This is jackhammering, not balancing

[mistsim.2748]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@mistsim.2748 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

The solution is not to remove environments ..that doesn't work either. Every bad suggestion you've thrown around and we suffer through them because THIS line of thinking...removing amulets, removing game-modes is what CMC is listening to and actually doing is slowly but surely tearing apart his own game because people don't bother to do just a little bit of thinking on the subject and instead just throw around bias, subjective answers... like "oh i think its more diverse because i play ranger now" is a subjective and bias view point.

Ok big man, sounds like you know exactly how to fix this game. When's your first day on the job?

Your solution is to remove PVP from PVP. Are you so oblivious to the fact that you would see the same meta behavior taking place in 2v2/3v3 game modes in off season? The same kind of convergence to a meta build still appears, and the only reason people don't complain about it is because the season lasts for 2 weeks...not enough time for people to go through all the possibilities to converge.

Basic logical deduction is that the environment has an effect on what KIND of builds are meta...much like how PVE has a set of different builds that define it as being meta...but that NO MATTER what the environment there will ALWAYS be a meta. Removing Conquest will do NOTHING of impact, and replacing it with any game mode will do NOTHING of impact.

You truly have no clue about what you're talking about. I couldn't be happier that opinions like yours have zero influence on balancing decisions. But these are public forums, and you should be allowed to contribute your nonsense if you wish.

No one is saying that there isn't a meta. Or that there shouldn't be one. That's impossible.

I don't care what is removed or added. On the backend what needs to happen is they have to have a vision for each prof. Then decide: how many viable builds do we want to have for a given game mode? You don't leave this is players' hands. There has to be testing and quality assurance. But first you need to know what roles you want to have for the game mode. In Conquest we generally have side noder, roamer, and a bunker or support. ANet had been thoroughly confused about what to do with bunkers and supports. I think the idea is you shouldn't have a bunker + support in one spec, hence the removal of Mender's.

Once the roles are figured out, a DEVELOPER WITH A VISION has to pick how many builds they want for a given profession. My opinion is that at this stage, each prof should have 3 viable builds. You can have a versatile prof, or one that specializes. For example, a ranger could have a side node build, a support build, and a roaming build. Or an Engie can have 3 unique side noding builds. Whatever.

Once you have this pre-selected, you will adjust utilities, weapons, take things out, put things in, whatever it takes. But you stick to the vision: 3 viable builds per profession for Conquest game mode.

I also have an opinion that Conquest will always have a boring meta because the roles are so limited. This is because of king of the hill, so red aoe circle and knocking people off the point will always be good.

This mantra that taking things out is bad, or that nerfing is always bad and buffing good, is idiotic.

This is just PvP development and balancing 101. They can always just look at what makes MOBAs so successful. I feel CMC has been on this track, so yes I believe in him. His adjustments have led to lots of build diversity over the last year or two, but we'll always be limited by the lame game mode. I will remind you just how BAD build variety and power creep were pre-CMC.

[Salt Mode.3780]

@mistsim.2748 said:This is just PvP development and balancing 101. They can always just look at what makes MOBAs so successful. I feel CMC has been on this track, so yes I believe in him. His adjustments have led to lots of build diversity over the last year or two, but we'll always be limited by the lame game mode. I will remind you just how BAD build variety and power creep were pre-CMC.

I don't understand where this is going with this comment but removing amulets and nerfing builds will only streamline meta thinner and thinner into it being you play this build or nothing else works. I can't believe people are still justifying that the February balance patch was a step towards a right direction.

[Shao.7236]

@"ellesee.8297" said:Condi engi doesnt exist in the meta. If you dont want to take my word for it, ask any good player. It's a meme.

Nothing that'll ever take /some/ effort to play will exist in the meta.

I would also ask you kindly to stop using the word meme, that's not how you use it. If anything, Meta is more suitable to be called a meme.

Also your definition of a "good player" varies greatly, you have good players that will objectively know and establish fact by considering all factors while you have good players that are as good as parrots with no notable sense of ability to reason within the final result of their performance, unable to even understand what has happened or is happening, the kind of player who can't tell they are being carried.

I consider myself a good enough of a player for holding my own against other "good players" playing whatever goes by my interest while they tend to be a carbon copy of each other.

Thankfully balance changes have helped build diversity greatly.

