Everything that's wrong with the patch notes... [Updated]

[NorthernRedStar.3054]

@Axl.8924 said:

@"iKagura.1903" said:

@Axl.8924 said:

@"Widmo.3186" said:Let me show you in one picture whats wrong with the patch

They noticed that soulbeasts deal too much damage. So what they do? They nerf it by50 (!)power (!)in PvE (!)

This company is a joke. If I showed this picture to any1 from Bli$$ard "balance team" they would roll on the floor laughing.And as you already noticed, rest of the "balances" are random, unneeded or barely touching the topic. So let's wait another half year for...another 50 power nerf?

They are trying to kill both core ranger and soulbeast as payment for being a little strong in the past, god forbid ranger does a little dmg with their attacks without procs to actually kill someone.

and it's still not even meta, a lot of people complain about soulbeast because it's godlike and "has everything" but the reality is, it isn't. there is a difference between being annoying to fight and you just flat out hating the class vs it actually being a carry and performing in meta comps. nade holo is the most offensive pug carry and ranger still gets complained more in the forums, but I understand why (because they're bad players and people have too much fun farming on nade holo atm).

im actually not defending soulbeast, i admit it's annoying to fight against longbow from a distance and the pet is an annoying mechanic to worry about. but these are just facts. if we're talking about their most performing build it's the core decap build and that's bunker, and honestly crev is just a better option now for that for far carry play.

soulbeast indeed has good dmg when you go zerk amulet and has a lot of dmg % enhancements along with mobility. the issue is, just having those 2 things is not good enough to carry or perform in meta ..

when focused it's a liability, always is the case with soulbeast

holo nade is actually not THAT different from soulbeast, they match mobility and deal alot of dmg, but they have nade kit and team elixir support and a free stomp option, and just a better carry overall.. nade kit allows easy kite & run while dealing burst dmg ... soulbeast can't really do this because once you're in longbow it's an easy pressure.

this is something bad players will never understand and prob never get a chance to because they're just not good

The problem is:If the problem is procs giving such high number balance the procs and unnerf the dmg.

I heard people mention procs being a issue when combining sick em and other stuff for huge blasts of damage.

Sic' Em is not an issue because it's an entire skill slot worth of utility / burst rotation add-on you sacrifice sustain and stun breaks for. Meanwhile engi casually spams blind and AoE every few seconds by picking a trait line. That's an issue, as it has little counterplay apart from "don't engage the engi" / be ranged. And ranger damage is garbo after all the power nerfs, you're not killing anyone from range in this game anymore.In other words, Anet has efficiently eliminated one of the innate balancing factors within their game. This wouldn't be as large of an issue if not for the over-abundance of protection and weakness in a number of face-rolly builds.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Sigmoid.7082 said:

@Kuma.1503 said:When you remove something, you remove options. When you remove options, you lower build diversity. If we want greater diversity, we need to start adding things back and giving out more buffs to E-specs that are not doing their job as well as they should. Namely: Scrapper, Chrono, Mirage, and Druid. `

You can actually cause an increase in diversity by removing and nerfing things. If A >>> B==C==D==E==F then removing A or nerfing A down opens up far more things for use since A isnt the only clear option.

We have had this discussion before and as @Jekkt.6045 and @Kuma.1503 pointed out is the exact reason why removing options is an overall net decrease in diversity.

I’ve explained this many times in many older threads, that the current balance philosophy is inherently flawed. The current Game definition of Balance implies that in order for two things to be perfectly balanced, they must be exactly the same (like the depiction in your infograph). Once two things are the same they are no longer different choices but the same choice. Thus you can not balance classes that are inherently different from each other by trying to make them equal...because it is an impossible task without removing meaningful choices.

If I were to ask you, what steps would you have to take in order for balance to be absolutely perfect, to the point where no one complains at all ever, the logical conclusion is to give everyone a stick.

This is why CMC’s balance implementations failed, like me and others predicted. It has nothing to do with him being ignorant or in-capable of balancing the game...it’s because of this current idea of using nerfs and buffs to balance is an inherently impossible task.

There is a way to balance a highly diverse and complex game like gw2 but it requires a complete 180 in perspective on balancing systems, which is to take ques from naturally occurring balancing behaviors that occur in highly diverse complex systems observed in the real world.

To put it shortly, This means favoring heterogeneous groupings over homogenous grouping. Which means that instead of trying to make things equal and by proxy homogeneous, you make everything USEFUL and UNIQUE enough for an autonomous agent to accomplish an autonomous goal, which by proxy makes the grouping heterogenous.

If your abilities and skills aren’t USEFUL enough to make a build that can accomplish an autonomous goal (like killing another player) than the build will not be able to compete and you get less diversity and by proxy imbalance.

