Will there ever be new additions to Core classes? — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Professions

Will there ever be new additions to Core classes?

Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭

So, Elite Specializations are pretty cool. They add a new specialization, new utility skills and a new weapon to a class.

But, the downside is the limitation that is having to use the new Specialization to be able to use the new weapon and utilities as well as going forward the specialization itself will become more notably limiting since you can't use multiple Elite Specializations together (Meaning that each new Elite Specialization still only has 2x the current 5 core Specializations to use alongside)

As such, I was wondering if core classes might ever be expanded upon? Given that such a thing would create more potential options to utilize. I.e. A new core weapon/Utility set could be utilized by any combination of Core Specializations as well as any Elite Specialization. While any new Core Specialization increases the pool of options that can be paired with an Elite Specialization (Whilst also making more combinations for 3x Core Specialization builds)

If necessary, you can continue to lock these additions behind Expansion content (Such as how Elite Specializations are unlocked), it's just it would be nice for new content to have more flexibility.

<1

Comments

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • Kodama.6453Kodama.6453 Member ✭✭✭

    I honestly doubt that there will be new additions to core classes in the future.

    Introducing more stuff is always a challenge for balance, since you have to consider every possible combination (which is honestly often impossible and therefore we end up with players finding OP strategies in the end).
    Elite specs are an elegant way to expand on the classes, while also reducing the possible disruption in balance by limiting the combination options. Since elite specs are exclusive, you just have to consider the 5 core trait lines and the core class skils when designing them.

    Pretty sure that we are going to get a third elite spec for every class with the coming Cantha expansion. Implementing new stuff to core would mean to balance them around all the core aspects, plus 3 potential elite specs (which also open up alot of combination options). Can just speak for myself, but I honestly don't have such a deep interest in expanding the core classes. Elite specs are fun for me and cover all my needs for new toys for my engineer, I get to play him in another interesting way, with a new skill type, new traits, new class mechanics, and a new thematical focal points. Can't ask for much more.

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭

    @Kodama.6453 said:
    Elite specs are an elegant way to expand on the classes, while also reducing the possible disruption in balance by limiting the combination options. Since elite specs are exclusive, you just have to consider the 5 core trait lines and the core class skils when designing them.

    Though, this limitation in the combination options is part of the issue that makes me want more Core additions.

    Since, it's all well and good to get a shiny new Elite pack. But then you only have so many iterations you can try out to customize it.

    To say nothing about having aspects you like from multiple Elite Specializations but can never combine (For example, on my Thief, I really like the Deadeye spec, with the Malice stacks and use of a Rifle. But I much prefer Daredevil's Physical Utilities over Deadeye's Cantrips. But it's impossible to use both together. Or maybe I'd like to try out a Core Elementalist with MH Sword)

    It often feels like a bit of a shame when looking at Elite Specs and how the new weapons and utilities are tied to them, not just the unique mechanics (Which justify being an exclusive Elite Spec)

  • Super Hayes.6890Super Hayes.6890 Member ✭✭✭✭

    New elite specs are not as exciting as new classes for me but I can appreciate the complexity new classes adds to balance. Too bad getting new classes for PvE only would probably cause the WvW and PvP crowds to riot or I would call it an option.

    The next time you get angry at someone try walking a mile in their shoes. After that, who cares! You're a mile away and you have their shoes! -Someone with more awesome quotes than me

  • I can't even think of a void that a new class could fill. They're doing a great job with the current classes and to add elites helps show the variations of class types within a theme. I think Revenant was a nice addition mixing the ritualist and the Dervish from the previous game, while filling the gap of the other-worldly Mystic / Dark Knight vibe. If there is another character type, I just don't see it.

  • Yoci.2481Yoci.2481 Member ✭✭✭

    Sometimes less is more.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @VocalThought.9835 said:
    I can't even think of a void that a new class could fill. They're doing a great job with the current classes and to add elites helps show the variations of class types within a theme. I think Revenant was a nice addition mixing the ritualist and the Dervish from the previous game, while filling the gap of the other-worldly Mystic / Dark Knight vibe. If there is another character type, I just don't see it.

    Necromancer is a massive void in the game atm that is not filled. And gw2 necromancer is not a necromancer. It's a warlock at best. Which isn't the same thing.

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Nothing new, nothing more. People seem to be fine with what we have so at this point why bother? I mean everytime anyone brings it up its the same story, pooped on by the community because of BaLaNcE even though its never been a thing. I doubt it ever will. So they probs will do new mounts, or some other gimmick thats only truly applicable in those regions and some E-specs (Starting to doubt it, with the reception of them lately.)

    Its either go big or go home, honestly with their track record and how things are going? I don't know If I trust them to add anything to any class. Because some classes feel like they are there because they were there before, or in the case of revenant were a mistake. Those who don't feel this are fine and the players are fine, so why would it be of concern of theirs of specific classes they don't touch or play feel limited or unfun? Its all me, me, me. Ill be surprised if we get E-specs let alone new things to core...

  • Yasai.3549Yasai.3549 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I think it'll be ages before Anet will ever get on that because their balance team either has trouble balancing whatever we currently have, or adds in new stuff which power creeps really really hard.

    Still, I want to see more stuff for core professions.
    I'm a little sick of Elite specs dominating the majority of the content, so much so that some professions are recognized by their Elite spec more than their core (Chrono was one of these for a LONG LONG time before it got hardcore dumpstered, Herald is also one of these)

    If I play a stupid build, I deserve to die.
    If I beat people on a stupid build, I deserve to get away with it.

  • InsaneQR.7412InsaneQR.7412 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Nope.They stated they wont make anither class and rather focus on e-specs to increase the role roster.

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭

    @Yasai.3549 said:
    I think it'll be ages before Anet will ever get on that because their balance team either has trouble balancing whatever we currently have, or adds in new stuff which power creeps really really hard.

    Still, I want to see more stuff for core professions.
    I'm a little sick of Elite specs dominating the majority of the content, so much so that some professions are recognized by their Elite spec more than their core (Chrono was one of these for a LONG LONG time before it got hardcore dumpstered, Herald is also one of these)

    Yeah...

    It's very noticeable when ANet does make nerfs to E-Specs with the reasoning of "E-Specs are meant to have a trade off" (Such as the nerf to Soulbeast's pet swapping in combat) as it implies that Core builds are supposed to be equally viable to E-Specs.

    While in reality, various E-Specs are synonymous with various classes (I.e. Power Necro = Reaper), with a huge number of Core weapon sets and Specializations being pretty horrible compared to E-Specs (With a good number of E-Specs having decent selections of Traits to create a number of builds, with some weapons even being flexible enough to be used in Power and Condi builds such as Tempest Warhorn, Weaver Sword and Soulbeast Dagger)

    To be honest, even if they don't add anything new to classes (Core or E-Spec) a lot of classes would feel like new if they went back and revamped core weapons and specializations since there are a lot of weapon skills, traits and trait selections (I.e. Ele Water GM that is a selection between 3 support traits) that are just outright garbo.

  • Kulvar.1239Kulvar.1239 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    @Yasai.3549 said:
    I think it'll be ages before Anet will ever get on that because their balance team either has trouble balancing whatever we currently have, or adds in new stuff which power creeps really really hard.

    Still, I want to see more stuff for core professions.
    I'm a little sick of Elite specs dominating the majority of the content, so much so that some professions are recognized by their Elite spec more than their core (Chrono was one of these for a LONG LONG time before it got hardcore dumpstered, Herald is also one of these)

    If only we had a 4th trait line only for eSpec and core was made into its own eSpec unlocked from level 1.

    @VocalThought.9835 said:
    I can't even think of a void that a new class could fill. They're doing a great job with the current classes and to add elites helps show the variations of class types within a theme. I think Revenant was a nice addition mixing the ritualist and the Dervish from the previous game, while filling the gap of the other-worldly Mystic / Dark Knight vibe. If there is another character type, I just don't see it.

    I can see a void in the scholars.
    We have an illusionist, an elementalist, a necromancer, but none is focused on functional magic itself on the more intellectual side.
    If we go by D&D : A wizard, magus, or arcanist.
    In game, it would be close to Asura magitech but done by someone rather than a device.
    Would also have some ties with Dwarven magic.

    Current light armor classes spells visuals are creativity based
    An elementalist can produce a gush of wind. That gush of wind can be used creatively to push a target, dry clothes, ...
    In game it pushes, but in lore it has no predefined purpose.
    The class I have in mind would be the opposite logic.
    It start from the intent (push the target), then the wizard use a spell that push and the visual effect is the magical embodiment of pushing (whatever it looks like) and couldn't be used otherwise.
    It would be more intellectual and less creativity.
    Because of this, the visual of the class skills would be more wild in creative freedom from ANet.

    It could have
    Cantrip : Only do one little thing, but on a short cooldown or with charges (high availability).
    Preparation : Similar to ritual casting, prepare an effect into the ground, after a delay you can trigger it at will.
    Mantra : Similar to prepared spells, 2s to 3s to charge, then released at will.
    Well: Typical AoE effects at range lingering for a few seconds.

    Weapons could be : Staff, Scepter, Focus, Daggers, Shortbow, MH Sword, Torch, Pistols, Warhorn.

    Class mechanic could be metamagic, arcane reservoir, sorcery points, ...