[mistsim.2748]

@Salt Mode.3780 said:

@mistsim.2748 said:This is just PvP development and balancing 101. They can always just look at what makes MOBAs so successful. I feel CMC has been on this track, so yes I believe in him. His adjustments have led to lots of build diversity over the last year or two, but we'll always be limited by the lame game mode. I will remind you just how BAD build variety and power creep were pre-CMC.

I don't understand where this is going with this comment but removing amulets and nerfing builds will only streamline meta thinner and thinner into it being you play this build or nothing else works. I can't believe people are still justifying that the February balance patch was a step towards a right direction.

You just have to read my entire post to understand what I'm saying. Feb patch was absolutely in the right direction, but if you disagree with this statement, then you won't like my post.

There's no hard rule about removing or adding things. Meta is thin by definition. You're confusing meta with build variety.

[ellesee.8297]

@Shao.7236 said:

@ellesee.8297 said:Condi engi doesnt exist in the meta. If you dont want to take my word for it, ask any good player. It's a meme.

Nothing that'll ever take /some/ effort to play will exist in the meta.

It doesnt exist in the meta because it objectively doesnt output as much damage and/or doesnt have the survivability as the meta builds. This makes it bad, a meme if you will.

You did this in the other thread too. Nobody cares how much effort it takes. It is an irrelevant point. The real issue is that it is just bad. It doesnt keep up with an actual build even if you were to put in the maximum effort.

[Salt Mode.3780]

@mistsim.2748 said:

@Salt Mode.3780 said:

@mistsim.2748 said:This is just PvP development and balancing 101. They can always just look at what makes MOBAs so successful. I feel CMC has been on this track, so yes I believe in him. His adjustments have led to lots of build diversity over the last year or two, but we'll always be limited by the lame game mode. I will remind you just how BAD build variety and power creep were pre-CMC.

I don't understand where this is going with this comment but removing amulets and nerfing builds will only streamline meta thinner and thinner into it being you play this build or nothing else works. I can't believe people are still justifying that the February balance patch was a step towards a right direction.

You just have to read my entire post to understand what I'm saying. Feb patch was absolutely in the right direction, but if you disagree with this statement, then you won't like my post.

There's no hard rule about removing or adding things. Meta is thin by definition. You're confusing meta with build variety.

The February patch was a lazy patch, one size does not fit all ESP towards the CC dmg nerfs and the passive nerfs. There is nothing to justify how lazy the patch was, and them removing amulets again is just another lazy way to remove problematic builds.

[Shao.7236]

@ellesee.8297 said:

@Shao.7236 said:

@ellesee.8297 said:Condi engi doesnt exist in the meta. If you dont want to take my word for it, ask any good player. It's a meme.

Nothing that'll ever take /some/ effort to play will exist in the meta.

It doesnt exist in the meta because it objectively doesnt output as much damage and/or doesnt have the survivability as the meta builds. This makes it bad, a meme if you will.

You did this in the other thread too. Nobody cares how much effort it takes. It is an irrelevant point. The real issue is that it is just bad. It doesnt keep up with an actual build even if you were to put in the maximum effort.

Lol, that's where you're wrong and have been taking the pleasure to stream it for a while. I've in fact got a few occasions where Naru fell on his holo because of that build and he's lost the only encounter he had Vs me with it. Keep on blabbering, I'm not even the best there is and it's working fine, that's not counting every 1v1 I won either, I've got way more gathered than I'd have losses while I was learning and where I am now combined.

Meta = Lowest effort for highest reward. There is no such thing as high skill in anything that's meta. You'll never see condi engineer being meta without it being an absolute braindead build, period.

[Kuma.1503]

@mistsim.2748 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@mistsim.2748 said:

This mantra that taking things out is bad, or that nerfing is always bad and buffing good, is idiotic.

Why is it always the same straw man with you guys?

"Hey, nerfs are great and all, but maybe buff underperformers too"?

"U just think nerfing is always bad and buffing is gud"

Or in Justice's case, he points out that that buffs and nerfs are equally effective/innefective and are a complete red herring in the first place (there was a multi-page argument about this). His stance is that looking at buffs/nerfs as the sole means of balancing a game is a common mistake people and devs make, yet here we are again with the same strawman

"U just think nerfing is always bad and buffing is gud"

This is getting old. There's a good reason why the community shrank to an even smaller fraction of what it was since Feb 2020, and there's a reason why it continues to shrink. And yet, every time someone tries to shed light on why that is, this same over-used strawman inevitably pops up.

