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

Will there ever be new additions to Core classes?

2>

Comments

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Taril.8619 said:

    @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.

    Dark magic is not the same thing as death magic. Lets get that straight right away.

    BUT! Can you at least admit to my original point that the specific playstyle that I'm talking about, this sacrificial, supportive, controlling playstle which has traditionally been almost exclusive to necromancer is absent from the game. CAN YOU AT LEAST ADMIT TO THAT? because if you can't this is a pointless conversation.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 13, 2020

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @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)

    Bard is more commonly suggested for Mesmer and I've read those posts and there is a lot of backlash against it when its suggested for thief. But I did understand it, in the post under this we see them defending that very idea now. Identity of the classes doesn't seem to matter to you two which is just baffling to me which shows me this has been a "Style vs Substance" debate without either side really realize that so we're actually talking past each other.

    Y'all want it to LOOK like X. I want it to FEEL like X. There is no agreeing on that because we're coming from different design perspectives.

    So Can you at least admit that the type of play style that I have been trying to describe to you is missing in GW2? Can you at least meet me there?

  • I mean, ArenaNet have no reason to make a GW3 while GW2 is going strong, but I've played and remade, and played my favorite classes time and again.
    It would be nice if a new add-on pack came down the line with more classes, to shake things up some more..

  • Possibly ? No one thought for a long time we would get things that we have now. For instance, no one ever had hope of us going back to Cantha or Elona but here we are . Maybe not now but sometime in the future we would get a new class. I would like that very much .

  • Luthan.5236Luthan.5236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 15, 2020

    I don't think they'll ad more classes. We have 3 for each armor type now. That seems balanced. With all the people requesting new elite specs ... for 9 classes it would mean 9 new elite specs and maybe with the next expansion they will consider adding 1 more classe (with 2 elite specs) - cause that probably is more work. (While not adding more elite specs to the other classes.)

    Then again ... that would mean different amount of classes per armor type (medium, heavy, light). And if they added 3 classes it would mean the same amount of work as adding another elite spec for every existing class.

    I'd prefer more options (other than elite specs) for the existing classes. But that would mean more balancing (especially with regards to the olter content ... or they could ignore it and only balance for later added maps).

  • Excursion.9752Excursion.9752 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Classes no but Races yes. Kodan, Tengu, Dwarf

                                                              There is a 50% chance you will not agree with me and a 50% chance I will not agree with you
    
  • How about new weapons? Anything to shake it up? Ah well, I'm making a new Charr Revanent. I just wish all helmets on him were blindfolds, given the lore.

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

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • Hannelore.8153Hannelore.8153 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 16, 2020

    I'd only accept a new class if we also got a new armor type to go with it. Unarmored or Super Heavy/Fortified. But its unlikely because in addition to balance issues, there wouldn't be many skins and people would have to rely on Outfits alot.

    Although that might be an economic advantage for ArenaNet..

    Hannah | Daisuki[SUKI] Founder, Ehmry Bay, NA | 24 charas, 18k hours, 29k AP | ♀♥♀
    No need to be best, only good and kind.

  • Naxos.2503Naxos.2503 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The only way I could think this might work is through hybrid classes or dual classes.

    And Boy what a mess that'd be. Interesting still.

  • Trise.2865Trise.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 16, 2020

    I've always wondered what it'd be like to take Mechanical Engineering from the High Legions, or study Magiomathematical Theory at an Asura College. or take a History class in Divinity's Reach (or even better, Hoelbrak) , or diving deep into Art and Design classes with the Sylvari...

    Not that any of that is necessary, once we have started our Professions, but adult education is important.

    If we want ANet to step up their game, then we must step up ours.

  • GummyBearSummoner.7941GummyBearSummoner.7941 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 16, 2020

    @Naxos.2503 said:
    The only way I could think this might work is through hybrid classes or dual classes.

    And Boy what a mess that'd be. Interesting still.

    In guild wars when we had dual classes , we only got the skills but not their unique “trait”. I think that would maybe work if they were to ever implement dual classes? For example : An ele that wants to take on necro as a second class, just give them the trait lines & skills but not to be given access to necro shroud since that’s unique on the necro class . That’s how I think it could work? Anything is possible at this point.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 16, 2020

    Necro is whatever Anet decides it is, not what players expect it to be based on baggage they carry over from other games or works of fiction. Nothing is 'missing' and there isn't a gap to fill thematically for Necro because Anet gets the freedom to define it to be whatever they want it to. If there is a playstyle that isn't sufficiently covered by the numerous especs in the game, regardless of what that playstyle is, nothing dictates it should belong to Necro. I think we need to be really careful when making statements that a 'playstyle' is missing because that's not a very determined term to begin with.

