Elite specialization tradeoffs? - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Professions

Elite specialization tradeoffs?

2>

Comments

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Can someone confirm it was Anet's actual intention to apply trade offs to every single core/espec combo in the game? I recall they were going to do it where they felt it was necessary, but I don't remember if they were going to apply this concept comprehesively.

    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.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Can someone confirm it was Anet's actual intention to apply trade offs to every single core/espec combo in the game? I recall they were going to do it where they felt it was necessary, but I don't remember if they were going to apply this concept comprehesively.

    They kind of talked about it here.
    https://massivelyop.com/2019/04/19/guild-wars-2-is-heavily-overhauling-some-class-elite-specs-in-next-weeks-balance-patch/

    I cant find when the elite spec came out for HoT.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 22, 2021

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Can someone confirm it was Anet's actual intention to apply trade offs to every single core/espec combo in the game? I recall they were going to do it where they felt it was necessary, but I don't remember if they were going to apply this concept comprehesively.

    They kind of talked about it here.
    https://massivelyop.com/2019/04/19/guild-wars-2-is-heavily-overhauling-some-class-elite-specs-in-next-weeks-balance-patch/

    I cant find when the elite spec came out for HoT.

    Thanks. From the article, it seems to me that from what is said by Anet in it ... not every class/espec was intended to get tradeoffs.

    “To use the example of necromancer, by choosing an elite specialization, you lose access to your core Death Shroud abilities, but you gain different abilities,” ArenaNet says. “This is a clear trade-off. In the case of elite specializations like druid, herald, chronomancer, berserker, or scrapper, this type of trade-off isn’t possible because the specialization adds a completely new ability. With this update, we’re targeting a few elite specializations to receive trade-offs, and we expect to continue doing this in future updates."

    I don't think anyone should assume Anet 'dropped' the idea or didn't finish implementing it; it was never all that clear the scope of the trade off implementation in the first place.

    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.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Can someone confirm it was Anet's actual intention to apply trade offs to every single core/espec combo in the game? I recall they were going to do it where they felt it was necessary, but I don't remember if they were going to apply this concept comprehesively.

    They kind of talked about it here.
    https://massivelyop.com/2019/04/19/guild-wars-2-is-heavily-overhauling-some-class-elite-specs-in-next-weeks-balance-patch/

    I cant find when the elite spec came out for HoT.

    Thanks. From the article, it seems to me that from what is said by Anet in it ... not every class/espec was intended to get tradeoffs.

    “To use the example of necromancer, by choosing an elite specialization, you lose access to your core Death Shroud abilities, but you gain different abilities,” ArenaNet says. “This is a clear trade-off. In the case of elite specializations like druid, herald, chronomancer, berserker, or scrapper, this type of trade-off isn’t possible because the specialization adds a completely new ability. With this update, we’re targeting a few elite specializations to receive trade-offs, and we expect to continue doing this in future updates."

    I don't think anyone should assume Anet 'dropped' the idea or didn't finish implementing it; it was never all that clear the scope of the trade off implementation in the first place.

    I think they where saying some elite spec have trade off build into like the DS compile changes where other classes dont like scraper in that update they did make a changes to scraper to lose something from its core class but got something for its own effect. So anet wants there to be a trade off now if we think its enofe of one that up in the air. We have other classes that do not lose any thing from there core class atm and there room to add in more effects to the elite spec to make them more so meaningfully different. What this shows is anet is willing to do both a + and a - at the same time. Add to an elite spec and take something away from that elite spec to make up for it.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • @Shaogin.2679 said:
    Not once did I say Core Guard was bad, but way to completely miss the point there.

    True, your exact words were "You want top power dps, you take Dh, not core" which is not true, given the useage of core for record runs.

    This here is exactly what I mean when I say Guardians have no clue what an actual trade-off is. In the mind of a Guardian, you think the fact that you can't take all 3 core trait lines plus an elite spec trait line is some huge trade off.

    You're slightly missing the point here. The fact that 3 core traitlines can give a better DPS build than 2 core + 1 elite traitline indicates that the elite spec is of a comparable power level to the core elite spec across all its aspects. That includes the profession mechanic. Taking the elite spec in this case is a huge tradeoff, because you have to sacrifice the > 30% potential DPS buff from virtues for DPS from your traps and Spear of Justice. Losing one aspect and gaining another in return is pretty much the dictionary definition of a tradeoff.

    You see, some classes have to make legit sacrifices just for choosing an elite spec, and this is in addition to what you already consider to be a trade off for your Guardian. To use as an example again, the Druid has heavily nerfed pets just for being a druid. The Soulbeast can only use one pet in combat. Mirages only get a single bar of endurance. Scrappers have nerfed vitality. Reapers lose ranged damage in shroud and their shroud degenerates faster. Scourges lose the ability to remain in shroud. Stuff like this is what I am talking about. These are not simply changing out one skill for another, they are deliberate weaknesses placed on the class to put them more on par with their core counterparts.

    Even setting aside the whole traitline comparison thing, guardian has this sort of tradeoff as well. Core guard virtues are instant cast, whereas dragonhunter and firebrand virtues both have cast times, as well as significantly increased cooldowns on some of the virtues. While they can arguably do more, that happens on a longer cooldown, and in the case of firebrand, using your f2 and f3 tomes on a DPS build will completely mess up your rotation. Soulbeast's "trade-off" doesn't even matter in PvE, because there's no reason not just to stay merged with the highest DPS pet. Reaper's loss of ranged damage and shorter time in shroud is a good trade-off, but it isn't just a sacrifice, since they gain stronger power coefficients on average from it. Scrapper's nerfed vitality comes with the ability to have permanent barrier for half of your health. Those aspects in isolation may look like deliberate weaknesses, but in the wider context of the elite specs, they don't make them less powerful.

    The issue here is that some classes have these trade offs being forced on them, while other classes are not receiving the same treatment. It was some project Anet started on and then just abandoned. I really don't think I can explain it any simpler than that man.

    That I agree on. Anet's vision for how to balance elite specs with core has changed drastically since they were first introduced with HoT, and a lot of their balance changes have only made it worse, nerfing core utilities and traits when in actual fact it was aspects of the elite specs that made them powerful, but hey.

  • Okay, so since Berserker LOST Core burst completely, and Scrapper LOST the Elite Tool Belt skill and those are then tradeoffs per Anet's statement above, can we get their negative stats removed?

    Serious here. Those stat penalties should never have existed in the first place.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

    @draxynnic.3719 said:

    @Shaogin.2679 said:

    @Trianox.3486 said:
    People seem stuck with the whole "trade-off" part, but you can also see it as a change in terms of game play.
    Necro, reaper and scourge are great examples of that. They quite differently from one another.

    Bottom line, all those three play very differently. You could play them similarly, more or less, but they have inherent differences. Here is your trade-off, or change.
    Unfortunately, the term "trade-off" misleads into thinking about balance... while that is a whole different issue.
    Of course, we could argue about power level, but that's a different story. One might argue Repear shroud or Scourge shades or whatever to be better or worse... but it depends on circumstances... and individual skills and trait lines then, and their synergies with core trait lines...!

    The balance discussion isn't about whether those trade-off are sufficiant in terms of change of mechanics. It should be, in my opinion, about the disporportionate strength between "3 core trait lines" VS "1 elite + 2 core trait lines". Is it outof tune completely or not? (Then of course, we have to account that not every single combination of traits is optimal for DPS or survivability. "Everything" more or less work for open world, but not everything is enjoyable or effective, regardless of trait lines, e-specs, and individual traits you took or not.)

    The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs.

    Also, lets stop pretending things like Guardian virtue changes between the specs are a trade off. That is extremely laughable. DH and FB virtues/tomes are in no way weaker than Guardian virtues, they are simply different.

    What would be nice is if Anet was consistent across the board with this. Either all Elite Specs get a legit trade off, or they don't. This business of handing out heavy nerfs to some classes in the name of E-Spec Trade Offs without doing the same for others is really kitten.

    I think the problem in the case of druid is that with other supports, you had a choice of speccing for DPS or support. Ranger pets, however, always have the same stats, so you could go full support or survivability with a druid while still having good DPS out of the pet.

    With regard to Guardians, for all people point at the virtues, Guardians are still the profession where you see core builds most often, so clearly it does have enough of a tradeoff, even if it's coming more from having to give up on a core traitline than the virtues. Which, IMO, is a better way to do tradeoffs in general - make the core traitlines good enough that they do represent a real tradeoff.

    Frankly people over value the instant cast nature of virtues. I say this and I enjoy my charrdian, particularly as a burn DH in WvW.

    Both especs are straight upgrades as far as profession mechanics go, you just see lots of core guards because unlike some classes it has a viable builds still as core.

    ...yes, that's the point. They still have viable builds as core - because core can compete with the elite specs. Whatever you might say about the core virtues, losing core traitline #3 is itself a significant tradeoff, unlike other professions.

    @Shaogin.2679 said:

    @draxynnic.3719 said:

    @Shaogin.2679 said:

    @Trianox.3486 said:
    People seem stuck with the whole "trade-off" part, but you can also see it as a change in terms of game play.
    Necro, reaper and scourge are great examples of that. They quite differently from one another.