[ellesee.8297]

@Shao.7236 said:

@ellesee.8297 said:

@Shao.7236 said:

@ellesee.8297 said:Condi engi doesnt exist in the meta. If you dont want to take my word for it, ask any good player. It's a meme.

Nothing that'll ever take /some/ effort to play will exist in the meta.

It doesnt exist in the meta because it objectively doesnt output as much damage and/or doesnt have the survivability as the meta builds. This makes it bad, a meme if you will.

You did this in the other thread too. Nobody cares how much effort it takes. It is an irrelevant point. The real issue is that it is just bad. It doesnt keep up with an actual build even if you were to put in the maximum effort.

some dumb shit

Are you saying if your build took less effort, it would then be meta? That it could match the survivability and damage of other meta builds? And that meta builds are all braindead and the top tier players are all just low tier trash being carried by their builds? This is the logical conclusion of your statements right?

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@Shao.7236 said:Meta = Lowest effort for highest reward. There is no such thing as high skill in anything that's meta. You'll never see condi engineer being meta without it being an absolute braindead build, period.

thats really not the case and you only have to look at past metas to see why

[Crozame.4098]

@mistsim.2748 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@mistsim.2748 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

The solution is not to remove environments ..that doesn't work either. Every bad suggestion you've thrown around and we suffer through them because THIS line of thinking...removing amulets, removing game-modes is what CMC is listening to and actually doing is slowly but surely tearing apart his own game because people don't bother to do just a little bit of thinking on the subject and instead just throw around bias, subjective answers... like "oh i think its more diverse because i play ranger now" is a subjective and bias view point.

Ok big man, sounds like you know exactly how to fix this game. When's your first day on the job?

Your solution is to remove PVP from PVP. Are you so oblivious to the fact that you would see the same meta behavior taking place in 2v2/3v3 game modes in off season? The same kind of convergence to a meta build still appears, and the only reason people don't complain about it is because the season lasts for 2 weeks...not enough time for people to go through all the possibilities to converge.

Basic logical deduction is that the environment has an effect on what KIND of builds are meta...much like how PVE has a set of different builds that define it as being meta...but that NO MATTER what the environment there will ALWAYS be a meta. Removing Conquest will do NOTHING of impact, and replacing it with any game mode will do NOTHING of impact.

You truly have no clue about what you're talking about. I couldn't be happier that opinions like yours have zero influence on balancing decisions. But these are public forums, and you should be allowed to contribute your nonsense if you wish.

No one is saying that there isn't a meta. Or that there shouldn't be one. That's impossible.

I don't care what is removed or added. On the backend what needs to happen is they have to have a vision for each prof. Then decide: how many viable builds do we want to have for a given game mode? You don't leave this is players' hands. There has to be testing and quality assurance. But first you need to know what roles you want to have for the game mode. In Conquest we generally have side noder, roamer, and a bunker or support. ANet had been thoroughly confused about what to do with bunkers and supports. I think the idea is you shouldn't have a bunker + support in one spec, hence the removal of Mender's.

Once the roles are figured out, a DEVELOPER WITH A VISION has to pick how many builds they want for a given profession. My opinion is that at this stage, each prof should have 3 viable builds. You can have a versatile prof, or one that specializes. For example, a ranger could have a side node build, a support build, and a roaming build. Or an Engie can have 3 unique side noding builds. Whatever.

Once you have this pre-selected, you will adjust utilities, weapons, take things out, put things in, whatever it takes. But you stick to the vision: 3 viable builds per profession for Conquest game mode.

I also have an opinion that Conquest will always have a boring meta because the roles are so limited. This is because of king of the hill, so red aoe circle and knocking people off the point will always be good.

This mantra that taking things out is bad, or that nerfing is always bad and buffing good, is idiotic.

This is just PvP development and balancing 101. They can always just look at what makes MOBAs so successful. I feel CMC has been on this track, so yes I believe in him. His adjustments have led to lots of build diversity over the last year or two, but we'll always be limited by the lame game mode. I will remind you just how BAD build variety and power creep were pre-CMC.

You dont understand Chaos theory do you? Then you are wrong because Chaos theory is THE theory for everything, and need to apply Chaos theory for balancing too. This JusticeHunter guy has been explaining and advocating Chaos theory for quite a while, while on the other hand, provide NO objective tangible ideas of how to use it on GW2 balancing.

