Curse

I Jonas I · Jun 02, 2009, 11:47 PM // 23:47

I'm so glad that this topic is discussing the broken mindblast template like the thread title said that it would.

Neo-LD · Jun 02, 2009, 11:47 PM // 23:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

You have not until now mentioned "small percentage of total possible required skills", in fact it is not even in your definition of desirable builds

My apologies, its taken so long to explain the basics of desirability to you that I haven't had much time to go into the nuances. Now you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

and now that you have let me ask you this: why can't you call buildwars and metagaming part of the "total possible required skills"?

Isn't that what this entire argument is about? I don't think that pre-match metagaming is particularly interesting, rewarding, or desirable, and all in all its just not the point of Guild Wars.

The point of Guild Wars is to know that an enemy warrior is going to change targets before he even does, and have a Guardian on his new target before he even hits it once. The point of Guild Wars is to bait a monk into wasting Guardian on a target you never meant to threaten anyways, and then kill someone else with Bulls/Evi/Exe while his Guardian recharges. The point of Guild Wars is to see a Warrior knock down your monk and BSurge him right as he unloads his adrenaline. The point of Guild Wars is to know that a Bsurge ele is about to blind your Warrior because he just knocked down a monk, and Dshot it at exactly the right time.

If you don't agree that things like that are far more interesting than prematch metagaming, then I'm sorry, you are lost, and I have nothing further to say to you.

kedde · Jun 02, 2009, 11:52 PM // 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by lord of all tyria

Why do you people insist on arguing over semantics for no apparant reason?

Stop RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing arguing about gim using terms that aren't meant to be taken a hundred percent literally in the particular case.

If you don't get his point you're a retard.
If you continue to argue it just because you can find a tiny grammatical flaw in it you're even more retarded.

Master Fuhon · Jun 03, 2009, 12:20 AM // 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Look Fuhon, stipulative definitions are a perfectly uncontroversial component of argumentation. Strictly speaking, when working with stipulative definitions its not allowed to import any connotations or meanings that the word has under normal circumstances, and I think that you are worried that I might have cheated by breaking that rule. Be assured that I have not.

I just looked this claim up. You aren't allow to use a word that already has a commonly understood meaning when using a stipulative definition. Using words that have other definitions is the reason why this argument has continued so long.

It's just like the word 'fix'. Fix is commonly meant to refer to repair. But the word fix was used out of belief that pets could understand human language, to be able to talk about neutering in front of them. In this case, stipulative definition of a common word is purposely chosen to be deceptive.

It makes it extremely difficult to talk about Mind Blast and related bars when people are changing the definitions of words like: fair, skill, desirable, balanced, etc.

Edit: To clarify if you have a reference that allows a more lenient approach. Your definition of 'desirable' appears to be exactly the opposite of a universal definition. So your stipulative desire contradicts universal desire.

Neo-LD · Jun 03, 2009, 12:41 AM // 00:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

I just looked this claim up. You aren't allow to use a word that already has a commonly understood meaning when using a stipulative definition. Using words that have other definitions is the reason why this argument has continued so long.

I don't know where you got your information, but I am inclined to believe that its incorrect. We used stipulative definitions all the time in the graduate philosophy course I took last fall, and all words were fair game as long as you didn't import any connotations or meanings from the usual definitions of those words.

A common arena where stipulative definitions see use is in political argumentation, where a person will use a term with generally positive connotations but vague meanings, like "freedom." He will stipulate a definition that includes whatever it is he's arguing for ("X"), and then claim that since freedom is good, and X is freedom, X is good. Of course, thats cheating. This is a very common method for creating fallacies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

Edit: To clarify if you have a reference that allows a more lenient approach. Your definition of 'desirable' appears to be exactly the opposite of a universal definition. So your stipulative desire contradicts universal desire.

I detect no contradiction. Where do you see one?

Master Fuhon · Jun 03, 2009, 12:47 AM // 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

I detect no contradiction. Where do you see one?

Universal desire is a feeling of loss. Desire comes out of necessity. If we were to try to produce a universally desirable build, it could only come out of necessity. That means we would nerf all familiar skills, and buff the least used skill combinations.

A new 'desirable' build would emerge out of necessity from these changes. The build in itself, would be more desirable, because more people would be in necessity of it.

