My idea for nerfing scourge in barriers and making it in line:

[Axl.8924]

4 minutes ago, anbujackson.9564 said:

Yes precisely, the game isnt designed around such numbers.

 

But if people keep saying "my class does 36k damage now, its finally decent/average! but class xyz does 40k, so my class despite its utility and despite how easy it is to play, is not busted since there are classes with more dps!"

And with this mindset nothing will change. I could say its naive behavior but that would be rude I guess...

 

Maybe then they should nerf other classes down then? It makes the game too ez to have so much dmg.

 

I'm not against fixing problems for nec, but this mentality has to stop,  as if we keep this up the dmg will be able to solo raid bosses with 2 peeps.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Axl.8924

[anbujackson.9564]

1 hour ago, Axl.8924 said:

 

Maybe then they should nerf other classes down then? It makes the game too ez to have so much dmg.

 

I'm not against fixing problems for nec, but this mentality has to stop,  as if we keep this up the dmg will be able to solo raid bosses with 2 peeps.

The outrage would be unimaginable since a lot of people like those big numbers. And there would be arguments like: "Those numbers were only achieved by the toxic elite players, now we casuals have a harder time with the content!" I called it in advance. It was already the same with staff mirage after the first nerf which reduced the damage by 2k at most maybe. Literally unplayable, everything "fun" gets destroyed blabla.

 

And you already see what you fear the most. 4-5 men largos because of staff mirage, 5 men sabetha... I dont know man. Just imagine being a dev and you spend weeks and months on creating this content just to waste all that effort because dps is so high that mechanics dont matter. Nobody should be surprised if raids wont be released anymore.

[Axl.8924]

21 minutes ago, anbujackson.9564 said:

The outrage would be unimaginable since a lot of people like those big numbers. And there would be arguments like: "Those numbers were only achieved by the toxic elite players, now we casuals have a harder time with the content!" I called it in advance. It was already the same with staff mirage after the first nerf which reduced the damage by 2k at most maybe. Literally unplayable, everything "fun" gets destroyed blabla.

 

And you already see what you fear the most. 4-5 men largos because of staff mirage, 5 men sabetha... I dont know man. Just imagine being a dev and you spend weeks and months on creating this content just to waste all that effort because dps is so high that mechanics dont matter. Nobody should be surprised if raids wont be released anymore.

 

And then you have complaints about catchup why do i do 33k while ele does 42k then buncha folks do 50k

 

Even with the complaints it has to be done, because its making the game too ez.
If Anet doesn't curb the power creep before its too late, its going to kill the game.

 

 

In fact i'd happily take nerf on nec to 32k if others get nerfed down to 32k same as reaper.

 

 

Edited June 21, 2021 by Axl.8924

[Obtena.7952]

9 hours ago, anbujackson.9564 said:

You know what I hate the most? That there is no real support needed anymore.

Well, here is the irony ... this game doesn't REQUIRE any 'real' support to be needed in the first place since the idea is that everyone can play how they want ... and it's no coincidence that the game DOES work that way because people can be in teams, play as much or as little support as they please and still be successful. Seems to me that just giving people lots of 'gross' things is actually a VALID strategy to enabling people to play whatever builds they want. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Nimon.7840]

Don't worry y'all. Soon we will get even more overpowered elite specs xD 

[anbujackson.9564]

7 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Well, here is the irony ... this game doesn't REQUIRE any 'real' support to be needed in the first place since the idea is that everyone can play how they want ... and it's no coincidence that the game DOES work that way because people can be in teams, play as much or as little support as they please and still be successful. Seems to me that just giving people lots of 'gross' things is actually a VALID strategy to enabling people to play whatever builds they want. 

I get your point on this but it doesnt change the fact that this approach right now is unhealthy.

 

Sure if you give everyone more damage and more utility you will see different stuff running around. Everyone can clear all the content and so on.

 

But let me give you an example:

You have a 10man squad which is doing raid progression, Gorseval in this case.