[Shao.7236]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Shao.7236 said:Meta = Lowest effort for highest reward. There is no such thing as high skill in anything that's meta. You'll never see condi engineer being meta without it being an absolute braindead build, period.

thats really not the case and you only have to look at past metas to see why

I've already did it and the fact people thought having Holosmith hitting for 4k per auto attack or being able to hit people for 3k of unblockable damage per evade among the 20 evades available per minute on Spellbreaker was "high skill", I beg to differ.

@ellesee.8297 said:

@Shao.7236 said:

@ellesee.8297 said:

@Shao.7236 said:

@ellesee.8297 said:Condi engi doesnt exist in the meta. If you dont want to take my word for it, ask any good player. It's a meme.

Nothing that'll ever take /some/ effort to play will exist in the meta.

It doesnt exist in the meta because it objectively doesnt output as much damage and/or doesnt have the survivability as the meta builds. This makes it bad, a meme if you will.

You did this in the other thread too. Nobody cares how much effort it takes. It is an irrelevant point. The real issue is that it is just bad. It doesnt keep up with an actual build even if you were to put in the maximum effort.

some dumb kitten

Are you saying if your build took less effort, it would then be meta? That it could match the survivability and damage of other meta builds? And that meta builds are all braindead and the top tier players are all just low tier trash being carried by their builds? This is the logical conclusion of your statements right?

Why is it so hard to understand that having super survivability and super damage doesn't belong together, you able to comprehend that?

How many different ways does it had to be elaborated that if I'm outplaying someone constantly and they keep surviving it's "braindead". While if I fail once I might as well be dead? Because that's what most meta builds are or were in the past.

Yes, if I just have to press one button to kill someone, surely it's easier than having to press two. For a player to be consistent is where true skill lies because he can handle the many moving parts he is asked to while the other even with one button can't.

There's a lot of good builds out there that require some intricacies and timing that players refuse to wrap their head around because why would they when it's "easier" to press one button under no requirement whatsoever with that meta build, no meta build out there ever had been complicated and it's under their rule as well that even if one build is good but complicated, it'll be overshadowed by anything that's lesser by a noticeable margin but easier to play.

This goes back to my statement as to why MMORPG players are so stuck up with numbers when those are only one part of the machine in GW2 Zzzz.

"Can't burst burn 15 stacks constantly and instantly, therefor build bad."

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Kuma.1503 said:

@mistsim.2748 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@mistsim.2748 said:

This mantra that taking things out is bad, or that nerfing is always bad and buffing good, is idiotic.

Why is it always the same straw man with you guys?

"Hey, nerfs are great and all, but maybe buff underperformers too"?

"U just think nerfing is always bad and buffing is gud"

Or in Justice's case, he points out that that buffs and nerfs are equally effective/innefective and are a complete red herring in the first place (there was a multi-page argument about this). His stance is that looking at buffs/nerfs as the sole means of balancing a game is a common mistake people and devs make, yet here we are again with the same strawman

"U just think nerfing is always bad and buffing is gud"

This is getting old. There's a good reason why the community shrank to an even smaller fraction of what it was since Feb 2020, and there's a reason why it continues to shrink. And yet, every time someone tries to shed light on why that is, this same over-used strawman inevitably pops up.

Ya, People are stuck in a box they can't escape from and god help me I tried to help but it's impossible.

These guys don't want builds (the very thing that defines guilds wars as being guild wars) they want Super Smash Bros or Fortnite. They want all player choice wiped out, and want to play Battle Royale Mode instead of Conquest.

And ya, this strawman is always played and I just don't have it in me anymore to explain something that they clearly won't understand. Looking at this guy @mistsim.2748 's post it's clear to me this guy will never understand anything remotely close to diversity let alone "Balance 101."

@mistsim.2748 said:Once the roles are figured out, a DEVELOPER WITH A VISION....This is just PvP development and balancing 101

@mistsim.2748 I us-to work in business in a creative industry, and I'll tell you what I learned from sitting around in meetings with investors. That every sound-cloud "Rapper" that approaches a record label "has a vision." This is not what people, and investors look for...whether someone has a vision or not...people are interested in whether the vision you have solves a problem and can make money and show real world results. If your vision consistently kills pvp over and over and over again, this is a failed investment and your "vision" was a colossal failure. Do you think CMC doesn't have a vision? Do you think that any developer before them didn't have a vision? Whether they have a vision doesn't matter it's whether that vision actually works or not. Come up to any investor with no knowledge of what you are talking about and find out how far you get...you might be like Theranos and be able to con some people, but the smart ones...the skeptical ones probably wouldn't have wasted their time without actually seeing some kind of shred of evidence of a working prototype of her dream machine.

