Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Balance: Conquest and sustain, the story of an underappreciated type of build


Jekkt.6045

Recommended Posts

First and foremost, through out this post, keep in mind that conquest is ultimately about getting points from capped nodes. You can win a game with zero kills. Inherently, this makes conquest a defensive heavy game mode. You might dislike this, but that's the way it is.

I see it time and time again, people complain about "build X" being too tanky. Most of the time the target of such complaints are side node builds. Having said that, you need to understand what is required of a side node build. A side node holder needs to have good sustain to defend a node, moderately good mobility to rotate and contest and some form of crowd control would be great. As a side noder, optimally, you should never die in a 1v1 as long as you are not hard countered or completely outplayed. That does not mean it is impossible to win a node. You can win a node by pressuring your opponent off node and eventually cap it or by getting a +1 and a kill.

Let's look at the required weakness of a side noder. They should underperform in team fights, their damage should be mediocre and they should not have a lot of stability uptime so that they can be killed in a 1v2 in an acceptable amount of time.This ensures that a side node build is not a jack of all trades, but a build that protects nodes in smaller fights (1v1, 2v2).

Balancing side node builds is a delicate matter. If you nerf their sustain they will just be replaced by dps builds. If their damage is too high, they will replace dps builds.

This is my opinion on how the balance should look like:

  • Side node builds should be equal to each other, they should not lose to other side node builds (assuming equal skill level, not making grave mistakes, not getting countered).

  • Dps builds should lose in a 1v1 to a side node build because dps builds (should) have low sustain and low stability. That way, side node builds can win against dps builds because they outsustain them and have enough damage to kill the dps build that has low sustain.

  • This is where a third type of build enters the equation, one that is rarely played, heavily nerfed by anet each time one pops up, but one that is extremely valuable and important in my opinion. Decap builds. These type of builds should counter "bunker" builds. As I stated above, side node builds should have low stability. Enough to counter 1-2 cc chains, but once those are used, that's it. The most important thing decap builds absolutely need, a lot of cc, especially knockbacks. Decap builds should have a moderate amount of damage, equal or a bit less to that of a side noder. They should have a moderate amount of sustain, enough to not be killed by a bunker, but not enough to survive against a dps build. That way, decap builds win the node against a bunker by decapping them, but lose to a dps build because they get killed.

Assuming that the balance of those three types of builds is good enough, it would achieve the following triangle:

Tanky side noder: Loses to decap but wins against dps.Decap: Loses to dps but wins against tanky side noder.DPS: Loses to tanky side noder but wins against decap.

Obviously, balance is a lot more complex than just that. These are scenarios in which builds compete on a node in a 1v1.

Let's talk about fights with more people, and where builds should be best used in.

Side noder and decap builds should be good in a 1v1 and in 2v2. Assuming side A has a side noder and a dps while side B has a decap and a dps.

  • The side noder on side A should be able to support the dps with healing (less than a healer spec), boons and some cc to be viable in a 2v2
  • The decap build on side B should be able to support the dps with peel and crowd control to be viable in a 2v2.

Ultimately, this is all hypothetical. But I hope people will be able to understand where I'm coming from. Conquest favours defensive builds because of the nature of the game mode. That does not mean you need to remove the sustain of tanky builds. Those builds are needed, and you have to face that fact. That does not mean that tanky builds should not be countered by other builds. Those builds exist, but they usually get nerfed into oblivion by arenanet, even though they would be a good solution.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@rng.1024 said:Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

There will always be outcries from some people, even if everything was perfectly balanced. That's just normal. Some people have different outlooks and might argue the exact opposite way and say roamers should always be able to kill bunkers. What's the right thing to do in the end? I don't know, I merely presented what I think is best. What it ultimately comes down to though is what arenanet thinks is the best way to balance the game, and I'm not sure if they know themselves. I feel like for the longest time now, ever since HoT, arenanet does not have any design philosophy for pvp.

I think dealing with outliers is what's currently being done by the balance team, and that's fine, even though sometimes they seem a bit like kneejerk reactions like with lightning rod. And while decreasing the power disparity between the bottom and the top is certainly a good thing, it does not solve the problem that certain classes currently have. Let's take warrior and mesmer as examples.

Warrior used to have a bruiser spec in hambow, semi-support in shoutbow and later condi dps berserker and dps-ish spellbreaker. Currently, none of those builds work and the question is, what does arenanet want the warrior to be? or, what do they want the elite specs to be. Same goes for mesmer, core was dps, chrono support and mirage condi. Yet, mesmer aren't allowed to be dps, chrono support is probably worse than a druid, and you know what happened to mirage.

Another problem in my opinion is the constant nerfing of the current fotm spec, which seems to be condi rev right now. Before that it was ranger, and before ranger was other stuff. And yes, while nerfing outliers is justified, it leads to a different problem. There are cases where you have a build performing at, let's say, 60% winrate compared to similar roles. That should absolutely be nerfed. Then you have builds that maybe perform at 53%, which is not grossly over the top but still the highest winrate at a given time. Those builds should not be nerfed. If you do, all that happens is another build will take the same spot and it becomes a circle of nerfing what's currently best. There will always be a build that is statistically the strongest.

About diversity. If we ingore that warrior and mesmer are quite bad right now, I think this is the best diversity we ever had, ever. I watched the community funded pvp tournament and there were many different builds for all the classes that got played, which were 7/9 of the classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got it backwards. You're right in that conquest is primarily a defensive game, and that's why the game needs to be extremely careful about not letting defensively overpowered builds run roughshot over the game mode.

The game being enjoyable requires 1v1 builds being capable of killing each other and being very scared of +1s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"mortrialus.3062" said:You've got it backwards. You're right in that conquest is primarily a defensive game, and that's why the game needs to be extremely careful about not letting defensively overpowered builds run roughshot over the game mode.

