I'm sorry but how is this acceptable?

[Methuselah.4376]

@Insidion the Insane.9752 said:I believe that the simplest solution is always the best, so all we need to do is give necromancers more damage modifiers. I also believe that necromancer is the only profession whose damage modifiers only affect power damage exclusively (so condition necromancers effectively only have 1 condition damage trait line), so I'll slap some of those into Soul Reaping.

• Siphoned Power: Gain might when you strike a foe below the health threshold (50%). Applying might to yourself grant you increased damage (3% in PvE, 1% in PvP/WvW) for a duration (10s), stacking up to three times.
• Soul Barbs: Deal increased damage and condition damage while in Shroud (10% in PvE, 5% in PvP/WvW). This effect persists for a duration after leaving Shroud (10s).
• Soul Battery: Maximum life force is increased (20%). Do more damage and condition damage ( 7% PvE, 3% in PvP/WvW,) while above the Life Force threshold (50%).
• Demonic Lore: Torment you inflict deals increased damage (33%) and causes your foes to burn (1 stack for 3 seconds in PvE, 1 stack for 1 second in PvP/WvW). This trait can only inflict burning on a particular target once every second (3 seconds in PvP/WvW).
• Lich Form: reduced the cooldown of this skill to 90s in PvE only.

And for flavor:

• Soul Eater: Striking foes within the range threshold (300) deals increased damage (10%). Periodically gain life force while wielding a greatsword (0.5% LF every second).
• Decimate Defenses: Gain bonus critical-hit chance while attacking vulnerable foes (1% per stack). Do more damage to vulnerable foes (10%).

With those changes both Reaper and Scourge should be doing around 34k DPS. Necromancer's PvE damage problems are now solved until the servers shut down. Devs hate him! Random forum poster have discovered a revolutionary way to make necromancer DPS competitive!

My suggestions as far as Power Reaper goes:Siphoned Power also gives +10% damage while under the effects of might.Unyielding Blast also gives +5% damage when hitting an enemy with vulnerability.Soul Barbs lasts twice as long or have it activate when entering battle and then doubling the bonus damage while in shroud.Soul Eater increase the healing to 10% and restore the 5% healing while in shroud.Greatsword auto being faster and with all gs skills having much reduced after casts.Well of Corruption having the same CD as Well of SufferingLich Form (as much as I personally love the transform visuals) changed to Aura of the Lich, where it's a combination of Summon Madness and Grim Spectre (60-90s CD)

Would bump it up to anywhere between 36-38k. I've kinda given up on dps Scourge; even the way it plays is clunky.

[Shaogin.2679]

Really interested to hear literally anything from Anet on why Necromancers are stuck in their current state.

[Tman.6349]

The irony is... b/c the forums...

[Obtena.7952]

I doubt you will hear why Necros are 'stuck' in anything because that's a personal view and I doubt it's a perspective Anet shares with you.

[Anchoku.8142]

@Shaogin.2679 said:Really interested to hear literally anything from Anet on why Necromancers are stuck in their current state.

Guessing that the rumored big content release demands most of Arenanet's time, time that is in shorter supply after the staff reductions followed by working from home due to COVID-19. Arenanet probably wants to avoid making promises for a while, meaning the update schedules mentioned last year will not happen as originally planned.

I expect less transparency than previously as a result. Arenanet is working but surely not on the pace they had during HoT or PoF development. Living World episodes do not have voice acting so imagine how that might affect a third expac development. While there may be more players in the game during the COVID crisis, development and updates likely slowed.

[Swagg.9236]

@"mindcircus.1506" said:Because Arenanet doesn't balance on the golem numbers from a speedrun guild.Do you think there is a good reason they should?

The mistake wasn't "They didn't balance classes based on DPS benchmarks vs dummy targets!" but rather stuffing the game with 8-9 classes when GW2's shallow gameplay cycle only requires 4 at the absolute most. GW2 with 8+ classes just results in several classes being imprisoned in the irrelevancy box.

[Obtena.7952]

@Swagg.9236 said:

@"mindcircus.1506" said:Because Arenanet doesn't balance on the golem numbers from a speedrun guild.Do you think there is a good reason they should?

The mistake wasn't "They didn't balance classes based on DPS benchmarks vs dummy targets!" but rather stuffing the game with 8-9 classes when GW2's shallow gameplay cycle only requires 4 at the absolute most. GW2 with 8+ classes just results in several classes being imprisoned in the irrelevancy box.