Likewise, if your abilities and skills aren’t UNIQUE enough, in that they all do relatively the same thing or are inconsequential, or have little synergy with your other abilities, than your build options aren’t any different than any other build options you could choose and it’s then, easier to identify The Nash equilibrium (the most optimal options) which also reduces diversity, and again by proxy imbalance.

[Sigmoid.7082]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@Sigmoid.7082 said:

@Kuma.1503 said:When you remove something, you remove options. When you remove options, you lower build diversity. If we want greater diversity, we need to start adding things back and giving out more buffs to E-specs that are not doing their job as well as they should. Namely: Scrapper, Chrono, Mirage, and Druid. `

You can actually cause an increase in diversity by removing and nerfing things. If A >>> B==C==D==E==F then removing A or nerfing A down opens up far more things for use since A isnt the only clear option.

We have had this discussion before and as @Jekkt.6045 and @Kuma.1503 pointed out is the exact reason why removing options is an overall net decrease in diversity.

I’ve explained this many times in many older threads, that the current balance philosophy is inherently flawed. The current Game definition of Balance implies that in order for two things to be perfectly balanced, they must be exactly the same (like the depiction in your infograph). Once two things are the same they are no longer different choices but the same choice. Thus you can not balance classes that are inherently different from each other by trying to make them equal...because it is an impossible task without removing meaningful choices.

If I were to ask you, what steps would you have to take in order for balance to be absolutely perfect, to the point where no one complains at all ever, the logical conclusion is to give everyone a stick.

This is why CMC’s balance implementations failed, like me and others predicted. It has nothing to do with him being ignorant or in-capable of balancing the game...it’s because of this current idea of using nerfs and buffs to balance is an inherently impossible task.

There is a way to balance a highly diverse and complex game like gw2 but it requires a complete 180 in perspective on balancing systems, which is to take ques from naturally occurring balancing behaviors that occur in highly diverse complex systems observed in the real world.

To put it shortly, This means favoring heterogeneous groupings over homogenous grouping. Which means that instead of trying to make things equal and by proxy homogeneous, you make everything USEFUL and UNIQUE enough for an autonomous agent to accomplish an autonomous goal, which by proxy makes the grouping heterogenous.

If your abilities and skills aren’t USEFUL enough to make a build that can accomplish an autonomous goal (like killing another player) than the build will not be able to compete and you get less diversity and by proxy imbalance.

Likewise, if your abilities and skills aren’t UNIQUE enough, in that they all do relatively the same thing or are inconsequential, or have little synergy with your other abilities, than your build options aren’t any different than any other build options you could choose and it’s then, easier to identify

The Nash equilibrium

(the most optimal options) which also reduces diversity, and again by proxy imbalance.

Half the problem is people never want to accept what their class does well. They only see what it does poorly compared to others and says their class is bad and the other is OP.

Things can be equally effective and balanced it's just that's not what the player base wants at heart. They want what they want to be good and what they don't like to be ineffective or bad. Also the whole thing about my class or build isn't viable because it's not the best in role is also a thing...

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Sigmoid.7082 said:Half the problem is people never want to accept what their class does well. They only see what it does poorly compared to others and says their class is bad and the other is OP.

The scope in which your analyzing the issue is much too narrow. This is a problem on another more fundamental level. You have to ask yourself why people complain at all in the first place. Would thief or warrior players complain if the thief and warrior class had the same skills, utilities, traits, health points, armor value and weapon availability as each other? Of course not...but if thief is the same as being a warrior than what does it even matter which one you choose?

Things can be equally effective and balanced...

Given the current implementation of balance by trying to homogenize abilities (by trying to make them equal), is an impossible task fundamentally...it simply can not be done without removing player choice. Much like your info graph, the choices B=C=D=F is impossible to accomplish without making them the same choice, which is why the info graph is also technically misleading on the argument of diversity.

Things can be balanced, but only the way in which I’ve described it in my previous comment, via the emulation of diverse complex systems seen in the real world. There is a lot of well researched information out there but it all starts with an understanding in complex systems theory, and applying it to GW2.

[Sigmoid.7082]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@Sigmoid.7082 said:Half the problem is people never want to accept what their class does well. They only see what it does poorly compared to others and says their class is bad and the other is OP.

The scope in which your analyzing the issue is much too narrow. This is a problem on another more fundamental level. You have to ask yourself why people complain at all in the first place. Would thief or warrior players complain if the thief and warrior class had the same skills, utilities, traits, health points, armor value and weapon availability as each other? Of course not...but if thief is the same as being a warrior than what does it even matter which one you choose?

Things can be equally effective and balanced...

Given the current implementation of balance by trying to homogenize abilities (by trying to make them equal), is an impossible task fundamentally...it simply can not be done without removing player choice. Much like your info graph, the choices B=C=D=F is impossible to accomplish without making them the same choice, which is why the info graph is also technically misleading on the argument of diversity.