  • RabbitUp.8294RabbitUp.8294 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:
    Nothing new, nothing more. People seem to be fine with what we have so at this point why bother? I mean everytime anyone brings it up its the same story, pooped on by the community because of BaLaNcE even though its never been a thing. I doubt it ever will. So they probs will do new mounts, or some other gimmick thats only truly applicable in those regions and some E-specs (Starting to doubt it, with the reception of them lately.)

    Its either go big or go home, honestly with their track record and how things are going? I don't know If I trust them to add anything to any class. Because some classes feel like they are there because they were there before, or in the case of revenant were a mistake. Those who don't feel this are fine and the players are fine, so why would it be of concern of theirs of specific classes they don't touch or play feel limited or unfun? Its all me, me, me. Ill be surprised if we get E-specs let alone new things to core...

    How can you simultaneously think revenant was a mistake and also want a new class?

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:
    How can you simultaneously think revenant was a mistake and also want a new class?

    It may be my error, but this thread is about new Weapons/Utilities for existing Core classes, as opposed to a New class.

    Upon rereading my title and OP, I see that it comes across as asking about a new class (Personally, I don't know where a new class would fit, what with it unbalancing the armour classes as well as many things being possible as E-Specs, even the above mentioned Wizard which could simply be an E-Spec of Elementalist that forgoes the Elements and instead gets some pure magic-y type stances to use in lieu of Attunements especially given their Arcane skills which are pure non-elemental spells)

    @Kulvar.1239 said:
    If only we had a 4th trait line only for eSpec and core was made into its own eSpec unlocked from level 1.

    I'm curious about how you'd imagine that'd work.

    Like, would the Core E-Spec be a new trait line that is full of generic boosts to the class in general?

    Or would it simply be a Classes core mechanic Spec (I.e. Arcane for Ele, Trickery for Feef, Invocation for Rev, Illusion for Me(s)mer, Soul Reaping for Necro etc)?

    Given that E-Specs have a focus on their unique class mechanic in their traits, either one could be argued.

  • Kulvar.1239Kulvar.1239 Member ✭✭✭

    @Kulvar.1239 said:
    If only we had a 4th trait line only for eSpec and core was made into its own eSpec unlocked from level 1.

    I'm curious about how you'd imagine that'd work.

    Like, would the Core E-Spec be a new trait line that is full of generic boosts to the class in general?

    Or would it simply be a Classes core mechanic Spec (I.e. Arcane for Ele, Trickery for Feef, Invocation for Rev, Illusion for Me(s)mer, Soul Reaping for Necro etc)?

    Given that E-Specs have a focus on their unique class mechanic in their traits, either one could be argued.

    To not upset the current balance and based on people feeling like core is weaker than elites I would go for the first one : new trait line exclusive for core

  • RabbitUp.8294RabbitUp.8294 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Taril.8619 said:

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:
    How can you simultaneously think revenant was a mistake and also want a new class?

    It may be my error, but this thread is about new Weapons/Utilities for existing Core classes, as opposed to a New class.

    Upon rereading my title and OP, I see that it comes across as asking about a new class (Personally, I don't know where a new class would fit, what with it unbalancing the armour classes as well as many things being possible as E-Specs, even the above mentioned Wizard which could simply be an E-Spec of Elementalist that forgoes the Elements and instead gets some pure magic-y type stances to use in lieu of Attunements especially given their Arcane skills which are pure non-elemental spells)

    Yeah, my mind immediately went to "new class".

    On the actual topic then, I do wish we could get a new core elite skill for each class, like they did with healing skills back in the day. They could even be pve-only if balance was an issue, but having only 3 elites is for me one of the bigger reasons why I don't like playing core (besides rev, of course, which is an entirely different beast).

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:
    On the actual topic then, I do wish we could get a new core elite skill for each class, like they did with healing skills back in the day. They could even be pve-only if balance was an issue, but having only 3 elites is for me one of the bigger reasons why I don't like playing core (besides rev, of course, which is an entirely different beast).

    Yeah, that would be neat. Also, there's room for 2 more Elites per class, given they all have 2 Utility lines that don't have an Elite associated with them:

    Elementalist - Arcane and Signet
    Warrior - Shout and Stance
    Ranger - Trap and Signet
    Necromancer - Signet and Well
    Guardian - Consecration and Spirit Weapon
    Thief - Signet and Preparation
    Engineer - Gadget (I only just realize that Engie only has 4 utility types but has 5 skills in each)
    Mesmer - Illusion/Phantasm and Mantra

    Of course, Rev is the odd one out, given that they have 4 Elites but only 3 skills of each utility type... Though, the compromize could be a new core Legend instead of 2 Elites (Heck if I know what Engie should get instead of 2 Elites...)

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:
    Nothing new, nothing more. People seem to be fine with what we have so at this point why bother? I mean everytime anyone brings it up its the same story, pooped on by the community because of BaLaNcE even though its never been a thing. I doubt it ever will. So they probs will do new mounts, or some other gimmick thats only truly applicable in those regions and some E-specs (Starting to doubt it, with the reception of them lately.)

    Its either go big or go home, honestly with their track record and how things are going? I don't know If I trust them to add anything to any class. Because some classes feel like they are there because they were there before, or in the case of revenant were a mistake. Those who don't feel this are fine and the players are fine, so why would it be of concern of theirs of specific classes they don't touch or play feel limited or unfun? Its all me, me, me. Ill be surprised if we get E-specs let alone new things to core...

    How can you simultaneously think revenant was a mistake and also want a new class?

    Because I can? I don't think rev was a mistake and its my favorite class in game to date. I just feel a-net treats it like their mistake as they keep simplifying it and stripping it of its cool stuff..

    Don't fault me for wanting something new thats bigger than E-specs, I just think a new class would be cool. Im not gonna argue that it ain't ever gonna happen but I think that honestly we will be lucky to see E-specs in general. because of BaLaNcE, if they truly wana focus on that then they have to not add E-specs until the whole game is simplified and balanced around whatever gameplay loop they desire to make. ~ And we are a long way off from that according to everyone. Sarcasm and cynicism aside I just like when big new stuff drops mate, And I know new classes always snag new players~ Thats how WoW got me in Legion.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    What would a well do on necromancer? An elite well could be interesting but what void could it fill for the necromancer?

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 5, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:
    What would a well do on necromancer? An elite well could be interesting but what void could it fill for the necromancer?

    Well, looking at what Wells we already have on Necromancer:

    • Boon Corrupt
    • Condi Corrupt
    • Blind
    • DAMAGE (And Vuln)

    Other aspects of Necro that could be utilized for a Well are:

    • Condi transfer
    • Life Siphon (Both the well siphoning life and also the well granting allies inside it life siphon similar to Soulcleave's Summit)
    • Chill
    • Spawning minions (Jagged Horrors/Shambling Horrors)

    It could be interesting/hilarious for the Elite well to spawn horrors for each target it hits... Just this black pit that has flesh monstrosities pouring out of it (RIP Framerate). Throw in some Chill to keep enemies in there and maybe add a dash of life siphon and voila you've got yourself a new Elite well. Just imagine it with Death Nova... Such pog.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Taril.8619 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:
    What would a well do on necromancer? An elite well could be interesting but what void could it fill for the necromancer?

    Well, looking at what Wells we already have on Necromancer:

    • Boon Corrupt
    • Condi Corrupt
    • Blind
    • DAMAGE (And Vuln)

    Other aspects of Necro that could be utilized for a Well are:

    • Condi transfer
    • Life Siphon (Both the well siphoning life and also the well granting allies inside it life siphon similar to Soulcleave's Summit)
    • Chill
    • Spawning minions (Jagged Horrors/Shambling Horrors)

    It could be interesting/hilarious for the Elite well to spawn horrors for each target it hits... Just this black pit that has flesh monstrosities pouring out of it (RIP Framerate). Throw in some Chill to keep enemies in there and maybe add a dash of life siphon and voila you've got yourself a new Elite well. Just imagine it with Death Nova... Such pog.

    Pulsing fear maybe.

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Pulsing fear maybe.

    Wouldn't that be Spectral Ring though?

  • @Lily.1935 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:
    I can't even think of a void that a new class could fill. They're doing a great job with the current classes and to add elites helps show the variations of class types within a theme. I think Revenant was a nice addition mixing the ritualist and the Dervish from the previous game, while filling the gap of the other-worldly Mystic / Dark Knight vibe. If there is another character type, I just don't see it.

    Necromancer is a massive void in the game atm that is not filled. And gw2 necromancer is not a necromancer. It's a warlock at best. Which isn't the same thing.

    It might be the necro you had in mind, but it is a Necromancer. It totally fits the theme, but just because it doesn't do what other game Necromancers do, doesn't mean that wrong. The Devs created a world, created a class and gave it a name. The same can be said with other games. They are fitting within their license.

    @Kulvar.1239 said:

    @Yasai.3549 said:
    I think it'll be ages before Anet will ever get on that because their balance team either has trouble balancing whatever we currently have, or adds in new stuff which power creeps really really hard.

    Still, I want to see more stuff for core professions.
    I'm a little sick of Elite specs dominating the majority of the content, so much so that some professions are recognized by their Elite spec more than their core (Chrono was one of these for a LONG LONG time before it got hardcore dumpstered, Herald is also one of these)

    If only we had a 4th trait line only for eSpec and core was made into its own eSpec unlocked from level 1.