Desire is amplified by something being out of reach.

lutz · Jun 03, 2009, 12:48 AM // 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

I don't know where you got your information, but I am inclined to believe that its incorrect. We used stipulative definitions all the time in the graduate philosophy course I took last fall, and all words were fair game as long as you didn't import any connotations or meanings from the usual definitions of those words.

A common arena where stipulative definitions see use is in political argumentation, where a person will use a term with generally positive connotations but vague meanings, like "freedom." He will stipulate a definition that includes whatever it is he's arguing for ("X"), and then claim that since freedom is good, and X is freedom, X is good. Of course, thats cheating. This is a very common method for creating fallacies.

I detect no contradiction. Where do you see one?

So, back on topic:

Why is Distortion bad for the game?
Why is it Distortion and not Mind Blast and Aura of Restoration?
Why are E/D Mind Blast templates also good, even though they don't have Distortion?
Why are direct damage caster templates on par with the power creep of hex and melee damage bad for the game?

Jeydra · Jun 03, 2009, 01:15 AM // 01:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Isn't that what this entire argument is about? I don't think that pre-match metagaming is particularly interesting, rewarding, or desirable, and all in all its just not the point of Guild Wars.

The point of Guild Wars is to know that an enemy warrior is going to change targets before he even does, and have a Guardian on his new target before he even hits it once. The point of Guild Wars is to bait a monk into wasting Guardian on a target you never meant to threaten anyways, and then kill someone else with Bulls/Evi/Exe while his Guardian recharges. The point of Guild Wars is to see a Warrior knock down your monk and BSurge him right as he unloads his adrenaline. The point of Guild Wars is to know that a Bsurge ele is about to blind your Warrior because he just knocked down a monk, and Dshot it at exactly the right time.

If you don't agree that things like that are far more interesting than prematch metagaming, then I'm sorry, you are lost, and I have nothing further to say to you.

And the whole point of playing Guild Wars is to play the one and only 2 Warriors + 1 Ranger + 1 Dom Mes + 1 FC Snare + 2 Monks + Flagger build. There should be no other build. If someone runs something else and beats this build, that build must be imbalanced, and that something should be nerfed. It is fun to play a static game, facing the same build and using the same tactics always, because when someone wins he wins by skill (although what constitutes "skill" is almost completely arbitrary).

If you fail to understand that this is bad for Guild Wars, then you're beyond rescue, and I have nothing more to say to you either. Polly was right, we ended up in that tasteless and boring meta several months ago because of some members of the community who so dearly wanted that to be the only viable build they bitched and cried about everything that beat it. You can go back to the days when this basic template was the only build. Me, I'm glad we've moved on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

So, back on topic:

Why is Distortion bad for the game?
Why is it Distortion and not Mind Blast and Aura of Restoration?
Why are E/D Mind Blast templates also good, even though they don't have Distortion?
Why are direct damage caster templates on par with the power creep of hex and melee damage bad for the game?

I'll answer that for you. Because it "takes no skill to use". Because it beats the 2 Warriors + 1 Ranger + 1 Dom Mes + 1 FC Snare + 2 Monks + Flagger build. Anything that beats standard balanced is imbalanced. The counters to E/D or E/Me builds are not honorable, and so will not be run.

... sheesh.

There has been precious little game balance reasons for arguing why the E/Me template is overpowered. In fact after 12 pages I remember only one: that Distortion can, with Mind Blast, be kept up longer than Escape / Lightning Reflexes for 75% block. Just about everything else stems from the "reasons" given above. Someone said the E/Me template is invulnerable to physicals ... so is a Price of Failure Reckless Haste Necro, even though the template's so bad almost nobody uses it. Someone said the template can solo the entire base without threat from NPCs ... so can a Ranger or a blindbot or even a terratank, even though none of these are imbalanced. Like I said, no game balance reasons.

If everyone thought like this, it wouldn't be long before I quit Guild Wars. *** the idea that anything that does not take [insert player's definition of] skill should be nerfed out of play. Keep up with it and we'll end up back in 2008.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Essentially, the way it works out is that skilled teams are not willing to concede matches to rock-paper-scissors. If they have a rock build, naturally strong against scissors but weak against paper, they will happily weaken the scissors matchup to shore up the paper matchup. The same goes for the other builds, and as people adapt the builds stop having such polarizing matchup percentages and start to be differing strategies with which people outplay each other. Polarized builds only start to pop back up when a team becomes predictable, as a way to punish a known matchup.