Things can be balanced, but only the way in which I’ve described it in my previous comment, via the emulation of diverse complex systems seen in the real world. There is a lot of well researched information out there but it all starts with an understanding in complex systems theory, and applying it to GW2.

I don't really subscribe to your sentiment so I'm not going to go any further with this one.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Sigmoid.7082 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@Sigmoid.7082 said:Half the problem is people never want to accept what their class does well. They only see what it does poorly compared to others and says their class is bad and the other is OP.

The scope in which your analyzing the issue is much too narrow. This is a problem on another more fundamental level. You have to ask yourself why people complain at all in the first place. Would thief or warrior players complain if the thief and warrior class had the same skills, utilities, traits, health points, armor value and weapon availability as each other? Of course not...but if thief is the same as being a warrior than what does it even matter which one you choose?

Things can be equally effective and balanced...

Given the current implementation of balance by trying to homogenize abilities (by trying to make them equal), is an impossible task fundamentally...it simply can not be done without removing player choice. Much like your info graph, the choices B=C=D=F is impossible to accomplish without making them the same choice, which is why the info graph is also technically misleading on the argument of diversity.

Things can be balanced, but only the way in which I’ve described it in my previous comment, via the emulation of diverse complex systems seen in the real world. There is a lot of well researched information out there but it all starts with an understanding in complex systems theory, and applying it to GW2.

I don't really subscribe to your sentiment so I'm not going to go any further with this one.

Fair. You don’t have to take my word for it.

But if you’d rather listen to an established game developer with the same perspective, than I’d highly suggest you watch this video

Now, the latter half of this lecture (35:30 and onward) is spent talking about complex systems, and the additional fields required for making a good game, such as chaos theory, game theory and evolutionary biology.

I’m not crazy...my talking points all have sources I could cite to back up that my claims are not unfounded.

[Jekkt.6045]

i design stuff in a different way. for me it's more about gut feeling. it has to feel good, much like how food has to taste good. in a perfect world everything has its own role. once everything has its own role you can tweak numbers until their power level in the same category is equal. if we take supports as example: (these are examples and do not represent the specs right now)

support firebrand: best against burst, has burst heals. works with prot and aegis

tempest: best sustained condi cleanse. a bit of sustain healing. more mobile

ventari rev: highest sustain healing, some cleanse

chrono: lowest healing, best damage prevention

now these are examples, you but you kind of want to have a purpose for every build. right now supports just kinda want to be like the most played support.. instead if all of them are unique you pick them for the right situation.

having said that, sometimes it turns out that something that "feels good" in design is really hard to balance and you have to nerf everything around it so much that in the end even though you preserved the element that felt good, everything else has been nerfed so much that the whole spec doesn't feel good anymore. that example would be mirage. in such a case you need to rework it and find a different approach.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Jekkt.6045 said:i design stuff in a different way. for me it's more about gut feeling. it has to feel good, much like how food has to taste good. in a perfect world everything has its own role. once everything has its own role you can tweak numbers until their power level in the same category is equal.

Having fun is a perfectly fine design philosophy. However the topic is about balance. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, as something that can be imbalanced can be either fun or not fun and that varies depending on the player. Ones definition of fun might be another’s definition of not fun...and so the two things should be treated differently as a topic for discussion.

Now i would like to point out one thing here and that’s the arbitrary definition of trying to make two things that are different equal. You mention this

you can tweak numbers until their power level in the same category is equal.

What exactly does this mean? What defines a power level or a category? What would you use to measure two different abilities or traits that are different to be equal? The definition is too arbitrary.

I like to use this example;

Compare Staff Auto 1 on Elementalist to Dagger Auto 1 on theif. How would you approach making these two abilities that are completely different equal to one another? What would be the definition for them being the same power level? Do they both have to have the same damage? Do they then both have to have the same range? Do they then have to both have the same animation? The list goes on and on until the two things are considered equal because they become the same skill...and at that point they are no different to one another and we lose player choice.

Just to conclude I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m just trying to make you guys or gals confront the current paradigm of balance in its fundamentality.

[Dadnir.5038]

@The Fear.3865 said:Most of the patch is about PvE.You need to play both pvp, wvw and pve to understand what they're doin. Especially with the slb, fb, chrono ans Weaver updates.

The only thing that will affect pvp is basically the War changes imo. (edit : and the scourge)

I don't see how you come to the conclusion that the patch is a PvE patch. Excuse me but the soulbeast change feel out of place (especially for PvE), The whole set of elementalist change feel more PvP than PvE (Because you have to take into account that a few month ago players in this subforum were complaining about burn weaver, not in PvE), Chrono needed these change for PvP/WvW (less in PvE), as for FB it will do more harm than good in PvE.

The necromancer's change feel like a Kick in the nuts (especially if you have PvE in mind) because it's an overall buff to selfish PvP gameplay.