Before the balance patch:

> The group fails the DPS check and has to take updrafts. The last phase even with an updraft is close.

 

After the balance patch:

> The groups meets the check, but their general performance is the same (like bad handling of mechanics). No updrafts were needed. 

 

Do you think that this is the right way?

[Axl.8924]

1 hour ago, anbujackson.9564 said:

I get your point on this but it doesnt change the fact that this approach right now is unhealthy.

 

Sure if you give everyone more damage and more utility you will see different stuff running around. Everyone can clear all the content and so on.

 

But let me give you an example:

You have a 10man squad which is doing raid progression, Gorseval in this case.

Before the balance patch:

> The group fails the DPS check and has to take updrafts. The last phase even with an updraft is close.

 

After the balance patch:

> The groups meets the check, but their general performance is the same (like bad handling of mechanics). No updrafts were needed. 

 

Do you think that this is the right way?

Not to mention also that people who master a class will be way over performing over the others, causing even more issues, and classes who have less damage will cry until they get buffed to the level of the top one and it all repeats until dmg is so high that you can solo a raid boss.

[Obtena.7952]

4 hours ago, anbujackson.9564 said:

I get your point on this but it doesnt change the fact that this approach right now is unhealthy.

 

Sure if you give everyone more damage and more utility you will see different stuff running around. Everyone can clear all the content and so on.

 

But let me give you an example:

You have a 10man squad which is doing raid progression, Gorseval in this case.

Before the balance patch:

> The group fails the DPS check and has to take updrafts. The last phase even with an updraft is close.

 

After the balance patch:

> The groups meets the check, but their general performance is the same (like bad handling of mechanics). No updrafts were needed. 

 

Do you think that this is the right way?

What I (or anyone) thinks is the right way is irrelevant. What is relevant is what Anet wants to allow players to do in the game. If giving everyone 'gross' support enables people to play whatever builds they want in PVE (and I can see why it would be the case), then it's a valid strategy for Anet to introduce into the game for them.

 

Sure, if everyone gets gross support, it trivializes the game to some extent. But that doesn't seem to be anyone's concern. For some reason, people continued to be focused on the irrelevant points .. like how they think the game should work or how the game should be 'balanced' when no one has a clue what that means.  

Edited June 22, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Obtena.7952]

2 hours ago, Axl.8924 said:

Not to mention also that people who master a class will be way over performing over the others,

That isn't a problem. People that master a class SHOULD overperform over people that don't. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Axl.8924]

17 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

That isn't a problem. People that master a class SHOULD overperform over people that don't. 

It is if you have a calss that is overperforming a lot on unskilled players, because in the hands of a very competent player, the damage will be way higher than it should be.

 

Imagine if eles in  hands of a incompetent was around 44-45 but competent one was 55-56k

[Obtena.7952]

5 minutes ago, Axl.8924 said:

It is if you have a calss that is overperforming a lot on unskilled players, because in the hands of a very competent player, the damage will be way higher than it should be.

 

Imagine if eles in  hands of a incompetent was around 44-45 but competent one was 55-56k

Again, that's expected ... skilled player will perform higher and SHOULD get better DPS than unskilled ones. What the damage should be ... that's not up to us to decide.

 

Imagine all the scenarios you want. They aren't relevant. I mean ... OK an unskilled player gets 45K DPS ... does the game implode or something? Do we hit Armageddon? Ragnarok? It wouldn't actually be that big a deal if that happened. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Axl.8924]

Just now, Obtena.7952 said:

Again, that's expected ... skilled player will perform higher and SHOULD get better DPS than unskilled ones. What the damage should be ... that's not up to us to decide. 

 

I understand what you mean, but having DPS above 40k becomes problematic, and scourge is very near 40k right now, so its part of the problem.

[Obtena.7952]

4 minutes ago, Axl.8924 said:

 

I understand what you mean, but having DPS above 40k becomes problematic, and scourge is very near 40k right now, so its part of the problem.

