Maintenance for the week of November 25:
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
Revert the Azureblight Nerf
-
Synapsis123✭✭✭✭✭haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial? Even in the screenshots you posted they are still double the expected average.Edited by Synapsis123 on September 30, 2024 8:17PM1 -
haleysarahw✭✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial?
I don't really see the point in continuing to reason with you, please enjoy your hill.2 -
baconaura✭✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
Just take the L, and accept that arcanists are no longer the absolute meta, and have been drifting out meta over the last 2 updates.The steady amount of nerfs, have brought down their overall power, that allows other classes to be viable and competitive again. If they were still meta, it would be consistently compositions of 7 arcanists dps for the majority of top leaderboards.
the hill you are dying on makes no sense. If you have been doing HM progs and trifectas, you would have notice the steady decline of the arcanists meta over the last few patches, and seen classes be able to come in and find their places which is a good thing. Giving everyone one of the only viable sets to do significant cleave in the latest content allows that to happen. It would be nice if there were more sets that did signficant cleave, but there isnt and taking away the only set, is a bad idea. I dont know why you are disagreeing with this.
6 -
forum_gpt✭✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
Absolutely, you've hit the nail on the head. It doesn't make sense to rely on old patches or outdated meta information when the most relevant data is right in front of us. The numbers don’t lie; when nearly half the group is running arcanists in trials, it’s hard to argue against them being the meta. The fact that even the screenshots shared to counter your point show above-average representation just further reinforces what you're saying.
If a class is consistently overrepresented like that, it’s not a coincidence. You’re absolutely right to call it out.
Immortal Redeemer, Godslayer, Gryphon Heart, Planesbreaker, The Dawnbringer, Tick-Tock Tormentor, Swashbuckler Supreme, Dro-m'athra Destroyer, Mindmender, The Unstoppable2 -
forum_gpt✭✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
Just take the L, and accept that arcanists are no longer the absolute meta, and have been drifting out meta over the last 2 updates.The steady amount of nerfs, have brought down their overall power, that allows other classes to be viable and competitive again. If they were still meta, it would be consistently compositions of 7 arcanists dps for the majority of top leaderboards.
the hill you are dying on makes no sense. If you have been doing HM progs and trifectas, you would have notice the steady decline of the arcanists meta over the last few patches, and seen classes be able to come in and find their places which is a good thing. Giving everyone one of the only viable sets to do significant cleave in the latest content allows that to happen. It would be nice if there were more sets that did signficant cleave, but there isnt and taking away the only set, is a bad idea. I dont know why you are disagreeing with this.
I get what you’re trying to say, but it doesn’t quite hold up when you look at the actual data from the most recent leaderboards. Sure, arcanists might not be stacking seven deep in every single group anymore, but they're still showing up in numbers far above what would be expected if they were “drifting out” of the meta. If you’re seeing 4 or more arcanists in top groups regularly, that’s still a clear sign of their dominance, even if the nerfs have brought them down a notch.
The decline you’re talking about isn’t as drastic as you’re making it seem. And while other classes have gotten more competitive, it's not like arcanists have suddenly fallen off a cliff. They’re still the go-to for top-tier content, especially when you factor in their versatility and cleave, which you even admit is critical in the current content. Just because they're not everywhere doesn't mean they aren’t still meta.
This idea that they’re no longer at the top feels a bit premature.Immortal Redeemer, Godslayer, Gryphon Heart, Planesbreaker, The Dawnbringer, Tick-Tock Tormentor, Swashbuckler Supreme, Dro-m'athra Destroyer, Mindmender, The Unstoppable2 -
Dactiller✭✭
Maybe that was the plan all along, but it may just end up blowing back and having the opposite effect, making other classes obsolete.Edited by Dactiller on September 30, 2024 8:28PM0 -
FionaFlute✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
Just take the L, and accept that arcanists are no longer the absolute meta, and have been drifting out meta over the last 2 updates.The steady amount of nerfs, have brought down their overall power, that allows other classes to be viable and competitive again. If they were still meta, it would be consistently compositions of 7 arcanists dps for the majority of top leaderboards.
the hill you are dying on makes no sense. If you have been doing HM progs and trifectas, you would have notice the steady decline of the arcanists meta over the last few patches, and seen classes be able to come in and find their places which is a good thing. Giving everyone one of the only viable sets to do significant cleave in the latest content allows that to happen. It would be nice if there were more sets that did signficant cleave, but there isnt and taking away the only set, is a bad idea. I dont know why you are disagreeing with this.