Um, no ... those classes are there to offer players choices ... and while they could probably get away with 4 (or even just 1) because of game mechanics, there are many other reasons to have more than 4 classes because not everyone is making choice because of how the game works. The fact is that all classes are relevant because any class can participate in content be successful.

That kind of thinking doesn't actually make much sense for most MMO's ... the number of classes available is typically much larger than the 3 that are absolute most needed in games based on holy trinity.

[KrHome.1920]

@"Swagg.9236" said:The mistake wasn't "They didn't balance classes based on DPS benchmarks vs dummy targets!" but rather stuffing the game with 8-9 classes when GW2's shallow gameplay cycle only requires 4 at the absolute most. GW2 with 8+ classes just results in several classes being imprisoned in the irrelevancy box.It would absolutely be possible to bring the game to a state where all classes would be at an equal level of performance and it wouldn't even be that difficult. You have to read in between the lines to realize how incompetent ANet is at maintaining their game. We don't know whether it is a staff issue (employees without a clue) or a money issue (not enough time for the devs), but it doesn't even matter for us as the customers.

Just look at their achievement list:

• bugs that require a 2 minute fixing effort, won't be fixed for years (e.g. the crimson tide 2 LF bug)
• they needed years to get the message why reaper has only 25k dps (in contrast to every other class it lacked damage multipliers) and add some damage multipliers to the necro traits (and its dps is sill the bottom of the barrel)
• skill reworks require years and then are worse than pre-rework (warhorn5, focus4)
• they need half a year to globally tone town skill damage by 30% and nothing else (you could even to that automated with a script in a day)
• then they need another half a year to hotfix the issues (the state we are currently in waiting for the feb25 follow up patch)
• to be continued...

[Swagg.9236]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Swagg.9236 said:

@"mindcircus.1506" said:Because Arenanet doesn't balance on the golem numbers from a speedrun guild.Do you think there is a good reason they should?

The mistake wasn't "They didn't balance classes based on DPS benchmarks vs dummy targets!" but rather stuffing the game with 8-9 classes when GW2's shallow gameplay cycle only requires 4 at the absolute most. GW2 with 8+ classes just results in several classes being imprisoned in the irrelevancy box.

Um, no ... those classes are there to offer players choices ... and while they could probably get away with 4 (or even just 1) because of game mechanics, there are many other reasons to have more than 4 classes because not everyone is making choice because of how the game works. The fact is that all classes are relevant because any class can participate in content be successful.

That kind of thinking doesn't actually make much sense for

most

MMO's ... the number of classes available is typically much larger than the 3 that are absolute most needed in games based on holy trinity.

Choices that don't really matter aren't choices. This isn't a card game with "bad cards" which are effectively just there to weed out beginnings and/or fill pack lists. If you have classes in your MMO which aren't being regularly incorporated into high-level gameplay, then you have bloat code that doesn't really deserve to exist.

@KrHome.1920 said:

@Swagg.9236 said:The mistake wasn't "They didn't balance classes based on DPS benchmarks vs dummy targets!" but rather stuffing the game with 8-9 classes when GW2's shallow gameplay cycle only requires 4 at the absolute most. GW2 with 8+ classes just results in several classes being imprisoned in the irrelevancy box.It would absolutely be possible to bring the game to a state where all classes would be at an equal level of performance and it wouldn't even be that difficult. You have to read in between the lines to realize how incompetent ANet is at maintaining their game. We don't know whether it is a staff issue (employees without a clue) or a money issue (not enough time for the devs), but it doesn't even matter for us as the customers.

Just look at their achievement list:

• bugs that require a 2 minute fixing effort, won't be fixed for years (e.g. the crimson tide 2 LF bug)
• they needed years to get the message why reaper has only 25k dps (in contrast to every other class it lacked damage multipliers) and add some damage multipliers to the necro traits (and its dps is sill the bottom of the barrel)
• skill reworks require years and then are worse than pre-rework (warhorn5, focus4)
• they need half a year to globally tone town skill damage by 30% and nothing else (you could even to that automated with a script in a day)
• then they need another half a year to hotfix the issues (the state we are currently in waiting for the feb25 follow up patch)
• to be continued...