No it doesn't. Explain what you mean ">40K = problematic" ... What "problem" exists when people get over 40K? Are you aware that high skilled players have been hitting these benchmarks for many years now right? ... and it's NOT a problem right?

 

This is just more example of you making up things that don't mean anything to justify your bad idea. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Axl.8924]

4 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

No it doesn't. Explain what you mean ">40K = problematic" ... What "problem" exists when people get over 40K?

The more DPS you have, the more you are able to circumvent mechanics earlier.

 

Having lower dps on everyone makes raids take longer and you would have to dodge more, and more challenge in needing to avoid the attacks of the raid boss.

 

It also puts more requirement on full on support.

 

If you do too much dmg, you get to a point where a single character might be even to solo champions who they ought not to be able to.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Axl.8924

[Obtena.7952]

25 minutes ago, Axl.8924 said:

The more DPS you have, the more you are able to circumvent mechanics earlier.

 

Having lower dps on everyone makes raids take longer and you would have to dodge more, and more challenge in needing to avoid the attacks of the raid boss.

 

It also puts more requirement on full on support.

 

If you do too much dmg, you get to a point where a single character might be even to solo champions who they ought not to be able to.

OK ... what gives you the impression this is a problem though? Put it this way ... if it's a problem, then why has Anet designed and implemented the game in a way that allows these things and allow people to play how they want? 

 

It's not a problem. YOU are not in a position to claim people shouldn't be soloing champs because you don't know if they shouldn't be able to do that. You're just making up things as you go. 

 

You are ignoring the fact that the things you see as 'problems' have been part of how the game works since the beginning. The only problem here is that you have a bad idea for changing Scourge that doesn't align to how the game works. I mean, how can anyone think it's a problem that skilled players get good DPS compared to unskilled ones? That's absurd! Also, if you think unskilled players are getting anything near 40K DPS on Scourge ... then your imagination is working overtime. 

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Dadnir.5038]

52 minutes ago, Axl.8924 said:

The more DPS you have, the more you are able to circumvent mechanics earlier.

 

Having lower dps on everyone makes raids take longer and you would have to dodge more, and more challenge in needing to avoid the attacks of the raid boss.

 

It also puts more requirement on full on support.

 

You can make numbers say anything, I see that everyday in the news on TV.

If you just care to look at the benchmark:

- Realistic buff: 36k

- Unrealistic buff: 37.8k

- With FB/renegade buff: probably close to 40k

 

And what's funny is that it's true for every condition build that benchmark at >36k realistic buff. Which mean that based on snowcrow benchmark, it's true for: Tempest, daredevil, renegade, weaver, firebrand, soulbeast, deadeye, holosmith, berserker. Only Mesmer is 1k behind while some of the listed profession are close to 40k with realistic buff, which mean they can very well each 44k with unrealistic/FB/Renegade buff.

 

The only reason there is unrest is that scourge offer a cushion named barrier which is solid when you stack scourge to a certain amount. Yet, if you take a lonely scourge this cushion is far from enough to keep the group "solid".

 

From a "meta" perspective, it mean that despite the "40k", you are not min-maxing, you're sacrificing 10% effectiveness to survivability. Which make you an "off-meta" option, sure you're a solid option, yet you stay "off-meta" because you could be more "effective".

 

Why do people condemn the scourge? Because it's "cushion" threaten the pur offensive meta to which they are accustomed. It's good enough to complete the content with ease despite having group survivability they are not mentally ready to take themself at the cost of a bit of their precious meta damage. 

 

NB.: It's important to keep in mind that every profession have at least a build that outdps the so called OP scourge.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Dadnir.5038

[anbujackson.9564]

20 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

OK ... what gives you the impression this is a problem though? Put it this way ... if it's a problem, then why has Anet designed and implemented the game in a way that allows these things and allow people to play how they want? 

 

It's not a problem. YOU are not in a position to claim people shouldn't be soloing champs because you don't know if they shouldn't be able to do that. You're just making up things as you go. 