    Bottom line, all those three play very differently. You could play them similarly, more or less, but they have inherent differences. Here is your trade-off, or change.
    Unfortunately, the term "trade-off" misleads into thinking about balance... while that is a whole different issue.
    Of course, we could argue about power level, but that's a different story. One might argue Repear shroud or Scourge shades or whatever to be better or worse... but it depends on circumstances... and individual skills and trait lines then, and their synergies with core trait lines...!

    The balance discussion isn't about whether those trade-off are sufficiant in terms of change of mechanics. It should be, in my opinion, about the disporportionate strength between "3 core trait lines" VS "1 elite + 2 core trait lines". Is it outof tune completely or not? (Then of course, we have to account that not every single combination of traits is optimal for DPS or survivability. "Everything" more or less work for open world, but not everything is enjoyable or effective, regardless of trait lines, e-specs, and individual traits you took or not.)

    The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs.

    Also, lets stop pretending things like Guardian virtue changes between the specs are a trade off. That is extremely laughable. DH and FB virtues/tomes are in no way weaker than Guardian virtues, they are simply different.

    What would be nice is if Anet was consistent across the board with this. Either all Elite Specs get a legit trade off, or they don't. This business of handing out heavy nerfs to some classes in the name of E-Spec Trade Offs without doing the same for others is really kitten.

    I think the problem in the case of druid is that with other supports, you had a choice of speccing for DPS or support. Ranger pets, however, always have the same stats, so you could go full support or survivability with a druid while still having good DPS out of the pet.

    With regard to Guardians, for all people point at the virtues, Guardians are still the profession where you see core builds most often, so clearly it does have enough of a tradeoff, even if it's coming more from having to give up on a core traitline than the virtues. Which, IMO, is a better way to do tradeoffs in general - make the core traitlines good enough that they do represent a real tradeoff.

    LMAO. Um, no, people playing Core Guardian doesn't indicate sufficient trade-offs. What it does indicate, is that both DH and FB have been nerfed to hell over and over and over again in PvP due to dominating the meta and player complaints. When it comes to PvE, if you want top heals and support, you take FB, not core. If you want top condi damage, you take FB, not core. You want top power dps, you take Dh, not core. All these Guardian players have 0 idea of what a "trade-off" even means.

    Core guardian gets used in all mode, so it isn't just a matter of nerfing in PvP.

    FB has better heals and support than core? Well, duh. This is just like druid, chronomancer, tempest, and scourge being clearly better at support than the core professions. Funnily enough, making a support-oriented elite spec means that that spec is going to be better at support than core, but it doesn't say anything about how well balanced core is compared to the elite spec. Similarly, firebrand being better at condition damage is to be expected due to how little of core guardian is actually intended to be condi-oriented, including the complete lack of an actual condition weapon. That condi guard exists in core at all is testament to the strength of the core traits... and giving up a third core traitline in exchange for an elite specialisation is a real penalty.

    And that's the real distinction. I play all professions, and for most of them, for any given build there's usually two core traitlines that you really care about and one that's mostly filler, and easily replaced by an elite specialisation. For guardian, all of the core traitlines are good.

    When it comes to power dragonhunter... well, first, there IS a power core build on Snowcrows, and they don't have "if you only have core available" pity builds. How many other professions have a DPS build at all for high-end PvE that just use core? I'll give you a hint - the only other core build on Snowcrows is boon thief. And boon daredevil does more DPS.

    What you're bringing up as "evidence" that guardian elite specs don't have enough tradeoffs could be applied to claim that EVERY profession doesn't have enough tradeoffs. If anything, guardian is in the best position in this way, because there are core guardian specs that get used in every mode. No other profession can claim that.

    ArenaNet's placement of more explicit tradeoffs on other professions has largely come about because they don't have the quality core traitlines that guardian has, so that giving up their least-valuable core traitline wasn't a big tradeoff. Now, if the core traitlines were better, there'd probably be less need for a tradeoff - but considering that most of these tradeoffs were introduced because an elite specialisation was overperforming, ArenaNet was more interested in slapping on a direct nerf rather than buffing core and possibly making the problematic builds even stronger. Which is essentially what they did with firebrand as well - but instead of increasing the tradeoff, they just nerfed firebrand directly over and over again until it was no longer competitive in sPvP.

  • Shaogin.2679Shaogin.2679 Member ✭✭✭

    Omg, it is a waste of time discussing this with Guardians. Anyways, I've provided the facts, they are there. The issue exists. I will not continue attempting to educate Guardians on the trade off issues of other classes. Lol.

    Doc Von Doom

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Good, because right now, your argument is basically an attempt to paper over your lack of a real argument through an implied ad hominem.

    There is no balance problem that would be resolved through applying (further) nerfs to firebrand or dragonhunter. Core guardian maintains more use than the core of any other profession, and the areas in which firebrand is dominant are when what people want is something that can pump out a tonne of quickness and/or stability: in other words, the specialisation acting as intended. Yes, this makes it a strong contender for instanced PvE and zerg WvW support, but that's because those boons are highly valued there. The appropriate response if firebrand is too dominant is to introduce new specialisations on other professions that can do the job.

    Pretty much every argument I've seen for slapping tradeoffs on guardian elite specs basically seems to boil down to "My favourite elite specialisation got hit with a heavy-handed tradeoff, now it's your turn!" But in those cases, ArenaNet didn't drop those tradeoffs just for the sake of having a tradeoff. Mirage in PvP was because Mirages were too hard to land damage on (apparently - I didn't find them that oppressive to fight, but that was the justification). Soulbeast because being able to have both a damage pet and a mobility pet made them just too versatile. Druid because having a pet whose stats didn't depend on the Druid's own meant they could build themselves to be virtually unkillable while relying on a pet to deal damage (that I did run into a few times). Scrappers were basically bunkering gods for a short period in between their reworks. Now, in a lot of those cases I think they were kneejerk reactions when there were probably more elegant ways to solve the problem, but if you ask me the appropriate thing to do is to go back to those professions and find a better long-term solution rather than kicking something that isn't broken.

  • Kodama.6453Kodama.6453 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fueki.4753 said:
    And Holosmith currently outperforms Berserker in every way possible, be it sustain, defense or damage.

    Yes and this is a sign that berserker probably is deserving of a buff. Doesn't have to necessarily be the removal of the toughness penalty, tho.

    Yet these no longer mean anything since the power creep that started with HoT.

    This whole discussion here resolved around the fact that berserker has a toughness penalty installed while in berserk mode.
    So what is it now, does armor matter or not? If having additional armor doesn't matter, then this entire discussion is meaningless and berserker can keep their toughness penalty, since it doesn't change anything anyway.

    Kits effectively are weapon Swaps, Holoforge is effectively a weapon swap+ that also improves utilities and sword.

    Completely missing the point I made. My point was that the weapon swap allows warrior to slot in a second defensive weapon in the offhand, which engineer can't. Engineer can get more defense by dedicating utility slots to it, but warrior can do the same with their defensive utilities.
    Also the only really defensive kit on engineer right now is tool kit, since it has a block. And no one is using it, since it sucks right now.
    Photonforge doesn't add any more defense to the holosmith as long as you are not investing into it through traits, which once again, berserker can do the same.

    My point is: I think berserker got this stat penalty to move it more towards the direction of a glass cannon. It inherently already has more defense and this penalty is supposed to remove some of these stat advantages which come naturally by being a warrior.

    For the over-performance in damage, Holosmith ought to be directed towards glass cannon as well.
    Yet it gets bonus sustain in addition to said overperforming damage.

    Who says holosmith is overperforming in damage? It isn't top damage dealer in the game in any environment as far as I know.

    And yet these defense have been neutered or turning into 300s placeholders in PvP, where they mattered most, drastically reducing their usefulness.
    It ought to be obvious that the Toughness reduction simply isn't justified, especially compared to Holosmith.

    I thought toughness doesn't matter? So how can it not be justified if it's meaningless?
    I agree that the placeholder traits need work, tho. Unfortunate that balancing is on halt right now since they are working on EoD....

  • @Kodama.6453 said:
    Yes and this is a sign that berserker probably is deserving of a buff. Doesn't have to necessarily be the removal of the toughness penalty, tho.

    Like what others above already said. Berserker have like 2 trade offs. First is the Core F1 Burst which affects a majority of the core warrior traitlines - Because it was build that way. Second is the addition of the toughness penalty (300 is a big reduction which I believe puts warrior's rating more or less equal to that of the light armored ones). If we gotta choose only ONE trade off, the toughness reduction is uncalled for. (also, wonder who QQ'ed alot back then resulting in the state of warrior? "We do not know when he will berserk or use Core F1, its unfair!! yada-yada-yada")

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Toughness

    This whole discussion here resolved around the fact that berserker has a toughness penalty installed while in berserk mode.
    So what is it now, does armor matter or not? If having additional armor doesn't matter, then this entire discussion is meaningless and berserker can keep their toughness penalty, since it doesn't change anything anyway.