    And as for the original topic, I would bet there won't be a new core class ... but if there was, I would be delighted to see it.

    Abuse from people that tell you how to play is not a reason to change a class in a game that is designed and works to allow you to play how you want.

  • aaron.7850aaron.7850 Member ✭✭✭

    Its better if they continue working on new elite specs, its almost like getting 9 new classes each expansion

  • Gundahar.2765Gundahar.2765 Member ✭✭✭

    Classes? ANet covered most of the classes out there, unless you aim for a full healer or a full assassin with major debuffs and CC's.
    New races on the other hand are always welcomed imo.

  • coso.9173coso.9173 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I would love to, but I don't see it happening.
    Specially because that would mean any new class would need to get 2 specializations like right away.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Luthan.5236 said:
    I don't think they'll ad more classes. We have 3 for each armor type now. That seems balanced.

    True on the armor side. Not true on the HP side (we have low, mid and high hp classes for both light and heavy armor category, but we have one low and two mid hp classes for medium armor category).

    So, there's definitely some leeway here. Also, i'd really like some of the old classes from GW1 brought back, but i also know that they are impossible to do right as elite specs.

    Also, ironically, new class introduces less balance problems than new set of elite specs (ironically, because one of the original goals behind elite specs was for something exactly opposite. Unfortunately it didn't turn out that way).

    Unfortunately, i do agree with you that adding even one class would be a lot of work, so i don't think it's going to happen. Still, it is probably still more likely than adding a new race.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭✭

    will be good not have any additional class, and accumulate all change inside current mainstream. ofc this is understand only experience part of players, so how it will be implemented we not know ..

    want solid balance ? - play chess.

  • HotDelirium.7984HotDelirium.7984 Member ✭✭✭

    New Professions? No. Elite specs-I hope so. If they release the third expansion and zero elite specs that will be massively disappointing for the players. I don't think there is enough space to make endless elites though so if anything we might get one more round or possibly a few more? You never know. I highly doubt we will ever get a new race even though many people keep shouting TENGU?! At this point, I hope they at least release a Tengu combat tonic to satisfy some fans.

  • HotDelirium.7984HotDelirium.7984 Member ✭✭✭

    I actually want them to update the trait system since we are stuck with usually 3 traits no matter the build. I think that's outdated and we should be able to choose (in the core traits at least), the 6 traits we wish from each trait line. Will they have to rebalance some stuff? Probably, but that would make certain build even more effective especially in PVE. I don't like to have a quarter of the auto-traits just sitting around never getting triggered or being relevant.

  • TPMN.1483TPMN.1483 Member ✭✭✭

    I would love to see more classes in the The College of Statics, College of Dynamics, and College of Synergetics.
    We have only just started to understand what they do and how it works.

  • Arkantos.7460Arkantos.7460 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Taril.8619 said:
    just it would be nice ...

    companys cant pay salaries or pay bills with just beeing nice ....

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Arkantos.7460 said:

    @Taril.8619 said:
    just it would be nice ...

    companys cant pay salaries or pay bills with just beeing nice ....

    But they can by providing additional content to the game which gets people to play it.

    They can even easily still monetize extra weapon sets/utilities/specializations for Core by locking them behind having a particular expansion, in exactly the same way that Revenant and E-Specs are.

    Cat: Meow.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 17, 2020

    @Taril.8619 said:
    They can even easily still monetize extra weapon sets/utilities/specializations for Core by locking them behind having a particular expansion, in exactly the same way that Revenant and E-Specs are.

    Then that's pretty much just a worse espec, meh.

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Taril.8619 said:
    They can even easily still monetize extra weapon sets/utilities/specializations for Core by locking them behind having a particular expansion, in exactly the same way that Revenant and E-Specs are.

    Then that's pretty much just a worse espec, meh.

    A worse E-Spec, that can be utilized in Core builds and alongside any other E-Spec?

    Cat: Meow.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 17, 2020

    @Taril.8619 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Taril.8619 said:
    They can even easily still monetize extra weapon sets/utilities/specializations for Core by locking them behind having a particular expansion, in exactly the same way that Revenant and E-Specs are.

    Then that's pretty much just a worse espec, meh.

    A worse E-Spec, that can be utilized in Core builds and alongside any other E-Spec?