The game being enjoyable requires 1v1 builds being capable of killing each other and being very scared of +1s.

mind telling me what you dislike about that game? is it the scrappers not getting anywhere at all? or the 4 bunker 1 dps comps on both sides? The game even ended after 13mins so it's not like it was a time over either.

scrapper vs scrapper now is no different than in the video because scrapper just has abysmal damage even with berserker amulet. there is barely anything you can kill as a scrapper.

now for the comps, that's something they decided to run themselves and honestly, i don't think the comp was even any good and would have profited a lot more from additional dps builds.

you say 1v1 builds should be able to kill each other. they are able to kill each other (well, not the scrappers...) but they decide not to die, that's the difference. it has been that way forever, even back in celestial meta. ele war and engi all could kill each other, but they decided not to die so they kited for healing, leaving the node and giving up ticks or even the cap because dying was just worse. you might not see this as a win, but it is. getting the node in a 1v1 because you pressured your opponent off node, allowing you to cap the node, is a big win.

also, i'm not in favour of anything overpowered, no matter what type of build it is. if you can't reliably kill a bunker even 1v3 while landing all your stuns and dealing a lot of damage then that build is too tanky. you should however be able to survive a 1v2 for some time if you kite well or if you run away. you should not be able to tank a 1v2 on node though. it's basically the same reason why you pick bruisers in moba solo lanes, because they can survive a gank if they play well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jekkt.6045 said:

@rng.1024 said:Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

There will always be outcries from some people, even if everything was perfectly balanced. That's just normal. Some people have different outlooks and might argue the exact opposite way and say roamers should always be able to kill bunkers. What's the right thing to do in the end? I don't know, I merely presented what I think is best. What it ultimately comes down to though is what arenanet thinks is the best way to balance the game, and I'm not sure if they know themselves. I feel like for the longest time now, ever since HoT, arenanet does not have any design philosophy for pvp.

I think dealing with outliers is what's currently being done by the balance team, and that's fine, even though sometimes they seem a bit like kneejerk reactions like with lightning rod. And while decreasing the power disparity between the bottom and the top is certainly a good thing, it does not solve the problem that certain classes currently have. Let's take warrior and mesmer as examples.

Warrior used to have a bruiser spec in hambow, semi-support in shoutbow and later condi dps berserker and dps-ish spellbreaker. Currently, none of those builds work and the question is, what does arenanet want the warrior to be? or, what do they want the elite specs to be. Same goes for mesmer, core was dps, chrono support and mirage condi. Yet, mesmer aren't allowed to be dps, chrono support is probably worse than a druid, and you know what happened to mirage.

Another problem in my opinion is the constant nerfing of the current fotm spec, which seems to be condi rev right now. Before that it was ranger, and before ranger was other stuff. And yes, while nerfing outliers is justified, it leads to a different problem. There are cases where you have a build performing at, let's say, 60% winrate compared to similar roles. That should absolutely be nerfed. Then you have builds that maybe perform at 53%, which is not grossly over the top but still the highest winrate at a given time. Those builds should not be nerfed. If you do, all that happens is another build will take the same spot and it becomes a circle of nerfing what's currently best. There will always be a build that is statistically the strongest.

About diversity. If we ingore that warrior and mesmer are quite bad right now, I think this is the best diversity we ever had, ever. I watched the community funded pvp tournament and there were many different builds for all the classes that got played, which were 7/9 of the classes.

I think the problem with warrior is the way it's designed, it's too easy to play to be overly effective with. Give them enough damage and sustain and...what can stop them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Supreme.3164 said:

@rng.1024 said:Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

There will always be outcries from some people, even if everything was perfectly balanced. That's just normal. Some people have different outlooks and might argue the exact opposite way and say roamers should always be able to kill bunkers. What's the right thing to do in the end? I don't know, I merely presented what I think is best. What it ultimately comes down to though is what arenanet thinks is the best way to balance the game, and I'm not sure if they know themselves. I feel like for the longest time now, ever since HoT, arenanet does not have any design philosophy for pvp.

I think dealing with outliers is what's currently being done by the balance team, and that's fine, even though sometimes they seem a bit like kneejerk reactions like with lightning rod. And while decreasing the power disparity between the bottom and the top is certainly a good thing, it does not solve the problem that certain classes currently have. Let's take warrior and mesmer as examples.

Warrior used to have a bruiser spec in hambow, semi-support in shoutbow and later condi dps berserker and dps-ish spellbreaker. Currently, none of those builds work and the question is, what does arenanet want the warrior to be? or, what do they want the elite specs to be. Same goes for mesmer, core was dps, chrono support and mirage condi. Yet, mesmer aren't allowed to be dps, chrono support is probably worse than a druid, and you know what happened to mirage.

Another problem in my opinion is the constant nerfing of the current fotm spec, which seems to be condi rev right now. Before that it was ranger, and before ranger was other stuff. And yes, while nerfing outliers is justified, it leads to a different problem. There are cases where you have a build performing at, let's say, 60% winrate compared to similar roles. That should absolutely be nerfed. Then you have builds that maybe perform at 53%, which is not grossly over the top but still the highest winrate at a given time. Those builds should not be nerfed. If you do, all that happens is another build will take the same spot and it becomes a circle of nerfing what's currently best. There will always be a build that is statistically the strongest.

About diversity. If we ingore that warrior and mesmer are quite bad right now, I think this is the best diversity we ever had, ever. I watched the community funded pvp tournament and there were many different builds for all the classes that got played, which were 7/9 of the classes.