    But it does. PvE wise,
    1) If you go on like raids and fractal groups then sure it doesn't matter that much since you'll get protection and heals.
    2) Solo PvE on open world would cause everything that hit you feel like your getting hit by a truck unless you kill them fast - sure I can equip the Trait that adds back the 300 toughness loss but it removes the 10% you get from Blood Roar (heck I can even use defense trait line if needed or MMR on STR line to compensate) - so yes, it still changes something.
    3) PvP and WvW wise, your a walking glass cannon in the literal sense (unless you trait for that +300 toughness GM trait) much like how you would use a light armored full zerker build character on those fights without the fancy teleports, stealths, etc. etc.

    Completely missing the point I made. My point was that the weapon swap allows warrior to slot in a second defensive weapon in the offhand, which engineer can't. Engineer can get more defense by dedicating utility slots to it, but warrior can do the same with their defensive utilities.
    Also the only really defensive kit on engineer right now is tool kit, since it has a block. And no one is using it, since it sucks right now.
    Photonforge doesn't add any more defense to the holosmith as long as you are not investing into it through traits, which once again, berserker can do the same.

    The down side of this is that you kinda forgot engineer in general has access to a lot more defensive boons that warriors do. Also heal blasting does a lot more than warrior's heals (passive or active) considering it was nerfed so much in the previous balance patches years ago. And yes, you have a passive healing via heat therapy which you don't even need to slot in). Heal Turret drop -> Blast, F1 utility waterfield + 1 blast, Heat therapy, elixir gun's #5 VS Mending/To The LImit / Signet of Healing + Adrenal Health (if u can stack it up via burst skills - means you gotta hit them first) + MMR (if strength line but still gotta hit and crit cause u gotta have that GS trait line to gain might)

    Sure warrior can equip a shield with 1 block skill every 25 seconds for 3 seconds - Sword 5, Mace 2 (oh wait, its over 1 weapons wap now), and that's about it. Our utility is basically stance or bulls charge or something which are majority offensive oriented. (Stances was a thing back then but hey, it got nerfed so yay?!).

    If you are gonna argue about how warriors can travel miles without issue then how about holo's Rifle 5 + rocket boots + super speed on holo leap 2 which is basically every few seconds?

    The point is, the argument of warriors weapon swap being greater than engineer's tool belt is simply false at this point.

    Who says holosmith is overperforming in damage? It isn't top damage dealer in the game in any environment as far as I know.

    True that on meta comps and/or group comps Holo ain't the VERY HIGHEST but between warrior and holo's DPS, holo win by a mile (unless you haven't seen those holo that does insane damage?) Pre cooking Heat to 75% for an insane burst.

    Add also the fact that holo has this nifty trick that a lot of holo players use to compensate lack of skills that Anet tried to fix but was easily bypassed a few minutes after said patch. Most holo players knows this. Heck even non holo players knows this and its kinda irritating to say the least. Obviously I wont say what it is.

    I thought toughness doesn't matter? So how can it not be justified if it's meaningless?
    I agree that the placeholder traits need work, tho. Unfortunate that balancing is on halt right now since they are working on EoD....

    Because between having access to a lot of boons (quite easily I might add - elixir and alchemy), having access to a lot more ways to sustain and be defensive while being able to inflict a lot of damage, melee and/or range wise, access to barriers easily VS a class who needs to literally go near a target, hit them to even trigger some of the sustain it should be having, prone to range attacks unless can LOS, has the defensive stance nerfed, passive healing nerfed. Getting 300 toughness reduction matters quite a lot.

  • Ragi.7291Ragi.7291 Member ✭✭✭

    One of the spe that has 0 compromise is FireBrand.

    He gains just 18 different skills with F123 that he can use with skills 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
    Your virtues are always there and proc.
    When he gets in and out of these books (F123) he activates the passive and buff.
    It allows to vomit stab and aegis which allows not to do 90% of the mechanics in all PVE.
    It makes burst better than most DPS power while providing support for dps, heal, stab, dispell and projectile blocking zone.

    It is meta in all game modes since the release of POF, strangely enough.

  • Shroud.2307Shroud.2307 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 24, 2021

    Some of you need to stop comparing professions. A Vitality penalty for example would be a lot more significant if placed on Guardian, Thief, or Elemenalist. Trade-offs will differ between each profession and spec but should have similar degrees of significance. Losing access to Toolbelt F5 (Holosmith) isn't the same significance as losing an Endurance bar (Mirage), and losing access to a core Trait line isn't a trade-off.

    Necro/Engi/Ranger/Rev | Maguuma | Diamond Legend
    [YWY] Weeping Valley | [xo] Fantasies
    My Youtube: Shroud
    "I'd rather lose playing something I enjoy than win playing something I don't."

  • @Shroud.2307 said:
    Some of you need to stop comparing professions. A Vitality penalty for example would be a lot more significant if placed on Guardian, Thief, or Elemenalist. Trade-offs will differ between each profession and spec but should have similar degrees of significance. Losing access to Toolbelt F5 (Holosmith) isn't the same significance as losing an Endurance bar (Mirage), and losing access to a core Trait line isn't a trade-off.

    Ok, but what is the end goal of tradeoffs? Ultimately, why do we need them?
    If the goal with tradeoffs is that the core profession is not invalidated by the elite specs, then why is considering the traitlines not relevant? An indisputable fact is that guardian has meta builds in at least two gamemodes (PvE and PvP). Doesn't that show that there is an implicit tradeoff within the traitlines to mean that core guard is not invalidated? Surely there's something more to tradeoffs than just nerfing profession mechanics?

    Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

  • Fueki.4753Fueki.4753 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ThrakathNar.4537 said:
    Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

    The right thing to do would be buffing core trait lines, so that losing the third core line becomes a significant trade off.
    And then they can start to remove the current trade-offs they gave to Berserker, Scrapper etc.

    But I can't see Arenanet do that.

  • Kodama.6453Kodama.6453 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fueki.4753 said:

    @ThrakathNar.4537 said:
    Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

    The right thing to do would be buffing core trait lines, so that losing the third core line becomes a significant trade off.
    And then they can start to remove the current trade-offs they gave to Berserker, Scrapper etc.

    But I can't see Arenanet do that.

    It's not that easy, tho.

    Some classes naturally have a trade off built into the elite spec mchanically. Like how the reaper's shroud is replacing the death shroud, holosmith replaces the elite toolbelt skill with photonforge, dragonhunter replaces his virtues with new ones, etc.

    If you really want to make the opportunity cost (not being able to pick a third core trait line) the trade off and remove the other installed trade offs, then you would have to rework this stuff too, to make it fair. Like giving reaper the reaper's shroud as a F2 skill and let them keep the core shroud on F1, holosmith gets the photonforge on F6 and keeps their elite toolbelt, dragonhunter virtues become F4-F6 skills instead, and so on. Which will all come with their own package of balancing problems.

    This is the actual problem here. Some elite specs got designed with their own inherent trade off from the very beginning, while others were designed as flat out upgrades to core (druid, soulbeast, etc.).

  • Lonami.2987Lonami.2987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Shroud.2307 said:
    What are the tradeoffs for each specialization? Here are the ones I know;

    • Scrapper: Reduced maximum health, no access to elite F5
    • Holosmith: No access to elite F5

    • Reaper: Increased Shroud degeneration

    • Scourge: Some traits (Path of Corruption, Dhuumfire) work differently, much higher recharge on Shroud.

    • Daredevil: Reduced range on Steal

    • Deadeye: ??? Stolen skills changed ???

    • Herald: ???

    • Renegade: ???

    • Druid: Reduced pet damage

    • Soulbeast: Only one pet can be used at a time

    • Berserker: Reduced armor

    • Spellbreaker: All Bursts count as 2 bars of Adrenaline

    • Dragonhunter: ???

    • Firebrand: ???

    • Mirage: Endurance bar reduced to 1

    • Chronomancer: ??? Shatters changed ???

    • Tempest: ???

    • Weaver: ???

    Tradeoff = a balance achieved between two desirable but incompatible features; a compromise.
    "a trade-off between objectivity and relevance"

    Which of these elite specs do not have this?

    I would say a good tradeoff shouldn't affect attributes, just skills.

    For example, daredevil and mirage replace the dodge ability with a new variant. Chronomancer gets new shatters (even if they're too similar to the originals). Reaper gains an alternate shroud. Dragonhunter and firebrand get virtue variants. This is the way to go.

    Sadly, core professions weren't built with either tradeoffs or elite specializations in mind, so problems arise pretty easily. They've gone back and given new skills to some of the core professions, like the revenant's Ancient Echo, but that solution won't work for everyone. Ranger, engineer, and elementalist are in the worst positions, mostly due to the lack of space on their mechanic bar.

    Some elite specialization mechanics are pretty poor too. For example, spellbreaker's Full Counter should work like a "block burst" skill, and change depending on the off-hand weapon you're wielding. Tradeoffs for the sake of tradeoffs (like randomly removing things without actually replacing them, like berserker's primal bursts) are no good either.