 

You are ignoring the fact that the things you see as 'problems' have been part of how the game works since the beginning. The only problem here is that you have a bad idea for changing Scourge that doesn't align to how the game works. I mean, how can anyone think it's a problem that skilled players get good DPS compared to unskilled ones? That's absurd! Also, if you think unskilled players are getting anything near 40K DPS on Scourge ... then your imagination is working overtime. 

 

You are right that we don't know, its our own reasoning only because thats what would make sense to us. 

 

But:

There are also situations in which ANET showed that some changes are just made because of a principle in their heads. What they thought or still think is right, despite being wrong.. I repeat the statement of tradeoffs.

- Scourge loosing self shade, which was reversed more than one year later. Why? Who knows, maybe the outrage was big enough or they saw how unfun and clunky scourge got because of it? The same can be said about chronomancer IP and PBM holo

 

- Berserker loosing core bursts and having no way to use adrenalin outside of its mode which you cant exit. I dont have to explain this further because you think that's bad design too (I read your topic about it) since a lot of traits are useless this way. At the end that's still only our opinion though, just like the limit to DPS and support cappabilities. You dont know if its ANET's intention as another tradeoff of playing berserker. To them it may be good design to be 80% useless because you deal so much damage while being in berserker mode (which you dont, but thats what they have in mind when they see this spec). So why did you decide to make that topic in the first place, if you dont know their intentions yourself? And why shouldnt other people do the same when it comes to powercreep?

 

Bad class design which is not thought out VS bad balancing which trivializes the game and makes it unfun in the long run

 

Both not making sense to me, dont you agree?

[anbujackson.9564]

16 minutes ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

 

You can make numbers say anything, I see that everyday in the news on TV.

If you just care to look at the benchmark:

- Realistic buff: 36k

- Unrealistic buff: 37.8k

- With FB/renegade buff: probably close to 40k

 

And what's funny is that it's true for every condition build that benchmark at >36k realistic buff. Which mean that based on snowcrow benchmark, it's true for: Tempest, daredevil, renegade, weaver, firebrand, soulbeast, deadeye, holosmith, berserker. Only Mesmer is 1k behind while some of the listed profession are close to 40k with realistic buff, which mean they can very well each 44k with unrealistic/FB/Renegade buff.

 

The only reason there is unrest is that scourge offer a cushion named barrier which is solid when you stack scourge to a certain amount. Yet, if you take a lonely scourge this cushion is far from enough to keep the group "solid".

 

From a "meta" perspective, it mean that despite the "40k", you are not min-maxing, you're sacrificing 10% effectiveness to survivability. Which make you an "off-meta" option, sure you're a solid option, yet you stay "off-meta" because you could be more "effective".

 

Why do people condemn the scourge? Because it's "cushion" threaten the pur offensive meta to which they are accustomed. It's good enough to complete the content with ease despite having group survivability they are not mentally ready to take themself at the cost of a bit of their precious meta damage. 

 

NB.: It's important to keep in mind that every profession have at least a build that outdps the so called OP scourge.

 

Its funny really. You say that numbers dont mean anything in the end but use benchmark numbers at the same time yourself.

 

You might as well ask the people that do those benchmarks, like roul for ele which has 40k benchmarks (go ahead and read his latest reddit post after the patch on 8th June). In real fights, in which you have to deal with mechanics and such, those pretty numbers dont matter because in the end doing these mechanics while at the same keeping your dps up will yield you a higher dps at the end than a class that can do only one thing at a time, damage or mechanic.

 

Firebrand und renegade nerfs are wanted since before the may patch. Just because they rather get buffs (because of this non sense torment change) doesnt mean 36k is ok now. You just dont get the problem. In your opinion scourge doing 39-40k would still be okay because other classes can do the same damage, too.

 

Classes shouldnt be buffed to this absurd powerlevel. Firebrand isnt the golden standard ANET should want for every class. Just like renegade shouldnt be. 