I've linked on here,

explaining that an exact science is involved in the creation of balancing elements in a game and you know what most people say? "I'm not gonna watch a 1 hour video..." Ya these are the kind of folks you throw their CD in the trash can at one of these meetings. Their salty that they were denied a record deal but that's the reality for these people...most people are purposefully ignorant because they don't want to put in the actual work and effort to figure out how something works.

[Lucentfir.7430]

/popcorn

Where's the rest of the drama at, where's the wagers of gold to back up skill claims and knowledge, and the content videos of 1v1 showdowns :bleep_bloop:

[mistsim.2748]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@Kuma.1503 said:

@mistsim.2748 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@mistsim.2748 said:

This mantra that taking things out is bad, or that nerfing is always bad and buffing good, is idiotic.

Why is it always the same straw man with you guys?

"Hey, nerfs are great and all, but maybe buff underperformers too"?

"U just think nerfing is always bad and buffing is gud"

Or in Justice's case, he points out that that buffs and nerfs are equally effective/innefective and are a complete red herring in the first place (there was a multi-page argument about this). His stance is that looking at buffs/nerfs as the sole means of balancing a game is a common mistake people and devs make, yet here we are again with the same strawman

"U just think nerfing is always bad and buffing is gud"

This is getting old. There's a good reason why the community shrank to an even smaller fraction of what it was since Feb 2020, and there's a reason why it continues to shrink. And yet, every time someone tries to shed light on why that is, this same over-used strawman inevitably pops up.

Ya, People are stuck in a box they can't escape from and god help me I tried to help but it's impossible.

These guys don't want builds (the very thing that defines guilds wars as being guild wars) they want Super Smash Bros or Fortnite. They want all player choice wiped out, and want to play Battle Royale Mode instead of Conquest.

And ya, this strawman is always played and I just don't have it in me anymore to explain something that they clearly won't understand. Looking at this guy @mistsim.2748 's post it's clear to me this guy will

never

understand anything remotely close to diversity let alone "Balance 101."

@mistsim.2748 said:Once the roles are figured out, a DEVELOPER WITH A VISION....This is just PvP development and balancing 101

@mistsim.2748 I us-to work in business in a creative industry, and I'll tell you what I learned from sitting around in meetings with investors. That every sound-cloud "Rapper" that approaches a record label "has a vision." This is not what people, and investors look for...whether someone has a vision or not...people are interested in whether the vision you have solves a problem and can make money and show real world results. If your vision consistently kills pvp over and over and over again, this is a failed investment and your "vision" was a colossal failure. Do you think CMC doesn't have a vision? Do you think that any developer before them didn't have a vision? Whether they have a vision doesn't matter it's whether that vision actually works or not. Come up to any investor with no knowledge of what you are talking about and find out how far you get...you might be like Theranos and be able to con some people, but the smart ones...the skeptical ones probably wouldn't have wasted their time without actually seeing some kind of shred of evidence of a working prototype of her dream machine.

I've linked on here,

explaining that

an exact science

is involved in the creation of balancing elements in a game and you know what most people say? "I'm not gonna watch a 1 hour video..." Ya these are the kind of folks you throw their CD in the trash can at one of these meetings. Their salty that they were denied a record deal but that's the reality for these people...most people are purposefully ignorant because they don't want to put in the actual work and effort to figure out how something works.

/Slowly backs away toward the exit.

[Terrorhuz.4695]

@mistsim.2748 said:Removing overtuned things exposes other overtuned things. Mender was removed but now we have Demolisher, which is really strong for side noding on some specs.

I don't know why others can't see this but it's actually the game mode, Conquest. It needs to be ditched. I've had enough of it after 8.5 years, how about you?

You're always gonna have some kind of quasi bunker, some kind of bursty roamer, a side noder, and 1-2 things in between.

Last year I left because I got tired of fighting against Revs in high ELO. Pretty much Mallyx and Shiro pooping on people. Holos were also overtuned but more manageable.