I think the problem with warrior is the way it's designed, it's too easy to play to be overly effective with. Give them enough damage and sustain and...what can stop them?

Their counterbalanced by the fact their so strait forward to play and their skills have very easy animation tells. Easy to predict and counter due to the very reasons its strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@rng.1024 said:Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

There will always be outcries from some people, even if everything was perfectly balanced. That's just normal. Some people have different outlooks and might argue the exact opposite way and say roamers should always be able to kill bunkers. What's the right thing to do in the end? I don't know, I merely presented what I think is best. What it ultimately comes down to though is what arenanet thinks is the best way to balance the game, and I'm not sure if they know themselves. I feel like for the longest time now, ever since HoT, arenanet does not have any design philosophy for pvp.

I think dealing with outliers is what's currently being done by the balance team, and that's fine, even though sometimes they seem a bit like kneejerk reactions like with lightning rod. And while decreasing the power disparity between the bottom and the top is certainly a good thing, it does not solve the problem that certain classes currently have. Let's take warrior and mesmer as examples.

Warrior used to have a bruiser spec in hambow, semi-support in shoutbow and later condi dps berserker and dps-ish spellbreaker. Currently, none of those builds work and the question is, what does arenanet want the warrior to be? or, what do they want the elite specs to be. Same goes for mesmer, core was dps, chrono support and mirage condi. Yet, mesmer aren't allowed to be dps, chrono support is probably worse than a druid, and you know what happened to mirage.

Another problem in my opinion is the constant nerfing of the current fotm spec, which seems to be condi rev right now. Before that it was ranger, and before ranger was other stuff. And yes, while nerfing outliers is justified, it leads to a different problem. There are cases where you have a build performing at, let's say, 60% winrate compared to similar roles. That should absolutely be nerfed. Then you have builds that maybe perform at 53%, which is not grossly over the top but still the highest winrate at a given time. Those builds should not be nerfed. If you do, all that happens is another build will take the same spot and it becomes a circle of nerfing what's currently best. There will always be a build that is statistically the strongest.

About diversity. If we ingore that warrior and mesmer are quite bad right now, I think this is the best diversity we ever had, ever. I watched the community funded pvp tournament and there were many different builds for all the classes that got played, which were 7/9 of the classes.

I think the problem with warrior is the way it's designed, it's too easy to play to be overly effective with. Give them enough damage and sustain and...what can stop them?

Their counterbalanced by the fact their so strait forward to play and their skills have very easy animation tells. Easy to predict and counter due to the very reasons its strong.

I find revs that much easier to deal with at least in recent memory , but yeah can't disagree with you about the animation ofc let's not forget that wars can get very very tanky while more than respectable damage...we must be careful with how warrior get buffed, tank+damage+easy to play = no good combination

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Supreme.3164 said:

@rng.1024 said:Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

There will always be outcries from some people, even if everything was perfectly balanced. That's just normal. Some people have different outlooks and might argue the exact opposite way and say roamers should always be able to kill bunkers. What's the right thing to do in the end? I don't know, I merely presented what I think is best. What it ultimately comes down to though is what arenanet thinks is the best way to balance the game, and I'm not sure if they know themselves. I feel like for the longest time now, ever since HoT, arenanet does not have any design philosophy for pvp.

I think dealing with outliers is what's currently being done by the balance team, and that's fine, even though sometimes they seem a bit like kneejerk reactions like with lightning rod. And while decreasing the power disparity between the bottom and the top is certainly a good thing, it does not solve the problem that certain classes currently have. Let's take warrior and mesmer as examples.

Warrior used to have a bruiser spec in hambow, semi-support in shoutbow and later condi dps berserker and dps-ish spellbreaker. Currently, none of those builds work and the question is, what does arenanet want the warrior to be? or, what do they want the elite specs to be. Same goes for mesmer, core was dps, chrono support and mirage condi. Yet, mesmer aren't allowed to be dps, chrono support is probably worse than a druid, and you know what happened to mirage.

Another problem in my opinion is the constant nerfing of the current fotm spec, which seems to be condi rev right now. Before that it was ranger, and before ranger was other stuff. And yes, while nerfing outliers is justified, it leads to a different problem. There are cases where you have a build performing at, let's say, 60% winrate compared to similar roles. That should absolutely be nerfed. Then you have builds that maybe perform at 53%, which is not grossly over the top but still the highest winrate at a given time. Those builds should not be nerfed. If you do, all that happens is another build will take the same spot and it becomes a circle of nerfing what's currently best. There will always be a build that is statistically the strongest.

About diversity. If we ingore that warrior and mesmer are quite bad right now, I think this is the best diversity we ever had, ever. I watched the community funded pvp tournament and there were many different builds for all the classes that got played, which were 7/9 of the classes.

I think the problem with warrior is the way it's designed, it's too easy to play to be overly effective with. Give them enough damage and sustain and...what can stop them?

Their counterbalanced by the fact their so strait forward to play and their skills have very easy animation tells. Easy to predict and counter due to the very reasons its strong.

I find revs that much easier to deal with at least in recent memory , but yeah can't disagree with you about the animation ofc let's not forget that wars can get very very tanky while more than respectable damage...we must be careful with how warrior get buffed, tank+damage+easy to play = no good combination

U find a good rev easier to deal with than a good warrior? Hmm that's actually good for u since ull meet a lot more revs these days due to the fact it's a much stronger class than war right now. Least most wars disappeared so u won't have to fight many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Supreme.3164 said:

@rng.1024 said:Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

There will always be outcries from some people, even if everything was perfectly balanced. That's just normal. Some people have different outlooks and might argue the exact opposite way and say roamers should always be able to kill bunkers. What's the right thing to do in the end? I don't know, I merely presented what I think is best. What it ultimately comes down to though is what arenanet thinks is the best way to balance the game, and I'm not sure if they know themselves. I feel like for the longest time now, ever since HoT, arenanet does not have any design philosophy for pvp.