    @ThrakathNar.4537 said:

    @Shroud.2307 said:
    Some of you need to stop comparing professions. A Vitality penalty for example would be a lot more significant if placed on Guardian, Thief, or Elemenalist. Trade-offs will differ between each profession and spec but should have similar degrees of significance. Losing access to Toolbelt F5 (Holosmith) isn't the same significance as losing an Endurance bar (Mirage), and losing access to a core Trait line isn't a trade-off.

    Ok, but what is the end goal of tradeoffs? Ultimately, why do we need them?
    If the goal with tradeoffs is that the core profession is not invalidated by the elite specs, then why is considering the traitlines not relevant? An indisputable fact is that guardian has meta builds in at least two gamemodes (PvE and PvP). Doesn't that show that there is an implicit tradeoff within the traitlines to mean that core guard is not invalidated? Surely there's something more to tradeoffs than just nerfing profession mechanics?

    Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

    Not him, but personally, I think tradeoffs are a mistake.

    First of all, professions and elite specializations weren't built with those tradeoffs in mind. Some are easy to apply (just replace a mechanic skill) but others don't have anywhere to go without ruining the core experience.

    I think elite specializations should have remained superior to core professions. Feel free to reinforce the playstyle of said core professions by releasing elite specializations that improve the core mechanics instead of adding new mechanics, and there you go. For example, reaper can be considered necromancer 2.0, so to speak, while scourge is a whole new thing.

    That doesn't mean the idea of tradeoffs is bad, it's just that they won't work for GW2 without a heavy redesign of the core professions.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Fueki.4753 said:

    @ThrakathNar.4537 said:
    Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

    The right thing to do would be buffing core trait lines, so that losing the third core line becomes a significant trade off.
    And then they can start to remove the current trade-offs they gave to Berserker, Scrapper etc.

    But I can't see Arenanet do that.

    It's not that easy, tho.

    Some classes naturally have a trade off built into the elite spec mchanically. Like how the reaper's shroud is replacing the death shroud, holosmith replaces the elite toolbelt skill with photonforge, dragonhunter replaces his virtues with new ones, etc.

    If you really want to make the opportunity cost (not being able to pick a third core trait line) the trade off and remove the other installed trade offs, then you would have to rework this stuff too, to make it fair. Like giving reaper the reaper's shroud as a F2 skill and let them keep the core shroud on F1, holosmith gets the photonforge on F6 and keeps their elite toolbelt, dragonhunter virtues become F4-F6 skills instead, and so on. Which will all come with their own package of balancing problems.

    This is the actual problem here. Some elite specs got designed with their own inherent trade off from the very beginning, while others were designed as flat out upgrades to core (druid, soulbeast, etc.).

    I kinda agree and disagree.

    I think a large part of how we've come to where we are is that ArenaNet has largely been pulling balance levers to address immediate problems rather than actually having a holistic strategy to boost up the cores. Where the big "tradeoff" nerfs have come have generally been where a particular elite specialisation was overperforming, but where the overperforming builds are still largely using core skills rather than skills from the elite specialisation. This sort of situation generally means that buffing core will just make the elite stronger, nerfing it will naturally make core weaker as well, and the only thing that's really left to attack is the profession mechanics, either nerfing them directly or introducing a tradeoff (which is essentially just nerfing the elite specialisation mechanics indirectly).

    Which might well be another part of why guardian balancing has followed a different trajectory. Problem DH and FB builds usually have leaned heavily on skills from those elite specialisations. So when they overperform, ArenaNet can usually attack the overperforming elements directly, whether they're utility skills or virtues, without core guardian being caught in the crossfire. Which, when combined with the general quality of guardian core traitlines, means that there is a point at which the elite specialisation's skills and virtues can be nerfed to the point where core starts to look better, without requiring a stronger explicit tradeoff than the trade of core virtues for elite ones.

    Which, itself, comes in part because the guardian elite specialisation mechanics do completely replace the base virtues, so they can be nerfed directly, and the virtues represent a not-inconsiderable part of their power budget. Necromancer is in a similar position - reaper and scourge completely replace the base necromancer mechanic, so if either is overperforming, they can be nerfed directly. They've always had that tradeoff baked in. Ranger elites, by contrast, always have their pets. Druid now makes their pets weaker, and soulbeast makes it so they have only one, but the pet is still present. Even now, instead of completely replacing the core mechanic, the tradeoffs are only weakening the core mechanic in exchange for getting something else on top.

    Even so, though, they could probably afford to make the tradeoffs a little less harsh if they improved the core traitlines and rebalanced so that the thrid core traitline was a genuine tradeoff for all professions. For some, they're either there or close to it. For others, there's usually only two traitlines that really add to most builds, and without tradeoffs the third might as well be an elite specialisation because why not?

  • Leo G.4501Leo G.4501 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @ThrakathNar.4537 said:

    @Shroud.2307 said:
    Some of you need to stop comparing professions. A Vitality penalty for example would be a lot more significant if placed on Guardian, Thief, or Elemenalist. Trade-offs will differ between each profession and spec but should have similar degrees of significance. Losing access to Toolbelt F5 (Holosmith) isn't the same significance as losing an Endurance bar (Mirage), and losing access to a core Trait line isn't a trade-off.

    Ok, but what is the end goal of tradeoffs? Ultimately, why do we need them?
    If the goal with tradeoffs is that the core profession is not invalidated by the elite specs, then why is considering the traitlines not relevant? An indisputable fact is that guardian has meta builds in at least two gamemodes (PvE and PvP). Doesn't that show that there is an implicit tradeoff within the traitlines to mean that core guard is not invalidated? Surely there's something more to tradeoffs than just nerfing profession mechanics?

    Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

    Regarding Guardian, there could be multiple perspectives with regards to trade-offs:

    • What you're saying that the presence of the core build in certain meta formations means the trade-offs are basically what you decide to fill your shopping cart with (i.e. which lines you loadout with). This was probably the utopia the game was built on to be reflected across the whole of the game.
    • The loudouts that Guardian are blessed with are just that niche or easy enough to play that even a noob can capitalize on it in most game modes, overshadowing any trade-offs that could be perceived (i.e. it's trade-offs may exist but they are small)
    • The core traits that are also used to build upon the elite spec traits are quite strong (maybe even too strong) which then can be seen as the elite specs are more like gameplay specializations that force the player down a niche, making them more like funnels instead of improvements over core.

    There are others, I'm more or less highlighting how some could view the profession when skewed from various perspectives. Me personally, I think the overall mechanics of Guardian are a bit simplified. As an unseasoned player, even I can understand its inherent balance of offense and defense but the extra layer of passive and active on top of that that is further enhanced by traits is kind of hilarious. If I were to instill a trade-off, I'd probably just make the virtues in e-specs no longer give any passive effect except if specifically traited. That might seem like funneling you down the Virtues line for all especs but those other lines are pretty useful and I doubt a seasoned player really cares about those passive buffs. In turn, I'd also lower the cooldown on the e-spec Virtues a tad. And a bit more dramatic, I'd also look into shifting some of the traited bonus effects for virtues into the passive effects, making the overall bonuses more mild.

    That all being said, I am no seasoned player. These are just my basic observations with limited experience.

  • Leo G.4501Leo G.4501 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fueki.4753 said:

    @ThrakathNar.4537 said:
    Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

    The right thing to do would be buffing core trait lines, so that losing the third core line becomes a significant trade off.
    And then they can start to remove the current trade-offs they gave to Berserker, Scrapper etc.

    But I can't see Arenanet do that.

    I think that's likely more significantly difficult than you'd think since those core trait lines are also usable by the elite specs. That and it would be a whole lot more power creep. If people thought the initial HoT e-spec intro was power creep, multiple that x5.

  • Tseison.4659Tseison.4659 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 13, 2021

    For example, daredevil and mirage replace the dodge ability with a new variant. Chronomancer gets new shatters (even if they're too similar to the originals). Reaper gains an alternate shroud. Dragonhunter and firebrand get virtue variants. This is the way to go.

    Slightly pitching in that yes, the Chronomancers got a new shatter with Continuum Split, but the other 3 still remain the same as the original. Which in my opinion is lazy on their part for giving everyone else something new and yet the only thing they did for us was change the icons for F1-3 and called it “a new shatter, which it isn’t....so that was a missed opportunity to give those three F skills something time/chronomancer based, but again we get stuck with stupid basic unoriginal shatters.

    Here’s hoping they do away with shatters in EoD and change it into something more unique. They should have never tied so many traits to shatters because now that makes it difficult to balance out....and this is why they should’ve kept HEXES (in GW2 they’re essentially a reverse barrier...) from the original and just have shatters & clones be in an elite spec.

  • Some are not trade offs, but functional changes to a class that has it's own trade off.

    Holosmith for example kind of looks like a straight up buff to Engineer, but features the overheating mechanic.

    Scourges don't "lose" death shroud, but instead it changes into the sand shades.

    I'm hoping something like this happens with Mesmers in EoD. We're almost a decade in and Mesmers are still stuck with relying on fragile AI/shattering mechanics.

  • Fueki.4753Fueki.4753 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 13, 2021

    @Leo G.4501 said:
    I think that's likely more significantly difficult than you'd think since those core trait lines are also usable by the elite specs. That and it would be a whole lot more power creep. If people thought the initial HoT e-spec intro was power creep, multiple that x5.