    Yup, a worse espec that either is on the same level current core classes/specs are, which changes nearly nothing in the class' gameplay (as opposed to what especs are supposed to do) or they'll be so strong that they'll just push out another core specialization for good. The additional weapon sets that mix with current especs (and potentially one more in the next expansion) is just a reason for more problems with balancing. What you proposed here looks to me like worse especs with potentially more balancing issues, but that's just me.

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    Yup, a worse espec that either is on the same level current core classes/specs are, which changes nearly nothing in the class' gameplay (as opposed to what especs are supposed to do)

    Other than providing more options for builds because of having more tools available to the base class?

    Unlike E-Specs which lock all of the stuff behind having 1 of your specs being the E-Spec and is only usable after level 80.

    In addition to not necessarily always being a complete Weapon Type/Utility Type/Extra Utilities in existing types/Specialization. An update could simply add one thing, alongside an actual E-Spec.

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    The additional weapon sets that mix with current especs (and potentially one more in the next expansion) is just a reason for more problems with balancing. What you proposed here looks to me like worse especs with potentially more balancing issues, but that's just me.

    More potential balancing issues, yes. But that's the cost of gaining more options to make builds.

    One of the annoying things (In my opinion) about E-Specs is all the limitations they have on them which stifle build potentials even before you add in the fact that in many cases they're simply powercreep over base specializations (Which is not how they were advertized by ANet).

    A strength of GW2 has always been that freedom with builds, where you can choose specializations, choose traits in those specializations and choose different weapon types for different skills. But it all goes down the toilet if everything ends up being "Pick this E-Spec and the 2 base specs that complement it. Pick the E-Spec's weapon. Now be like literally everyone else playing your class"

    Cat: Meow.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Taril.8619 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    Yup, a worse espec that either is on the same level current core classes/specs are, which changes nearly nothing in the class' gameplay (as opposed to what especs are supposed to do)

    Other than providing more options for builds because of having more tools available to the base class?

    Might as well rework half of the traits/skills that are unusable or barely ever used instead of providing new ones without having the old ones sorted out in the first place.

    Unlike E-Specs which lock all of the stuff behind having 1 of your specs being the E-Spec and is only usable after level 80.

    Which limits the number of combinations and makes the balancing that much easier, which still isn't perfect. I don't think anyone cares about "only usable after level 80", seeing how there's no reason to stay on lower level other than some bag opening bot, which doesn't need access to every spec and doesn't complete any content anyways so it won't accidentally level up. Not sure how that level 80 is important at all here.

    In addition to not necessarily always being a complete Weapon Type/Utility Type/Extra Utilities in existing types/Specialization. An update could simply add one thing, alongside an actual E-Spec.

    Cool. But why? They could also add 2 especs. But workload, balancing, ideas, yaddayaddayadda. We know nothing about the exact state of anet, saying "more more more" is easy, but it does nothing. Especs just seem way more interesting to me either way.

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    The additional weapon sets that mix with current especs (and potentially one more in the next expansion) is just a reason for more problems with balancing. What you proposed here looks to me like worse especs with potentially more balancing issues, but that's just me.

    More potential balancing issues, yes. But that's the cost of gaining more options to make builds.

    um... Yes, that's the cost. That doesn't change what I said, not sure if I'm supposed to answer anything to this.

    One of the annoying things (In my opinion) about E-Specs is all the limitations they have on them which stifle build potentials even before you add in the fact that in many cases they're simply powercreep over base specializations (Which is not how they were advertized by ANet).

    Which was the case for a long time and was pulled way back in most cases after long time. Now, are you suggesting they did it intentionally? If no, then we can believe they've learned their lesson and won't happen again. If yes, then we can guess that it's an intentional power creep directed at sale increse, at which point the same thing would happen with some random "additional base specs", because why wouldn't it.

    A strength of GW2 has always been that freedom with builds, where you can choose specializations, choose traits in those specializations and choose different weapon types for different skills. But it all goes down the toilet if everything ends up being "Pick this E-Spec and the 2 base specs that complement it. Pick the E-Spec's weapon. Now be like literally everyone else playing your class"

    It seems that by that logic, it also goes down the drain in regards of base specs, because there's pretty much always some cookie cutter, top tier, meta build that eats most other. You either care about playing the strongest and it just happens anyways (and will always happen) or you don't and you miss and match whatever you want anyways. Especs didn't magically do that, it was always here.

    One way or another, that's my opinion about it. Especs seem much more interesting to me, they seem to be easier to balance and we know even those still cause issues. I can't answer the question from the title of this thread, because nobody besides anet can.

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    Might as well rework half of the traits/skills that are unusable or barely ever used instead of providing new ones without having the old ones sorted out in the first place.