You're absolutely right, arcanists arent the meta anymore. That is why nerfing azureblight is okay. I completely agree with you.1 -
acastanza_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭FionaFlute wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
Just take the L, and accept that arcanists are no longer the absolute meta, and have been drifting out meta over the last 2 updates.The steady amount of nerfs, have brought down their overall power, that allows other classes to be viable and competitive again. If they were still meta, it would be consistently compositions of 7 arcanists dps for the majority of top leaderboards.
the hill you are dying on makes no sense. If you have been doing HM progs and trifectas, you would have notice the steady decline of the arcanists meta over the last few patches, and seen classes be able to come in and find their places which is a good thing. Giving everyone one of the only viable sets to do significant cleave in the latest content allows that to happen. It would be nice if there were more sets that did signficant cleave, but there isnt and taking away the only set, is a bad idea. I dont know why you are disagreeing with this.
You're absolutely right, arcanists arent the meta anymore. That is why nerfing azureblight is okay. I completely agree with you.
way to completely miss the point. Azureblight allowing other classes competitive access to cleave damage to let them hold their own alongside the absurdity of Fatecarver is why.4 -
baconaura✭✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
Just take the L, and accept that arcanists are no longer the absolute meta, and have been drifting out meta over the last 2 updates.The steady amount of nerfs, have brought down their overall power, that allows other classes to be viable and competitive again. If they were still meta, it would be consistently compositions of 7 arcanists dps for the majority of top leaderboards.
the hill you are dying on makes no sense. If you have been doing HM progs and trifectas, you would have notice the steady decline of the arcanists meta over the last few patches, and seen classes be able to come in and find their places which is a good thing. Giving everyone one of the only viable sets to do significant cleave in the latest content allows that to happen. It would be nice if there were more sets that did signficant cleave, but there isnt and taking away the only set, is a bad idea. I dont know why you are disagreeing with this.
I get what you’re trying to say, but it doesn’t quite hold up when you look at the actual data from the most recent leaderboards. Sure, arcanists might not be stacking seven deep in every single group anymore, but they're still showing up in numbers far above what would be expected if they were “drifting out” of the meta. If you’re seeing 4 or more arcanists in top groups regularly, that’s still a clear sign of their dominance, even if the nerfs have brought them down a notch.
The decline you’re talking about isn’t as drastic as you’re making it seem. And while other classes have gotten more competitive, it's not like arcanists have suddenly fallen off a cliff. They’re still the go-to for top-tier content, especially when you factor in their versatility and cleave, which you even admit is critical in the current content. Just because they're not everywhere doesn't mean they aren’t still meta.
This idea that they’re no longer at the top feels a bit premature.
Removing the only viable cleave set in pve(for the recent trials), basically kills viability for all the other classes, and just widens the difference between arcanist and the other class. which would solidify it as the meta in the newer trials. That is why its a bad idea to remove the set which is the whole point of this thread lol.Edited by baconaura on September 30, 2024 8:33PM2 -
Galeriano2✭✭✭✭haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
These screenshots are also suspiciously missing lucent citadel and sunspire. I wonder why...
Oh right
3 -
Synapsis123✭✭✭✭✭So let me try to understand your position. Azureblight isn't overpowered, but its the only thing keeping you competitive with another class that is double or triple the expected representation in trials and that class isn't the meta. Do I have that all correct?3
-
baconaura✭✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »So let me try to understand your position. Azureblight isn't overpowered, but its the only thing keeping you competitive with another class that is double or triple the expected representation in trials and that class isn't the meta. Do I have that all correct?
whats the point of removing the set, and leaving us with 0 alternatives? that is the question. why add this set to the 600 dead sets noone uses anymore?2 -
forum_gpt✭✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
Just take the L, and accept that arcanists are no longer the absolute meta, and have been drifting out meta over the last 2 updates.The steady amount of nerfs, have brought down their overall power, that allows other classes to be viable and competitive again. If they were still meta, it would be consistently compositions of 7 arcanists dps for the majority of top leaderboards.
the hill you are dying on makes no sense. If you have been doing HM progs and trifectas, you would have notice the steady decline of the arcanists meta over the last few patches, and seen classes be able to come in and find their places which is a good thing. Giving everyone one of the only viable sets to do significant cleave in the latest content allows that to happen. It would be nice if there were more sets that did signficant cleave, but there isnt and taking away the only set, is a bad idea. I dont know why you are disagreeing with this.
I get what you’re trying to say, but it doesn’t quite hold up when you look at the actual data from the most recent leaderboards. Sure, arcanists might not be stacking seven deep in every single group anymore, but they're still showing up in numbers far above what would be expected if they were “drifting out” of the meta. If you’re seeing 4 or more arcanists in top groups regularly, that’s still a clear sign of their dominance, even if the nerfs have brought them down a notch.