[Dadnir.5038]

3 hours ago, anbujackson.9564 said:

 

Its funny really. You say that numbers dont mean anything in the end but use benchmark numbers at the same time yourself.

 

You might as well ask the people that do those benchmarks, like roul for ele which has 40k benchmarks (go ahead and read his latest reddit post after the patch on 8th June). In real fights, in which you have to deal with mechanics and such, those pretty numbers dont matter because in the end doing these mechanics while at the same keeping your dps up will yield you a higher dps at the end than a class that can do only one thing at a time, damage or mechanic.

 

Firebrand und renegade nerfs are wanted since before the may patch. Just because they rather get buffs (because of this non sense torment change) doesnt mean 36k is ok now. You just dont get the problem. In your opinion scourge doing 39-40k would still be okay because other classes can do the same damage, too.

 

Classes shouldnt be buffed to this absurd powerlevel. Firebrand isnt the golden standard ANET should want for every class. Just like renegade shouldnt be. 

 

I think you don't get my point at all. So I'll try to rephrase it.

 

The benchmark show the ceiling that each profession have under the same realistic buff. The scourge have a low ceiling but can provide group survivability alongside this low ceiling. Profession at 40k have a high ceiling but can't provide group survivability at this ceiling, which doesn't mean that they can't provide group survivability if they lower their dps to scourge level.

 

And no, in my opinion, doing 39-40k have nothing to do with being ok or not. It's simply that you cannot do those 39-40k alone. In the end it is a group effort. If you only take scourge within your squad, you'll do below 36k dps even if you're rotation is perfect because you'll neither have alacrity nor quickness. You won't have warrior banner either. You won't have kallah's skills that allow to add bleed stack on hit nor the skill that allow to siphon health. You won't have FB's proc that allow you to apply a burn stack. You won't have the ranger's sun spirit that add a burn stack on hit either... etc. When 40k is said, all of this is taken into account.

 

What I'm trying to say is that people point out scourge 40k without taking into account that under the same condition, these 40k stay 4k (or 10%) below the top dps, hat those 40k are achievable by all professions, that it is the current average. The argument that other profession have a "harder" time reaching their own ceiling under the stess of a "real fight" isn't really realist since scourge is under the same stress, with it's own rotation shenanigan (Obnoxious traits invisible ICDs). In anyway, you'll have a heal to support you throught your rotation, maybe even someone giving you barrier since it's a group content and the fault numbers are directly dependant of being within a group.

 

You'd like the average dps to go down to 30k, sure but scourge isn't even beginning to be one of the reason the average dps is above 30k. Scourge provide nothing increasing dps except a bit of might.

 

NB.: I said that number mean nothing because number are thrown without a field of comparisons. The claim is basically "scourge do close to 40k, it's outrageous". When reality is that: "Scourge do close to 40k, so does almost every professions in the game". The claim without context lead to the bold and dumb: "Nerf scourge damage". The claim within context lead to: "Is 40k an average dps acceptable? If not should it be lowered and how? If it is, should scourge group survivability be nerfed in order to increase it's dps/risk ratio?"

[Obtena.7952]

11 hours ago, anbujackson.9564 said:

You are right that we don't know, its our own reasoning only because thats what would make sense to us. 

 

But:

There are also situations in which ANET showed that some changes are just made because of a principle in their heads. What they thought or still think is right, despite being wrong.. I repeat the statement of tradeoffs.

- Scourge loosing self shade, which was reversed more than one year later. Why? Who knows, maybe the outrage was big enough or they saw how unfun and clunky scourge got because of it? The same can be said about chronomancer IP and PBM holo

 

- Berserker loosing core bursts and having no way to use adrenalin outside of its mode which you cant exit. I dont have to explain this further because you think that's bad design too (I read your topic about it) since a lot of traits are useless this way. At the end that's still only our opinion though, just like the limit to DPS and support cappabilities. You dont know if its ANET's intention as another tradeoff of playing berserker. To them it may be good design to be 80% useless because you deal so much damage while being in berserker mode (which you dont, but thats what they have in mind when they see this spec). So why did you decide to make that topic in the first place, if you dont know their intentions yourself? And why shouldnt other people do the same when it comes to powercreep?