    Which would still imply addressing core classes instead of focusing entirely on E-Specs.

    Not that reworking existing weapons sets/utilities/traits is mutually exclusive from adding anything new. Heck, we've had 2 E-Specs for each class added while there are still plenty of awful Core weapon sets/utilities/traits.

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    Which limits the number of combinations and makes the balancing that much easier, which still isn't perfect. I don't think anyone cares about "only usable after level 80", seeing how there's no reason to stay on lower level other than some bag opening bot, which doesn't need access to every spec and doesn't complete any content anyways so it won't accidentally level up. Not sure how that level 80 is important at all here.

    Meanwhile, my opinion is that the limited number of combinations is also less interesting and the notion of "Harder to balance" not weighty enough.

    New players care about "Only usable after level 80" (Even more so if a new player uses a level 80 boost they get with an expansion purchase, they only get to run around Silverwastes with Core specs to try out the class)

    Players that don't have all 9 classes at level 80 and/or stacks of Tomes of Knowledge and thus might end up actually levelling a class up to 80 care.

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    Cool. But why? They could also add 2 especs. But workload, balancing, ideas, yaddayaddayadda. We know nothing about the exact state of anet, saying "more more more" is easy, but it does nothing. Especs just seem way more interesting to me either way.

    Why? More variety, more options. With also less required work (In the sense that E-Specs seem to have established themselves with a motif of being a new Spec + weapon + set of utilities, meaning any new E-Spec is likely going to be bound by requiring the full Spec + weapon + utilities combination. As opposed to simply adding say, 1 new line of Utilities to core and nothing else as a single update)

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    It seems that by that logic, it also goes down the drain in regards of base specs, because there's pretty much always some cookie cutter, top tier, meta build that eats most other. You either care about playing the strongest and it just happens anyways (and will always happen) or you don't and you miss and match whatever you want anyways. Especs didn't magically do that, it was always here.

    The difference is that before E-Specs, the difference between builds wasn't as large and for a lot of classes there was 2 primary DPS specs and then the third spec was your preferred flavour of utility.

    With E-Specs, it's a case where it's 2 primary DPS specs and then an E-Spec because E-Spec > All.

    Meaning that you've lost that option of your 3rd spec even when playing meta.

    Beyond that, there's plenty of room for non-meta builds in places like OW content, Dungeons and low tier Fractals, casual WvW. But even here, the strengths of E-Specs can drown out any notion of playing some Core build you find interesting.

    To say nothing about the aspect of E-Specs being that as we shift from E-Spec to E-Spec due to whatever is Flavour of the Expansion, it also can change how your classes play on a fundamental level, due to how many E-Specs are focused around altering class mechanics (Which you may or may not enjoy. For example, some people don't like how clunky Weaver can feel due to its need to re-attune twice to swap their Skills 4 and 5. Some people prefer Necro's Shroud mechanic over Scourge's Sand Shades and F1 skills etc)

    Adding stuff to Core can mean that if people have a particular build with an E-Spec and class mechanics they like, they still get new things to play with within it as opposed to only new E-Specs which makes them have to choose between the build they like and the new stuff (If of course, the new E-Spec isn't powercreeping/their E-Spec getting nerfed)

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    One way or another, that's my opinion about it. Especs seem much more interesting to me, they seem to be easier to balance and we know even those still cause issues.

    Fair enough.

    Personally, I like E-Specs. But more due to their class mechanic altering as opposed to them having the weapons and utilities tied to them.

    I'd rather risk potential difficulty in balancing if it means more overall options to make builds (Including things like reworking existing weapon sets that suck and existing specs that have sucky traits or sucky layouts that offer no real choice on particular tiers)

    I want more reasons to get additional build templates because of having multiple builds that are fun and different, as opposed to being able to make do with the baseline 3 because that's more than enough to handle the builds that E-Specs facilitate...

    I want more options for weapons that entice me into making new Legendaries because the class(es) I like to play can now utilize said cool Legendaries in a number of builds (As opposed to some Legendaries which are hard to justify the effort required to craft them because like 1-2 classes use them in like 1 fringe build each...)

    Whether or not such expansion is feasible, is up to ANet to judge. However, I'd like them to be considering it as a potential addition as opposed to only focusing on new E-Specs (Heck... Add a weapon to Core and release a set of E-Specs that are just the Specialization and don't come with a weapon for example)

    Cat: Meow.

