The problem is, it's not only a dead-end argument, but it's also completely without meaning and nothing but a double standard. Let me explain:
At and after release there were a LOT of whines about thieves and mesmers killing everone left and right. Tournament players (mostly rightly so) said that this was clearly a L2P issue because they didn't have those problems in tPVP, and/or there were counters for most of it (besides a few issues like portal, etc.)
Same goes for 100b warriors and a few other builds/professions. Everything always is a L2P issue.
Yet now in the developer stream, those very players who said said "L2P" at those 100b, thieves, etc. whiners now want to call for nerfs for this and that.
To this I simply say: L2P. If they can't handle ele downed state they should simply have a build that gives them enough defense to survive until the vapor form wears off and then stomp the now defenseless ele.
They said warrior condition removal is so underpowered. To this I say: L2P, why don't you dodge the conditions before they are applied? Why don't you LOS before they are applied.
They said AOE is too strong. To this I say L2P, why don't they use their invulnerbilities while rezzing, and/or rez with 2 people to make it faster? Why did they die in the first place? Clearly a L2P issue.
The list can go on without end. Because where do you draw the line? A class could have an ability on 6 seconds cooldown that does 4 million damage in 1 second without any setup. And if you die to it I could say: L2P, you should have dodged every 5 seconds. I realize I'm playing the devils advocate here but this is just to say that the whole L2P stuff has no end.
So, those so-called "pros" (which in itself is ridiculous because they don't make money by playing) should have absolutely no saying in balancing ever, because they themselves simply need to L2P better. Their notion of "anet should do what we say because we know what's best for the game" is beyond ridiculous.
Edited by AetherMcLoud, 02 December 2012 - 05:37 AM.