Similarly, if rock is too good, all the rock builds start to sacrifice their scissors and paper matchups to try and get better against rock. This works until all the other rock builds do the same thing. Then the rock builds are still evenly matched against each other, but are suddenly more vulnerable to scissors and paper matchups. This opens the metagame back up.

A game is more or less in balance if these mechanisms are working. Different builds can tweak themselves to prepare for different matchups, to either prepare for everything as best as possible or to take a calculated risk. If a particular build becomes most popular it starts to cannibalize itself. A healthy metagame like this rewards all sorts of important high-level skills, including abstract build making and refinement, understanding of the interaction between build and strategy and tactics, high level strategy, metagame awareness and familiarity, scouting, and the ability to play multiple different styles of builds.

It also opens up a much more rich tactical experience once in game. DShot in a static metagame is formulaic. Timing, prediction, and execution are still required, but what you are trying to accomplish are known. In an open metagame, the skills you are trying to hit with DShot are not necessarily obvious. They will vary from matchup to matchup, and even against the same build they may be different depending on tweaks to the build. Being able to identify what you need to DShot suddenly becomes the most important skill, above execution. Or, going a step further, knowing when DShot is and isn't what you should be focusing on. This is one of the primary differences between Guild Wars 2006 and Guild Wars 2007.

The metagame we have right now at least superficially looks like something that can evolve into a reasonable facsimile of the 2007 metagame, though again I'm not sure that the skill set is deep enough to support it. That is a significant step up from the metagames of much of 2008, which alternated between single broken combo builds and formulaic defensive warrior spikes.

Quoted for truth, and I agree entirely.

EDIT: @below - Lol. Your arguments are the ones completely demolished, as can be seen over the past few pages. Just think, if what I've said is so flimsy then why is it that almost everyone who's posted opposed your stance? Owait ... they're all scrubs. Yeah right.

You are the antithesis of what game balance should be like. There's no point talking to you anymore; our viewpoints are irreconcilable, and you are not likely to see sense.

Neo-LD · Jun 03, 2009, 01:23 AM // 01:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

Universal desire is a feeling of loss. Desire comes out of necessity. If we were to try to produce a universally desirable build, it could only come out of necessity. That means we would nerf all familiar skills, and buff the least used skill combinations.

A new 'desirable' build would emerge out of necessity from these changes. The build in itself, would be more desirable, because more people would be in necessity of it.

Desire is amplified by something being out of reach.

None of that makes any sense. Not the part about loss, or necessity, or anything. Desire means what it means, the definition is clearly spelled out in the dictionary and in no way contradict my stipulative meaning.

@ Jeydra

All of your arguments have been demolished, all of your objections brushed aside, and at this point you've been reduced to mis-characterizing my statements and belligerantly repeating "variety!" I see no point in arguing with you further.

Master Fuhon · Jun 03, 2009, 01:41 AM // 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

None of that makes any sense. Not the part about loss, or necessity, or anything. Desire means what it means, the definition is clearly spelled out in the dictionary and in no way contradict my stipulative meaning.

Desirable doesn't exist. Undesirable is what exists. Desirable is the name that gets called for what removes the undesirable. What is undesirable are necessities: hunger, thirst, etc. Everything that does exist is just another thing that a different person considers undesirable. You produce enough universal undesirables and you get a universal desirable. In order to make a desirable build, you make undesirable builds; and the desirable build is what comes out to beat them.

Note that this is based on universal desire, and if you didn't want that to happen, you wouldn't ask for a desirable build. People will complain about the undesirables and threaten to leave because of them. But in the end, a build will be named desirable because it removes them.

You remove both desire and undesirable if you remove necessities. When you add necessities, you create desire and undesirable.

DreamWind · Jun 03, 2009, 02:19 AM // 02:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Oh sure, it does hinge on the definition of what player skill is, but thats what I've gone to such trouble to investigate and define it. I don't suggest that everyone take my word for it, but my arguments for why I define things the way I do are pretty solid, if I do say so myself.