  • I would kill to see a bard class that transforms each weapon in a different instrument idk

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

    I can't envision a new class. We have three for each now: light, medium and heavy. Adding another class would upset that balance, IMO. I think this is why Anet went with the Elite builds concept. Those enable players to play a class differently than core which might feel like a new class. I know that I play my Ranger / SoulBeast / Druid differently. /shrug

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • DKRathalos.9625DKRathalos.9625 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 17, 2021

    Since we speaking about core currently we have 2 Core and 1 Espec setting what if change to 3 Core and 1 Espec? do you guys think something like 3 Core 1 Espec will break the game balance that much or maybe make it powerfull but not breaking too much balance?

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @DKRathalos.9625 said:
    Since we speaking about core currently we have 2 Core and 1 Espec setting what if change to 3 Core and 1 Espec? do you guys think something like 3 Core 1 Espec will break the game balance that much or maybe make it powerfull but not breaking too much balance?

    You have 3 specs to pick when playing core class and there's no reason for espec to get some special treatment by being "the bonus fourth one". Not like especs lack power anyways.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 18, 2021

    As long as the elite spec can use all of the core weapons, traits and utility the elite spec will simply always be stronger then the core. Anet messed up by not removing equivalent effects and weapons from elites spec vs what the core class has. The best thing is make the core classes more fixable then the elite spec though F1-F5 accessibility.

    Best example is your tempest and weaver using staff only most of the time and not there elite weapons.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • @Taril.8619 said:
    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.

    I hope we stick with 9 classes. I think all the class themes can be touched on by the Elite Specializations. Right now, what ever class you can think of from any fantasy story, you can tie into one of the 9 classes, which is what I like the most.

  • Raarsi.6798Raarsi.6798 Member ✭✭

    Honestly seems like it'd be easier for devs just to phase out the idea of core specs trying to be on par with e-specs and just set them up as stepping stones toward e-specs, especially with how many e-specs there are that just feel like their core counterparts on steroids.

    Alternatively, I feel like if they did do something to enhance core specs, the only way it would come off as appealing or useful would for it to be so good that it renders nearly all e-specs more irrelevant than core specs are nowadays.

  • SkyCakeLight.3750SkyCakeLight.3750 Member ✭✭✭

    I'd much prefer if they'd do more regular touch-ups on the core classes. The Explosive rework was great and something that legitimately every trait line on core Engi could use. Some more so than others.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    A though that seems to have some popularly is giving the core classes all of the elite spec weapons. Making core into an wepon rack or preview class. This means every expansion or elite spec anet adds in will give the core something new as well as making the elite spec lost an significant set of weapons when sawping from core.

    I for one would love to see a core sword/WH ele , sword/x or hammer eng, axe/x or long bow guard, and etc..

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • @Raarsi.6798 said:
    Honestly seems like it'd be easier for devs just to phase out the idea of core specs trying to be on par with e-specs and just set them up as stepping stones toward e-specs, especially with how many e-specs there are that just feel like their core counterparts on steroids.

    Alternatively, I feel like if they did do something to enhance core specs, the only way it would come off as appealing or useful would for it to be so good that it renders nearly all e-specs more irrelevant than core specs are nowadays.

    I think it's better to make the core and elite on par with each other. The elites weren't meant to be better, they're meant to add or change the playstyle. I think the changes to the elite could be better and hopefully new elites can be better balanced.

    I want to see them change core Revenant to be able to use racial skills. They could have made the F1 like Death Shroud, but call it "Commune", changing the last 5 skills, instead of the weapons and make F2 "Channel" the Legend Swap. They could also add those 4 new skills, call "Remnant" which woud be the missing from the game, so they have the equal number of skills to every other class. I would make the centaur skill the heal, and the other skills utility, no elite. They all be less, use no energy and have cool downs. You would only gain or lose energy when you are communed to a legend, therefore you only worry about energy when you are communed. The F3 "Ancient Echo" will do the same as it does, but only give energy if a legend is communed with.

    They could also add a new racial specialization, which would boost racial skills so they're on par with profession skills.

  • Tseison.4659Tseison.4659 Member ✭✭✭

    After the elite specs in EoD, I would prefer going forward for them to give more skills to existing skill types and elite specs. As a Mesmer main I would love to get new Glamour, Manipulation, Wells and Deception skills.

    Additionally, as others mentioned, regular touch ups to professions who need them would be ideal too. Overall I’m basing this opinion off by what they’d be willing to do going forward for the future of the game and I don’t think after EoD they’ll give us another expansion. Instead, it would just be minor additional content to be added, QoL, touch ups on existing maps/events, etc...

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    So more then likely no core classes will not get any thing new they will simply get nerfed over and over for elite spec to be balanced.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.