    @VocalThought.9835 said:
    I can't even think of a void that a new class could fill. They're doing a great job with the current classes and to add elites helps show the variations of class types within a theme. I think Revenant was a nice addition mixing the ritualist and the Dervish from the previous game, while filling the gap of the other-worldly Mystic / Dark Knight vibe. If there is another character type, I just don't see it.

    I can see a void in the scholars.
    We have an illusionist, an elementalist, a necromancer, but none is focused on functional magic itself on the more intellectual side.
    If we go by D&D : A wizard, magus, or arcanist.
    In game, it would be close to Asura magitech but done by someone rather than a device.
    Would also have some ties with Dwarven magic.

    Current light armor classes spells visuals are creativity based
    An elementalist can produce a gush of wind. That gush of wind can be used creatively to push a target, dry clothes, ...
    In game it pushes, but in lore it has no predefined purpose.
    The class I have in mind would be the opposite logic.
    It start from the intent (push the target), then the wizard use a spell that push and the visual effect is the magical embodiment of pushing (whatever it looks like) and couldn't be used otherwise.
    It would be more intellectual and less creativity.
    Because of this, the visual of the class skills would be more wild in creative freedom from ANet.

    It could have
    Cantrip : Only do one little thing, but on a short cooldown or with charges (high availability).
    Preparation : Similar to ritual casting, prepare an effect into the ground, after a delay you can trigger it at will.
    Mantra : Similar to prepared spells, 2s to 3s to charge, then released at will.
    Well: Typical AoE effects at range lingering for a few seconds.

    Weapons could be : Staff, Scepter, Focus, Daggers, Shortbow, MH Sword, Torch, Pistols, Warhorn.

    Class mechanic could be metamagic, arcane reservoir, sorcery points, ...

    I think for what you looking for the game would have to create another system. Dragon's Dogma has a system like that were certain spells make you wet or dry your clothes. GW2 has a combo system, but it's not close. As far as classes go... I think the elites are currently in a great position to add to a class what you feel is missing. I don't think there any missing class though. A new class would be more than what's needed. Especially if you want any order or consistency. I think the best way to look at this is by looking at each profession and their core and elite specializations, then think what's not here and does any of your ideas not fit with a current profession?

  • Kulvar.1239Kulvar.1239 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 11, 2020

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Kulvar.1239 said:

    @Yasai.3549 said:
    I think it'll be ages before Anet will ever get on that because their balance team either has trouble balancing whatever we currently have, or adds in new stuff which power creeps really really hard.

    Still, I want to see more stuff for core professions.
    I'm a little sick of Elite specs dominating the majority of the content, so much so that some professions are recognized by their Elite spec more than their core (Chrono was one of these for a LONG LONG time before it got hardcore dumpstered, Herald is also one of these)

    If only we had a 4th trait line only for eSpec and core was made into its own eSpec unlocked from level 1.

    @VocalThought.9835 said:
    I can't even think of a void that a new class could fill. They're doing a great job with the current classes and to add elites helps show the variations of class types within a theme. I think Revenant was a nice addition mixing the ritualist and the Dervish from the previous game, while filling the gap of the other-worldly Mystic / Dark Knight vibe. If there is another character type, I just don't see it.

    I can see a void in the scholars.
    We have an illusionist, an elementalist, a necromancer, but none is focused on functional magic itself on the more intellectual side.
    If we go by D&D : A wizard, magus, or arcanist.
    In game, it would be close to Asura magitech but done by someone rather than a device.
    Would also have some ties with Dwarven magic.

    Current light armor classes spells visuals are creativity based
    An elementalist can produce a gush of wind. That gush of wind can be used creatively to push a target, dry clothes, ...
    In game it pushes, but in lore it has no predefined purpose.
    The class I have in mind would be the opposite logic.
    It start from the intent (push the target), then the wizard use a spell that push and the visual effect is the magical embodiment of pushing (whatever it looks like) and couldn't be used otherwise.
    It would be more intellectual and less creativity.
    Because of this, the visual of the class skills would be more wild in creative freedom from ANet.

    It could have
    Cantrip : Only do one little thing, but on a short cooldown or with charges (high availability).
    Preparation : Similar to ritual casting, prepare an effect into the ground, after a delay you can trigger it at will.
    Mantra : Similar to prepared spells, 2s to 3s to charge, then released at will.
    Well: Typical AoE effects at range lingering for a few seconds.

    Weapons could be : Staff, Scepter, Focus, Daggers, Shortbow, MH Sword, Torch, Pistols, Warhorn.

    Class mechanic could be metamagic, arcane reservoir, sorcery points, ...

    I think for what you looking for the game would have to create another system. Dragon's Dogma has a system like that were certain spells make you wet or dry your clothes. GW2 has a combo system, but it's not close. As far as classes go... I think the elites are currently in a great position to add to a class what you feel is missing. I don't think there any missing class though. A new class would be more than what's needed. Especially if you want any order or consistency. I think the best way to look at this is by looking at each profession and their core and elite specializations, then think what's not here and does any of your ideas not fit with a current profession?

    I don't think we have an elementalist elite without attunements or a mesmer elite without clones, nor a necromancer elite that isn't themed after death/ghosts/bones/darkness :)

  • VocalThought.9835VocalThought.9835 Member ✭✭
    edited May 11, 2020

    ````> @Kulvar.1239 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Kulvar.1239 said:

    @Yasai.3549 said:
    I think it'll be ages before Anet will ever get on that because their balance team either has trouble balancing whatever we currently have, or adds in new stuff which power creeps really really hard.

    Still, I want to see more stuff for core professions.
    I'm a little sick of Elite specs dominating the majority of the content, so much so that some professions are recognized by their Elite spec more than their core (Chrono was one of these for a LONG LONG time before it got hardcore dumpstered, Herald is also one of these)

    If only we had a 4th trait line only for eSpec and core was made into its own eSpec unlocked from level 1.

    @VocalThought.9835 said:
    I can't even think of a void that a new class could fill. They're doing a great job with the current classes and to add elites helps show the variations of class types within a theme. I think Revenant was a nice addition mixing the ritualist and the Dervish from the previous game, while filling the gap of the other-worldly Mystic / Dark Knight vibe. If there is another character type, I just don't see it.

    I can see a void in the scholars.
    We have an illusionist, an elementalist, a necromancer, but none is focused on functional magic itself on the more intellectual side.
    If we go by D&D : A wizard, magus, or arcanist.
    In game, it would be close to Asura magitech but done by someone rather than a device.
    Would also have some ties with Dwarven magic.

    Current light armor classes spells visuals are creativity based
    An elementalist can produce a gush of wind. That gush of wind can be used creatively to push a target, dry clothes, ...
    In game it pushes, but in lore it has no predefined purpose.
    The class I have in mind would be the opposite logic.
    It start from the intent (push the target), then the wizard use a spell that push and the visual effect is the magical embodiment of pushing (whatever it looks like) and couldn't be used otherwise.
    It would be more intellectual and less creativity.
    Because of this, the visual of the class skills would be more wild in creative freedom from ANet.

    It could have
    Cantrip : Only do one little thing, but on a short cooldown or with charges (high availability).
    Preparation : Similar to ritual casting, prepare an effect into the ground, after a delay you can trigger it at will.
    Mantra : Similar to prepared spells, 2s to 3s to charge, then released at will.
    Well: Typical AoE effects at range lingering for a few seconds.

    Weapons could be : Staff, Scepter, Focus, Daggers, Shortbow, MH Sword, Torch, Pistols, Warhorn.

    Class mechanic could be metamagic, arcane reservoir, sorcery points, ...

    I think for what you looking for the game would have to create another system. Dragon's Dogma has a system like that were certain spells make you wet or dry your clothes. GW2 has a combo system, but it's not close. As far as classes go... I think the elites are currently in a great position to add to a class what you feel is missing. I don't think there any missing class though. A new class would be more than what's needed. Especially if you want any order or consistency. I think the best way to look at this is by looking at each profession and their core and elite specializations, then think what's not here and does any of your ideas not fit with a current profession?

    I don't think we have an elementalist elite without attunements or a mesmer elite without clones, nor a necromancer elite that isn't themed after death/ghosts/bones/darkness :)

    I'm so glad you brought that up. Tell me what you think about this.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/105008/expansion-predictions

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:
    I can't even think of a void that a new class could fill. They're doing a great job with the current classes and to add elites helps show the variations of class types within a theme. I think Revenant was a nice addition mixing the ritualist and the Dervish from the previous game, while filling the gap of the other-worldly Mystic / Dark Knight vibe. If there is another character type, I just don't see it.

    Necromancer is a massive void in the game atm that is not filled. And gw2 necromancer is not a necromancer. It's a warlock at best. Which isn't the same thing.

    It might be the necro you had in mind, but it is a Necromancer. It totally fits the theme, but just because it doesn't do what other game Necromancers do, doesn't mean that wrong. The Devs created a world, created a class and gave it a name. The same can be said with other games. They are fitting within their license.

    @Kulvar.1239 said:

    @Yasai.3549 said:
    I think it'll be ages before Anet will ever get on that because their balance team either has trouble balancing whatever we currently have, or adds in new stuff which power creeps really really hard.