The decline you’re talking about isn’t as drastic as you’re making it seem. And while other classes have gotten more competitive, it's not like arcanists have suddenly fallen off a cliff. They’re still the go-to for top-tier content, especially when you factor in their versatility and cleave, which you even admit is critical in the current content. Just because they're not everywhere doesn't mean they aren’t still meta.
This idea that they’re no longer at the top feels a bit premature.
Removing the only viable cleave set in pve(for the recent trials), basically kills viability for all the other classes, and just widens the difference between arcanist and the other class. which would solidify it as the meta in the newer trials. That is why its a bad idea to remove the set which is the whole point of this thread lol.
I see where you're coming from, but the logic still doesn't quite track. If the set is already making arcanists overpowered compared to other classes, doesn't that just further prove the point that they're the dominant meta? Keeping that set in place doesn’t “level the playing field”; it does the opposite—it cements arcanists at the top and limits true class diversity.
Instead of keeping one class heavily favored by a set, the better approach would be balancing across the board, not maintaining something that exacerbates the gap. If removing the set kills the viability of other classes, that just highlights how unbalanced the current situation is. The goal should be making sure other classes can compete, not relying on a crutch that keeps arcanists so far ahead of the pack.Immortal Redeemer, Godslayer, Gryphon Heart, Planesbreaker, The Dawnbringer, Tick-Tock Tormentor, Swashbuckler Supreme, Dro-m'athra Destroyer, Mindmender, The Unstoppable1 -
haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
This thread is already thoroughly derailed so I don't mind commenting this. You fundamentally failed to understand hyperbole and this caused me massive secondhand embarrassment. Here is the definition from google as you clearly need to read it:
"noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally."
Synapsis' statement was not intended to be taken literally. However, this does not mean the commenter doesn't have a point, despite not being precisely correct.
Edited by forum_propagandist on September 30, 2024 8:44PM4 -
FionaFlute✭✭acastanza_ESO wrote: »FionaFlute wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
Just take the L, and accept that arcanists are no longer the absolute meta, and have been drifting out meta over the last 2 updates.The steady amount of nerfs, have brought down their overall power, that allows other classes to be viable and competitive again. If they were still meta, it would be consistently compositions of 7 arcanists dps for the majority of top leaderboards.
the hill you are dying on makes no sense. If you have been doing HM progs and trifectas, you would have notice the steady decline of the arcanists meta over the last few patches, and seen classes be able to come in and find their places which is a good thing. Giving everyone one of the only viable sets to do significant cleave in the latest content allows that to happen. It would be nice if there were more sets that did signficant cleave, but there isnt and taking away the only set, is a bad idea. I dont know why you are disagreeing with this.
You're absolutely right, arcanists arent the meta anymore. That is why nerfing azureblight is okay. I completely agree with you.
way to completely miss the point. Azureblight allowing other classes competitive access to cleave damage to let them hold their own alongside the absurdity of Fatecarver is why.
The set is absurdly powerful. Should the developers quit making new pve sets because this is meant to be the one and only set? Azureblight damage accounts for 40-70% of damage when you do while cleaving. This set is way outside the normal boundaries of what we would consider balanced.
The set will still do exactly the same damage in these cleave scenarios anyway. Its not like they are removing it. It just means you are going to need to swap gear at boss fights rather than just wearing this set all the time.2 -
Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial? Even in the screenshots you posted they are still double the expected average.
Nah you are changing goal posts man.
Arcanists strength is strong cleave but relatively lower single target damage in comparison to other classes.
At some point you reach diminishing returns when stacking cleave damage in boss fights when adds die quickly enough.
At this point it is more beneficial to have few classes with strong single target to kill main boss faster.
AB and recent arcanists nerfs meant that you could achieve good cleave with other classes so 7-8 arcanists is not necessary.
Is it still more comfortable to run half dd arcs, yes, but this is no way close to full group which is what you claim.
Now that AB is nerfed, extra cleave from arcanists becomes more valuable so we might go from 4 back to 7-8.1 -
sarahthes✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭acastanza_ESO wrote: »FionaFlute wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
Just take the L, and accept that arcanists are no longer the absolute meta, and have been drifting out meta over the last 2 updates.The steady amount of nerfs, have brought down their overall power, that allows other classes to be viable and competitive again. If they were still meta, it would be consistently compositions of 7 arcanists dps for the majority of top leaderboards.
the hill you are dying on makes no sense. If you have been doing HM progs and trifectas, you would have notice the steady decline of the arcanists meta over the last few patches, and seen classes be able to come in and find their places which is a good thing. Giving everyone one of the only viable sets to do significant cleave in the latest content allows that to happen. It would be nice if there were more sets that did signficant cleave, but there isnt and taking away the only set, is a bad idea. I dont know why you are disagreeing with this.