Came back a month ago, and I like it better. A bit necro heavy but this will improve as we start to see more Spellbreakers.

I think CMCs changes have all been on point, if not too slow at times. But I really think the game is trapped by the bad game mode. Any kind of king of the hill will lead to the same kind of roles, same kind of memes and boring metas.

BRUH EVEN DEMOLISHER IS TOO MUCH NOW?

WTF am I supposed to go after that? I have light armor and moderate HP, am I even allowed to play this game I paid for or my intended role is just to die?

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@Shao.7236 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Shao.7236 said:Meta = Lowest effort for highest reward. There is no such thing as high skill in anything that's meta. You'll never see condi engineer being meta without it being an absolute braindead build, period.

thats really not the case and you only have to look at past metas to see why

I've already did it and the fact people thought having Holosmith hitting for 4k per auto attack or being able to hit people for 3k of unblockable damage per evade among the 20 evades available per minute on Spellbreaker was "high skill", I beg to differ.

what the hell are you talking about?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@mistsim.2748 said:/Slowly backs away toward the exit.

My only reasoning for why you responded like this is that you think it's normal to be mathematically and scientifically illiterate.

But for the majority of the world it's the opposite. If you don't know math and science ... well let's just put it this way...that doctors go to medical school for 8 years for a reason...They have to learn about not just the human body and how to open it up...but they also learn the underlying physics and biology that make the human body function in the first place... That being shocked by electricity to your body can effect the brain because the brain relies on neurons sending electrical signals to other parts of the brain and body...so do you know how electricity works? It comes from understanding the physics of electricity (electromagnetics)...so ya you need to know physics to understand how to not kill somebody on an operating table.

So here you are in this investor meeting trying to explain to everyone that you have this vision, with someone who knows way more then you about balance concepts. And they are attempting to test your knowledge of that field...and your first reaction would be to hit the door? Sorry but if you are leaving, the investors never wanted you anyway...cause clearly if you had a vision you'd be able to address all the problems the investors would have presented to you...did you not understand what I wrote to you man? Giving you critical advise you can use in your real life and not just gw2. What a shame.

[Obtena.7952]

@mistsim.2748 said:Removing overtuned things exposes other overtuned things.

... and as all those overtuned things continue to be 'exposed' and nerfed, eventually you just get down to the lowest common denominator. People, you got this wrong. Changes don't bring things up to the level you want them, they drag things down to the level you don't.

Sure, no one likes to compete against overtuned things ... but what happens when YOUR thing you do becomes the overtuned thing? it's coming ...

[Shao.7236]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Shao.7236 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Shao.7236 said:Meta = Lowest effort for highest reward. There is no such thing as high skill in anything that's meta. You'll never see condi engineer being meta without it being an absolute braindead build, period.

thats really not the case and you only have to look at past metas to see why

I've already did it and the fact people thought having Holosmith hitting for 4k per auto attack or being able to hit people for 3k of unblockable damage per evade among the 20 evades available per minute on Spellbreaker was "high skill", I beg to differ.

what the hell are you talking about?

Pre-Feb GW2.

[ellesee.8297]

@"Shao.7236" said:Why is it so hard to understand that having super survivability and super damage doesn't belong together, you able to comprehend that?

Nobody said anything about "having super survivability and super damage." You are literally the king of strawmen, first with the effort thing and now this. A meta damage dealing build needs to be able to deal damage and needs to be able to survive for a bit when pressured. This doesn't mean that in order to be meta, you must have godlike powers of destruction and defense. That's an incredibly stupid take.

@"Shao.7236" said:How many different ways does it had to be elaborated that if I'm outplaying someone constantly and they keep surviving it's "braindead". While if I fail once I might as well be dead? Because that's what most meta builds are or were in the past.

If you fight someone and they do all kinds of combos on you thay you outplay and avoid, then you counter attack with the pathetic offensive power of the condi engi and dont kill them, that's not the braindead survival power of meta builds, that's just condi engi being terrible. You can apply superhuman effort on a bad build and still have no results, because bad builds are bad.

There's a lot of good builds out there that require some intricacies and timing that players refuse to wrap their head around because why would they when it's "easier" to press one button under no requirement whatsoever with that meta build, no meta build out there ever had been complicated and it's under their rule as well that even if one build is good but complicated, it'll be overshadowed by anything that's lesser by a noticeable margin but easier to play.

Give me an example. What build is being prevented from elevating to the meta?