This is still why I hate your definition of desirable and use of the word in the context you are using it. You're claiming that desirable is a build with small set of skills required, and if there are other things involved it is no longer desirable. What about the game as a whole? If there is only one desirable build I am claiming that the GAME is not desirable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo LD

Also, I do not detect any problems if two undesirable builds face eachother. As far as balance is concerned, undesirability need only be associated with relative ineffectiveness, and if two teams want to go to town on eachother with ineffective builds, so be it. My arguments are fairly unconcerned with how Guild Wars exists currently, and are much more concerned with what ought to exist.

I suppose this is the main problem some people are having. Lets assume that every build in the current meta is undesirable for the sake of argument. Having this many undesirable builds is still better than having just one undesirable build.

Is E/Me distortionist overpowered? Probably. But it did help create a new metagame that seems to be more interesting than the previous metagames at the moment. To me that is a good tradeoff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo LD

Isn't that what this entire argument is about? I don't think that pre-match metagaming is particularly interesting, rewarding, or desirable, and all in all its just not the point of Guild Wars.

I think it is part of the point of Guild Wars. Maybe thats just me though. To me the height of this game was in the championship tournaments, and there was TONS of metagaming going on in those matches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo LD

The point of Guild Wars is to know that an enemy warrior is going to change targets before he even does, and have a Guardian on his new target before he even hits it once. The point of Guild Wars is to bait a monk into wasting Guardian on a target you never meant to threaten anyways, and then kill someone else with Bulls/Evi/Exe while his Guardian recharges. The point of Guild Wars is to see a Warrior knock down your monk and BSurge him right as he unloads his adrenaline. The point of Guild Wars is to know that a Bsurge ele is about to blind your Warrior because he just knocked down a monk, and Dshot it at exactly the right time.

If you don't agree that things like that are far more interesting than prematch metagaming, then I'm sorry, you are lost, and I have nothing further to say to you.

They are interesting, but I don't think its good for the game to only have those if you need to sacrifice everything else to do it. It goes back to my Street Fighter example. If Ryu is the most skill intensive and best character in the game, and everybody picks him, the game is still boring because none of the other options are playable.

TironPlyth · Jun 03, 2009, 02:45 AM // 02:45

ITT extremist and semantic arguments.

The game needs diversity in order to remain interesting over a long period of time to a wide group of players. Simply playing one role becomes repetitive and boring to most people (you may be an exception Neo, but most players enjoy running different builds every once in a while), though there are exceptions, and enabling players to use predictable archetypes is unhealthy for the game.

The game needs to reward players for using a variety of different skills, such as interrupts, movement, positioning, and choosing the right target. If the meta focus on a single facet of the game at the expensive of others, as VoD metas did, then that is unhealthy for the game.

Regarding the actual topic of the thread...
E/Mes are unhealthy for the game, like almost every template in the current meta. This is because they enable to the player to largely ignore:
positioning
energy management
skill usage (short recharge enables spamming and forgives mistakes, Meteor is really the only exception on the bar)

It also undermines players attempts to counter it with:
physical pressure
most interrupts
energy denial
enchantment removal (to some extent, as Aura basically makes you immune to anything save deep strips)

as such, Mind Blast should be changed to a three or four second recharge, Immolate should have a recharge hit, and Aura of Restoration could use either a revert or a nerf to make it less effective at covering Attunements.

Trinity Fire Angel · Jun 03, 2009, 03:42 AM // 03:42

LOL.... Zhed has been using a similar build for well over 18 months in hero battles. it took ANet nearly 6-12 months to nerf the MB Miragecloack E/D build enough so that it was not so dominant any more... however, it was easily buildwarsed against (rigormortis + rend anyone?)

The MB Distortion build is a crap build and you can easily buildwars against it. however, the way that GVG is these days, people just follow the pvx meta. Bring Rend and Rigor ... powerblock, PD, VoR, Backfire, blackout or sig of humility.

don;t nerf aura of rest recharge... perhaps they need to just minimise the energy gained from aura. it has been a staple cover enchant on my ele for well over 2 years now.

TironPlyth · Jun 03, 2009, 03:54 AM // 03:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trinity Fire Angel

don;t nerf aura of rest recharge... perhaps they need to just minimise the energy gained from aura. it has been a staple cover enchant on my ele for well over 2 years now.

That's just it. Aura should either be an effective cover for Attunements or an effective enchantment, but not both. Attunements are balanced because they are fragile (2 second cast time and a long recharge); being able to surmount this without having to sacrifice anything pushes Attunements over the edge. Of course, the +1 energy from Attunements could be removed instead, but then ele would be pressured to squeeze too many skills in their bar simply to enable the rest of the build to work.