    Still, I want to see more stuff for core professions.
    I'm a little sick of Elite specs dominating the majority of the content, so much so that some professions are recognized by their Elite spec more than their core (Chrono was one of these for a LONG LONG time before it got hardcore dumpstered, Herald is also one of these)

    If only we had a 4th trait line only for eSpec and core was made into its own eSpec unlocked from level 1.

    @VocalThought.9835 said:
    I can't even think of a void that a new class could fill. They're doing a great job with the current classes and to add elites helps show the variations of class types within a theme. I think Revenant was a nice addition mixing the ritualist and the Dervish from the previous game, while filling the gap of the other-worldly Mystic / Dark Knight vibe. If there is another character type, I just don't see it.

    I can see a void in the scholars.
    We have an illusionist, an elementalist, a necromancer, but none is focused on functional magic itself on the more intellectual side.
    If we go by D&D : A wizard, magus, or arcanist.
    In game, it would be close to Asura magitech but done by someone rather than a device.
    Would also have some ties with Dwarven magic.

    Current light armor classes spells visuals are creativity based
    An elementalist can produce a gush of wind. That gush of wind can be used creatively to push a target, dry clothes, ...
    In game it pushes, but in lore it has no predefined purpose.
    The class I have in mind would be the opposite logic.
    It start from the intent (push the target), then the wizard use a spell that push and the visual effect is the magical embodiment of pushing (whatever it looks like) and couldn't be used otherwise.
    It would be more intellectual and less creativity.
    Because of this, the visual of the class skills would be more wild in creative freedom from ANet.

    It could have
    Cantrip : Only do one little thing, but on a short cooldown or with charges (high availability).
    Preparation : Similar to ritual casting, prepare an effect into the ground, after a delay you can trigger it at will.
    Mantra : Similar to prepared spells, 2s to 3s to charge, then released at will.
    Well: Typical AoE effects at range lingering for a few seconds.

    Weapons could be : Staff, Scepter, Focus, Daggers, Shortbow, MH Sword, Torch, Pistols, Warhorn.

    Class mechanic could be metamagic, arcane reservoir, sorcery points, ...

    I think for what you looking for the game would have to create another system. Dragon's Dogma has a system like that were certain spells make you wet or dry your clothes. GW2 has a combo system, but it's not close. As far as classes go... I think the elites are currently in a great position to add to a class what you feel is missing. I don't think there any missing class though. A new class would be more than what's needed. Especially if you want any order or consistency. I think the best way to look at this is by looking at each profession and their core and elite specializations, then think what's not here and does any of your ideas not fit with a current profession?

    Regardless of the what its technically called the issue I have is the role the necromancer plays in other games is absent in Guild Wars 2 even when GW2's system is very capable of filling these roles without any hiccups or issues. As such the necromancer in gw2 emulates a few different roles, but none of them are the role the necromancer fills in other titles.

    Core necromancer is more similar to a warlock which has some similarities with necromancer but are distinct enough that they could be two different classes entirely.

    Reaper fits that Death knight or Dark knight role, somewhat. But death knight has even fewer similarities with necromancer.

    Scourge fits the shaman role decently enough.

    None of these fill the role of the necromancer typically fills. Necromancers are typically very glassy. They can't take hits and tend to act as support and control. Hexing foes, creating Dead zones which cause benefits to allies or negative effects to foes, summons massive number of minions as great expense of their own survival, and sacrifice health and minions to gain these effects as well. One way to describe them is cyclical. They burn through their own resources, weaken foes and self and give allies a chance to shread them then uses the dead to recover and begin their long process of spreading their power.

    This role is absent. Necromancer is as similar to this as Guardian is to a Dungeons and Dragons Fighter.

  • @Lily.1935 said:

    None of these fill the role of the necromancer typically fills. Necromancers are typically very glassy. They can't take hits and tend to act as support and control. Hexing foes, creating Dead zones which cause benefits to allies or negative effects to foes, summons massive number of minions as great expense of their own survival, and sacrifice health and minions to gain these effects as well. One way to describe them is cyclical. They burn through their own resources, weaken foes and self and give allies a chance to shread them then uses the dead to recover and begin their long process of spreading their power.

    This role is absent. Necromancer is as similar to this as Guardian is to a Dungeons and Dragons Fighter.

    Hexing foes- Marks
    Weaken foes and self- Corruption Skills
    Dead zones- Wells
    Multiple Minions- Minions

    Are we playing the same game, because what you stated is clearly in this game. Is it done to your standards, maybe not, but it's there.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    None of these fill the role of the necromancer typically fills. Necromancers are typically very glassy. They can't take hits and tend to act as support and control. Hexing foes, creating Dead zones which cause benefits to allies or negative effects to foes, summons massive number of minions as great expense of their own survival, and sacrifice health and minions to gain these effects as well. One way to describe them is cyclical. They burn through their own resources, weaken foes and self and give allies a chance to shread them then uses the dead to recover and begin their long process of spreading their power.

    This role is absent. Necromancer is as similar to this as Guardian is to a Dungeons and Dragons Fighter.

    Hexing foes- Marks
    Weaken foes and self- Corruption Skills
    Dead zones- Wells
    Multiple Minions- Minions

    Are we playing the same game, because what you stated is clearly in this game. Is it done to your standards, maybe not, but it's there.

    A mark is little more than a trap. It's no better than a warrior which applies bleeds. A hex tends to he much more impactful than that. And conditions are not quite the same thing. Wells also are less akin to the persistent aoe Debuffs or buffs and more akin to the pulse of a fire storm or holy symbol flavored differently. Mechanically it's very different.

    Also Warlocks have minions. Minions for necromancer don't typically make them bulky though. That's rare. The necromancer is more frequently fragile using a large number of minions. Warlocks typically use a smaller number of minions which do specific skills. Necromancer minions are typically designed to be destroyed. They are zergling.

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    None of these fill the role of the necromancer typically fills. Necromancers are typically very glassy. They can't take hits and tend to act as support and control. Hexing foes, creating Dead zones which cause benefits to allies or negative effects to foes, summons massive number of minions as great expense of their own survival, and sacrifice health and minions to gain these effects as well. One way to describe them is cyclical. They burn through their own resources, weaken foes and self and give allies a chance to shread them then uses the dead to recover and begin their long process of spreading their power.

    This role is absent. Necromancer is as similar to this as Guardian is to a Dungeons and Dragons Fighter.

    Hexing foes- Marks
    Weaken foes and self- Corruption Skills
    Dead zones- Wells
    Multiple Minions- Minions

    Are we playing the same game, because what you stated is clearly in this game. Is it done to your standards, maybe not, but it's there.

    A mark is little more than a trap. It's no better than a warrior which applies bleeds. A hex tends to he much more impactful than that. And conditions are not quite the same thing. Wells also are less akin to the persistent aoe Debuffs or buffs and more akin to the pulse of a fire storm or holy symbol flavored differently. Mechanically it's very different.

    Also Warlocks have minions. Minions for necromancer don't typically make them bulky though. That's rare. The necromancer is more frequently fragile using a large number of minions. Warlocks typically use a smaller number of minions which do specific skills. Necromancer minions are typically designed to be destroyed. They are zergling.

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

    Nah, mechanically it's still very much a necromancer, just not "your type of fantasy" necromancer. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't make it any less of a necromancer though. All the necromancer does is use black magic and has the ability to use/connect with the dead. You seem to be referring some kind of a specific type of a necromancer from a game you preferred, but that doesn't make gw2 necro any less of a necro.
    The design choices you dislike seem to be made into what they are due to the fact that it's a multiplayer game and they need to be balanced around player interaction.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @VocalThought.9835 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    None of these fill the role of the necromancer typically fills. Necromancers are typically very glassy. They can't take hits and tend to act as support and control. Hexing foes, creating Dead zones which cause benefits to allies or negative effects to foes, summons massive number of minions as great expense of their own survival, and sacrifice health and minions to gain these effects as well. One way to describe them is cyclical. They burn through their own resources, weaken foes and self and give allies a chance to shread them then uses the dead to recover and begin their long process of spreading their power.

    This role is absent. Necromancer is as similar to this as Guardian is to a Dungeons and Dragons Fighter.

    Hexing foes- Marks
    Weaken foes and self- Corruption Skills
    Dead zones- Wells
    Multiple Minions- Minions

    Are we playing the same game, because what you stated is clearly in this game. Is it done to your standards, maybe not, but it's there.

    A mark is little more than a trap. It's no better than a warrior which applies bleeds. A hex tends to he much more impactful than that. And conditions are not quite the same thing. Wells also are less akin to the persistent aoe Debuffs or buffs and more akin to the pulse of a fire storm or holy symbol flavored differently. Mechanically it's very different.

    Also Warlocks have minions. Minions for necromancer don't typically make them bulky though. That's rare. The necromancer is more frequently fragile using a large number of minions. Warlocks typically use a smaller number of minions which do specific skills. Necromancer minions are typically designed to be destroyed. They are zergling.

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

    Nah, mechanically it's still very much a necromancer, just not "your type of fantasy" necromancer. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't make it any less of a necromancer though. All the necromancer does is use black magic and has the ability to use/connect with the dead. You seem to be referring some kind of a specific type of a necromancer from a game you preferred, but that doesn't make gw2 necro any less of a necro.
    The design choices you dislike seem to be made into what they are due to the fact that it's a multiplayer game and they need to be balanced around player interaction.