I think dealing with outliers is what's currently being done by the balance team, and that's fine, even though sometimes they seem a bit like kneejerk reactions like with lightning rod. And while decreasing the power disparity between the bottom and the top is certainly a good thing, it does not solve the problem that certain classes currently have. Let's take warrior and mesmer as examples.

Warrior used to have a bruiser spec in hambow, semi-support in shoutbow and later condi dps berserker and dps-ish spellbreaker. Currently, none of those builds work and the question is, what does arenanet want the warrior to be? or, what do they want the elite specs to be. Same goes for mesmer, core was dps, chrono support and mirage condi. Yet, mesmer aren't allowed to be dps, chrono support is probably worse than a druid, and you know what happened to mirage.

Another problem in my opinion is the constant nerfing of the current fotm spec, which seems to be condi rev right now. Before that it was ranger, and before ranger was other stuff. And yes, while nerfing outliers is justified, it leads to a different problem. There are cases where you have a build performing at, let's say, 60% winrate compared to similar roles. That should absolutely be nerfed. Then you have builds that maybe perform at 53%, which is not grossly over the top but still the highest winrate at a given time. Those builds should not be nerfed. If you do, all that happens is another build will take the same spot and it becomes a circle of nerfing what's currently best. There will always be a build that is statistically the strongest.

About diversity. If we ingore that warrior and mesmer are quite bad right now, I think this is the best diversity we ever had, ever. I watched the community funded pvp tournament and there were many different builds for all the classes that got played, which were 7/9 of the classes.

I think the problem with warrior is the way it's designed, it's too easy to play to be overly effective with. Give them enough damage and sustain and...what can stop them?

There should be no correlation between how easy/hard a build is to play and how effective it should be. the easiest build should be as strong as the hardest build in the game, that's balance. otherwise you would condemn easy builds to be bad forever.

now as far as warrior goes, i always like to bring up the old hambow warrior. it was such a joy to play against it after it wasn't overtuned anymore. it had good and readable animations on strong skills, as it should be. the best skill in the game in regards to cast time, animation and power is probably pin down. this is good game design and should imo be used with every class.

now for the current warrior; i feel like the class and elite specs have no diversity and identity at all. core warrior is a dude with a greatsword who smacks you. berserker is a dude with a greatsword trying to smack you harder and spellbreaker is a dude with a greatsword and a parry. they basically all do the same. i dont even know if warrior should be categorized as a dps or a bruiser tbh.

if you look at warrior builds of the past it was a lot different. hambow was a really tanky bruiser with a lot of cc and aoe damage. axe/sword hybrid warrior was an extremely potent duelist. shoutbow was a great bruiser with team support in the form of cleanse, battleres and healing. right before HoT there was a hammer/gs warrior build that played a lot better than the current spellbreaker. berserker used to be a strong condition based duelist until they ruined the elite spec. spellbreaker is imo the most boring warrior build, but that's my personal taste. nowadays, all warrior builds just feel the same. warrior traits are a mess and should honestly be reworked and reshuffeled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@rng.1024 said:Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

There will always be outcries from some people, even if everything was perfectly balanced. That's just normal. Some people have different outlooks and might argue the exact opposite way and say roamers should always be able to kill bunkers. What's the right thing to do in the end? I don't know, I merely presented what I think is best. What it ultimately comes down to though is what arenanet thinks is the best way to balance the game, and I'm not sure if they know themselves. I feel like for the longest time now, ever since HoT, arenanet does not have any design philosophy for pvp.

I think dealing with outliers is what's currently being done by the balance team, and that's fine, even though sometimes they seem a bit like kneejerk reactions like with lightning rod. And while decreasing the power disparity between the bottom and the top is certainly a good thing, it does not solve the problem that certain classes currently have. Let's take warrior and mesmer as examples.

Warrior used to have a bruiser spec in hambow, semi-support in shoutbow and later condi dps berserker and dps-ish spellbreaker. Currently, none of those builds work and the question is, what does arenanet want the warrior to be? or, what do they want the elite specs to be. Same goes for mesmer, core was dps, chrono support and mirage condi. Yet, mesmer aren't allowed to be dps, chrono support is probably worse than a druid, and you know what happened to mirage.

Another problem in my opinion is the constant nerfing of the current fotm spec, which seems to be condi rev right now. Before that it was ranger, and before ranger was other stuff. And yes, while nerfing outliers is justified, it leads to a different problem. There are cases where you have a build performing at, let's say, 60% winrate compared to similar roles. That should absolutely be nerfed. Then you have builds that maybe perform at 53%, which is not grossly over the top but still the highest winrate at a given time. Those builds should not be nerfed. If you do, all that happens is another build will take the same spot and it becomes a circle of nerfing what's currently best. There will always be a build that is statistically the strongest.

About diversity. If we ingore that warrior and mesmer are quite bad right now, I think this is the best diversity we ever had, ever. I watched the community funded pvp tournament and there were many different builds for all the classes that got played, which were 7/9 of the classes.

I think the problem with warrior is the way it's designed, it's too easy to play to be overly effective with. Give them enough damage and sustain and...what can stop them?

Their counterbalanced by the fact their so strait forward to play and their skills have very easy animation tells. Easy to predict and counter due to the very reasons its strong.

I find revs that much easier to deal with at least in recent memory , but yeah can't disagree with you about the animation ofc let's not forget that wars can get very very tanky while more than respectable damage...we must be careful with how warrior get buffed, tank+damage+easy to play = no good combination

U find a good rev easier to deal with than a good warrior? Hmm that's actually good for u since ull meet a lot more revs these days due to the fact it's a much stronger class than war right now. Least most wars disappeared so u won't have to fight many.