Honestly the +1 energy from Aura of Restoration was a mistake caused by a heavy-handed attempt to force eles in a meta where anything with a cast time longer than one second isn't viable, resulting in a template that you either buildwars for or lose to.

Animate · Jun 03, 2009, 03:55 AM // 03:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by TironPlyth

enchantment removal (to some extent, as Aura basically makes you immune to anything save deep strips)

That is bs.. all you need is 1 deep strip or 2 normal.. or 1 interrupt on fire attunement. Aura of Restoration is fine.

TironPlyth · Jun 03, 2009, 04:23 AM // 04:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Animate

That is bs.. all you need is 1 deep strip or 2 normal.. or 1 interrupt on fire attunement. Aura of Restoration is fine.

The ele has an attune covered by Aura of Restoration
You use your non-deep strip of choice
Before you can cast again, the ele spends 1/4 of a second recasting Aura

Basically the only time you can use two strips on a decent MB to get the attune is during the twelve seconds before Aura recharges on the initial cast. Assuming the ele is decent.

Agreed on the interrupt on Fire Attunement though. It is a major vulnerability in ALL ele builds (ok, not E/Rts), but in splits it is largely circumvented by Distortion, since Dshot and Savage Shot are the most prevalent interrupts, especially away from the stand. Personally I consider the reliance on Attunements a major flaw in the class, but that's too deep of an issue to fix.

FoxBat · Jun 03, 2009, 05:49 AM // 05:49

Up the recharge on resto to like 10-15 if you must, but let's not kill it. Air and water eles aren't dominating due to their attunes being unstrippable. It's only really problematic on MB that can pump a ton of energy through the aura non-stop.

The solution is pretty simple: keep upping the recharge of MB, the template cannot survive without that skill. I don't know why we are discussing anything else.

TironPlyth · Jun 03, 2009, 06:55 AM // 06:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBatUp

the recharge on resto to like 10-15 if you must, but let's not kill it. Air and water eles aren't dominating due to their attunes being unstrippable. It's only really problematic on MB that can pump a ton of energy through the aura non-stop.

I suppose you're right, at least in the current meta. By my perspective the reason that Air and Water eles is two fold. Both of the lines have been heavily nerfed, especially water. Water Me/Es are still run after MoI, but aren't particularly common, and during MoI they often focused on doing damage, because the rest of water has fallen out of use. Secondly:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

There's also been a big shift away from different forms of soft counters (interrupts, knockdowns, skill disable, energy denial) to focus entirely upon interrupts; there's also been a trend towards very strong counters to those soft counters.

Interrupts affect eles more than any other profession. Eles have more high-cast time skills than any other profession, making them simple to interrupt, and interrupts have greater effect on them due to the high cost and recharge of ele skills. This, coupled with buffs to non-elite energy management such as Attunements resulted in eles falling out of the meta in favor of Mesmer primaries, which caused Izzy to buff... non-elite energy management.

With Interrupts untouched, Aegis abolished and Rangers still able to easily remove conditions from themselves (a commonly ignored increase in Ranger power since NF), eles are helpless against Rangers, and a single half-decent Ranger can effectively remove and ele from the match, unless that ele has a defensive stance. For various reasons the only really viable defensive stance on an ele is Distortion coupled with an engine (especially since other anti-interrupts are equally draining on energy).

In short, the various buffs to the effects of ele skills fail to address the fundamental problem with eles in the meta, resulting in overpowered templates such as E/Mes appearing whenever a way to overcome the problems facing eles develops. E/Mes aren't a problem because they can kill NPCs without fear, plenty of builds can do both that and assist at the stand (ie any Ranger). They are a problem because they can overcome the primary weakness of Elementalists as a whole.

Though the tiebreaker mechanic doesn't help.

urania · Jun 03, 2009, 08:20 AM // 08:20

5s recharge on MB, 10s recharge on Immolate, 15/20s recharge on Rodgorts and we're set.
Maybe 1 sec cast time on Aura + remove the energy gain and that should put them back into line. Then, of course, hexes need to be looked at too.

But seriously, I'm all for a "costume brawl" meta - I think that event was one of the best that ever happened to GW.