Other classes already deal damage. Unless you start adding unique buffs to every class, you really won't do anything but shuffle the DPS/tank/healer deck. This game, from its outset, was only designed as a DPS spam fest (evidenced by PvE metas from the first several years); the healer/tank thing was a disjointed addition that was slapped on haphazardly long after the original developers bailed out from this burning mess. You can't just magic away the underlying issues in GW2 by raising numbers and "re-working" skills; it's a matter of having nine (9) classes in a game featuring almost no unique abilities or movement tech, and that makes it incredibly difficult to distinguish them from each other by relying on anything other than DPS numbers. It'd be FAR, FAR EASIER to just delete half of this game's classes and compress all of the good things into a remaining 4 or 5 rather than trying to force uniqueness into a total of 9 with such an anemic spread of generic buffs and debuffs (particularly when launch PvE meta remained 2 Eles, 2 Guards, 1 War for a good three years).

Since that will never happen, you'll probably never see a GW2 with well-defined, role-based, teamwork combat. It'll just be what it is now: a bunch of generic people avoiding circles, walking to event objectives, and relying on basically two people to press 2-3 buttons and not die at critical moments.

[Dadnir.5038]

@"Swagg.9236" said:Choices that don't really matter aren't choices. This isn't a card game with "bad cards" which are effectively just there to weed out beginnings and/or fill pack lists. If you have classes in your MMO which aren't being regularly incorporated into high-level gameplay, then you have bloat code that doesn't really deserve to exist.

From what I could see, ANet listen to players feedback mostly in the sPvP subforum and this feedback lead to balance tweaks. PvE wise they spend their energy in developping content and fixing bugs not in balancing unless there is a very big issue. When the necromancer stabilised itself at 30k potential DPS I can remember that they stated they were happy with the state of the necromancer, so...

The biggest issue with GW2's devs when it come to balance is that they balance smartly but not wisely. There is barely any foresight with the changes they do, it's like they aren't even trying to foresee the consequences of what they do, just throwing some bones to their players hoping that it will sate their hunger.

[Axl.8924]

@KrHome.1920 said:

@"Swagg.9236" said:The mistake wasn't "They didn't balance classes based on DPS benchmarks vs dummy targets!" but rather stuffing the game with 8-9 classes when GW2's shallow gameplay cycle only requires 4 at the absolute most. GW2 with 8+ classes just results in several classes being imprisoned in the irrelevancy box.It would absolutely be possible to bring the game to a state where all classes would be at an equal level of performance and it wouldn't even be that difficult. You have to read in between the lines to realize how incompetent ANet is at maintaining their game. We don't know whether it is a staff issue (employees without a clue) or a money issue (not enough time for the devs), but it doesn't even matter for us as the customers.

Just look at their achievement list:

• bugs that require a 2 minute fixing effort, won't be fixed for years (e.g. the crimson tide 2 LF bug)
• they needed years to get the message why reaper has only 25k dps (in contrast to every other class it lacked damage multipliers) and add some damage multipliers to the necro traits (and its dps is sill the bottom of the barrel)
• skill reworks require years and then are worse than pre-rework (warhorn5, focus4)
• they need half a year to globally tone town skill damage by 30% and nothing else (you could even to that automated with a script in a day)
• then they need another half a year to hotfix the issues (the state we are currently in waiting for the feb25 follow up patch)
• to be continued...

Part of it is bias man.

The mesmer ele players want to keep nec down, and use the same excuse: Its ez mode well other classes can be EZ mode it has a lot of defense, well guardian can do tons of sustain moves and do dmg.

At this point its just excuses like with obtenna

[Dadnir.5038]

@"Axl.8924" said:Part of it is bias man.

The mesmer ele players want to keep nec down, and use the same excuse: Its ez mode well other classes can be EZ mode it has a lot of defense, well guardian can do tons of sustain moves and do dmg.

At this point its just excuses like with obtenna

The easy mode excuse is still a poor one... I can't believe it's still running. It's not like the necromancer have less skills than other professions after all.

Obtena is an odd one, when it come to the necromancer he/she will say that it's overall viable so we shouldn't complain whereas he/she will complain when other more competitive professions are limited by traits and mechanisms close to what the necromancer have. It's like he/she is resigned to the mediocrity of the necromancer. It's mostly meaningless to read what he/she write about the necromancer, all in all he/she always say: "Stop this meaningless struggle, if you like the thematic just enjoy it and forget about being competitive."

[Obtena.7952]

@Swagg.9236 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Swagg.9236 said:

@"mindcircus.1506" said:Because Arenanet doesn't balance on the golem numbers from a speedrun guild.Do you think there is a good reason they should?

The mistake wasn't "They didn't balance classes based on DPS benchmarks vs dummy targets!" but rather stuffing the game with 8-9 classes when GW2's shallow gameplay cycle only requires 4 at the absolute most. GW2 with 8+ classes just results in several classes being imprisoned in the irrelevancy box.