    I don't think it'd be all that much power creep if Warrior's Defence trait line suddenly becomes something that is worth giving up Berserker or Spellbreaker.
    It could even be some niche traits like "You receive 30% less condition damage while staying in an enemy AoE."
    Such a trait would make Defence a bit more viable for PvP again after Arenanet practically gutted it.

  • Leo G.4501Leo G.4501 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fueki.4753 said:

    @Leo G.4501 said:
    I think that's likely more significantly difficult than you'd think since those core trait lines are also usable by the elite specs. That and it would be a whole lot more power creep. If people thought the initial HoT e-spec intro was power creep, multiple that x5.

    I don't think it'd be all that much power creep if Warrior's Defence trait line suddenly becomes something that is worth giving up Berserker or Spellbreaker.
    It could even be some niche traits like "You receive 30% less condition damage while staying in an enemy AoE."
    Such a trait would make Defence a bit more viable for PvP again after Arenanet practically gutted it.

    You're only presenting one trait in one traitline on one profession. I never said buffs can't happen, just that it would create a lot of more powerful combinations over what is currently available. On top of that, you're advocating adding to the core so you can give even more (by removing trade-offs) from the e-specs. Just using basic math, that will create a greater sum of power from every angle.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I would say the the support is made diferently, IMO renegade is more condi focused than herald.
    Herald: decent heals and range denial, strong regen for its alies and some buffs arround the caster, reminds the Orders Necromancer from GW1, overal more support arround caster than renegade.
    Renegade: Heals trough vampiric support more condi centred than herald, can provide perma alacrity, overal more dps capabilioties arround caster than herald.

    Slayers [XD] NSP Guild
    Yao Chen Herald/Ventari
    Ying Wuxian Renegade/Demon

  • @Leo G.4501 said:

    @Fueki.4753 said:

    @Leo G.4501 said:
    I think that's likely more significantly difficult than you'd think since those core trait lines are also usable by the elite specs. That and it would be a whole lot more power creep. If people thought the initial HoT e-spec intro was power creep, multiple that x5.

    I don't think it'd be all that much power creep if Warrior's Defence trait line suddenly becomes something that is worth giving up Berserker or Spellbreaker.
    It could even be some niche traits like "You receive 30% less condition damage while staying in an enemy AoE."
    Such a trait would make Defence a bit more viable for PvP again after Arenanet practically gutted it.

    You're only presenting one trait in one traitline on one profession. I never said buffs can't happen, just that it would create a lot of more powerful combinations over what is currently available. On top of that, you're advocating adding to the core so you can give even more (by removing trade-offs) from the e-specs. Just using basic math, that will create a greater sum of power from every angle.

    Of course the solution there is just to give to core in a way that the elite specs can't benefit from. Using Engineer as an example (because I know that class best), it has two primary DPS traitlines, Explosives and Firearms. The Tools traitline does have some DPS traits, but there are just so few of them and they're so weak that there is no reason to take Tools over Explosives in a PvE scenario, and core engineer with only two decent DPS traitlines is far outperformed by Holosmith with three decent DPS traitlines.

    A buff to the DPS on Tools would make core engineer far more competetive DPS-wise with holosmith, while avoiding the risk of powercreeping holo. It wouldn't create a more powerful combination for the elite specs (just greater build diversity, which isn't a bad thing), because they can only take advantage of two core traitlines at once.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Another though is to give core classes all of the weapons there elite spec can use. It would give core classes something new every expansion and a kind of lose for each elite spec vs its core class. Example ele core would be able to use both sword and WH but tempest cant use sword and weaver cant use WH.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • Zoser.7245Zoser.7245 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 16, 2021

    @Shroud.2307 said:

    • Mirage: Endurance bar reduced to 1
    • Chronomancer: ??? Shatters changed ???

    Wrong.

    • The Mirage tradeoff is the reduced ability to move while dodging. The movement is very limited to the sides and almost null backward so you often end caught by AoE attacks. The "Endurance bar reduced to 1" is a plain nerf, in fact, an overnerf they did to not dedicate time to rework what was needed. Its lack of sustain, something all mesmers suffer, make it not desirable in the actual meta.

    • Chronomancer actually is an "on-off" dps rely on slow. It lost the old boon share bunker capability and also the distortion. The lose of distortion is mainly its tradeoff. It's an "all in" specialization that die easily although hit hard when are able to set up a good combo which need/take several actions to be success. Its null defence make it not desirable today in PvP. Not against good players.

    Actually the lack of sustain kill both and core mesmer as desirable profession in competitive modes. Well, in WvW, also due to the useless illusions there, as they die almost instantly against enemy attacks. You are relegated to a roamer role if you are skilled enough and with the nerfed Mirage.

    There is an upcoming tournament in PvP. Lets see how many mesmers will be there... A bet? Almost sure that none. When there is money and prizes involved, you do not play with something inferior even if your brain/heart wish otherwise.

  • Kodama.6453Kodama.6453 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jski.6180 said:
    Another though is to give core classes all of the weapons there elite spec can use. It would give core classes something new every expansion and a kind of lose for each elite spec vs its core class. Example ele core would be able to use both sword and WH but tempest cant use sword and weaver cant use WH.

    Was suggested alot, but this suggestion doesn't really work in my opinion because of how some weapons function.

    Holosmith's sword, for example, has quite alot of it's power budget locked behind the heat mechanic. Getting a 20% damage buff is huge and in general, tons of damage are locked behind the heat levels.

    Without the photon forge, the sword is just plain bad as a weapon. Which means that engineer just gets 1 functional weapon in this case (hammer), while other professions get the luxury of 2 functioning and powerful weapons. I don't think something like this should be treated so unfairly.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    Another though is to give core classes all of the weapons there elite spec can use. It would give core classes something new every expansion and a kind of lose for each elite spec vs its core class. Example ele core would be able to use both sword and WH but tempest cant use sword and weaver cant use WH.

    Was suggested alot, but this suggestion doesn't really work in my opinion because of how some weapons function.

    Holosmith's sword, for example, has quite alot of it's power budget locked behind the heat mechanic. Getting a 20% damage buff is huge and in general, tons of damage are locked behind the heat levels.

    Without the photon forge, the sword is just plain bad as a weapon. Which means that engineer just gets 1 functional weapon in this case (hammer), while other professions get the luxury of 2 functioning and powerful weapons. I don't think something like this should be treated so unfairly.

    Well ya that the point of balancing and how it would work. The weapons on the core class would be very basic level but it still opens up skill and chose to the core class that elite spec do not have. Core being the gen of the class would not use the weapons as well as the elite spec.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • Kodama.6453Kodama.6453 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    Another though is to give core classes all of the weapons there elite spec can use. It would give core classes something new every expansion and a kind of lose for each elite spec vs its core class. Example ele core would be able to use both sword and WH but tempest cant use sword and weaver cant use WH.

    Was suggested alot, but this suggestion doesn't really work in my opinion because of how some weapons function.

    Holosmith's sword, for example, has quite alot of it's power budget locked behind the heat mechanic. Getting a 20% damage buff is huge and in general, tons of damage are locked behind the heat levels.

    Without the photon forge, the sword is just plain bad as a weapon. Which means that engineer just gets 1 functional weapon in this case (hammer), while other professions get the luxury of 2 functioning and powerful weapons. I don't think something like this should be treated so unfairly.

    Well ya that the point of balancing and how it would work. The weapons on the core class would be very basic level but it still opens up skill and chose to the core class that elite spec do not have. Core being the gen of the class would not use the weapons as well as the elite spec.

    It seems you are missing my point.

    Some classes are not restricted in their usage of their new elite spec weapon. Core necromancer can use greatsword and torch almost just as efficiently as their elite specs. Same for ranger with dagger and staff.

    But then there are other classes which have their weapons cut extremely in efficiency, like holosmith with their sword. Without the heat mechanic, engineer loses on sword:

    • auto attack: 20% damage
    • Skill 2: 1.1 power coefficient (losing the 4 additional blades from heat level), which means a 46% damage loss in PvE and a 52% damage loss in PvP
    • Skill 3: 4 seconds of quickness in PvE and 2 seconds of quickness in PvP

    Meanwhile what would ranger lose from their weapons?

    • Staff: 20% cooldown and daze on weapon swap
    • Dagger: literally nothing lost

    I think the difference in efficiency is too big here.
    Also engineer doesn't get a choice that elite spec doesn't have.... engineer's elite spec weapons so far are hammer and sword. You can't use both weapons, since hammer is 2handed and engineer doesn't have weapon swap. Other classes like elementalist are favoured, yes, since they would be able to combine their elite spec weapons, which their elite specs couldn't do.

    So in general: this system would be a gigantic "kitten you" to engineers. I prefer to not go that route and keep the system as it is.

  • Abelisk.5148Abelisk.5148 Member ✭✭✭

    @Shroud.2307 said:
    What are the tradeoffs for each specialization? Here are the ones I know;

    • Scrapper: Reduced maximum health, no access to elite F5
    • Holosmith: No access to elite F5

    • Reaper: Increased Shroud degeneration

    • Scourge: Some traits (Path of Corruption, Dhuumfire) work differently, much higher recharge on Shroud.