I just find it hard sometimes to deal with the range of Full Counter but it's more my fault than anything, I believe revs are squishier than wars that's why I deal with them easier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jekkt.6045 said:

@rng.1024 said:Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

There will always be outcries from some people, even if everything was perfectly balanced. That's just normal. Some people have different outlooks and might argue the exact opposite way and say roamers should always be able to kill bunkers. What's the right thing to do in the end? I don't know, I merely presented what I think is best. What it ultimately comes down to though is what arenanet thinks is the best way to balance the game, and I'm not sure if they know themselves. I feel like for the longest time now, ever since HoT, arenanet does not have any design philosophy for pvp.

I think dealing with outliers is what's currently being done by the balance team, and that's fine, even though sometimes they seem a bit like kneejerk reactions like with lightning rod. And while decreasing the power disparity between the bottom and the top is certainly a good thing, it does not solve the problem that certain classes currently have. Let's take warrior and mesmer as examples.

Warrior used to have a bruiser spec in hambow, semi-support in shoutbow and later condi dps berserker and dps-ish spellbreaker. Currently, none of those builds work and the question is, what does arenanet want the warrior to be? or, what do they want the elite specs to be. Same goes for mesmer, core was dps, chrono support and mirage condi. Yet, mesmer aren't allowed to be dps, chrono support is probably worse than a druid, and you know what happened to mirage.

Another problem in my opinion is the constant nerfing of the current fotm spec, which seems to be condi rev right now. Before that it was ranger, and before ranger was other stuff. And yes, while nerfing outliers is justified, it leads to a different problem. There are cases where you have a build performing at, let's say, 60% winrate compared to similar roles. That should absolutely be nerfed. Then you have builds that maybe perform at 53%, which is not grossly over the top but still the highest winrate at a given time. Those builds should not be nerfed. If you do, all that happens is another build will take the same spot and it becomes a circle of nerfing what's currently best. There will always be a build that is statistically the strongest.

About diversity. If we ingore that warrior and mesmer are quite bad right now, I think this is the best diversity we ever had, ever. I watched the community funded pvp tournament and there were many different builds for all the classes that got played, which were 7/9 of the classes.

I think the problem with warrior is the way it's designed, it's too easy to play to be overly effective with. Give them enough damage and sustain and...what can stop them?

There should be no correlation between how easy/hard a build is to play and how effective it should be. the easiest build should be as strong as the hardest build in the game, that's balance. otherwise you would condemn easy builds to be bad forever.

now as far as warrior goes, i always like to bring up the old hambow warrior. it was such a joy to play against it after it wasn't overtuned anymore. it had good and readable animations on strong skills, as it should be. the best skill in the game in regards to cast time, animation and power is probably pin down. this is good game design and should imo be used with every class.

now for the current warrior; i feel like the class and elite specs have no diversity and identity at all. core warrior is a dude with a greatsword who smacks you. berserker is a dude with a greatsword trying to smack you harder and spellbreaker is a dude with a greatsword and a parry. they basically all do the same. i dont even know if warrior should be categorized as a dps or a bruiser tbh.

if you look at warrior builds of the past it was a lot different. hambow was a really tanky bruiser with a lot of cc and aoe damage. axe/sword hybrid warrior was an extremely potent duelist. shoutbow was a great bruiser with team support in the form of cleanse, battleres and healing. right before HoT there was a hammer/gs warrior build that played a lot better than the current spellbreaker. berserker used to be a strong condition based duelist until they ruined the elite spec. spellbreaker is imo the most boring warrior build, but that's my personal taste. nowadays, all warrior builds just feel the same. warrior traits are a mess and should honestly be reworked and reshuffeled.

If you say that easy=difficult when it comes to reward...why play the difficult one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Supreme.3164 said:

@rng.1024 said:Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

There will always be outcries from some people, even if everything was perfectly balanced. That's just normal. Some people have different outlooks and might argue the exact opposite way and say roamers should always be able to kill bunkers. What's the right thing to do in the end? I don't know, I merely presented what I think is best. What it ultimately comes down to though is what arenanet thinks is the best way to balance the game, and I'm not sure if they know themselves. I feel like for the longest time now, ever since HoT, arenanet does not have any design philosophy for pvp.

I think dealing with outliers is what's currently being done by the balance team, and that's fine, even though sometimes they seem a bit like kneejerk reactions like with lightning rod. And while decreasing the power disparity between the bottom and the top is certainly a good thing, it does not solve the problem that certain classes currently have. Let's take warrior and mesmer as examples.

Warrior used to have a bruiser spec in hambow, semi-support in shoutbow and later condi dps berserker and dps-ish spellbreaker. Currently, none of those builds work and the question is, what does arenanet want the warrior to be? or, what do they want the elite specs to be. Same goes for mesmer, core was dps, chrono support and mirage condi. Yet, mesmer aren't allowed to be dps, chrono support is probably worse than a druid, and you know what happened to mirage.

Another problem in my opinion is the constant nerfing of the current fotm spec, which seems to be condi rev right now. Before that it was ranger, and before ranger was other stuff. And yes, while nerfing outliers is justified, it leads to a different problem. There are cases where you have a build performing at, let's say, 60% winrate compared to similar roles. That should absolutely be nerfed. Then you have builds that maybe perform at 53%, which is not grossly over the top but still the highest winrate at a given time. Those builds should not be nerfed. If you do, all that happens is another build will take the same spot and it becomes a circle of nerfing what's currently best. There will always be a build that is statistically the strongest.