You're absolutely right, arcanists arent the meta anymore. That is why nerfing azureblight is okay. I completely agree with you.
way to completely miss the point. Azureblight allowing other classes competitive access to cleave damage to let them hold their own alongside the absurdity of Fatecarver is why.
It's not purely fatecarver. It's also how cheap languid is combined with pillager/crypt/arkasis/ trample.2 -
ApoAlaia✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭They could at least increase the transmute limit so we don't need to store dead sets until they sunset the servers.
That would be nice.1 -
sarahthes✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Galeriano2 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
These screenshots are also suspiciously missing lucent citadel and sunspire. I wonder why...
Oh right
For the first half of the current patch the top score in Lucent was a team that had 3 dk dds, 3 necro dds, a stamblade, and a stamden. They were only recently passed by Infamous and another EU group, after they moved from Lucent to take the vMoL world record with a group that had <50% arc dds.1 -
baconaura✭✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
Just take the L, and accept that arcanists are no longer the absolute meta, and have been drifting out meta over the last 2 updates.The steady amount of nerfs, have brought down their overall power, that allows other classes to be viable and competitive again. If they were still meta, it would be consistently compositions of 7 arcanists dps for the majority of top leaderboards.
the hill you are dying on makes no sense. If you have been doing HM progs and trifectas, you would have notice the steady decline of the arcanists meta over the last few patches, and seen classes be able to come in and find their places which is a good thing. Giving everyone one of the only viable sets to do significant cleave in the latest content allows that to happen. It would be nice if there were more sets that did signficant cleave, but there isnt and taking away the only set, is a bad idea. I dont know why you are disagreeing with this.
I get what you’re trying to say, but it doesn’t quite hold up when you look at the actual data from the most recent leaderboards. Sure, arcanists might not be stacking seven deep in every single group anymore, but they're still showing up in numbers far above what would be expected if they were “drifting out” of the meta. If you’re seeing 4 or more arcanists in top groups regularly, that’s still a clear sign of their dominance, even if the nerfs have brought them down a notch.
The decline you’re talking about isn’t as drastic as you’re making it seem. And while other classes have gotten more competitive, it's not like arcanists have suddenly fallen off a cliff. They’re still the go-to for top-tier content, especially when you factor in their versatility and cleave, which you even admit is critical in the current content. Just because they're not everywhere doesn't mean they aren’t still meta.
This idea that they’re no longer at the top feels a bit premature.
Removing the only viable cleave set in pve(for the recent trials), basically kills viability for all the other classes, and just widens the difference between arcanist and the other class. which would solidify it as the meta in the newer trials. That is why its a bad idea to remove the set which is the whole point of this thread lol.
I see where you're coming from, but the logic still doesn't quite track. If the set is already making arcanists overpowered compared to other classes, doesn't that just further prove the point that they're the dominant meta? Keeping that set in place doesn’t “level the playing field”; it does the opposite—it cements arcanists at the top and limits true class diversity.
Instead of keeping one class heavily favored by a set, the better approach would be balancing across the board, not maintaining something that exacerbates the gap. If removing the set kills the viability of other classes, that just highlights how unbalanced the current situation is. The goal should be making sure other classes can compete, not relying on a crutch that keeps arcanists so far ahead of the pack.
Yeah, they need to address the underlying issue here: uneven cleave toolkit across classes. Classes that can output alot of aoe/cleave damage is necessary in the more recent content, so bringing up the other classes aoe/aoe dot skills/abilities to let them cleave better is the solution. The uneven toolkit across classes is the problem which directly causes arcanist to be better performing in this content requiring this heavy cleave because of their fatecarver. It's not azureblight causing arcanist to excel at cleave. They already do that with their fatecarver, with or without azureblight.
They really should do that before removing the only set which allowed classes to gain access to an impactful cleave in endgame trials. If you just remove azureblight, now you have a vacuum of classes without impactful cleave in their toolkit. How many updates/months will it take for them to get rebalanced and gain comparable cleave to arcanist? some classes might never get any love.
Maybe if they balance the amount of cleave classes can deliver, then its easier to take away something like azureblight, because the classes are on more even footing already.Edited by baconaura on September 30, 2024 8:56PM3 -
Synapsis123✭✭✭✭✭Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial? Even in the screenshots you posted they are still double the expected average.
Nah you are changing goal posts man.
Arcanists strength is strong cleave but relatively lower single target damage in comparison to other classes.
At some point you reach diminishing returns when stacking cleave damage in boss fights when adds die quickly enough.
At this point it is more beneficial to have few classes with strong single target to kill main boss faster.
AB and recent arcanists nerfs meant that you could achieve good cleave with other classes so 7-8 arcanists is not necessary.