    • Daredevil: Reduced range on Steal

    • Deadeye: Steal is replaced

    • Herald: Energy F2/legend buff replaced

    • Renegade: Same as above

    • Druid: Reduced pet damage

    • Soulbeast: Only one pet can be used at a time

    • Berserker: Reduced armor

    • Spellbreaker: All Bursts count as 2 bars of Adrenaline

    • Dragonhunter: No more instants

    • Firebrand: No more instants

    • Mirage: Endurance bar reduced to 1

    • Chronomancer: Shatters changed, Distortion replaced by Continuum Split which has a MUCH longer cooldown

    • Tempest: No real tradeoff, Core Ele is simply in shambles, plz Anet

    • Weaver: 4 and 5 skills locked behind 2nd attunement

    Tradeoff = a balance achieved between two desirable but incompatible features; a compromise.
    "a trade-off between objectivity and relevance"

    Which of these elite specs do not have this?

    Updated the OP

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 16, 2021

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    Another though is to give core classes all of the weapons there elite spec can use. It would give core classes something new every expansion and a kind of lose for each elite spec vs its core class. Example ele core would be able to use both sword and WH but tempest cant use sword and weaver cant use WH.

    Was suggested alot, but this suggestion doesn't really work in my opinion because of how some weapons function.

    Holosmith's sword, for example, has quite alot of it's power budget locked behind the heat mechanic. Getting a 20% damage buff is huge and in general, tons of damage are locked behind the heat levels.

    Without the photon forge, the sword is just plain bad as a weapon. Which means that engineer just gets 1 functional weapon in this case (hammer), while other professions get the luxury of 2 functioning and powerful weapons. I don't think something like this should be treated so unfairly.

    Well ya that the point of balancing and how it would work. The weapons on the core class would be very basic level but it still opens up skill and chose to the core class that elite spec do not have. Core being the gen of the class would not use the weapons as well as the elite spec.

    It seems you are missing my point.

    Some classes are not restricted in their usage of their new elite spec weapon. Core necromancer can use greatsword and torch almost just as efficiently as their elite specs. Same for ranger with dagger and staff.

    But then there are other classes which have their weapons cut extremely in efficiency, like holosmith with their sword. Without the heat mechanic, engineer loses on sword:

    • auto attack: 20% damage
    • Skill 2: 1.1 power coefficient (losing the 4 additional blades from heat level), which means a 46% damage loss in PvE and a 52% damage loss in PvP
    • Skill 3: 4 seconds of quickness in PvE and 2 seconds of quickness in PvP

    Meanwhile what would ranger lose from their weapons?

    • Staff: 20% cooldown and daze on weapon swap
    • Dagger: literally nothing lost

    I think the difference in efficiency is too big here.
    Also engineer doesn't get a choice that elite spec doesn't have.... engineer's elite spec weapons so far are hammer and sword. You can't use both weapons, since hammer is 2handed and engineer doesn't have weapon swap. Other classes like elementalist are favoured, yes, since they would be able to combine their elite spec weapons, which their elite specs couldn't do.

    So in general: this system would be a gigantic "kitten you" to engineers. I prefer to not go that route and keep the system as it is.

    I get that but that is what though classes are specialized in. Core is a gen. class so it should get some effects from its elite spec.

    Some elite spec. are not base off there wepon but there should be room to let the core class get all of the weapons unless you want them to to get utility as well? We for sure cant give them any F1-F5 the main reason for elite spec.

    The elite spec should lose something and giving core classes all of the elite spec weapons would be a real lost for each elite spec chose. Nothing would changes for the elite spec and most ppl will still play the elite spec only but the core class would get a lot.

    Adding chose could also mean adding to the base chose or the null and not adding to the out comes.

    Ele would lose its F1-F5 effects as well as duel skills and a trait line that give the highest dps chose as well as best def chose.

    Also i have to add this lol dagger on ranger.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 16, 2021

    @Zoser.7245 said:

    @Shroud.2307 said:

    • Mirage: Endurance bar reduced to 1
    • Chronomancer: ??? Shatters changed ???

    Wrong.

    • The Mirage tradeoff is the reduced ability to move while dodging. The movement is very limited to the sides and almost null backward so you often end caught by AoE attacks. The "Endurance bar reduced to 1" is a plain nerf, in fact, an overnerf they did to not dedicate time to rework what was needed. Its lack of sustain, something all mesmers suffer, make it not desirable in the actual meta.

    Wrong, you have actually more precise control over your movement here than in regular dodge and you can cast while in it. If you want to move in one direction like you would with regular dodge, pressing R has you covered. And mirage has more means of avoiding dmg than his regular endurance-fueled dodge.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 16, 2021

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    Another though is to give core classes all of the weapons there elite spec can use. It would give core classes something new every expansion and a kind of lose for each elite spec vs its core class. Example ele core would be able to use both sword and WH but tempest cant use sword and weaver cant use WH.

    Was suggested alot, but this suggestion doesn't really work in my opinion because of how some weapons function.

    Holosmith's sword, for example, has quite alot of it's power budget locked behind the heat mechanic. Getting a 20% damage buff is huge and in general, tons of damage are locked behind the heat levels.

    Without the photon forge, the sword is just plain bad as a weapon. Which means that engineer just gets 1 functional weapon in this case (hammer), while other professions get the luxury of 2 functioning and powerful weapons. I don't think something like this should be treated so unfairly.

    Well ya that the point of balancing and how it would work. The weapons on the core class would be very basic level but it still opens up skill and chose to the core class that elite spec do not have. Core being the gen of the class would not use the weapons as well as the elite spec.

    It seems you are missing my point.

    Some classes are not restricted in their usage of their new elite spec weapon. Core necromancer can use greatsword and torch almost just as efficiently as their elite specs. Same for ranger with dagger and staff.

    But then there are other classes which have their weapons cut extremely in efficiency, like holosmith with their sword. Without the heat mechanic, engineer loses on sword:

    • auto attack: 20% damage
    • Skill 2: 1.1 power coefficient (losing the 4 additional blades from heat level), which means a 46% damage loss in PvE and a 52% damage loss in PvP
    • Skill 3: 4 seconds of quickness in PvE and 2 seconds of quickness in PvP

    Meanwhile what would ranger lose from their weapons?

    • Staff: 20% cooldown and daze on weapon swap
    • Dagger: literally nothing lost

    I think the difference in efficiency is too big here.
    Also engineer doesn't get a choice that elite spec doesn't have.... engineer's elite spec weapons so far are hammer and sword. You can't use both weapons, since hammer is 2handed and engineer doesn't have weapon swap. Other classes like elementalist are favoured, yes, since they would be able to combine their elite spec weapons, which their elite specs couldn't do.

    So in general: this system would be a gigantic "kitten you" to engineers. I prefer to not go that route and keep the system as it is.

    I get that but that is what though classes are specialized in. Core is a gen. class so it should get some effects from its elite spec.

    By what logic "core should get some effects from its elite spec"?

    The elite spec should lose something and giving core classes all of the elite spec weapons would be a real lost for each elite spec chose.

    Giving e-spec weapon to core class doesn't make an e-spec "lose something", what are you even talking about?

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 17, 2021

    weaver has 3. reduced attune cd but 4 sec lockout from switching, 3rd skill is replaced by dual attacks, and can't realistically access 3rd 4th or 5th weapon skills on demand cuz you're always one attunement behind.

    trash class.

    te lazla otstara.
    fingers crossed meta ~

  • HotDelirium.7984HotDelirium.7984 Member ✭✭✭

    @phokus.8934 said:
    Mirages trade-off is it gets a different dodge. It was just flat out nerfed in pvp and wvw but retains its two dodges in pve.

    A different dodge + tieing a very powerful skill (Amushes) to it right after only.

    I do hope they optimize this one's shatters like they did chrono, I thought I remember a post/comment about them saying they would look into for mirage as well.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    Another though is to give core classes all of the weapons there elite spec can use. It would give core classes something new every expansion and a kind of lose for each elite spec vs its core class. Example ele core would be able to use both sword and WH but tempest cant use sword and weaver cant use WH.

    Was suggested alot, but this suggestion doesn't really work in my opinion because of how some weapons function.

    Holosmith's sword, for example, has quite alot of it's power budget locked behind the heat mechanic. Getting a 20% damage buff is huge and in general, tons of damage are locked behind the heat levels.

    Without the photon forge, the sword is just plain bad as a weapon. Which means that engineer just gets 1 functional weapon in this case (hammer), while other professions get the luxury of 2 functioning and powerful weapons. I don't think something like this should be treated so unfairly.

    Well ya that the point of balancing and how it would work. The weapons on the core class would be very basic level but it still opens up skill and chose to the core class that elite spec do not have. Core being the gen of the class would not use the weapons as well as the elite spec.

    It seems you are missing my point.

    Some classes are not restricted in their usage of their new elite spec weapon. Core necromancer can use greatsword and torch almost just as efficiently as their elite specs. Same for ranger with dagger and staff.