Um, no ... those classes are there to offer players choices ... and while they could probably get away with 4 (or even just 1) because of game mechanics, there are many other reasons to have more than 4 classes because not everyone is making choice because of how the game works. The fact is that all classes are relevant because any class can participate in content be successful.

That kind of thinking doesn't actually make much sense for

most

MMO's ... the number of classes available is typically much larger than the 3 that are absolute most needed in games based on holy trinity.

Choices that don't really matter aren't choices.

OK ... but how did you determine there are choices that don't matter? What is your criteria for that? I mean, I don't even see the problem there ... not EVERY choice is going to fit whatever criteria you have for making one ... so that doesn't really mean much to begin with. Of course making choices means some things don't matter to you and they are excluded. That doesn't mean there is something that needs to be fixed.

[Virdo.1540]

oh yeah i agree that necros could use an dps buff. Same goes for heralds that go for maximizing damage instead of buffing.

[Swagg.9236]

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@"Swagg.9236" said:Choices that don't really matter aren't choices. This isn't a card game with "bad cards" which are effectively just there to weed out beginnings and/or fill pack lists. If you have classes in your MMO which aren't being regularly incorporated into high-level gameplay, then you have bloat code that doesn't really deserve to exist.

From what I could see, ANet listen to players feedback mostly in the sPvP subforum and this feedback lead to balance tweaks. PvE wise they spend their energy in developping content and fixing bugs not in balancing unless there is a very big issue. When the necromancer stabilised itself at 30k potential DPS I can remember that they stated they were happy with the state of the necromancer, so...

The biggest issue with GW2's devs when it come to balance is that they balance smartly but not wisely. There is barely any foresight with the changes they do, it's like they aren't even trying to foresee the consequences of what they do, just throwing some bones to their players hoping that it will sate their hunger.

Anet can balance as """smartly""" or """wisely""" as possible, but if they aren't working with a game that was designed well from the ground up, there is only so much that number tweaks and modest skill re-works can do. You'll always have a bloated game featuring far, far too many classes all competing for effectively just 2-3 legitimate "roles" in any given game mode.

[Obtena.7952]

Actually, the game was designed exactly as it needed to be for people to play however they want to play. It's exactly what they set out to do. There are no roles to compete for; that's why it works. It's only when you want to convince yourself there are these artificial structures you self-impose that it doesn't work. Well, OFC it doesn't work that way ... it was never meant to.

[Dadnir.5038]

@Obtena.7952 said:Actually, the game was designed exactly as it needed to be for people to play however they want to play. It's exactly what they set out to do. There are no roles to compete for; that's why it works. It's only when you want to convince yourself there are these artificial structures you self-impose that it doesn't work. Well, OFC it doesn't work that way ... it was never meant to.

It will fall in deaf ears but, I'm pretty sure everyone complaining about the necromancer in PvE end game want to play it competitively and cannot due to it's design. Which mean that, no, the game wasn't properly designed for people that want to play however they want (at least for the necromancer).

[Obtena.7952]

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:Actually, the game was designed exactly as it needed to be for people to play however they want to play. It's exactly what they set out to do. There are no roles to compete for; that's why it works. It's only when you want to convince yourself there are these artificial structures you self-impose that it doesn't work. Well, OFC it doesn't work that way ... it was never meant to.

It will fall in deaf ears but, I'm pretty sure everyone complaining about the necromancer in PvE end game want to play it competitively and cannot due to it's design. Which mean that, no, the game wasn't properly designed for people that want to play however they want (at least for the necromancer).

OH I agree ... if players want to impose a 'competitive' aspect to PVE ... necro isn't the class that will satisfy.

See this is where the problem is ... can you play necro? Yup ... can you imposed competitive on PVE? Yup ... can you impose competitive on PVE AND play necro? No ... and that's where we have to recognize that the more restrictions people impose on the game, the less likely the game is going to fulfill all those restrictions. Obviously "playing how you want" has some limitations ... and it would be unreasonable to expect Anet to be able to fulfill EVERY players' expectations.

I'm sure this will lead to the question: Is imposing competitive and playing necro is too high a demand on the game? Clearly it is, otherwise we would had it. Honestly, the whole issue comes down to what is driving the need for 'competitive' skills on classes for PVE? The game is simply not designed in a way that requires this, so if there is any justification for a class to be competitive, it's NOT because it's needed.