Like Asum said, don't assume things based on a narrowed point of view. Keep in mind the history of the sPvP subforum complaints before thinking of the current sPvP concerns. ANet start to think about this patch month ago and month ago people could care less about burn weaver in PvE, the slb nerf in PvE feel more like a PvP plea that's been pushed onto the wrong gamemode... etc. If anything only guardian's change look like legit PvE change (which is sad in itself).

[Jekkt.6045]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@Jekkt.6045 said:i design stuff in a different way. for me it's more about gut feeling. it has to feel good, much like how food has to taste good. in a perfect world everything has its own role. once everything has its own role you can tweak numbers until their power level in the same category is equal.

Having fun is a perfectly fine design philosophy. However the topic is about balance. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, as something that can be imbalanced can be either fun or not fun and that varies depending on the player. Ones definition of fun might be another’s definition of not fun...and so the two things should be treated differently as a topic for discussion.

Now i would like to point out one thing here and that’s the arbitrary definition of trying to make two things that are different equal. You mention this

you can tweak numbers until their power level in the same category is equal.

What exactly does this mean? What defines a power level or a category? What would you use to measure two different abilities or traits that are different to be equal? The definition is too arbitrary.

I like to use this example;

Compare Staff Auto 1 on Elementalist to Dagger Auto 1 on theif. How would you approach making these two abilities that are completely different equal to one another? What would be the definition for them being the same power level? Do they both have to have the same damage? Do they then both have to have the same range? Do they then have to both have the same animation? The list goes on and on until the two things are considered equal because they become the same skill...and at that point they are no different to one another and we lose player choice.

Just to conclude I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m just trying to make you guys or gals confront the current paradigm of balance in its fundamentality.

Don't worry you're not being argumentative and you're asking good questions. I'll say this first, perfect balance can not be achieved in this game. For that to happen everything needs to be the same, but that's not needed nor is it required.

What I mean by fun, and obviously fun is 100% subjective, is basically engaging and well thought out design (my perspective). Two such examples in this game are fresh air lightning rod. Those are two traits that basically do the same thing, increase your damage, but have a completely different approach to it and require you to adjust your playstyle. Even though both traits have the same end result, the playstyle couldn't be more different. An example of boring and unfun design is the third air gm, more damage under 50%. Again, end result = more damage, but it's not engaging at all.

Now let's talk about power levels. Getting builds in the same category (we'll come to that later) or even all builds to be equally strong is again, impossible. But, the end goal of balance is to get them as close as possible. Now it gets complicated. How do you measure power level? It's hard. Sometimes you can clearly see build X is overperforming compared to build Y, but why? Is build X too strong or build Y too weak? That depends on the power level the game is at, or the power level the balance team wants to have. Figuring out what is too weak/too strong is part subjective, part empiric. You can have statistics that show you build X has a 5% higher winrate than build Y, but that doesn't have to necessarily mean build X is too strong. Volume is important too.

Example 1: flamethrower condi core engi has the highest winrate in the game, but only 1 person plays it (this is an example, it's not the build with the highest winrate). That person is an absolute god, people don't know how to play against it and the meta runs no condi cleanse because conditions are extremely weak at that fictional moment in time, but the engi player makes it work. Is that build too strong? No, absolutely not. Nobody else could replicate this, and in a different meta the build could very well be the lowest winrate build.

Example 2: This is the most obvious scenario. Celestial burn symbol guard or whatever is pretty much played by everyone. Every match you have 2-3 on each side and the overall winrate of that build is 60% plus, which is actually lower than the real winrate because guard vs guard = guard wins + guard loses and only matches with 1 of that build in a team and 0 in the other are truly indicative of its strength. This build is therefore absolutely busted and needs to be nerfed.

Example 3: Berserker scourge has an overall winrate of 45%. It's a really difficult build but every team in tournaments runs them, and the best players destroy absulutely everything with it. Ladder players of all rank see this and think the build is really strong (which it is, in that fictional scenario). But because it's really hard to play they die and have pretty much no or negative impact on the game, making the overall winrate 45%. Should that build get nerfed? yes of course. It's absolutely irrelevant if it's the easiest or hardest build to play in the game, a perfect winrate would be 50% no matter how complex a build is.

This is very simplified. There's much more to it than i just wrote because gw2 isn't only about 1v1, there's 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 5v5, etc. It's very important to be objective about balance. Just because build X loses to build Y doesn't mean Y is too strong. It could be that X just has a really bad matchup (we can replace builds with class compositions too). But if build Y suddenly wins against every other build in that category (in this example a side node build) then Y might very well be too strong.