Also if it's the simplicity of a build that makes it meta, why isnt ft scrapper meta? Surely that is the simplest build to play in the game, but why is it so trash?

@"Shao.7236" said:"Can't burst burn 15 stacks constantly and instantly, therefor build bad."

Point out where I said anything even remotely resembling this. My position has always been if you want to stack many burns, it takes too many utilities to do so and, as a result, your defensives are weak. If you want defensives, then you cannot apply many burns. Burning is important because it is the only way a condi engi can do damage. They cannot stack any other condition well without making enormous sacrifices.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@ellesee.8297 said:You are literally the king of strawmeni've noticed it too

[Shao.7236]

@"ellesee.8297" said:Nobody said anything about "having super survivability and super damage." You are literally the king of strawmen, first with the effort thing and now this. A meta damage dealing build needs to be able to deal damage and needs to be able to survive for a bit when pressured. This doesn't mean that in order to be meta, you must have godlike powers of destruction and defense. That's an incredibly stupid take.Just in general of what people consider meta in this game, what players have been conditioned to expect. Then you have the MMORPG factor players are so stuck up to completely ignoring that this game have skill that matters unlike other MMORPG's.If you fight someone and they do all kinds of combos on you thay you outplay and avoid, then you counter attack with the pathetic offensive power of the condi engi and dont kill them, that's not the braindead survival power of meta builds, that's just condi engi being terrible. You can apply superhuman effort on a bad build and still have no results, because bad builds are bad.Nah, you're missing the point. Someone that gets outplayed in this game right now if not the old Mender Scourge will die eventually. In the pre feb era which I am talking about, that was pretty much the same except under several builds to which still exist but to a more balanced endeavor. I have yet to find a build that doesn't win any encounter if played properly, unless you're going to mash something senseless together. Some do take more skill to work but it's not like you're ever gonna admit to that.Give me an example. What build is being prevented from elevating to the meta? Also if it's the simplicity of a build that makes it meta, why isnt ft scrapper meta? Surely that is the simplest build to play in the game, but why is it so trash?Because there's simplier? Lol, FT is way more complex than just autoattacking but it is what people prefer doing and die for it. You're gonna tell me grenades are "hard"?Point out where I said anything even remotely resembling this. My position has always been if you want to stack many burns, it takes too many utilities to do so and, as a result, your defensives are weak. If you want defensives, then you cannot apply many burns. Burning is important because it is the only way a condi engi can do damage. They cannot stack any other condition well without making enormous sacrifices.Damage comes from a large amount of different sources on top of covering conditions, not burns exclusively, that alone goes to show you're playing the wrong class if you want to do something it wasn't designed for. Tool Kit is built around spamming conditions yet nobody is using that to their advantage and instead complain about not having enough burns even though long lasting Blowtorch burn and easily landed Confusion is EXTREMELY easy to cover and win through War of Attrition.

[Axl.8924]

If hammering condi nec is needed to balance so be it, but preferably we should have specs that counter condi be put in.

Some peeps want specs they don't like to be hit with a wrecking ball, and whe it is, then you end up with a worse game.

I don't think it would be good to ner druid too much.

The game should work like the way darwinism works, the will to survive to avoid predators who hunt you and look for those who you can hunt but also fits within the trio of jobs sidenode roaming group support etc.

Maybe making stronger classes that counter condi again?

[ellesee.8297]

this is pretty dumb. "condi engi is good but you have to outplay the person really really hard." ...then it's not good lmao. let's say condi engi is a 4/10 build, and i'm being generous. let's say it's being played by a 10/10 player fighting a 7/10 player playing spellbreaker, probably a 6-7/10 build. sure the 10/10 condi engi player may win, but it's still a 4/10 build aka it belongs in the bin.

"you win the war of attrition with prybar and blowtorch" what meta side noder do you think you could beat with prybar and blowtorch if you couldn't just massively outplay him? Spellbreaker? Mending has about the same cooldown as prybar and blowtorch. and they have shake it off. what's your setup? Flamethrower + toolkit + S/Egun? One stunbreak and gear shield to defend against a spellbreaker offensive. Good memes. Spellbreaker is probably one of the worse side noders in the current metagame too. What chance is there against something like a prot holo?

also "FT scrapper is as or more complex of a build than nade holo". ok my guy. you win. how can i rebut something as flawlessly sound as that?