I don't really care about what buffs or not ... AS LONG AS the idea people can play how they want is maintained. The whole idea of 'competitive' skills on classes actually KILLS this ideal and people don't realize they CONTRIBUTE to this problem by petitioning Anet to FIX it ... it's pretty sad. For example, what warriors DON'T bring banners to instanced team content? Only the ones that have teams that allow them to play how they want. In otherwords, only the teams that don't care about competitive PVE. That connection between playing how you want and being in non-competitive PVE teams is REAL ... and if you want to play non-competitive PVE, you need to play like it instead of having some misguided sense that Anet can fix playing how you want by giving you competitive PVE tools so others can tell you how to play. It's nonsense.

I know where we go from here: Why can't Anet fix this for the people that WANT to be told how to play so they get teams? They could and in that case, because we can't predict meta, the solution isn't some completely unreasonable amount of DPS that will put necros in 'competitive' terms with other DPS desired classes. It's team buffs or some other skill/utility that lends to the team success.

[Dadnir.5038]

@Obtena.7952 said:I know where we go from here: Why can't Anet fix this for the people that WANT to be told how to play so they get teams? They could and in that case, because we can't predict meta, the solution isn't some completely unreasonable amount of DPS that will put necros in 'competitive' terms with other DPS desired classes. It's team buffs or some other skill/utility that lends to the team success.

They could start by making the necromancer's tools a bit more effective in PvE so that there is less of a gap of effectivness between PvP and PvE. Like I said more often than not, defiance is a huge hurdle to the necromancer, it just replace to many boons and reduce the effectiveness of to many conditions to let the necromancer's niche bloom. Is it really asking for to much to have corrupting effect proc'ing a mere bleed when it interact with defiance?

Another hurdle is conditions delivered by the environment. The environment use conditions in burst while it should be a slow ramping threat. It's ironic but ANet suffer from the same issue with condition in PvE than in PvP: condi burst. The necromancer would benefit from environmental slow ramping conditions, it's designed to benefit from it, yet PvE in this game does not offer that.

The truth is that being competitive is less a matter of having high numbers and more a matter of being adapted to the content here. When the environment have mechanisms that just kick your tools in the balls, there is a problem. When on top of that your profession is poor at taking advantage of group diversity then you got the necromancer.

What funny is that even by effectively nerfing the necromancer you can make it better in PvE group content than he is. for example, take Spite: siphoned power, replace the might by a set amount of power, which is a nerf in potential power and condition damage in itself, and yet this is bound to have a positive impact on the necromancer's dps when within a group.

That's not even talking about traits that have been nerfed with PvP in mind yet are kept in a sorry state in PvE. Chilling darkness could be a big asset in PvE with a 1 second ICD instead of a 3 second ICD. Likewise, neither mark of evasion nor chilling nova are worth an 8 second ICD in PvE, a simple reduction of these ICD could make a world of difference in PvE.

It's stupid but, in PvE, on one side the necromancer is cripled by PvE mechanism and on the other it's shackled by an history of PvP concerns. And instead of acting on those ANet's devs have been adding powercreep that bleed on all gamemodes to try and fail to fix an issue on a single gamemode...

[Obtena.7952]

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:I know where we go from here: Why can't Anet fix this for the people that WANT to be told how to play so they get teams? They could and in that case, because we can't predict meta, the solution isn't some completely unreasonable amount of DPS that will put necros in 'competitive' terms with other DPS desired classes. It's team buffs or some other skill/utility that lends to the team success.

They could start by making the necromancer's tools a bit more effective in PvE so that there is less of a gap of effectivness between PvP and PvE. Like I said more often than not, defiance is a huge hurdle to the necromancer, it just replace to many boons and reduce the effectiveness of to many conditions to let the necromancer's niche bloom. Is it really asking for to much to have corrupting effect proc'ing a mere bleed when it interact with

defiance

?

Another hurdle is conditions delivered by the environment. The environment use conditions in burst while it should be a slow ramping threat. It's ironic but ANet suffer from the same issue with condition in PvE than in PvP: condi burst. The necromancer would benefit from environmental slow ramping conditions, it's designed to benefit from it, yet PvE in this game does not offer that.

The truth is that being competitive is less a matter of having high numbers and more a matter of being adapted to the content here. When the environment have mechanisms that just kick your tools in the balls, there is a problem. When on top of that your profession is poor at taking advantage of group diversity then you got the necromancer.

What funny is that even by effectively nerfing the necromancer you can make it better in PvE group content than he is. for example, take Spite:

siphoned power

, replace the might by a set amount of power, which is a nerf in potential power and condition damage in itself, and yet this is bound to have a positive impact on the necromancer's dps when within a group.