Now let's talk about what i mean when i say category. It basically means role. what are the roles? support (tempest, firebrand), teamfight dps (necro, reaper), side noder (holo, condi rev), burst dps aka roamer (thief, rev). Why do we have those roles? because they do something very specific that other builds can't do. Why are they important? because it makes comparisons and balancing a bit simpler. Instead of having to compare support tempest to thief, which makes absolutely no sense, we can compare it to firebrand because it serves the same purpose in a match. Then we can compare them to other stuff too which gives us different information. They obviously support better than any other builds, that's their job. How is their damage? they can kill tanky builds even though they're supports would mean damage is too high. They can't be killed by 3 people means they're too tanky (not, they heal too much, they're too tanky, this is important). Nothing in a teamfight dies when a team has one means, healing/support is too high, etc etc, and this can be applied to every category. So comparisons inside categories let us look at how good they do their role, comparing them outside of categories tells us if they infringe on other builds' roles. example, side noders have more damage than dps specs, dps specs are as tanky as side noders etc.

Now about your example with staff and dagger auto. they don't have to be equal. thief can have a low impact auto but high impact skills, and staff could have a high impact auto but only utility skills that make it survive. it's not the skills that have to be equal in power level, it's the whole build.

Another thing i personally think is important are what builds bring to the table. higher damage dps + low survivability vs lower damage dps + higher survivability. or tanky slow side noder vs less tanky faster side noder etc. this helps with diversity. i think it's fine that build X is better than build Y in a certain scenario and vice versa instead of build X and build Y are as good (theoretically) in every scenario.

There's way more to it than what i just wrote, i could probably write 10 pages+ about this. But that's pretty much the gist of it.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Jekkt.6045 said:

For the most part everything you said is valid, and I don’t disagree with any of the things you pointed out.

But I think your observation is the macro consequence of an underlying philosophy.

As we said, it is impossible to perfectly balance the game and I think if people who would analyze the balance of this particular game would realize this after a while...

...This is the reason that roles eventually crop up in the conversation because at some point the conclusion to reach is that you can only balance this way to the point where one feels that a build is balanced, and that in my opinion is an issue because it’s too arbitrary and too subjective. This is also why balance devs come in with all sorts of different approaches and they never seem to quiet work, no matter how smart they are or how carefully they tweak numbers

Once we accept the problem of implementing balance through this flawed perspective, we then should look at other, different kinds of balancing systems that exist, which they do indeed exist. The scope is very large but it generally revolves around the idea of competition. The more viable builds there are that exist that are able to compete with each other, the more competition builds face for the Meta position...

This means that for every build, there should exist some other useful build out there that should be able to counter it. And the relationship acts as an inverse square, so the more builds there are, the more options exist where an OP build can be countered, and thus an overpowered build becomes less overpowered because there exists more counters to it.

So relatively speaking, if there are 1000 viable builds and one of those builds seem overpowered, there should be at least a fraction of those builds that exist that can counter it, let’s say 50 of them (5%) and this is the self balancing mechanism. Compare this to the following, that if there are only 10 viable builds and one of them seems overpowered, then a fraction of builds that could exist to counter them is most likely 0 (less than 1)

We see this same self balancing behavior in systems that exist in the world...capitalism operates on the idea of competition. Likewise so does evolutionary biology. Those things work because of competition, which is a byproduct of having diversity in the system.

The same tenants can be applied and indeed do apply to gw2 currently. Builds compete with each other and the ones that win and are viable continue to be used, while not so good builds fall out of favor. Because there is such a disparity in build diversity, where most skill options aren’t able to compete, we see these monopolies of builds that have almost no counters because there exists next to nothing for them to compete with other than themselves which is one of the examples you provide with symbol brand.

So in conclusion, your analysis is spot on, but it is the consequence of a deeper more fundamental problem, which is that idea that nerfs and buffs simply don’t work. It requires a new paradigm in thinking about balance through a different lens. The idea that “Diversity is more important than Balance.”

[Jekkt.6045]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

what you're talking about is something that gw2 used to have in the early days to some extent, a bit after launch. you had warrior counter necro, thief counter mesmer (still somewhat true), necro counter ele and engi, guardian counter warrior and thief, etc. nowadays builds have almost everything so that's not the case anymore.

mobas have that too somewhat, where you pick a hero/champ that wins against your opponent in lane. i also think gw2 would benefit heavily from a draft mode, but the game needs more viable builds for that.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Jekkt.6045 said:

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

what you're talking about is something that gw2 used to have in the early days to some extent, a bit after launch. you had warrior counter necro, thief counter mesmer (still somewhat true), necro counter ele and engi, guardian counter warrior and thief, etc. nowadays builds have almost everything so that's not the case anymore.

I think the counters still exist...it's just there is way less builds that can counter other builds currently. During core it was probably easier to identify what builds could counter what builds. You also have to remember that adding counters was temporarily part of anets balance philosophy some time after HoT and Pof, which we know now as "Purity of Purpose" phase of the game

But just adding counters isn't the same as just adding diversity. Increasing build diversity will naturally produce counters, whether designing for counters or not. I have a strong stance against forced roles and counter implementation, but it is a very deep topic and i think if we talked about it more it would be a very long conversation.