About diversity. If we ingore that warrior and mesmer are quite bad right now, I think this is the best diversity we ever had, ever. I watched the community funded pvp tournament and there were many different builds for all the classes that got played, which were 7/9 of the classes.

I think the problem with warrior is the way it's designed, it's too easy to play to be overly effective with. Give them enough damage and sustain and...what can stop them?

Are you serious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Supreme.3164 said:

@rng.1024 said:Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

There will always be outcries from some people, even if everything was perfectly balanced. That's just normal. Some people have different outlooks and might argue the exact opposite way and say roamers should always be able to kill bunkers. What's the right thing to do in the end? I don't know, I merely presented what I think is best. What it ultimately comes down to though is what arenanet thinks is the best way to balance the game, and I'm not sure if they know themselves. I feel like for the longest time now, ever since HoT, arenanet does not have any design philosophy for pvp.

I think dealing with outliers is what's currently being done by the balance team, and that's fine, even though sometimes they seem a bit like kneejerk reactions like with lightning rod. And while decreasing the power disparity between the bottom and the top is certainly a good thing, it does not solve the problem that certain classes currently have. Let's take warrior and mesmer as examples.

Warrior used to have a bruiser spec in hambow, semi-support in shoutbow and later condi dps berserker and dps-ish spellbreaker. Currently, none of those builds work and the question is, what does arenanet want the warrior to be? or, what do they want the elite specs to be. Same goes for mesmer, core was dps, chrono support and mirage condi. Yet, mesmer aren't allowed to be dps, chrono support is probably worse than a druid, and you know what happened to mirage.

Another problem in my opinion is the constant nerfing of the current fotm spec, which seems to be condi rev right now. Before that it was ranger, and before ranger was other stuff. And yes, while nerfing outliers is justified, it leads to a different problem. There are cases where you have a build performing at, let's say, 60% winrate compared to similar roles. That should absolutely be nerfed. Then you have builds that maybe perform at 53%, which is not grossly over the top but still the highest winrate at a given time. Those builds should not be nerfed. If you do, all that happens is another build will take the same spot and it becomes a circle of nerfing what's currently best. There will always be a build that is statistically the strongest.

About diversity. If we ingore that warrior and mesmer are quite bad right now, I think this is the best diversity we ever had, ever. I watched the community funded pvp tournament and there were many different builds for all the classes that got played, which were 7/9 of the classes.

I think the problem with warrior is the way it's designed, it's too easy to play to be overly effective with. Give them enough damage and sustain and...what can stop them?

There should be no correlation between how easy/hard a build is to play and how effective it should be. the easiest build should be as strong as the hardest build in the game, that's balance. otherwise you would condemn easy builds to be bad forever.

now as far as warrior goes, i always like to bring up the old hambow warrior. it was such a joy to play against it after it wasn't overtuned anymore. it had good and readable animations on strong skills, as it should be. the best skill in the game in regards to cast time, animation and power is probably pin down. this is good game design and should imo be used with every class.

now for the current warrior; i feel like the class and elite specs have no diversity and identity at all. core warrior is a dude with a greatsword who smacks you. berserker is a dude with a greatsword trying to smack you harder and spellbreaker is a dude with a greatsword and a parry. they basically all do the same. i dont even know if warrior should be categorized as a dps or a bruiser tbh.

if you look at warrior builds of the past it was a lot different. hambow was a really tanky bruiser with a lot of cc and aoe damage. axe/sword hybrid warrior was an extremely potent duelist. shoutbow was a great bruiser with team support in the form of cleanse, battleres and healing. right before HoT there was a hammer/gs warrior build that played a lot better than the current spellbreaker. berserker used to be a strong condition based duelist until they ruined the elite spec. spellbreaker is imo the most boring warrior build, but that's my personal taste. nowadays, all warrior builds just feel the same. warrior traits are a mess and should honestly be reworked and reshuffeled.

If you say that easy=difficult when it comes to reward...why play the difficult one?

because you want to play it. not everybody likes easy builds, some people don't like hard builds. easy or hard has nothing to do with how well a build should be able to perform. and honestly, it doesn't even matter. it always comes down to the following, if you want to compete earnestly, you play what's good, no matter if easy or hard.

if you want to have diversity you can't say easy builds should not be as effective just because they are easy. at the top level it's irrelevant to begin with because easy and hard are on the same level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jekkt.6045 said:

@"rng.1024" said:Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

There will always be outcries from some people, even if everything was perfectly balanced. That's just normal. Some people have different outlooks and might argue the exact opposite way and say roamers should always be able to kill bunkers. What's the right thing to do in the end? I don't know, I merely presented what I think is best. What it ultimately comes down to though is what arenanet thinks is the best way to balance the game, and I'm not sure if they know themselves. I feel like for the longest time now, ever since HoT, arenanet does not have any design philosophy for pvp.

I think dealing with outliers is what's currently being done by the balance team, and that's fine, even though sometimes they seem a bit like kneejerk reactions like with lightning rod. And while decreasing the power disparity between the bottom and the top is certainly a good thing, it does not solve the problem that certain classes currently have. Let's take warrior and mesmer as examples.

Warrior used to have a bruiser spec in hambow, semi-support in shoutbow and later condi dps berserker and dps-ish spellbreaker. Currently, none of those builds work and the question is, what does arenanet want the warrior to be? or, what do they want the elite specs to be. Same goes for mesmer, core was dps, chrono support and mirage condi. Yet, mesmer aren't allowed to be dps, chrono support is probably worse than a druid, and you know what happened to mirage.

