confirming this in your earlier posts.

[Obtena.7952]

@Erzian.5218 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Erzian.5218 said:It's a player created problem

caused by the current state of pve class balance

.

That's not true. It's CAN'T be true, because PVE class balance doesn't prevent people from teaming necros and being successful endgame for the last 7 years. People do this all the time ... so why are you so exceptional?

Is there something deficient with your necro that you can't do this because mine and many other people's necros are just fine. The answer is no, we both play the same necro class ... so why do I not have problems and you do? It's definitely NOT because of the current state of PVE class balance. The root cause of this problem is not PVE class balance.

You just fail to acknowledge that there are also people who care about clear times and not just wether they are able to complete the content or not, thus dps.

I don't fail to acknowledge that at all ... Nothing I've ever said in this thread should give you that impression. If you care about clear times, choose properly. The irony is that if you honestly do care about clear times, you're selection of class is much more limited than the scope of this discussion .... It's all moot anyways You're just making up stuff to accuse me of things and cause arguments, deflecting from the fact that you aren't actually interested in acknowledging the root cause of this problem and the solution that already exists to solve it:

You have choices for how you want to play. It works for lots of people. Why are you choosing a path where it doesn't work for you? Do you think acting the stubborn victim is compelling reason to increase Necro DPS?

[Erzian.5218]

That is one conclusion you can draw. It doesn't change that another conclusion, which is equally true, is that class balanced could use improvements for the sake of players who care about class flavor and performance instead of just one or the other. This is what people (including myself) have been pointing out but for some reason you keep argueing against it. Where is the harm in closing the dps gap between necromancer and the remaining professions? I am not asking for necro to be top dps, thus push other classes out of the meta, I am asking for necromancer to be on par with other mediocre dps classes, that also provide more support, e.g. radiance dh, in order to make it a more valuable choice.