To put it very shortly though, saying that; "tempest: Has best sustained condi cleanse. a bit of sustain healing. more mobile" is like placing the class in a box. The more you segment the class to this box, you choke out any other options this class could potentially be, which is also a net loss on diversity and goes against what guild wars 2 is based on...that you have a large pool of skills to pick from to define your own build with your own roles to fill your own goals. For example, i usto play a full heal tempest, while others play a condition cleanse tempest, and i'm sure some others out there play a power tempest and condi tempest. Since the espec is essentially boxed into being a healer, naturally, the condi and power tempests suck, aren't used and never become viable or meta.

Now, if Tempest was designed with a more narrow scope, it could still be a fun class to play, much like how i have fun playing reaper. But as you can tell, there are others who do not find reaper very fun to fight against and eventually complain about on the forums to shout for nerfs, and again we fall into this trap where balance is an arbitrary thing that is flawed in it's fundamental nature.

In addition to the last thing i said, Looking at Reaper's tree, you can see how the diversity of the traitline is so boxed in that it has one viable set of traits to pick from. Drum roll....Reapers Onslaught. and if you pick Reapers Onslaught, you are basically bound to pick the traits that align with power damage, and so already, by just picking up this espec, you've already found the nash equilibrium of the class by picking up a single choice. Some people do choose different traits when defining their Reapers Onslaught build, and some may CALL this diversity or variety, but they are so inconsequential that it doesn't matter which one you pick, it is still basically the same build (Such as having the choice between picking Relentless Pursuit and Chilling Nova)

[Jekkt.6045]

final patch notes update:

engi:grenade f skill nerfed.

renegade:heal and elite nerfed.

thief:pistol whip buffvenom leech nerfedcrit chance above 90% hp buffed from 5% to 10%precision to crit dmg buffedhigher ferocity under effect of fury buffed

general:dolyak runes nerfedmad king runes nerfed, or rather, changed because of renegade.

alright, i have some stuff to say about this.

engi nade barrage nerf is.. well.. it helps but is the wrong approach. with this you nerfed holo but every other engi build that runs nade kit too.

renegade, instead of nerfing it, it isn't even that good, how about you rework it.

pistol whip buff is alright but i think sword auto attack buff would have been better because s/d suffers from the same problem. no damage outside of skill 3 for both s/d and s/p. venom leech okay, don't actually know how much of a damage nerf this is. other traits are okay, not gonna change much other than a bit more damage if you run these traits.

rune nerfs are a bit questionable. first dolyak is only run by tempest and druid. tempest was nerfed enough and druid is a meme. mad king is just a kneejerk nerf because renegade can abuse it. if renegade worked differently this rune wouldn't even be a problem.

[Virdo.1540]

Now i can just go afk in pvp, keeping my Facet of Chaos active forever & annoy the crap out of everyone in the pvp lobby ,simply with the (way too loud) protection-gain sound. FOR 10 PLAYERS, EVERY 3 SECONDS! :D

Amazing patch!

[kash.9213]

@Jekkt.6045 said:final patch notes update:

engi:grenade f skill nerfed.

renegade:heal and elite nerfed.

thief:pistol whip buffvenom leech nerfedcrit chance above 90% hp buffed from 5% to 10%precision to crit dmg buffedhigher ferocity under effect of fury buffed

general:dolyak runes nerfedmad king runes nerfed, or rather, changed because of renegade.

alright, i have some stuff to say about this.

engi nade barrage nerf is.. well.. it helps but is the wrong approach. with this you nerfed holo but every other engi build that runs nade kit too.

renegade, instead of nerfing it, it isn't even that good, how about you rework it.

pistol whip buff is alright but i think sword auto attack buff would have been better because s/d suffers from the same problem. no damage outside of skill 3 for both s/d and s/p. venom leech okay, don't actually know how much of a damage nerf this is. other traits are okay, not gonna change much other than a bit more damage if you run these traits.

rune nerfs are a bit questionable. first dolyak is only run by tempest and druid. tempest was nerfed enough and druid is a meme. mad king is just a kneejerk nerf because renegade can abuse it. if renegade worked differently this rune wouldn't even be a problem.

I'll have to feel it out when I log on but that and Shadow Siphoning didn't need to be touched just to mess with a condi build. Leeching and Siphoning are a big part of my build, not a secondary supplement to condi. This change feels lazy and lacking forethought.