Another problem in my opinion is the constant nerfing of the current fotm spec, which seems to be condi rev right now. Before that it was ranger, and before ranger was other stuff. And yes, while nerfing outliers is justified, it leads to a different problem. There are cases where you have a build performing at, let's say, 60% winrate compared to similar roles. That should absolutely be nerfed. Then you have builds that maybe perform at 53%, which is not grossly over the top but still the highest winrate at a given time. Those builds should not be nerfed. If you do, all that happens is another build will take the same spot and it becomes a circle of nerfing what's currently best. There will always be a build that is statistically the strongest.

About diversity. If we ingore that warrior and mesmer are quite bad right now, I think this is the best diversity we ever had, ever. I watched the community funded pvp tournament and there were many different builds for all the classes that got played, which were 7/9 of the classes.

I agree the devs seem to be a little lost when it comes to the direction of their changes, been like this for quite a while. And they definitely should be in charge of that direction.

You bring up Warrior and Mesmer. They didn't nerf outliers in the feb patch, they nerfed everything. Good specs/bad specs, the relative disparity remained except values related to base hp, base armor and CC access. Now what did this teach us

  • Well for starters the high dmg countered some professions with ridiculous sustain
  • We saw how important CC's were for general damage pressure on alot of builds
  • How shaving sustain on both sides equally just butchered alot of matchups

Now here is what I meant by nerfing outliers - you want the FoTM to be constantly new, theorycrafted from a long forgotten time - not what carries hardest. By reducing carry potential of strong builds, lesser builds increase in viability. We need people to be looking for the next "great spec" while the reigned in ones becomes staples of conquest. There's only so many builds of each profession that can be broken, eventually most would be balanced and then only specific traits/skills could be out of line.

Since this post is getting long I would just like to finish with my take on diversity. In WvW I used to run a zerker staff ele and duel a core zerker warrior. It was fun and we were at 50% winrate each - both were viable (although I promise you I had to work harder on the ele). Patch happens, then what? I can no longer win - at all no matter how good I play. My ele became completely unviable. Higher damage allowed more questionable specs survive in the meta, and the patch severely limited those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Straightforward does not mean easy. Most people here don't know how to walk properly in pvp saying warrior is easy. It has less options as possible skills and all are obvious.Most supposed 'hard' builds have way more options in their kit, how is having possible answer to everything harder. Some people should get off their high horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"rng.1024" said:

I agree the devs seem to be a little lost when it comes to the direction of their changes, been like this for quite a while. And they definitely should be in charge of that direction.

You bring up Warrior and Mesmer. They didn't nerf outliers in the feb patch, they nerfed everything. Good specs/bad specs, the relative disparity remained except values related to base hp, base armor and CC access. Now what did this teach us

  • Well for starters the high dmg countered some professions with ridiculous sustain
  • We saw how important CC's were for general damage pressure on alot of builds
  • How shaving sustain on both sides equally just butchered alot of matchups

Now here is what I meant by nerfing outliers - you want the FoTM to be constantly new, theorycrafted from a long forgotten time - not what carries hardest. By reducing carry potential of strong builds, lesser builds increase in viability. We need people to be looking for the next "great spec" while the reigned in ones becomes staples of conquest. There's only so many builds of each profession that can be broken, eventually most would be balanced and then only specific traits/skills could be out of line.

Since this post is getting long I would just like to finish with my take on diversity. In WvW I used to run a zerker staff ele and duel a core zerker warrior. It was fun and we were at 50% winrate each - both were viable (although I promise you I had to work harder on the ele). Patch happens, then what? I can no longer win - at all no matter how good I play. My ele became completely unviable. Higher damage allowed more questionable specs survive in the meta, and the patch severely limited those.

I know that feb patch was the reduce everything by 33%. After that in the smaller patches they nerfed outliers. the problem with removing damage from ccs led to those classes, mostly warrior, to lack damage. they should have distributed the stun damage onto other skills and then reduced their values to make up for it. i agree with anet that stuns should not deal such a crazy amount of damage like certain skills did. was it necessary to make them deal none? i don't think so, 1-2k would have been fine depending on the skill.

i think we have different views on what a fotm build is. for me, it's the build which is believed to be the best right now. it doesn't have to be the best, people just need to think that and many will play it. if it's overrated, people will stop and the fotm build will change. sometimes it's possible for a fun or easy build to become the fotm build too. what you want is not easily achievable. for a fotm build to change it either needs to get nerfed, something better is discovered or people play counters to it. take condi rev as an example right now: it deals well with condition damage because of resistance, it counters power rev which is one of the best direct damage builds, it does well against condi thief, it is tanky and quite good in teamfights aswell because of the aoe damage it brings. is it overperforming? i dont know, maybe it is because of the aoe size, but i don't think because of the damage it deals.

now for new builds to be theorycrafted you actually need changes. let's assume all viable builds have been discovered. what do you do now? i think it's time for anet to start buffing and reworking skills and traits. take ele staff for example, that weapon feels like an ancient relic with how slow it is. staff used to work to a certain degree in the celestial meta because the damage was slow. nowadays? no way. even moreso, these days ele just can't deal any damage without burning tbh. all air gm damage traits are garbage now, so the only thing left is either go burn or go support.

also, i don't think side noders carry much to begin with, roamers and team fight builds do.

@Vancho.8750 said:Straightforward does not mean easy. Most people here don't know how to walk properly in pvp saying warrior is easy. It has less options as possible skills and all are obvious.Most supposed 'hard' builds have way more options in their kit, how is having possible answer to everything harder. Some people should get off their high horse.

obvious skills can be used too if you know how to do it. with warrior it was always kind of a pinball game where you had to bait dodges and stunbreaks and then go for the kill. idk about now, but back in the days you baited dodges by stowing your weapon on pin down and hammer 4/5.

now when it comes to options, the reality is, some skills are just bloated and do way too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jekkt.6045 said:

@rng.1024 said:Your logic is good - in a perfect world of equal skill level. However there would still be outcries from roamer specs who can't kill the duelists/bunkers on their own, so I wouldn't expect the community to follow.