Is it still more comfortable to run half dd arcs, yes, but this is no way close to full group which is what you claim.
Now that AB is nerfed, extra cleave from arcanists becomes more valuable so we might go from 4 back to 7-8.
How have I shifted the goal posts? Instead of arguing with my hyperbolic statement about every trial being 7-8 arcanists, how about you address some of my questions? How many arcanists need to be run per trial before it is considered meta?Edited by Synapsis123 on September 30, 2024 8:56PM2 -
Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial? Even in the screenshots you posted they are still double the expected average.
Nah you are changing goal posts man.
Arcanists strength is strong cleave but relatively lower single target damage in comparison to other classes.
At some point you reach diminishing returns when stacking cleave damage in boss fights when adds die quickly enough.
At this point it is more beneficial to have few classes with strong single target to kill main boss faster.
AB and recent arcanists nerfs meant that you could achieve good cleave with other classes so 7-8 arcanists is not necessary.
Is it still more comfortable to run half dd arcs, yes, but this is no way close to full group which is what you claim.
Now that AB is nerfed, extra cleave from arcanists becomes more valuable so we might go from 4 back to 7-8.
How have I shifted the goal posts? Instead of arguing with my hyperbolic statement about every trial being 7-8 arcanists, how about you address some of my questions? How many arcanists need to be run per trial before it is considered meta?
The question does not make sense, because no class is meta in all situations.
If you take a parse dummy, other classes can get higher parse due to higher single target damage.
So if you take fight like Yolna in isolation, arcanists are suddenly not really meta anymore.
For PvE trials currently full party arcanists are not necessarily meta. If we nerf azurenblight without buffing cleave I'm other classes it might become so.1 -
sarahthes✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial? Even in the screenshots you posted they are still double the expected average.
Nah you are changing goal posts man.
Arcanists strength is strong cleave but relatively lower single target damage in comparison to other classes.
At some point you reach diminishing returns when stacking cleave damage in boss fights when adds die quickly enough.
At this point it is more beneficial to have few classes with strong single target to kill main boss faster.
AB and recent arcanists nerfs meant that you could achieve good cleave with other classes so 7-8 arcanists is not necessary.
Is it still more comfortable to run half dd arcs, yes, but this is no way close to full group which is what you claim.
Now that AB is nerfed, extra cleave from arcanists becomes more valuable so we might go from 4 back to 7-8.
How have I shifted the goal posts? Instead of arguing with my hyperbolic statement about every trial being 7-8 arcanists, how about you address some of my questions? How many arcanists need to be run per trial before it is considered meta?
Well, in Rockgrove they only run 2, with 6 dks.
Perhaps it's more that arcs are situationally the best, but so are other classes. Current trial design means that they're the best for more of the newer trials, but not that they are the best for every trial.1 -
Synapsis123✭✭✭✭✭Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial? Even in the screenshots you posted they are still double the expected average.
Nah you are changing goal posts man.
Arcanists strength is strong cleave but relatively lower single target damage in comparison to other classes.
At some point you reach diminishing returns when stacking cleave damage in boss fights when adds die quickly enough.
At this point it is more beneficial to have few classes with strong single target to kill main boss faster.
AB and recent arcanists nerfs meant that you could achieve good cleave with other classes so 7-8 arcanists is not necessary.
Is it still more comfortable to run half dd arcs, yes, but this is no way close to full group which is what you claim.
Now that AB is nerfed, extra cleave from arcanists becomes more valuable so we might go from 4 back to 7-8.
How have I shifted the goal posts? Instead of arguing with my hyperbolic statement about every trial being 7-8 arcanists, how about you address some of my questions? How many arcanists need to be run per trial before it is considered meta?
The question does not make sense, because no class is meta in all situations.
If you take a parse dummy, other classes can get higher parse due to higher single target damage.
So if you take fight like Yolna in isolation, arcanists are suddenly not really meta anymore.
For PvE trials currently full party arcanists are not necessarily meta. If we nerf azurenblight without buffing cleave I'm other classes it might become so.
I don't think thats how a meta works. So a class would have to be the best at healing, tanking, and dps in all situations for you to consider it a meta class? I guess that means azureblight isn't a meta set so it wouldn't be a big deal to nerf it right?Edited by Synapsis123 on September 30, 2024 9:10PM3 -
baconaura✭✭✭Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial? Even in the screenshots you posted they are still double the expected average.
Nah you are changing goal posts man.
Arcanists strength is strong cleave but relatively lower single target damage in comparison to other classes.
At some point you reach diminishing returns when stacking cleave damage in boss fights when adds die quickly enough.
At this point it is more beneficial to have few classes with strong single target to kill main boss faster.