 

Bad class design which is not thought out VS bad balancing which trivializes the game and makes it unfun in the long run

 

Both not making sense to me, dont you agree?

I don't think we are seeing bad design OR bad balancing here because to make the conclusion it's 'bad', you need to know what Anet's targets and goals are for design and balance in the first place ... and you don't. Actually, that's not entirely true ... Anet gives us LOTS of hints about what their goals are for design (e.g., playing how you want) and balance (many statements in May 11 patch notes about what they find acceptable and not). So based on those things, as I said before ...

 

If giving everyone 'gross' support enables people to play whatever builds they want in PVE (and I can see why it would be the case), then it's a valid strategy for Anet to introduce into the game for them.

Edited June 23, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[anbujackson.9564]

11 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I don't think we are seeing bad design OR bad balancing here because to make the conclusion it's 'bad', you need to know what Anet's targets and goals are for design and balance in the first place ... and you don't. Actually, that's not entirely true ... Anet gives us LOTS of hints about what their goals are for design (e.g., playing how you want) and balance (many statements in May 11 patch notes about what they find acceptable and not). So based on those things, as I said before ...

 

If giving everyone 'gross' support enables people to play whatever builds they want in PVE (and I can see why it would be the case), then it's a valid strategy for Anet to introduce into the game for them.

So why did you make the topic about berserker after the rework in the first place if you say right now that we cant judge design choices because we dont know the goals? You completely ignored that part. Its a contradiction in what you did and what you say right now.

[anbujackson.9564]

13 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

 

I think you don't get my point at all. So I'll try to rephrase it.

 

The benchmark show the ceiling that each profession have under the same realistic buff. The scourge have a low ceiling but can provide group survivability alongside this low ceiling. Profession at 40k have a high ceiling but can't provide group survivability at this ceiling, which doesn't mean that they can't provide group survivability if they lower their dps to scourge level.

 

And no, in my opinion, doing 39-40k have nothing to do with being ok or not. It's simply that you cannot do those 39-40k alone. In the end it is a group effort. If you only take scourge within your squad, you'll do below 36k dps even if you're rotation is perfect because you'll neither have alacrity nor quickness. You won't have warrior banner either. You won't have kallah's skills that allow to add bleed stack on hit nor the skill that allow to siphon health. You won't have FB's proc that allow you to apply a burn stack. You won't have the ranger's sun spirit that add a burn stack on hit either... etc. When 40k is said, all of this is taken into account.

 

What I'm trying to say is that people point out scourge 40k without taking into account that under the same condition, these 40k stay 4k (or 10%) below the top dps, hat those 40k are achievable by all professions, that it is the current average. The argument that other profession have a "harder" time reaching their own ceiling under the stess of a "real fight" isn't really realist since scourge is under the same stress, with it's own rotation shenanigan (Obnoxious traits invisible ICDs). In anyway, you'll have a heal to support you throught your rotation, maybe even someone giving you barrier since it's a group content and the fault numbers are directly dependant of being within a group.

 

You'd like the average dps to go down to 30k, sure but scourge isn't even beginning to be one of the reason the average dps is above 30k. Scourge provide nothing increasing dps except a bit of might.

 

NB.: I said that number mean nothing because number are thrown without a field of comparisons. The claim is basically "scourge do close to 40k, it's outrageous". When reality is that: "Scourge do close to 40k, so does almost every professions in the game". The claim without context lead to the bold and dumb: "Nerf scourge damage". The claim within context lead to: "Is 40k an average dps acceptable? If not should it be lowered and how? If it is, should scourge group survivability be nerfed in order to increase it's dps/risk ratio?"