Vanquisher · Jun 03, 2009, 10:41 AM // 10:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

So, back on topic:

Why is Distortion bad for the game?
Why is it Distortion and not Mind Blast and Aura of Restoration?
Why are E/D Mind Blast templates also good, even though they don't have Distortion?
Why are direct damage caster templates on par with the power creep of hex and melee damage bad for the game?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

Someone said the E/Me template is invulnerable to physicals ... so is a Price of Failure Reckless Haste Necro, even though the template's so bad almost nobody uses it. Someone said the template can solo the entire base without threat from NPCs ... so can a Ranger or a blindbot or even a terratank, even though none of these are imbalanced. Like I said, no game balance reasons.

I'll explain again. The blind bot running dual attunements, as well as the terra-tank, are extremely useless characters in any other situation. Furthermore, they are more prone to disruption. The reason anti-physical self preservation is better generally than anti-caster self preservation, and indeed why physical hate is required more, is because physicals are so strong.

The problem you have when giving casters (and this applies to all casters generally) the tools to deal strong sustained damage with a good driver behind it, is that they become exceptional skirmish characters. A caster, outside of dishing out hexes, won't be able to deal significant pressure in a team/team situation for very long, because if he is going to be a threat, the anti-caster tools that exist are fantastically strong to completely nullify any such threat. Physicals generally require more investment to shut down because they're not useless when not using their skills, and when they have their skills in reserve they have the ability to release strong spike packets at a lower cost and being less prone to disruption during that time (disruption, not hinderance as Guardian, Prot Spirit, and Spirit Bond would all be labelled) that do more damage than casters.

Mesmers completely destroy all caster classes. Ele's naturally require attunements to run on, so if that's stripped you're golden and have reduced their effectiveness several times over for a minute. Necro's are poorly designed in general and pretty much useless outside of hex stacking (I guess a few spike skills could probably be there too but then you're locked in 8/8 anyway), and with no energy driver to power them other than borrowing Glyph, and a lack of cross-spec, Power Block pretty much runs them into the ground.

The MB template however, gives problems. When you're playing split, you're basically playing for the tiebreaker. You may get a Lord kill or solid collapse -> win in before, but the essence is pumping on Lord damage. You've stacked up on mobility so unless you're the sole target of snares you're always going to be a threat on some end, whether it be on terms of a collapse or pushing a base or whatever. Needless to say, a split presence is constantly keeping the other team to be more conservative. The reason Distortion isn't the problem is that it doesn't shove the template into a fantastic split character. It just makes it better than a fantastic character. The template is on a par with other better than fantastic characters like Weaken Knees and Lingering Necros, which are still too good (the only good thing WK does is act as a hard counter to splits, but it does it far too well - especially as we've seen in the last monthly when involved in split play itself).

Distortion can be argued is more problematic thanks to the amount of physicals that make up the base defence. That's what really helps seperate it from the rest. Everything in there deals in physical damage so it makes sense to take anti-physical if you're primary focus is bypassing them to smash on some Lord damage.

The template is problematic because it has easy access to all the things that make a split template work, that all work so effectively together it surpasses everything else. The only reason not to nerf it is to evolve a meta whereby they're taken out of play by build changes (which I was honestly suprised to see didn't happen during the mAT on maps like Wurms/Frozen). As for the continuous argument of run more caster-hate than physical hate - that's possible but there is a requirement to run that amount of physical hate that has been driven even moreso by consistent nerfs to physical hate (Ward Melee, Aegis). And as for the argument to split Mesmers back - sure that works, but the accessibility to speed buffs and ease of collapse as well as no means to shut down the character which realistically makes it run rampant is then your problem. The better philosophy is to simply outsplit and kill it, but then you need to be running a split build that counters it. Alternatively, run it better.

If the healing on Aura was toned down, the emergence would be /D with Dwayna's Touch. Therefore you need to look at Featherfoot and Dwayna's Touch. I think a 7r on Distortion and reduction in healing from Aura is probably the best way forward because it makes little to no sense eliminating one character from the power creep progression while not eliminating all the others simultaneously. If the simultaneous option were to be taken, the template could probably be hit a lot harder. However I still think Rangers need to be severely looked at in terms of their ability at the same time, because if MBs take knocks in those terms they'll be able to smash them all day long which doesn't allow them to provide significant threat.