    Dungeons and Dragons, Diablo 2 and 3, Guild wars one, Somewhat Grim Dawn, Elder scrolls online(although I don't like that one), Path of Exile.

    None of the games I've listed are solo experiences. So I don't know where you got that assumption. And they do some interesting things and diverge in a few directions ways. Not all use corpses for example. But the role of the necromancer is still fairly supportive. Dungeons and Dragons have multiple types of necromancers. But the strongest one without the dread necromancer from 3.5 I think are Wizards. Low health, cloth class. They will debuff foes and do have some buffs. Clerics can be necromancers too though not as effective. The Circle of spores druid is somewhat similar to the necromancer, more the reaper and somewhat scourge in a way at higher levels... They're weird. But that's the closest thing to a GW2 necromancer in D&D I've played but even them are far more supportive than our necromancer.

    Guild wars 1 necromancer, which was my personal favorite is almost nothing like the gw2 necromancer. Read its abilities, play it you'll quickly see what I mean. Even if you argue "it's still a necromancer" which isn't quite my argument, the role that the gw2 necromancer and role the gw1 necromancer are completely different and the gw1 necromancer role is absent from gw2.

  • Kodama.6453Kodama.6453 Member ✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 said:

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

    This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

    GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

    You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

    This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

    GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

    You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

    Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

  • Kodama.6453Kodama.6453 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2020

    I would like to see new core weapons added to the engineer. With just 3 weapons (rifle, pistol, shield), engineer is the most limited class when it comes to weapon options and I think it also hurts elite spec designs.

    When, for example, thief gets a new power elite spec added (like they got with daredevil and deadeye), then they have a wide array of power weapons they can combine with the new elite spec besides the new elite spec weapon, allowing many different builds.
    Engineer has just 1 condi option (pistol) and 1 power option (rifle), which means they will never be able to craft as many different builds as other classes with their new elite specs.

    Some examples of weapons they could add:
    Dagger - imagine it as a supportive weapon with some condis, basically using it as a scalpel like a surgeon
    Staff - maybe as a sonic based power AoE weapon without projectiles
    Torch - unlike most classes, I imagine it as a power based offhand for engineer with an oilfield (dark combo field?) that ticks damage and applies slow on 4, then an explosion skill on 5 that has the gimmick to become a more powerful explosion if detonated on the oildield

    There are so many weapons with skins fitting for the engineer, but unfortunately we can't use them....

    I am also a fan of the idea to add another elite skill to each class. But it should really just be 1, since engineer just has 1 elite slot open since they ae designed differently. But giving all classes 1 new elite skill would also already be awesome.
    in another thread with exactly this topic, I already suggested an idea for a new elite gadget skill:
    Shield Generator
    You gain 4.000 barrier for the next 3 seconds.
    Cast time: 1/2 s Cooldown: 90 s

    Flips over to: Detonate Shield
    Reactivating the skill will consume all barrier from that skill that is left, damaging and ccing the enemies around based on the damage that got absorbed by barrier. Counts as an explosion.

    1.000 damage absorbed: deal low damage and crippling foes struck.
    2.000 damage absorbed: deal medium damage and crippling and dazing foes struck.
    3.000 damage absorbed: deal high damage and stunning foes struck.
    Instant cast.
    

    Toolbelt skill: Dismantle Defense
    Remove protection, regeneration, resistance and aegis, dealing damage. Damage gets reduced for every boon removed (meaning that it will deal more damage if none of these boons are on the target).
    Instant cast, Cooldown: 30 s

    PS: While we're at it, please REWORK ELIXIR X. It is a relic from the time when elixir skills were randomly copying skills from other classes like Elixir U also did in the past. The randomness got removed almost entirely from the elixirs, which is good, since RNG shouldn't have such a huge impact on your gameplay.

    Give engineer a new own transformation skill for Elixir X, transforming them into a big ooze with a new set of skills.

  • RabbitUp.8294RabbitUp.8294 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

    This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

    GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

    You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

    Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

    There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

    The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

    And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

    This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

    GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

    You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

    Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

    There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

    The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

    And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Exactly! Glad other people understand that :p

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2020

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

    This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

    GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

    You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

    Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

    There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

    The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

    And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Okay, then how to I play my blood nova build. Or battery? Or orders build? Or Suicide nuker? or MoP build? What about my Zergling build? None of those exist... Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

    ALso, again i'm not arguing theme. Let me repeat that for those who haven't been paying attention.

    I'm not arguing about theme!

  • RabbitUp.8294RabbitUp.8294 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

    This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

    GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

    You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

    Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

    There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

    The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

    And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Okay, then how to I play my blood nova build. Or battery? Or orders build? Or Suicide nuker? or MoP build? What about my Zergling build? None of those exist... Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

    ALso, again i'm not arguing theme. Let me repeat that for those who haven't been paying attention.

    I'm not arguing about theme!

    I know you are not taking about theme, I'm saying that theme is the only thing that matters when you are asking the question whether GW2 has the "necromancer" niche covered.

    Mechanics are a complete different subject. The fact that one game does things a certain way doesn't mean this game should do the same.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

    This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

    GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

    You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

    Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

    There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

    The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

    And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Okay, then how to I play my blood nova build. Or battery? Or orders build? Or Suicide nuker? or MoP build? What about my Zergling build? None of those exist...

    None of them are equivalent of "necromancer", none of these are needed to fill a necro role.

    Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

    People expect? Sure -some do, but then again some don't. They didn't fill them, because they literally can't fulfill every expectation any player in the game has.

    ALso, again i'm not arguing theme. Let me repeat that for those who haven't been paying attention.

    I'm not arguing about theme!

    You're claiming that "mechanically that's not necro", but there's no such thing as "necro mechanic". Unless you really want to go with such watered down "mechanics", that they basically become the equivalent of theme -like "has minions", "debuffs", "uses dark/death magic" and so on. In which case the gw2 necro is still easly "mechanically necro".
    You're free to want/prefer any iteration of the class from any game (or other media) in the existance, nothing wrong about that. But stop using overblown claims like "mechanically it's not necromancer", because that doesn't make much sense.

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

    What people?

    People who've explicitly played the exact games you have and no others that show Necromancers in a multitude of different lights (Including actually in games you've listed such as PoE which doesn't necessarily fit any of your classifications of "Necromancer". Heck, I've played several seasons as a Zombie build where I summoned one giant Zombie who gained my Strength so I stacked Strength out the wazoo and thus was one of my tankiest characters, running around with this giant zombro who pummelled things)

    Not to mention, class crossover. Mesmer has the playstyle of a "Zerglings" type character, in the way that they constantly pump out weak AI (Clones in their case) that rush at enemies and in many cases stack debuffs on their targets until it's time for the Mesmer to blow them up. That's literally a Necromancer trope build that just happens to not be on Necromancer (Though, Necro still has some potential with it, what with Death Nova and Bone Minions, though with less support than general Mesmer gameplay)

    A lot of what you state is intrinic of Necromancer, often finds its way to "Sorcerer" archetypes (Hexes, Blood magic, Dead zones etc) that have nothing to do with "Death" at all and are just Mages like Elementalist but with some emo spells.

    I've played plenty of games where Necromancer have few tough minions (City of Villains, Everquest, Path of Exile, WoW's Death Knight can qualify as a Necromancer)

    I've played plenty of games where Necromancer summons vast hoards.

    I've played plenty of games where Necromancers used Hexes and could support.

    I've played plenty of games where Necromancers were very selfish and were basically a 1 man party who just raised whatever they needed.

    All that makes a "Necromancer" is having Death magic. That's literally the meaning of the name. Necro meaning Death. Mancer meaning practicioner of magic.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

    This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

    GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

    You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

    Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

    There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

    The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

    And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Okay, then how to I play my blood nova build. Or battery? Or orders build? Or Suicide nuker? or MoP build? What about my Zergling build? None of those exist... Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

    ALso, again i'm not arguing theme. Let me repeat that for those who haven't been paying attention.

    I'm not arguing about theme!

    I know you are not taking about theme, I'm saying that theme is the only thing that matters when you are asking the question whether GW2 has the "necromancer" niche covered.

    Mechanics are a complete different subject. The fact that one game does things a certain way doesn't mean this game should do the same.

    It creates an expectation of players. This is something that game developers do discuss and talk about. Mark Rosewater actually talked about this in one of his podcasts about player expectations.

  • ScottBroChill.3254ScottBroChill.3254 Member ✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 Anet said they wanted to get away from actual hex and mechanics like that and instead make them into things like wells and other such abilities. They did this with mesmer hexes too, but instead they are in the form of phantasms and clones. It's more of a physical manifistation of what the hexes do instead of just another condition on your status bar that just needs to be removed. All these mechanics that you speak of aren't necessarily mandatory for the class identity. All those things are just sorta common because most games follow how D&D and other early fantasy genres portrayed the abilities and playstyles of the classes. But, Anet has taken there own initiative to take common themes and give them their own twist. This is why we have things like a guardian who is a tank with the lowest health pool that relies on aegis and other defensive traits to survive because they are squishier than the norm. We have an elementalist who is mostly more effective at melee range than afar casting spells with a staff, and who has less large powerful spells than the typical elemental mage has. Our engineers are more so garage tinkerers who go to action inspector gadget style instead of a more refined, steampunk, or militaristic type of engineer usually found. Our thieves are generally not hard hitting classes in this game and instead are in-and-out types, basically removing the rouge/assassin aspect to this archetype.