AB and recent arcanists nerfs meant that you could achieve good cleave with other classes so 7-8 arcanists is not necessary.
Is it still more comfortable to run half dd arcs, yes, but this is no way close to full group which is what you claim.
Now that AB is nerfed, extra cleave from arcanists becomes more valuable so we might go from 4 back to 7-8.
How have I shifted the goal posts? Instead of arguing with my hyperbolic statement about every trial being 7-8 arcanists, how about you address some of my questions? How many arcanists need to be run per trial before it is considered meta?
The question does not make sense, because no class is meta in all situations.
If you take a parse dummy, other classes can get higher parse due to higher single target damage.
So if you take fight like Yolna in isolation, arcanists are suddenly not really meta anymore.
For PvE trials currently full party arcanists are not necessarily meta. If we nerf azurenblight without buffing cleave I'm other classes it might become so.
I don't think thats how a meta works. So a class would have to be the best at healing, tanking, and dps in all situations for you to consider it a meta class? I guess that means azureblight isn't a meta set so it wouldn't be a big deal to nerf it right?
why do you want to just nerf everything? i dont understand that mentality of crying for nerfs instead of bringing up everything else. The argument is there isnt an alternative to azureblight, so it shouldnt be nerfed until they fix the underlying issue. which is give other classes more cleave, add more cleave sets. the big deal is there is no alternatives for non arcanists.Edited by baconaura on September 30, 2024 9:30PM2 -
Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial? Even in the screenshots you posted they are still double the expected average.
Nah you are changing goal posts man.
Arcanists strength is strong cleave but relatively lower single target damage in comparison to other classes.
At some point you reach diminishing returns when stacking cleave damage in boss fights when adds die quickly enough.
At this point it is more beneficial to have few classes with strong single target to kill main boss faster.
AB and recent arcanists nerfs meant that you could achieve good cleave with other classes so 7-8 arcanists is not necessary.
Is it still more comfortable to run half dd arcs, yes, but this is no way close to full group which is what you claim.
Now that AB is nerfed, extra cleave from arcanists becomes more valuable so we might go from 4 back to 7-8.
How have I shifted the goal posts? Instead of arguing with my hyperbolic statement about every trial being 7-8 arcanists, how about you address some of my questions? How many arcanists need to be run per trial before it is considered meta?
The question does not make sense, because no class is meta in all situations.
If you take a parse dummy, other classes can get higher parse due to higher single target damage.
So if you take fight like Yolna in isolation, arcanists are suddenly not really meta anymore.
For PvE trials currently full party arcanists are not necessarily meta. If we nerf azurenblight without buffing cleave I'm other classes it might become so.
I don't think thats how a meta works. So a class would have to be the best at healing, tanking, and dps in all situations for you to consider it a meta class? I guess that means azureblight isn't a meta set so it wouldn't be a big deal to nerf it right?
No, this is the opposite of what I said.
At the end of a day, meta is a very vague term and you can pick up conditions however you want.
No class is best in all circumstances. Are arcanist DD stronger on average than other classes - possibly.
Is running 8 arcanists in group optimal? - no, you get diminishing returns, this leads to class variety. And in the end total group composition is what actually matters.
Current AB nerf (they nerfed it pretty heavily) means other classes cannot compensate for less cleave -> leads to 8 arc dd being optimal - less diversity.0 -
sarahthes✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial? Even in the screenshots you posted they are still double the expected average.
Nah you are changing goal posts man.
Arcanists strength is strong cleave but relatively lower single target damage in comparison to other classes.
At some point you reach diminishing returns when stacking cleave damage in boss fights when adds die quickly enough.
At this point it is more beneficial to have few classes with strong single target to kill main boss faster.
AB and recent arcanists nerfs meant that you could achieve good cleave with other classes so 7-8 arcanists is not necessary.
Is it still more comfortable to run half dd arcs, yes, but this is no way close to full group which is what you claim.
Now that AB is nerfed, extra cleave from arcanists becomes more valuable so we might go from 4 back to 7-8.
How have I shifted the goal posts? Instead of arguing with my hyperbolic statement about every trial being 7-8 arcanists, how about you address some of my questions? How many arcanists need to be run per trial before it is considered meta?
The question does not make sense, because no class is meta in all situations.
If you take a parse dummy, other classes can get higher parse due to higher single target damage.
So if you take fight like Yolna in isolation, arcanists are suddenly not really meta anymore.
For PvE trials currently full party arcanists are not necessarily meta. If we nerf azurenblight without buffing cleave I'm other classes it might become so.
I don't think thats how a meta works. So a class would have to be the best at healing, tanking, and dps in all situations for you to consider it a meta class? I guess that means azureblight isn't a meta set so it wouldn't be a big deal to nerf it right?