    But then there are other classes which have their weapons cut extremely in efficiency, like holosmith with their sword. Without the heat mechanic, engineer loses on sword:

    • auto attack: 20% damage
    • Skill 2: 1.1 power coefficient (losing the 4 additional blades from heat level), which means a 46% damage loss in PvE and a 52% damage loss in PvP
    • Skill 3: 4 seconds of quickness in PvE and 2 seconds of quickness in PvP

    Meanwhile what would ranger lose from their weapons?

    • Staff: 20% cooldown and daze on weapon swap
    • Dagger: literally nothing lost

    I think the difference in efficiency is too big here.
    Also engineer doesn't get a choice that elite spec doesn't have.... engineer's elite spec weapons so far are hammer and sword. You can't use both weapons, since hammer is 2handed and engineer doesn't have weapon swap. Other classes like elementalist are favoured, yes, since they would be able to combine their elite spec weapons, which their elite specs couldn't do.

    So in general: this system would be a gigantic "kitten you" to engineers. I prefer to not go that route and keep the system as it is.

    I get that but that is what though classes are specialized in. Core is a gen. class so it should get some effects from its elite spec.

    By what logic "core should get some effects from its elite spec"?

    The elite spec should lose something and giving core classes all of the elite spec weapons would be a real lost for each elite spec chose.

    Giving e-spec weapon to core class doesn't make an e-spec "lose something", what are you even talking about?

    If the game updates with elite spec the ideal of being a gen. class must update as well. So throwing in a new wepon would be the best way for the core classes to keep up with the ideal of being a gen. class as well as makes the elite spec more specialized in there wepon set by losing other elite spec weapons that the core class has as well.

    If you give core the weapons of the elite spec then when you chose an elite spec you lose the set of weapons from all other elite spec as well as what the core class has.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • Kodama.6453Kodama.6453 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    Another though is to give core classes all of the weapons there elite spec can use. It would give core classes something new every expansion and a kind of lose for each elite spec vs its core class. Example ele core would be able to use both sword and WH but tempest cant use sword and weaver cant use WH.

    Was suggested alot, but this suggestion doesn't really work in my opinion because of how some weapons function.

    Holosmith's sword, for example, has quite alot of it's power budget locked behind the heat mechanic. Getting a 20% damage buff is huge and in general, tons of damage are locked behind the heat levels.

    Without the photon forge, the sword is just plain bad as a weapon. Which means that engineer just gets 1 functional weapon in this case (hammer), while other professions get the luxury of 2 functioning and powerful weapons. I don't think something like this should be treated so unfairly.

    Well ya that the point of balancing and how it would work. The weapons on the core class would be very basic level but it still opens up skill and chose to the core class that elite spec do not have. Core being the gen of the class would not use the weapons as well as the elite spec.

    It seems you are missing my point.

    Some classes are not restricted in their usage of their new elite spec weapon. Core necromancer can use greatsword and torch almost just as efficiently as their elite specs. Same for ranger with dagger and staff.

    But then there are other classes which have their weapons cut extremely in efficiency, like holosmith with their sword. Without the heat mechanic, engineer loses on sword:

    • auto attack: 20% damage
    • Skill 2: 1.1 power coefficient (losing the 4 additional blades from heat level), which means a 46% damage loss in PvE and a 52% damage loss in PvP
    • Skill 3: 4 seconds of quickness in PvE and 2 seconds of quickness in PvP

    Meanwhile what would ranger lose from their weapons?

    • Staff: 20% cooldown and daze on weapon swap
    • Dagger: literally nothing lost

    I think the difference in efficiency is too big here.
    Also engineer doesn't get a choice that elite spec doesn't have.... engineer's elite spec weapons so far are hammer and sword. You can't use both weapons, since hammer is 2handed and engineer doesn't have weapon swap. Other classes like elementalist are favoured, yes, since they would be able to combine their elite spec weapons, which their elite specs couldn't do.

    So in general: this system would be a gigantic "kitten you" to engineers. I prefer to not go that route and keep the system as it is.

    I get that but that is what though classes are specialized in. Core is a gen. class so it should get some effects from its elite spec.

    Some elite spec. are not base off there wepon but there should be room to let the core class get all of the weapons unless you want them to to get utility as well? We for sure cant give them any F1-F5 the main reason for elite spec.

    The elite spec should lose something and giving core classes all of the elite spec weapons would be a real lost for each elite spec chose. Nothing would changes for the elite spec and most ppl will still play the elite spec only but the core class would get a lot.

    Adding chose could also mean adding to the base chose or the null and not adding to the out comes.

    Ele would lose its F1-F5 effects as well as duel skills and a trait line that give the highest dps chose as well as best def chose.

    Also i have to add this lol dagger on ranger.

    You still ignore that this change would screw over engineer.

    I get it, your main seems to be elementalist and this class would benefit alot from this system, since your class would be able to use both elite spec weapons in the same build and it would unlock tons of new skills for your class which you all can use at full potential. But as a main of a class which would turn out to be the biggest loser of this change, I am against this to happen.

    Also: why lol to dagger on ranger? You realise that mainhand dagger is meta in PvE for both, power soulbeast and condi soulbeast? It is a great PvE weapon.

  • @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    weaver has 3. reduced attune cd but 4 sec lockout from switching, 3rd skill is replaced by dual attacks, and can't realistically access 3rd 4th or 5th weapon skills on demand cuz you're always one attunement behind.

    trash class.

    Havent player my weaver on wvw yet, but I believe that after some gameplay (took me a day of solo in HoT group events) you understand how the rotation goes. Condi weaver is a very rewarding spec in pve imo. I can totally see why burning won't be of good use in wvw however, since all roamers have a form of cleansing. Of course, I am not an ele main and can't say for sure if I understand the tradeoff of the spec yet, so just gave 2 cents on it.

    P.S. I hated weaver as much as one week ago and it was the spec I refused to touch, but now im confident in saying that it has probably some of the most active and fun gameplay.

    Make Banner Warrior for Zergs great again!!!

  • Kodama.6453Kodama.6453 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    weaver has 3. reduced attune cd but 4 sec lockout from switching, 3rd skill is replaced by dual attacks, and can't realistically access 3rd 4th or 5th weapon skills on demand cuz you're always one attunement behind.

    trash class.

    "3rd skill is replaced by dual attacks", this doesn't really count as a trade off, since this statement isn't really true.

    You can still get access to the "normal" 3rd skills of the core weapons through 2 methods: double attuning to the same element or using the utility skill unravel.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    weaver has 3. reduced attune cd but 4 sec lockout from switching, 3rd skill is replaced by dual attacks, and can't realistically access 3rd 4th or 5th weapon skills on demand cuz you're always one attunement behind.

    trash class.

    "3rd skill is replaced by dual attacks", this doesn't really count as a trade off, since this statement isn't really true.

    You can still get access to the "normal" 3rd skills of the core weapons through 2 methods: double attuning to the same element or using the utility skill unravel.

    that statement is true, so is the one proceeding it but don't address that one for reasons.

    te lazla otstara.
    fingers crossed meta ~

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    Another though is to give core classes all of the weapons there elite spec can use. It would give core classes something new every expansion and a kind of lose for each elite spec vs its core class. Example ele core would be able to use both sword and WH but tempest cant use sword and weaver cant use WH.

    Was suggested alot, but this suggestion doesn't really work in my opinion because of how some weapons function.

    Holosmith's sword, for example, has quite alot of it's power budget locked behind the heat mechanic. Getting a 20% damage buff is huge and in general, tons of damage are locked behind the heat levels.

    Without the photon forge, the sword is just plain bad as a weapon. Which means that engineer just gets 1 functional weapon in this case (hammer), while other professions get the luxury of 2 functioning and powerful weapons. I don't think something like this should be treated so unfairly.

    Well ya that the point of balancing and how it would work. The weapons on the core class would be very basic level but it still opens up skill and chose to the core class that elite spec do not have. Core being the gen of the class would not use the weapons as well as the elite spec.

    It seems you are missing my point.

    Some classes are not restricted in their usage of their new elite spec weapon. Core necromancer can use greatsword and torch almost just as efficiently as their elite specs. Same for ranger with dagger and staff.

    But then there are other classes which have their weapons cut extremely in efficiency, like holosmith with their sword. Without the heat mechanic, engineer loses on sword:

    • auto attack: 20% damage
    • Skill 2: 1.1 power coefficient (losing the 4 additional blades from heat level), which means a 46% damage loss in PvE and a 52% damage loss in PvP
    • Skill 3: 4 seconds of quickness in PvE and 2 seconds of quickness in PvP

    Meanwhile what would ranger lose from their weapons?

    • Staff: 20% cooldown and daze on weapon swap
    • Dagger: literally nothing lost

    I think the difference in efficiency is too big here.
    Also engineer doesn't get a choice that elite spec doesn't have.... engineer's elite spec weapons so far are hammer and sword. You can't use both weapons, since hammer is 2handed and engineer doesn't have weapon swap. Other classes like elementalist are favoured, yes, since they would be able to combine their elite spec weapons, which their elite specs couldn't do.

    So in general: this system would be a gigantic "kitten you" to engineers. I prefer to not go that route and keep the system as it is.