[Jekkt.6045]

@kash.9213 said:

@Jekkt.6045 said:final patch notes update:

engi:grenade f skill nerfed.

renegade:heal and elite nerfed.

thief:pistol whip buffvenom leech nerfedcrit chance above 90% hp buffed from 5% to 10%precision to crit dmg buffedhigher ferocity under effect of fury buffed

general:dolyak runes nerfedmad king runes nerfed, or rather, changed because of renegade.

alright, i have some stuff to say about this.

engi nade barrage nerf is.. well.. it helps but is the wrong approach. with this you nerfed holo but every other engi build that runs nade kit too.

renegade, instead of nerfing it, it isn't even that good, how about you rework it.

pistol whip buff is alright but i think sword auto attack buff would have been better because s/d suffers from the same problem. no damage outside of skill 3 for both s/d and s/p.

venom leech okay, don't actually know how much of a damage nerf this is

. other traits are okay, not gonna change much other than a bit more damage if you run these traits.

rune nerfs are a bit questionable. first dolyak is only run by tempest and druid. tempest was nerfed enough and druid is a meme. mad king is just a kneejerk nerf because renegade can abuse it. if renegade worked differently this rune wouldn't even be a problem.

I'll have to feel it out when I log on but that and Shadow Siphoning didn't need to be touched just to mess with a condi build. Leeching and Siphoning are a big part of my build, not a secondary supplement to condi. This change feels lazy and lacking forethought.

you mean, like 99% of the changes this patch?

[Leonidrex.5649]

@kash.9213 they wanted to nerf both condi AND power builds that went shadow arts, and they did just that.They tried to make CS into a damage trait, and shadow arts as sustain/utility one. we will see how it goes.

[foste.3098]

The thing about crit strikes is that it is a pure dmg line lacking any other aspect, and lines like that are always subpar in pvp. Why would you pick cs when you can slot in da, trait for executioner and have access poison/weakness application and some other utility?If they really wanted to give thieves some build diversity they should have worked on acrobatics and the lackluster weapons, i mean buffing pistol whip coefficient by 0.07 is a meme when the sword auto attack deals fuck all damage, and all other s/p skills are more of 'utility weapon skills' than actual offensive damage skills meaning that in current form the only way to play with that set is to spamm pw which is not fun to play against or play as; the only reasonable course is to rework s/p skill 3 and buff sword auto attack damage to make it not a 1 button set.

Imo they should nerf infiltrator's arrow to 8 or 9 initiative and then rebalance thief to actually be a duelist rather than a decap bot that can only run around and +1 effectively, because balancing an entire class and every aspect of it exclusively around how rapidly it can escape fights in a game where combat is the core gameplay loop is insane and stupid.

[Tycura.1982]

Do you know what koalas and anet balance have in common?

Something smooth I'd wager.

[melody.2601]

Imo they should nerf infiltrator's arrow to 8 or 9 initiative and then rebalance thief to actually be a duelist rather than a decap bot that can only run around and +1 effectively, because balancing an entire class and every aspect of it exclusively around how rapidly it can escape fights in a game where combat is the core gameplay loop is insane and stupid.

The way you seem to like Balance is just by destroying the play style you highly dislike whilst not caring that others might actually enjoy it, if you make it 8 or 9 initiative, whats the point of having a Short Bow at all?

[babazhook.6805]

@foste.3098 said:The thing about crit strikes is that it is a pure dmg line lacking any other aspect, and lines like that are always subpar in pvp. Why would you pick cs when you can slot in da, trait for executioner and have access poison/weakness application and some other utility?If they really wanted to give thieves some build diversity they should have worked on acrobatics and the lackluster weapons, i mean buffing pistol whip coefficient by 0.07 is a meme when the sword auto attack deals kitten all damage, and all other s/p skills are more of 'utility weapon skills' than actual offensive damage skills meaning that in current form the only way to play with that set is to spamm pw which is not fun to play against or play as; the only reasonable course is to rework s/p skill 3 and buff sword auto attack damage to make it not a 1 button set.

Imo they should nerf infiltrator's arrow to 8 or 9 initiative and then rebalance thief to actually be a duelist rather than a decap bot that can only run around and +1 effectively, because balancing an entire class and every aspect of it exclusively around how rapidly it can escape fights in a game where combat is the core gameplay loop is insane and stupid.

Crit strikes in and of itself is not a bad trait line. The reason so few can take it is because of INI and raising INI on any skill is a bad idea. It forces people into taking a traitline such as TR, DE and to a lessor extent SA so as to be able to generate more INI and when you do this it becomes harder to fit CS in.

Way back CS used to have a trait that provided INI. When that removed and when one considers ever growing INI costs for skills all builds suffered.

When INI costs too high on a weapon set there more reliance on the #1 skill for damage and taking that weapon can not be justified if that damage too low.

I am going to suggest the single largest reason there not the diversity there should be is because of INI and that making preparedness baseline is the first thing they should do to address this.

[Kodama.6453]

@melody.2601 said:

Imo they should nerf infiltrator's arrow to 8 or 9 initiative and then rebalance thief to actually be a duelist rather than a decap bot that can only run around and +1 effectively, because balancing an entire class and every aspect of it exclusively around how rapidly it can escape fights in a game where combat is the core gameplay loop is insane and stupid.