No, this is the opposite of what I said.
At the end of a day, meta is a very vague term and you can pick up conditions however you want.
No class is best in all circumstances. Are arcanist DD stronger on average than other classes - possibly.
Is running 8 arcanists in group optimal? - no, you get diminishing returns, this leads to class variety. And in the end total group composition is what actually matters.
Current AB nerf (they nerfed it pretty heavily) means other classes cannot compensate for less cleave -> leads to 8 arc dd being optimal - less diversity.
It will also make the shift to non arc classes that much more jarring when it does inevitably happen. Switching from low apm to high apm is a big jump in required skill.1 -
FionaFlute✭✭Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial? Even in the screenshots you posted they are still double the expected average.
Nah you are changing goal posts man.
Arcanists strength is strong cleave but relatively lower single target damage in comparison to other classes.
At some point you reach diminishing returns when stacking cleave damage in boss fights when adds die quickly enough.
At this point it is more beneficial to have few classes with strong single target to kill main boss faster.
AB and recent arcanists nerfs meant that you could achieve good cleave with other classes so 7-8 arcanists is not necessary.
Is it still more comfortable to run half dd arcs, yes, but this is no way close to full group which is what you claim.
Now that AB is nerfed, extra cleave from arcanists becomes more valuable so we might go from 4 back to 7-8.
How have I shifted the goal posts? Instead of arguing with my hyperbolic statement about every trial being 7-8 arcanists, how about you address some of my questions? How many arcanists need to be run per trial before it is considered meta?
The question does not make sense, because no class is meta in all situations.
If you take a parse dummy, other classes can get higher parse due to higher single target damage.
So if you take fight like Yolna in isolation, arcanists are suddenly not really meta anymore.
For PvE trials currently full party arcanists are not necessarily meta. If we nerf azurenblight without buffing cleave I'm other classes it might become so.
I don't think thats how a meta works. So a class would have to be the best at healing, tanking, and dps in all situations for you to consider it a meta class? I guess that means azureblight isn't a meta set so it wouldn't be a big deal to nerf it right?
No, this is the opposite of what I said.
At the end of a day, meta is a very vague term and you can pick up conditions however you want.
No class is best in all circumstances. Are arcanist DD stronger on average than other classes - possibly.
Is running 8 arcanists in group optimal? - no, you get diminishing returns, this leads to class variety. And in the end total group composition is what actually matters.
Current AB nerf (they nerfed it pretty heavily) means other classes cannot compensate for less cleave -> leads to 8 arc dd being optimal - less diversity.
Azureblight is fine in the next patch and arcanists aren't meta. It shouldn't matter if azureblight is changed because it is intended as a cleave set. It still functions as a cleave set in the next patch.1 -
sarahthes✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭FionaFlute wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial? Even in the screenshots you posted they are still double the expected average.
Nah you are changing goal posts man.
Arcanists strength is strong cleave but relatively lower single target damage in comparison to other classes.
At some point you reach diminishing returns when stacking cleave damage in boss fights when adds die quickly enough.
At this point it is more beneficial to have few classes with strong single target to kill main boss faster.
AB and recent arcanists nerfs meant that you could achieve good cleave with other classes so 7-8 arcanists is not necessary.
Is it still more comfortable to run half dd arcs, yes, but this is no way close to full group which is what you claim.
Now that AB is nerfed, extra cleave from arcanists becomes more valuable so we might go from 4 back to 7-8.
How have I shifted the goal posts? Instead of arguing with my hyperbolic statement about every trial being 7-8 arcanists, how about you address some of my questions? How many arcanists need to be run per trial before it is considered meta?
The question does not make sense, because no class is meta in all situations.
If you take a parse dummy, other classes can get higher parse due to higher single target damage.
So if you take fight like Yolna in isolation, arcanists are suddenly not really meta anymore.
For PvE trials currently full party arcanists are not necessarily meta. If we nerf azurenblight without buffing cleave I'm other classes it might become so.
I don't think thats how a meta works. So a class would have to be the best at healing, tanking, and dps in all situations for you to consider it a meta class? I guess that means azureblight isn't a meta set so it wouldn't be a big deal to nerf it right?
No, this is the opposite of what I said.
At the end of a day, meta is a very vague term and you can pick up conditions however you want.
No class is best in all circumstances. Are arcanist DD stronger on average than other classes - possibly.
Is running 8 arcanists in group optimal? - no, you get diminishing returns, this leads to class variety. And in the end total group composition is what actually matters.
Current AB nerf (they nerfed it pretty heavily) means other classes cannot compensate for less cleave -> leads to 8 arc dd being optimal - less diversity.