    The necromancer is a necromancer because of the theme of It's abilities and because of the skill animations. That's basically it. If there was a necromancer throwing fireballs or healing allies with the power of dwayna, then I might need an explanation of what's going on.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

    This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

    GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

    You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

    Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

    There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

    The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

    And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Okay, then how to I play my blood nova build. Or battery? Or orders build? Or Suicide nuker? or MoP build? What about my Zergling build? None of those exist...

    None of them are equivalent of "necromancer", none of these are needed to fill a necro role.

    Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

    People expect? Sure -some do, but then again some don't. They didn't fill them, because they literally can't fulfill every expectation any player in the game has.

    ALso, again i'm not arguing theme. Let me repeat that for those who haven't been paying attention.

    I'm not arguing about theme!

    You're claiming that "mechanically that's not necro", but there's no such thing as "necro mechanic". Unless you really want to go with such watered down "mechanics", that they basically become the equivalent of theme -like "has minions", "debuffs", "uses dark/death magic" and so on. In which case the gw2 necro is still easly "mechanically necro".
    You're free to want/prefer any iteration of the class from any game (or other media) in the existance, nothing wrong about that. But stop using overblown claims like "mechanically it's not necromancer", because that doesn't make much sense.

    Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

    If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

    I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ScottBroChill.3254 said:
    @Lily.1935 Anet said they wanted to get away from actual hex and mechanics like that and instead make them into things like wells and other such abilities. They did this with mesmer hexes too, but instead they are in the form of phantasms and clones. It's more of a physical manifistation of what the hexes do instead of just another condition on your status bar that just needs to be removed. All these mechanics that you speak of aren't necessarily mandatory for the class identity. All those things are just sorta common because most games follow how D&D and other early fantasy genres portrayed the abilities and playstyles of the classes. But, Anet has taken there own initiative to take common themes and give them their own twist. This is why we have things like a guardian who is a tank with the lowest health pool that relies on aegis and other defensive traits to survive because they are squishier than the norm. We have an elementalist who is mostly more effective at melee range than afar casting spells with a staff, and who has less large powerful spells than the typical elemental mage has. Our engineers are more so garage tinkerers who go to action inspector gadget style instead of a more refined, steampunk, or militaristic type of engineer usually found. Our thieves are generally not hard hitting classes in this game and instead are in-and-out types, basically removing the rouge/assassin aspect to this archetype.

    The necromancer is a necromancer because of the theme of It's abilities and because of the skill animations. That's basically it. If there was a necromancer throwing fireballs or healing allies with the power of dwayna, then I might need an explanation of what's going on.

    My argument is about a mechanical niche not being filled. As for Hexes, there are work arounds Arena net can employ that a few people have suggested before. The idea of Fields which create HEX like zones which have a Pillar that can be destroyed by an opponent, but gives this sort of Curse feel for example. Some Conditions do have hex like qualities like Confusion, torment and Poison, but they can include new ways to modify conditions if they so chose.

    And Hexes aren't the only thing I'm missing. The health sacrifice for support and power is something I'm desperate for in this game which is sorely lacking. We got a small TASTE of it with Signet of Undeath which has now become one of my favorite skills in the game. Its so engaging and fun to use and some players hate to use it, sure, however the necromancer class wasn't as popular as it is in GW2, but that's sorta because its filling a mechanical niche it didn't use to. Now was that the right decision on Arena Net's part? Well, looking at the numbers I'd have to begrudgingly say yes, but from a player standpoint who loved this sort of play style I'd say no.

    NOW My original post was sorta a tongue and cheek post, but, I do actually feel that the mechanical niche necromancer's typically fill is sorely absent from this game. And when people make the claim that "All niches are filled" I scoff at this notion as there are plenty of mechanical niches which just aren't. The Typical Niche the necromancer fills is one of those such niches that are currently not in the game. So when people tell me "You can't play what you enjoy most" it sucks pretty bad. And I've abandoned games for that reason before. As have a few of my friends.

    There are certain archetypes that should be filled in the game and Although I Don't necessarily believe that a new class is absolutely needed, I do believe that Arena net has a lot of work ahead of them if they want to fill the desired archetypes for their game.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

    This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

    GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

    You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

    Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

    There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

    The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

    And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Okay, then how to I play my blood nova build. Or battery? Or orders build? Or Suicide nuker? or MoP build? What about my Zergling build? None of those exist...

    None of them are equivalent of "necromancer", none of these are needed to fill a necro role.

    Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

    People expect? Sure -some do, but then again some don't. They didn't fill them, because they literally can't fulfill every expectation any player in the game has.

    ALso, again i'm not arguing theme. Let me repeat that for those who haven't been paying attention.

    I'm not arguing about theme!

    You're claiming that "mechanically that's not necro", but there's no such thing as "necro mechanic". Unless you really want to go with such watered down "mechanics", that they basically become the equivalent of theme -like "has minions", "debuffs", "uses dark/death magic" and so on. In which case the gw2 necro is still easly "mechanically necro".
    You're free to want/prefer any iteration of the class from any game (or other media) in the existance, nothing wrong about that. But stop using overblown claims like "mechanically it's not necromancer", because that doesn't make much sense.

    Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

    If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

    Necro isn't limited to just shroud, so I'm not sure how that's meaningful in any way here? And changing theme would work the same on majority -if not all- of classes/skills/mechanics in the game (most probably in most of the games, not only this one btw). I don't understand how's that a valid argument about anything?

    By that logic -as far as I understand it- we could remove shroud from the necro and we'd be left with "death magic, minions and whatnot", which apparently somehow would make a great "mechanically necro!", because there's no longer an additional shroud mechanic that you can complain about because it's "so not necro". That makes no sense to me.

    I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

    There's nothing like "mechanically necromancer". There are different iterations of casters using necromancer theme and just because you liked one over the other doesn't make it THE default "necro mechanic". Unless, of course:

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    Unless you really want to go with such watered down "mechanics", that they basically become the equivalent of theme -like "has minions", "debuffs", "uses dark/death magic" and so on. In which case the gw2 necro is still easly "mechanically necro".

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

    If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

    I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

    Mechanically speaking, you can easily turn ANY mechanic into one that fits another class. You just have to think up some thematic way of getting the same end effect.

    Hexes? > Rogue uses Poison > Warrior uses debilitating Shout > Paladin smites with divine justice > Wizard uses arcane jiggery pokery etc.

    Health as a resource? > Rogue doesn't have "Health" they have "Luck" and once their luck runs out, they get hit and die. Hence, they can spend this luck for power > Warrior your standard Berserker archetype > Paladin makes and offering to the divine (Think: the practice of self flagellation which has been prevalent in many religious cultures) > Wizard casts spells so powerful they drain their very life essence etc.

    Minions? > Rogue calls in their Thief Guild buddies > Warrior calls in their Fighter guild buddies > Paladin summons up holy spirits > Wizard conjures elementals etc.

    No mechanic is inherently related to a class. It all comes down to how you colour it and what lore you use to substantiate it. Hence why "Zergling Necro" is literally just Mesmer. It has taken the mechanic and made it pink with butterflies and voila, it's now suitable for a Mesmer.

    Classes are entirely defined by how their skills are animated and justified. Which is why I've played plenty of Warlocks that summon Demons that play identically to Necromancers just instead of Zombies and Skeletons being summoned and "Death magic" spells, it's Demons and "Demon magic". I've also played some Wizard types that summon Elementals and use "Elemental magic". Just as I've played Wizards and Sorcerors that use their health as a resource (Notably, in Warhammer Online where Bright Wizard and Sorceror classes unique mechanic was that as they cast spells, they build up Power and the higher their power the greater the chance for spells to "Backfire" and deal damage to themselves with increasing damage too but at the same time, the stronger their spells would be)

    I've also played things like Engineers that "Hex" because they throw vials of acid and poison as well as bombs to debilitate enemies (Sometimes these Engineers could even build small machines that could run after enemies and nibble at them until they were detonated by the Engineer), even Bards have "Hex-like" effects through debilitating songs (Such as Dirge in EQ2) as well as the occasional poison coated dagger.

    So, complaining that a class doesn't "Mechanically feel like a class" is silly. Given that literally any mechanic can be utilized by literally any class because nothing is directly related. At best, there are some stereotypical archetypes that lean on specific tropes (Such as Necromancers raising the dead) but that's not a necessity and stems a lot from how popular Tolkein's fantasy design became (Since it has influenced a large portion of fantasy, from class archetypes to races (I.e. Elves are tall, slender, beautiful, Dwarfs are stout, muscular and 90% beard, Human heroes always have an Elf GF, Orcs are ugly, savage beasts etc) as well as the minutia of various classes such as how Archers are typically Elves because for some reason dexterity/agility is considered the stat needed to use a bow as opposed to strength to actually draw a powerful bow, or how Wizards often have robes, pointy hats and a staff (Ignoring the fairly notable part of the trilogy where Gandalf fights a Balrog with a SWORD but whatever...)) as well as influence from D&D (Which often parallels Tolkein's designs)

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Taril.8619 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

    If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

    I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

    Mechanically speaking, you can easily turn ANY mechanic into one that fits another class. You just have to think up some thematic way of getting the same end effect.