The way you seem to like Balance is just by destroying the play style you highly dislike whilst not caring that others might actually enjoy it, if you make it 8 or 9 initiative, whats the point of having a Short Bow at all?

Well, I think he kinda has a point.

The thing about shortbow is that it is basically solely taken for the insane mobility it provides.And I think the weapon might actually be hold back by that.

Looking at the complete weapon, it seems that shortbow was initially supposed to be a ranged AoE weapon set.With the bouncing auto attack, cluster bomb, choking gas.... The potential for a good AoE ranged option is there.

Even looking at the name of skill 5 .... infiltrator's arrow.It seems that the intended playstyle of the weapon has been to AoE nuke enemies from afar with choking gas, cluster bomb, some autos.... which will also apply weakness on enemies with the combo, btw.And then you can enter close combat by porting into the enemies, blind them, and wreak havoc with your melee weapon set. The name and also the fact that it blinds hit enemies implies that the skill was supposed to get used to enter fights, not escape from them.

Even better than increasing the init cost.... and I know, people will hate that I suggest that, but I think they could bring that back in line by making infiltrator's arrow require an enemy as a target.That way it gets used as an engaging tool, not escaping. And won't provide insane mobility to the thief outside of fights.

Which might open up some power budget to let thief shine at other tasks than being nothing than a +1 all the time because of their absolutely ridiculous mobility.And it is ridiculous.... the absolute only class able to catch a thief that tries to run away with shortbow is another thief. No other class will keep up with them.

And that might help shortbow actually have a point as a complete weapon set again.... instead of it's whole identity being infiltrator's arrow.

[Virdo.1540]

Facet of Chaos - lower boon duration than buff interval

vroom... vrooom.. vroooooom... especially in wvw & pvp lobby.... its everywhere. will they remove the sound next?

[melody.2601]

@Kodama.6453 said:

@melody.2601 said:

Imo they should nerf infiltrator's arrow to 8 or 9 initiative and then rebalance thief to actually be a duelist rather than a decap bot that can only run around and +1 effectively, because balancing an entire class and every aspect of it exclusively around how rapidly it can escape fights in a game where combat is the core gameplay loop is insane and stupid.

The way you seem to like Balance is just by destroying the play style you highly dislike whilst not caring that others might actually enjoy it, if you make it 8 or 9 initiative, whats the point of having a Short Bow at all?

Well, I think he kinda has a point.

The thing about shortbow is that it is basically solely taken for the insane mobility it provides.And I think the weapon might actually be hold back by that.

Looking at the complete weapon, it seems that shortbow was initially supposed to be a ranged AoE weapon set.With the bouncing auto attack, cluster bomb, choking gas.... The potential for a good AoE ranged option is there.

Even looking at the name of skill 5 ....

infiltrator's

arrow.It seems that the intended playstyle of the weapon has been to AoE nuke enemies from afar with choking gas, cluster bomb, some autos.... which will also apply weakness on enemies with the combo, btw.And then you can enter close combat by porting into the enemies, blind them, and wreak havoc with your melee weapon set. The name and also the fact that it blinds hit enemies implies that the skill was supposed to get used to enter fights, not escape from them.

Even better than increasing the init cost.... and I know, people will hate that I suggest that, but I think they could bring that back in line by making infiltrator's arrow require an enemy as a target.That way it gets used as an engaging tool, not escaping. And won't provide insane mobility to the thief outside of fights.

Which might open up some power budget to let thief shine at other tasks than being nothing than a +1 all the time because of their absolutely ridiculous mobility.And it

is

ridiculous.... the absolute only class able to catch a thief that tries to run away with shortbow is another thief. No other class will keep up with them.

And that might help shortbow actually have a point as a complete weapon set again.... instead of it's whole identity being infiltrator's arrow.

Thing is, Short Bow once was extremly useful and nice, but they already nerfed it into the ground with how much Choking Gas costs in PvP, and the Name Infiltrator's Arrow doesnt really mean anything, you could argue that could be meant to infiltrate an enemy point to capture aswell, suddenly it's intended as a tool to move around again. If it requires a Target its again useless, cause you can just take Sword/Dagger and have exactly the same with an included Port back.

I'd say nerfing Short Bow more hurts all Thief Builds, so it is better to leave it where it is right now.

Maybe look into making Staff viable with some changes, we need more diversity without harming or destroying other builds as long as they arent over the top borderline broken which really isnt the case here. (talking Short Bow as weapon now, not saying Condi Thief is perfectly fine, but thats Condi in general not really only Thief in that case)

Most of the Thief changes wont see any play or have too much impact tho, you wont be using Critical Strikes in PvP anyway, the Leech nerfs Condi aswell as Power Builds, I would argue it hits Power more as Condi doesnt really need that sustain.