That's not even talking about traits that have been nerfed with PvP in mind yet are kept in a sorry state in PvE.

Chilling darkness

could be a big asset in PvE with a 1 second ICD instead of a 3 second ICD. Likewise, neither

mark of evasion

nor

chilling nova

are worth an 8 second ICD in PvE, a simple reduction of these ICD could make a world of difference in PvE.

It's stupid but, in PvE, on one side the necromancer is cripled by PvE mechanism and on the other it's shackled by an history of PvP concerns. And instead of acting on those ANet's devs have been adding powercreep that bleed on all gamemodes to try and fail to fix an issue on a single gamemode...

Nothing you say is wrong here. The part that is confusing is where DPS QQ threads are supported by people who know more DPS is not the answer to fixing this.

[Anchoku.8142]

For a game that is not supposed to have fixed roles, Arenanet still carried some "triad" game thinking to GW2. That is why Necro is a strong debuffer. This is balance problem number one.

Balance problem number two is AI and how Indomitable / Defiance / Break bar mechanics have to make up for the AI performance separating PvE from competitive modes.

All of Necromancer's balance issues since 2012 originate from these two issues. Keg Brawl does not have balance issues; no profession mechanics and no AI opponent.

[Dadnir.5038]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"Dadnir.5038" said:Nothing you say is wrong here. The part that is confusing is where DPS QQ threads are supported by people who know more DPS is not the answer to fixing this.

That's because most players don't look further than the consequences. And the consequences of the shackles that the necromancer bear in PvE end game is a "poor" DPS. Thus people complain about DPS and other support it because they ain't wrong in saying that the necromancer DPS need help even if in reality it's a bit more complex than that. Adressing the points I made is bound to increase DPS where it matter in the mind of the players that QQ after all.

Players give feedback based on their "feeling", based on what they "experience". The main issue of the game is that ANet's devs adress just that feedback and often by simply giving "more". And when this "more" create issue in PvP, they put restrictions on it, which lead to the same feedback soon after and bis repetita.

The players are not wrong in their feedback, however the way this feedback have been answered never fixed the underlying issue, it only served to please players for a fleeting moment while creating more issues in it's wake.

[Obtena.7952]

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:Nothing you say is wrong here. The part that is confusing is where DPS QQ threads are supported by people who know more DPS is not the answer to fixing this.

That's because most players don't look further than the consequences. And the consequences of the shackles that the necromancer bear in PvE end game is a "poor" DPS. Thus people complain about DPS and other support it because they ain't wrong in saying that the necromancer DPS need help even if in reality it's a bit more complex than that. Adressing the points I made is bound to increase DPS where it matter in the mind of the players that QQ after all.

Players give feedback based on their "feeling", based on what they "experience". The main issue of the game is that ANet's devs adress just that feedback and often by simply giving "more". And when this "more" create issue in PvP, they put restrictions on it, which lead to the same feedback soon after and bis repetita.

The players are not wrong in their feedback, however the way this feedback have been answered never fixed the underlying issue, it only served to please players for a fleeting moment while creating more issues in it's wake.

Well, giving feedback isn't wrong ... but the content of that feedback IS questionable. As long as the feedback supports pushing metathink in a game where the devs work hard to adhere to allowing people to play how they want ... then calls for massive DPS increases that will allow necros join PUGs that are looking for meta just AREN'T going to be listened to. If the feedback doesn't make sense, then no matter what Anet does, players aren't going to like the fix. This push for DPS is the wrong direction; you know it, I know it.

[Dadnir.5038]

@Obtena.7952 said:This push for DPS is the wrong direction; you know it, I know it.

I do, but it doesn't change the fact that the apparent issue of the necromancer is it's dps even if in reality it's caused by it's poor compatibility with the environment and it's low ability to benefit from and to other professions in high end PvE group setting. The suggestions/demands associated to these QQ threads tend to be done within the scope of what the players are used to see ANet do.

[Obtena.7952]

Right ... so if we can acknowledge that we see Anet do more than just throw DPS at class changes and assume suggestions/demands associated to these QQ threads tend to be done within the scope of what the players are used to see ANet do ....

... then the message that DPS is a not the best (or even reasonable) solution to necros getting meta PUG teams isn't so crazy after all is it. It's really unfair to say that I don't think we should complain. I think it's critical we make the RIGHT complaint, not just make hundreds of them hoping Anet makes a good solution.