All that ever was needed to balance without bringing down diversity was to deal with overperforming outliers one by one as they pop up. After a while 90% of matchups would be fair, and this includes all - roamers, duelists, teamfighters and bunkers, meanwhile it would indirectly buff weaker outliers which would be dealt with once we had a steady balanced meta.

This would even allow the devs to really decide what role they want to give the underpowered specs and run with it.

There will always be outcries from some people, even if everything was perfectly balanced. That's just normal. Some people have different outlooks and might argue the exact opposite way and say roamers should always be able to kill bunkers. What's the right thing to do in the end? I don't know, I merely presented what I think is best. What it ultimately comes down to though is what arenanet thinks is the best way to balance the game, and I'm not sure if they know themselves. I feel like for the longest time now, ever since HoT, arenanet does not have any design philosophy for pvp.

I think dealing with outliers is what's currently being done by the balance team, and that's fine, even though sometimes they seem a bit like kneejerk reactions like with lightning rod. And while decreasing the power disparity between the bottom and the top is certainly a good thing, it does not solve the problem that certain classes currently have. Let's take warrior and mesmer as examples.

Warrior used to have a bruiser spec in hambow, semi-support in shoutbow and later condi dps berserker and dps-ish spellbreaker. Currently, none of those builds work and the question is, what does arenanet want the warrior to be? or, what do they want the elite specs to be. Same goes for mesmer, core was dps, chrono support and mirage condi. Yet, mesmer aren't allowed to be dps, chrono support is probably worse than a druid, and you know what happened to mirage.

Another problem in my opinion is the constant nerfing of the current fotm spec, which seems to be condi rev right now. Before that it was ranger, and before ranger was other stuff. And yes, while nerfing outliers is justified, it leads to a different problem. There are cases where you have a build performing at, let's say, 60% winrate compared to similar roles. That should absolutely be nerfed. Then you have builds that maybe perform at 53%, which is not grossly over the top but still the highest winrate at a given time. Those builds should not be nerfed. If you do, all that happens is another build will take the same spot and it becomes a circle of nerfing what's currently best. There will always be a build that is statistically the strongest.

About diversity. If we ingore that warrior and mesmer are quite bad right now, I think this is the best diversity we ever had, ever. I watched the community funded pvp tournament and there were many different builds for all the classes that got played, which were 7/9 of the classes.

I think the problem with warrior is the way it's designed, it's too easy to play to be overly effective with. Give them enough damage and sustain and...what can stop them?

There should be no correlation between how easy/hard a build is to play and how effective it should be. the easiest build should be as strong as the hardest build in the game, that's balance. otherwise you would condemn easy builds to be bad forever.

now as far as warrior goes, i always like to bring up the old hambow warrior. it was such a joy to play against it after it wasn't overtuned anymore. it had good and readable animations on strong skills, as it should be. the best skill in the game in regards to cast time, animation and power is probably pin down. this is good game design and should imo be used with every class.

now for the current warrior; i feel like the class and elite specs have no diversity and identity at all. core warrior is a dude with a greatsword who smacks you. berserker is a dude with a greatsword trying to smack you harder and spellbreaker is a dude with a greatsword and a parry. they basically all do the same. i dont even know if warrior should be categorized as a dps or a bruiser tbh.

if you look at warrior builds of the past it was a lot different. hambow was a really tanky bruiser with a lot of cc and aoe damage. axe/sword hybrid warrior was an extremely potent duelist. shoutbow was a great bruiser with team support in the form of cleanse, battleres and healing. right before HoT there was a hammer/gs warrior build that played a lot better than the current spellbreaker. berserker used to be a strong condition based duelist until they ruined the elite spec. spellbreaker is imo the most boring warrior build, but that's my personal taste. nowadays, all warrior builds just feel the same. warrior traits are a mess and should honestly be reworked and reshuffeled.

If you say that easy=difficult when it comes to reward...why play the difficult one?

because you want to play it. not everybody likes easy builds, some people don't like hard builds. easy or hard has nothing to do with how well a build should be able to perform. and honestly, it doesn't even matter. it always comes down to the following, if you want to compete earnestly, you play what's good, no matter if easy or hard.

if you want to have diversity you can't say easy builds should not be as effective just because they are easy. at the top level it's irrelevant to begin with because easy and hard are on the same level.

Everybody likes to play an effective class, as long as that it's respected yeah I can agree with you fully but the problems arise when the easy class is more efficient than the harder class for the same role, nobody will go ofc for the harder class...including top players and that's all I am saying, easy or hard matters little..it's all about efficiency, synergy and fun factor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Supreme.3164 said:

Everybody likes to play an effective class, as long as that it's respected yeah I can agree with you fully but the problems arise when the easy class is more efficient than the harder class for the same role, nobody will go ofc for the harder class...including top players and that's all I am saying, easy or hard matters little..it's all about efficiency, synergy and fun factor

no matter which build is stronger, easy or hard, if the disparity is too big there is an imbalance. the goal would be for them to be around the same strength, because complete balance is impossible to achieve - for things to be completely equal they need to be the same. depending on the meta, the comp you play or the comp the enemy plays, some builds will always be favoured. if we look at the current bruiser/bunker/whatever you want to call them builds we have valk ranger, condi rev and explosive holo.holo probably has the highest damage output but is the least tanky, ranger is quite tanky but also deals good damage with good mobility, rev is the slowest and tankiest with the best teamfight. you have 3 viable specs, but condi rev deals best against conditions and +1 from stuff like condi thief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...