    Hexes? > Rogue uses Poison > Warrior uses debilitating Shout > Paladin smites with divine justice > Wizard uses arcane jiggery pokery etc.

    Health as a resource? > Rogue doesn't have "Health" they have "Luck" and once their luck runs out, they get hit and die. Hence, they can spend this luck for power > Warrior your standard Berserker archetype > Paladin makes and offering to the divine (Think: the practice of self flagellation which has been prevalent in many religious cultures) > Wizard casts spells so powerful they drain their very life essence etc.

    Minions? > Rogue calls in their Thief Guild buddies > Warrior calls in their Fighter guild buddies > Paladin summons up holy spirits > Wizard conjures elementals etc.

    No mechanic is inherently related to a class. It all comes down to how you colour it and what lore you use to substantiate it. Hence why "Zergling Necro" is literally just Mesmer. It has taken the mechanic and made it pink with butterflies and voila, it's now suitable for a Mesmer.

    Classes are entirely defined by how their skills are animated and justified. Which is why I've played plenty of Warlocks that summon Demons that play identically to Necromancers just instead of Zombies and Skeletons being summoned and "Death magic" spells, it's Demons and "Demon magic". I've also played some Wizard types that summon Elementals and use "Elemental magic". Just as I've played Wizards and Sorcerors that use their health as a resource (Notably, in Warhammer Online where Bright Wizard and Sorceror classes unique mechanic was that as they cast spells, they build up Power and the higher their power the greater the chance for spells to "Backfire" and deal damage to themselves with increasing damage too but at the same time, the stronger their spells would be)

    I've also played things like Engineers that "Hex" because they throw vials of acid and poison as well as bombs to debilitate enemies (Sometimes these Engineers could even build small machines that could run after enemies and nibble at them until they were detonated by the Engineer), even Bards have "Hex-like" effects through debilitating songs (Such as Dirge in EQ2) as well as the occasional poison coated dagger.

    So, complaining that a class doesn't "Mechanically feel like a class" is silly. Given that literally any mechanic can be utilized by literally any class because nothing is directly related. At best, there are some stereotypical archetypes that lean on specific tropes (Such as Necromancers raising the dead) but that's not a necessity and stems a lot from how popular Tolkein's fantasy design became (Since it has influenced a large portion of fantasy, from class archetypes to races (I.e. Elves are tall, slender, beautiful, Dwarfs are stout, muscular and 90% beard, Human heroes always have an Elf GF, Orcs are ugly, savage beasts etc) as well as the minutia of various classes such as how Archers are typically Elves because for some reason dexterity/agility is considered the stat needed to use a bow as opposed to strength to actually draw a powerful bow, or how Wizards often have robes, pointy hats and a staff (Ignoring the fairly notable part of the trilogy where Gandalf fights a Balrog with a SWORD but whatever...)) as well as influence from D&D (Which often parallels Tolkein's designs)

    too much of a stretch, wouldn't work.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Taril.8619 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

    If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

    I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

    Mechanically speaking, you can easily turn ANY mechanic into one that fits another class. You just have to think up some thematic way of getting the same end effect.

    Hexes? > Rogue uses Poison > Warrior uses debilitating Shout > Paladin smites with divine justice > Wizard uses arcane jiggery pokery etc.

    Health as a resource? > Rogue doesn't have "Health" they have "Luck" and once their luck runs out, they get hit and die. Hence, they can spend this luck for power > Warrior your standard Berserker archetype > Paladin makes and offering to the divine (Think: the practice of self flagellation which has been prevalent in many religious cultures) > Wizard casts spells so powerful they drain their very life essence etc.

    Minions? > Rogue calls in their Thief Guild buddies > Warrior calls in their Fighter guild buddies > Paladin summons up holy spirits > Wizard conjures elementals etc.

    No mechanic is inherently related to a class. It all comes down to how you colour it and what lore you use to substantiate it. Hence why "Zergling Necro" is literally just Mesmer. It has taken the mechanic and made it pink with butterflies and voila, it's now suitable for a Mesmer.

    Classes are entirely defined by how their skills are animated and justified. Which is why I've played plenty of Warlocks that summon Demons that play identically to Necromancers just instead of Zombies and Skeletons being summoned and "Death magic" spells, it's Demons and "Demon magic". I've also played some Wizard types that summon Elementals and use "Elemental magic". Just as I've played Wizards and Sorcerors that use their health as a resource (Notably, in Warhammer Online where Bright Wizard and Sorceror classes unique mechanic was that as they cast spells, they build up Power and the higher their power the greater the chance for spells to "Backfire" and deal damage to themselves with increasing damage too but at the same time, the stronger their spells would be)

    I've also played things like Engineers that "Hex" because they throw vials of acid and poison as well as bombs to debilitate enemies (Sometimes these Engineers could even build small machines that could run after enemies and nibble at them until they were detonated by the Engineer), even Bards have "Hex-like" effects through debilitating songs (Such as Dirge in EQ2) as well as the occasional poison coated dagger.

    So, complaining that a class doesn't "Mechanically feel like a class" is silly. Given that literally any mechanic can be utilized by literally any class because nothing is directly related. At best, there are some stereotypical archetypes that lean on specific tropes (Such as Necromancers raising the dead) but that's not a necessity and stems a lot from how popular Tolkein's fantasy design became (Since it has influenced a large portion of fantasy, from class archetypes to races (I.e. Elves are tall, slender, beautiful, Dwarfs are stout, muscular and 90% beard, Human heroes always have an Elf GF, Orcs are ugly, savage beasts etc) as well as the minutia of various classes such as how Archers are typically Elves because for some reason dexterity/agility is considered the stat needed to use a bow as opposed to strength to actually draw a powerful bow, or how Wizards often have robes, pointy hats and a staff (Ignoring the fairly notable part of the trilogy where Gandalf fights a Balrog with a SWORD but whatever...)) as well as influence from D&D (Which often parallels Tolkein's designs)

    too much of a stretch, wouldn't work.

    That's not a stretch, that's exactly what you are talking about and it works just as much. Change theme/name/particles and you can switch almost any mechanic to fit a class you want. As you can see multiple people understand that, those last posts were literally added in the span of 3 minutes. You might not like that, but that's the fact.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Taril.8619 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

    If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

    I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

    Mechanically speaking, you can easily turn ANY mechanic into one that fits another class. You just have to think up some thematic way of getting the same end effect.

    Hexes? > Rogue uses Poison > Warrior uses debilitating Shout > Paladin smites with divine justice > Wizard uses arcane jiggery pokery etc.

    Health as a resource? > Rogue doesn't have "Health" they have "Luck" and once their luck runs out, they get hit and die. Hence, they can spend this luck for power > Warrior your standard Berserker archetype > Paladin makes and offering to the divine (Think: the practice of self flagellation which has been prevalent in many religious cultures) > Wizard casts spells so powerful they drain their very life essence etc.

    Minions? > Rogue calls in their Thief Guild buddies > Warrior calls in their Fighter guild buddies > Paladin summons up holy spirits > Wizard conjures elementals etc.

    No mechanic is inherently related to a class. It all comes down to how you colour it and what lore you use to substantiate it. Hence why "Zergling Necro" is literally just Mesmer. It has taken the mechanic and made it pink with butterflies and voila, it's now suitable for a Mesmer.

    Classes are entirely defined by how their skills are animated and justified. Which is why I've played plenty of Warlocks that summon Demons that play identically to Necromancers just instead of Zombies and Skeletons being summoned and "Death magic" spells, it's Demons and "Demon magic". I've also played some Wizard types that summon Elementals and use "Elemental magic". Just as I've played Wizards and Sorcerors that use their health as a resource (Notably, in Warhammer Online where Bright Wizard and Sorceror classes unique mechanic was that as they cast spells, they build up Power and the higher their power the greater the chance for spells to "Backfire" and deal damage to themselves with increasing damage too but at the same time, the stronger their spells would be)

    I've also played things like Engineers that "Hex" because they throw vials of acid and poison as well as bombs to debilitate enemies (Sometimes these Engineers could even build small machines that could run after enemies and nibble at them until they were detonated by the Engineer), even Bards have "Hex-like" effects through debilitating songs (Such as Dirge in EQ2) as well as the occasional poison coated dagger.

    So, complaining that a class doesn't "Mechanically feel like a class" is silly. Given that literally any mechanic can be utilized by literally any class because nothing is directly related. At best, there are some stereotypical archetypes that lean on specific tropes (Such as Necromancers raising the dead) but that's not a necessity and stems a lot from how popular Tolkein's fantasy design became (Since it has influenced a large portion of fantasy, from class archetypes to races (I.e. Elves are tall, slender, beautiful, Dwarfs are stout, muscular and 90% beard, Human heroes always have an Elf GF, Orcs are ugly, savage beasts etc) as well as the minutia of various classes such as how Archers are typically Elves because for some reason dexterity/agility is considered the stat needed to use a bow as opposed to strength to actually draw a powerful bow, or how Wizards often have robes, pointy hats and a staff (Ignoring the fairly notable part of the trilogy where Gandalf fights a Balrog with a SWORD but whatever...)) as well as influence from D&D (Which often parallels Tolkein's designs)

    too much of a stretch, wouldn't work.