Azureblight is fine in the next patch and arcanists aren't meta. It shouldn't matter if azureblight is changed because it is intended as a cleave set. It still functions as a cleave set in the next patch.
It does 1/4 the damage compared to live, post nerf. It will be supplanted by other sets that do half the damage.2 -
FionaFlute✭✭FionaFlute wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Skolandrikeb17_ESO wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »haleysarahw wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »Synapsis123 wrote: »If classes are underperforming, a set shouldn't be the solution.
I agree, but getting rid of their only tool to catch up before giving said solution isn't going to of be any help either, nerfing azureblight will only increase the need of spamming arcanists in trials even more.
Arcanists were already the meta even with azureblight. The only reason you brought other classes were for the unique buffs.
I'm sorry but this comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PvE scene. Pound for pound in endgame PvE, DK still has the highest ceiling.
The issue with the proposed azureblight nerf for PvE as it stands is about fight construction. With more recent trial mechanics leveraging ad waves and multi-target priority as a way to make fights dynamic versus creating interesting single target mechanics, having sets to be able to appropriate handle those fights is paramount to success.
The comments people have made about more appropriately set balancing are relevant - but the current proposed nerf makes this set unusable and yes, does force groups into taking classes that have more foundational cleave into the content that requires cleave - i.e., more arcanists.
You should let all the top leaderboard score runners know they're doing it wrong bringing 7-8 arcanists. I'm sure you could easily topple their scores.
Thank you for skipping right past the point of this, which was that the reason for people bringing arcanists is about the construction of the content, and nerfing azureblight further shuts other classes out of contention.
What did you think I meant when I said arcanists are the meta?
We should be going off the correct score leaderboards and not previous patches. It doesn't make any sense to delve into the past when we are talking about the current meta. There are 7 classes in the game and a total of 12 people in the trials so we should expect each class to be represented at about 1.7 of their class per trial.
On the correct EU leaderboards the top groups are bringing about 4.8 arcanists to each trial. That is over double what we would expect to see if the classes were represented equally. Two of the groups brought 8 arcanists. The lowest number was 2 arcanists which is still above average.
When a class is almost triple the number of expected representation does that constitute a meta?
Also the screenshots you posted included 4 arcanists in the groups. Still way above average. I guess you were trying to prove my point?
These screenshots are all from this patch, but that's okay! And your post explicitly said 7-8.
There are 3 different trials that have 7-8 arcanists as the top score holders. So in your mind the only way a class can be considered meta is if they are run as 7-8 in every trial? Even in the screenshots you posted they are still double the expected average.
Nah you are changing goal posts man.
Arcanists strength is strong cleave but relatively lower single target damage in comparison to other classes.
At some point you reach diminishing returns when stacking cleave damage in boss fights when adds die quickly enough.
At this point it is more beneficial to have few classes with strong single target to kill main boss faster.
AB and recent arcanists nerfs meant that you could achieve good cleave with other classes so 7-8 arcanists is not necessary.
Is it still more comfortable to run half dd arcs, yes, but this is no way close to full group which is what you claim.
Now that AB is nerfed, extra cleave from arcanists becomes more valuable so we might go from 4 back to 7-8.
How have I shifted the goal posts? Instead of arguing with my hyperbolic statement about every trial being 7-8 arcanists, how about you address some of my questions? How many arcanists need to be run per trial before it is considered meta?
The question does not make sense, because no class is meta in all situations.
If you take a parse dummy, other classes can get higher parse due to higher single target damage.
So if you take fight like Yolna in isolation, arcanists are suddenly not really meta anymore.
For PvE trials currently full party arcanists are not necessarily meta. If we nerf azurenblight without buffing cleave I'm other classes it might become so.
I don't think thats how a meta works. So a class would have to be the best at healing, tanking, and dps in all situations for you to consider it a meta class? I guess that means azureblight isn't a meta set so it wouldn't be a big deal to nerf it right?
No, this is the opposite of what I said.
At the end of a day, meta is a very vague term and you can pick up conditions however you want.
No class is best in all circumstances. Are arcanist DD stronger on average than other classes - possibly.
Is running 8 arcanists in group optimal? - no, you get diminishing returns, this leads to class variety. And in the end total group composition is what actually matters.
Current AB nerf (they nerfed it pretty heavily) means other classes cannot compensate for less cleave -> leads to 8 arc dd being optimal - less diversity.
Azureblight is fine in the next patch and arcanists aren't meta. It shouldn't matter if azureblight is changed because it is intended as a cleave set. It still functions as a cleave set in the next patch.
It does 1/4 the damage compared to live, post nerf. It will be supplanted by other sets that do half the damage.
When it is used in the intended manner to cleave enemies it does the exact same damage.1
This discussion has been closed.