Well we both have a different opinion on this and thats fine. Let me just point some stuff out again:

- realistic buffs in an unrealistic environment (golem) dont mean anything, elementalist for example is just "fine" in numbers (highest bench in the game, ignoring busted confusion builds) but thats it, next to unachievable in raids let alone doing the same number on a golem yourself

Also again: No other class than scourge is almost as potent in range as in melee. Your utility is high at a minor dps loss since your only real fixed utility skill on the spots 7-9 is BIP. Of course its not firebrand like high but literally no class can compete with that. What does ele have (especially weaver)? Thief on non ecto encounters? Warrior if you exclude banners (going support traits completely guts your damage for 5man buffs/boons, which are bad or not worth)? Or any engi dps build? 

- benchmarks on classes are grinded while using partly unrealistic precasts (scourge has next to none RNG and shade precasts is done in seconds, even before the fight started)

- IMO the biggest reason scourge cant have high single target dps is its cleave (ignoring barrier for now which makes you ignore attacks and mechanics). I already explained why and all your skills doing more damage makes their cleave even stronger. Just think about old epidemic bouncing when their own single dps was (way) below 30k.

Edited June 23, 2021 by anbujackson.9564

[Dadnir.5038]

6 minutes ago, anbujackson.9564 said:

No other class than scourge is almost as potent in range as in melee. Your utility is high at a minor dps loss since your only real fixed utility skill on the spots 7-9 is BIP. Of course its not firebrand like high but literally no class can compete with that. What does ele have (especially weaver)? Thief on non ecto encounters? Warrior if you exclude banners (going support traits completely guts your damage for 5man buffs/boons, which are bad or not worth)? Or any engi dps build? 

 

That's an interesting question.

 

All those professions have reliable blast finishers and, except thiefs they all have fire field. Technically it make those profession able to litterally fart might. Ecto or not, thief can provide group swiftness/fury/vigor and some might by just using steal (I mean, you just need to change 1 trait on a 40k dps build to provide this support, take 2 thiefs and we talk about perma upkeep). Going support gut warrior's damage? Is "for great justice!" harder to take than BiP (bonus is that you bring fury with it)? Every engi dps build just need to switch a single trait for pinpoint distribution, every single one of these builds have access to both fire fields and blasts (Switching a single trait, that's one heavy investment we are talking about here). Weaver? The condi build have neither toughness nor immobilize yet take a trait that need both while it could provide stab by switching this trait (it also use focus so anyway, it's free might for everyone thank to transmute fire. Worse, it's even part of the rotation! Which mean the support is already provided to blind people that think weaver don't provide support!). Feel like weaver builds lack easy access to blast, change the random meta heal by arcane brillance (wow! you can now exploit your various field with ease and provide group support with minimum amount of brain investment!)

 

 

Is other profession's support really so difficult to see/find?

[Obtena.7952]

5 hours ago, anbujackson.9564 said:

So why did you make the topic about berserker after the rework in the first place if you say right now that we cant judge design choices because we dont know the goals? You completely ignored that part. Its a contradiction in what you did and what you say right now.

let's just say I'm being 'polite' when I use the term 'we'. What I really mean is 'we' is everyone that applies their own vision of the game to conclude something is bad. I'm not including myself in that 'we' because when I complain about something, I'm always trying to keep the Anet perspective in mind. If a person is astute enough, you can see evidence of what that perspective is based on how Anet acts ... and most people aren't that astute.

 

As I said ... I see how the changes Anet are making here are inline with evidence of how they want to design and balance the game. There are no contradictions. On the other hand, the suggestion in this thread ... is NOT aligned to how I see Anet design and balance the game. I see no evidence of Anet making hard divides between support and DPS choices players have to achieve ANY of their design goals. 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Axl.8924]

5 hours ago, anbujackson.9564 said:

So why did you make the topic about berserker after the rework in the first place if you say right now that we cant judge design choices because we dont know the goals? You completely ignored that part. Its a contradiction in what you did and what you say right now.

I dunno about berserker but i don't know if nec can be compared to zerker, considering they use a lot of stuns and other mechanics can they?