    That's not a stretch, that's exactly what you are talking about and it works just as much. Change theme/name/particles and you can switch almost any mechanic to fit a class you want. As you can see multiple people understand that, those last posts were literally added in the span of 3 minutes. You might not like that, but that's the fact.

    Its not though. You might not like that but games have followed these designs for a while. What sort of skills works with what themes. Necromancer is in an unfortunate position of not being too common. So what typically defines them is often left out.

    Aspects of necromancer's design tropes are pretty specific, trying to shoehorn it into a thief in the example just wouldn't work because their typical mechanical and archetypal design just doesn't match up. Their design is so divergent. At what point does it stop being what it originally was designed to be? If I joined in on a game and the thief was playing the role of the cleric or white mage, or sang songs like bard, at what point is it no longer a thief? The game calls it a thief but it doesn't use steal and it sings songs and heals allies. Is it still a thief because the game says it is? Or is there a clear design disconnect.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 13, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Taril.8619 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

    If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

    I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

    Mechanically speaking, you can easily turn ANY mechanic into one that fits another class. You just have to think up some thematic way of getting the same end effect.

    Hexes? > Rogue uses Poison > Warrior uses debilitating Shout > Paladin smites with divine justice > Wizard uses arcane jiggery pokery etc.

    Health as a resource? > Rogue doesn't have "Health" they have "Luck" and once their luck runs out, they get hit and die. Hence, they can spend this luck for power > Warrior your standard Berserker archetype > Paladin makes and offering to the divine (Think: the practice of self flagellation which has been prevalent in many religious cultures) > Wizard casts spells so powerful they drain their very life essence etc.

    Minions? > Rogue calls in their Thief Guild buddies > Warrior calls in their Fighter guild buddies > Paladin summons up holy spirits > Wizard conjures elementals etc.

    No mechanic is inherently related to a class. It all comes down to how you colour it and what lore you use to substantiate it. Hence why "Zergling Necro" is literally just Mesmer. It has taken the mechanic and made it pink with butterflies and voila, it's now suitable for a Mesmer.

    Classes are entirely defined by how their skills are animated and justified. Which is why I've played plenty of Warlocks that summon Demons that play identically to Necromancers just instead of Zombies and Skeletons being summoned and "Death magic" spells, it's Demons and "Demon magic". I've also played some Wizard types that summon Elementals and use "Elemental magic". Just as I've played Wizards and Sorcerors that use their health as a resource (Notably, in Warhammer Online where Bright Wizard and Sorceror classes unique mechanic was that as they cast spells, they build up Power and the higher their power the greater the chance for spells to "Backfire" and deal damage to themselves with increasing damage too but at the same time, the stronger their spells would be)

    I've also played things like Engineers that "Hex" because they throw vials of acid and poison as well as bombs to debilitate enemies (Sometimes these Engineers could even build small machines that could run after enemies and nibble at them until they were detonated by the Engineer), even Bards have "Hex-like" effects through debilitating songs (Such as Dirge in EQ2) as well as the occasional poison coated dagger.

    So, complaining that a class doesn't "Mechanically feel like a class" is silly. Given that literally any mechanic can be utilized by literally any class because nothing is directly related. At best, there are some stereotypical archetypes that lean on specific tropes (Such as Necromancers raising the dead) but that's not a necessity and stems a lot from how popular Tolkein's fantasy design became (Since it has influenced a large portion of fantasy, from class archetypes to races (I.e. Elves are tall, slender, beautiful, Dwarfs are stout, muscular and 90% beard, Human heroes always have an Elf GF, Orcs are ugly, savage beasts etc) as well as the minutia of various classes such as how Archers are typically Elves because for some reason dexterity/agility is considered the stat needed to use a bow as opposed to strength to actually draw a powerful bow, or how Wizards often have robes, pointy hats and a staff (Ignoring the fairly notable part of the trilogy where Gandalf fights a Balrog with a SWORD but whatever...)) as well as influence from D&D (Which often parallels Tolkein's designs)

    too much of a stretch, wouldn't work.

    That's not a stretch, that's exactly what you are talking about and it works just as much. Change theme/name/particles and you can switch almost any mechanic to fit a class you want. As you can see multiple people understand that, those last posts were literally added in the span of 3 minutes. You might not like that, but that's the fact.

    Its not though. You might not like that but games have followed these designs for a while.

    Way too broad statement to be true. Also no matter how many games would copy each other, it doesn't change the meaning of the word necromancer and still doesn't have any other "classic necromancer mechanics" than what was already stated multiple times above.

    What sort of skills works with what themes. Necromancer is in an unfortunate position of not being too common. So what typically defines them is often left out.

    Any skill, with any theme you want to in literally the same way you said it about necro skills -"change the theme and it fits another class". What's so hard to understand about that?

    The only "typically necromancer defining" things are death magic and... generally anything death/black magic related. That's all there is despite you thinking otherwise for some unknown reason.
    Actually probable reason is just: "I've played THAT game and I liked THAT deisgn, so now THAT is what necromancer means/is represented by!" -too bad that's not how it works, so... still wrong.

    Aspects of necromancer's design tropes are pretty specific, trying to shoehorn it into a thief in the example just wouldn't work because their typical mechanical and archetypal design just doesn't match up.

    It would. You change the skin/particles/name of the skill and it's anything you want it to be for any class. Just like you wrote in your example. For some reason you think it works for whatever you want it to work, but doesn't for anything else. But that's clearly false.

    Their design is so divergent. At what point does it stop being what it originally was designed to be?

    I mean you were hypotetically allowed to change something that was designed for necro just so you can claim it could fit another class if we change it enough, so... I'm missing the point of your question here. The theme is the main thing making the class, not the mechanic. Reskin minions into elementals, divine beings, animals or anything else and WOAH suddenly it fits 10 other classes, but not necro?! What a surprise. At least to you, apparently.
    Can be done with any other skill as well if we're allowed to change what we need to (and going by your earlier example, we are).

    If I joined in on a game and the thief was playing the role of the cleric or white mage, or sang songs like bard, at what point is it no longer a thief? The game calls it a thief but it doesn't use steal and it sings songs and heals allies. Is it still a thief because the game says it is? Or is there a clear design disconnect.

    That's not what anyone here suggested, sorry but it seems you didn't understand what you've read.
    (but that aside, there were already people suggesting bard for thief espec long time ago. So much for complaining about anet not catering to every player's expectations)

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 13, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:
    You might not like that but games have followed these designs for a while. What sort of skills works with what themes. Necromancer is in an unfortunate position of not being too common. So what typically defines them is often left out.

    You keep saying this and talk about "Typical Necromancers have X, Y and Z" meanwhile, I've played equal numbers of games to the ones you've mentioned that DON'T portray Necromancers in that specific way (Heck, even in some of the games you've listed they're not portrayed in the way you consider "Typical")

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Aspects of necromancer's design tropes are pretty specific, trying to shoehorn it into a thief in the example just wouldn't work because their typical mechanical and archetypal design just doesn't match up. Their design is so divergent. At what point does it stop being what it originally was designed to be? If I joined in on a game and the thief was playing the role of the cleric or white mage, or sang songs like bard, at what point is it no longer a thief? The game calls it a thief but it doesn't use steal and it sings songs and heals allies. Is it still a thief because the game says it is? Or is there a clear design disconnect.

    The thing is not shoehorning a particular theme into a class, but a mechanic.

    A Thief that heals can totally work though. They can do things like steal health potions from the enemy to give to their allies Healing Seed. Provide stealth to allies to prevent them from being attacked (Also, they could apply healing to allies they stealth Merciful Ambush and Shadow Refuge), they could shadowstep to enemies and provide a pulse of AoE healing to allies Shadow Saviour or could even apply life leeching poisons to allies weapons Leeching Venoms

    Oh wait, all those examples are from THIS GAME.

    Also, nothing about Necromancer's mechanics are specific. Hence why there's such a range of portrayals of Necromancer among fantasy. Some using corpses, some not. Some being tanky, some not. Some raise the dead, some do not.

    Again, the only thing that is specific to Necromancer and the only thing that is required for something to be a Necromancer, is the use of "Death Magic" in whatever form that might take. Be it something like GW1's raising of hoards, PoE's summoning of Zombies/Skeletons/Wraiths/Burning Skulls, City of Villains Dark Magic powerset that is standard Blaster/Corrupter damage kit with procs of Blindness, Dungeons of Dredmor's ability to turn into a Lich or even Dragon Age: Origin's entirely CC orientated Death Magics that don't do anything offensive, they just control enemies by putting them to sleep or stunning them and there's no raised dead.

    Just like there's nothing specific to any other class outside of the theme of their abilities i.e. Warrior wearing heavy armour and whacking stuff with a melee weapon, Wizard/Sorceror casting spells, Bards singing songs/playing instruments, Thieves stealing stuff, Paladins being pretentious jerks using light themed spells alongside martial weapons and heavy armour etc.

    Hence why portrayals of all these other classes also differ heavily between games, because class designers have different visions of how the class will work in their game and sometimes they combine multiple classes together taking bits from each, sometimes they copy an existing design as a template (Such as a D&D class from a specific edition) and other times they just try and think of stuff that's cool and then fit it to work.