    I get that but that is what though classes are specialized in. Core is a gen. class so it should get some effects from its elite spec.

    Some elite spec. are not base off there wepon but there should be room to let the core class get all of the weapons unless you want them to to get utility as well? We for sure cant give them any F1-F5 the main reason for elite spec.

    The elite spec should lose something and giving core classes all of the elite spec weapons would be a real lost for each elite spec chose. Nothing would changes for the elite spec and most ppl will still play the elite spec only but the core class would get a lot.

    Adding chose could also mean adding to the base chose or the null and not adding to the out comes.

    Ele would lose its F1-F5 effects as well as duel skills and a trait line that give the highest dps chose as well as best def chose.

    Also i have to add this lol dagger on ranger.

    You still ignore that this change would screw over engineer.

    I get it, your main seems to be elementalist and this class would benefit alot from this system, since your class would be able to use both elite spec weapons in the same build and it would unlock tons of new skills for your class which you all can use at full potential. But as a main of a class which would turn out to be the biggest loser of this change, I am against this to happen.

    Also: why lol to dagger on ranger? You realise that mainhand dagger is meta in PvE for both, power soulbeast and condi soulbeast? It is a great PvE weapon.

    So giving core eng the ability to use sword and hammer and what ever is coming next will screw over eng how?

    Ele would get some effect from it but its realty the 2h weapons that would be MUCH stronger added to the core class like eng getting hammer.

    Yes SOULBEAST dagger i asume there are some effects from soulbeast that makes it a good dps class in pve but that the point for adding in elite spec weapons to core classes to bering up the core classes on some level to the elite spec AND at the same time give the elite spec a real cost to choosing to be an elite spec.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • Zoser.7245Zoser.7245 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Zoser.7245 said:

    @Shroud.2307 said:

    • Mirage: Endurance bar reduced to 1
    • Chronomancer: ??? Shatters changed ???

    Wrong.

    • The Mirage tradeoff is the reduced ability to move while dodging. The movement is very limited to the sides and almost null backward so you often end caught by AoE attacks. The "Endurance bar reduced to 1" is a plain nerf, in fact, an overnerf they did to not dedicate time to rework what was needed. Its lack of sustain, something all mesmers suffer, make it not desirable in the actual meta.

    Wrong, you have actually more precise control over your movement here than in regular dodge and you can cast while in it. If you want to move in one direction like you would with regular dodge, pressing R has you covered. And mirage has more means of avoiding dmg than his regular endurance-fueled dodge.

    Going fordward cover you? You are predictable and the AoE in this game cover a lot area often. Remember that you only have a single dodge... It's very easy place your AoE in a way that those means to avoid damage that Mirage has must be used always in a defensive way to flee rather than to reposition or used offensively. Cast while dodge is an advantage yes, but now with a single dodge you don't have enough burst and time to profit it before being forced to escape. You lack the sustain needed to be there and profit it, something that the two dodges let you do it in the past. They nailed the greatest nerf possible with the single dodge for Mirage in PvP/WvW.

  • Kodama.6453Kodama.6453 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jski.6180 said:

    So giving core eng the ability to use sword and hammer and what ever is coming next will screw over eng how?

    You are ignoring the big picture. Balance is always relative.

    Literally every other class is getting more out of this change than engineer. The only class that doesn't have weapon swap besides engineer is elementalist, yet elementalist is still getting more than engineer, because they can use both their elite spec weapons at the same time (sword mainhand, warhorn offhand).
    Engineer can't combine their elite spec weapons, since one of them is 2handed.

    Additionally, sword on engineer is useless as I already explained, because the weapon is losing way too much without access to the photon forge.

    All the other classes have weapon swap, so even if they happen to have 2handed elite spec weapons, they can still take them both. Like how thief could use staff as their first weapon and rifle as their second.

    Relative to the other classes, engineer is getting way less benefit from such a change, making it ultimately the loser of such a system alternation.

    Ele would get some effect from it but its realty the 2h weapons that would be MUCH stronger added to the core class like eng getting hammer.

    Some effect... are we forgetting that elementalist gets 4 times the skills as other classes from their weapons? This change here would add 20 new weapon skills

    Yes SOULBEAST dagger i asume there are some effects from soulbeast that makes it a good dps class in pve but that the point for adding in elite spec weapons to core classes to bering up the core classes on some level to the elite spec AND at the same time give the elite spec a real cost to choosing to be an elite spec.

    You are missing the point once again. If soulbeast's dagger is user in the meta builds, then this weapon is obviously stronger than the core weapons available to ranger. Because if it wouldn't be stronger, then these builds would use something else than the dagger, since soulbeast does have access to all the core weapons as well.

    So "lol to ranger dagger" makes no sense. It is a stronger weapon than ranger core weapons, which means that adding it to core ranger would benefit that class.

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    So giving core eng the ability to use sword and hammer and what ever is coming next will screw over eng how?

    You are ignoring the big picture. Balance is always relative.

    Literally every other class is getting more out of this change than engineer. The only class that doesn't have weapon swap besides engineer is elementalist, yet elementalist is still getting more than engineer, because they can use both their elite spec weapons at the same time (sword mainhand, warhorn offhand).
    Engineer can't combine their elite spec weapons, since one of them is 2handed.

    Additionally, sword on engineer is useless as I already explained, because the weapon is losing way too much without access to the photon forge.

    All the other classes have weapon swap, so even if they happen to have 2handed elite spec weapons, they can still take them both. Like how thief could use staff as their first weapon and rifle as their second.

    Relative to the other classes, engineer is getting way less benefit from such a change, making it ultimately the loser of such a system alternation.

    Ele would get some effect from it but its realty the 2h weapons that would be MUCH stronger added to the core class like eng getting hammer.

    Some effect... are we forgetting that elementalist gets 4 times the skills as other classes from their weapons? This change here would add 20 new weapon skills

    Yes SOULBEAST dagger i asume there are some effects from soulbeast that makes it a good dps class in pve but that the point for adding in elite spec weapons to core classes to bering up the core classes on some level to the elite spec AND at the same time give the elite spec a real cost to choosing to be an elite spec.

    You are missing the point once again. If soulbeast's dagger is user in the meta builds, then this weapon is obviously stronger than the core weapons available to ranger. Because if it wouldn't be stronger, then these builds would use something else than the dagger, since soulbeast does have access to all the core weapons as well.

    So "lol to ranger dagger" makes no sense. It is a stronger weapon than ranger core weapons, which means that adding it to core ranger would benefit that class.

    But that not the point of balancing the core class is always going to be weaker then the elite spec for the wepon chose the only thing that makes the core class of use is its ability for gen. use. As things stand anet dose not seem to be intent to adding any thing to the core classes what WOULD balance them with there elite spec but in fact anet seems more then willing to nerf the core classes to balance the elite spec. So as things stand there no real world trad off from not chose an elite spec line vs running the core class. Letting the core classes simply get the ability to use the basic level elite spec weapons would simply be a progression of adding to there gen. effect when anet adds in
    more power creep.

    Just having more skills dose not mean its better core ele is MUCH less able to go into melee then weaver even tempest is a bit more able to go into melee.

    That the point your core ranger vs soulbeast for dagger is not about giving ranger more condi dps is about giving the core ranger more chose to how they play with out going an elite spec. Core classes are the gen. class in this game and they should be able to do every thing there elite spec dose on some level but not as well. Giving core ranger a dagger not going to remove soulbeast use for dagger but it will make druid lose the ability to use dagger vs core ranger dagger use a real trade off and a real chose.

    That is the big pic of the game they will nerf the core classes more and more to make the elite spec more balanced and this means there is no trade off.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:

    @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Jski.6180 said:
    Another though is to give core classes all of the weapons there elite spec can use. It would give core classes something new every expansion and a kind of lose for each elite spec vs its core class. Example ele core would be able to use both sword and WH but tempest cant use sword and weaver cant use WH.

    Was suggested alot, but this suggestion doesn't really work in my opinion because of how some weapons function.

    Holosmith's sword, for example, has quite alot of it's power budget locked behind the heat mechanic. Getting a 20% damage buff is huge and in general, tons of damage are locked behind the heat levels.

    Without the photon forge, the sword is just plain bad as a weapon. Which means that engineer just gets 1 functional weapon in this case (hammer), while other professions get the luxury of 2 functioning and powerful weapons. I don't think something like this should be treated so unfairly.

    Well ya that the point of balancing and how it would work. The weapons on the core class would be very basic level but it still opens up skill and chose to the core class that elite spec do not have. Core being the gen of the class would not use the weapons as well as the elite spec.

    It seems you are missing my point.

    Some classes are not restricted in their usage of their new elite spec weapon. Core necromancer can use greatsword and torch almost just as efficiently as their elite specs. Same for ranger with dagger and staff.

    But then there are other classes which have their weapons cut extremely in efficiency, like holosmith with their sword. Without the heat mechanic, engineer loses on sword:

    • auto attack: 20% damage
    • Skill 2: 1.1 power coefficient (losing the 4 additional blades from heat level), which means a 46% damage loss in PvE and a 52% damage loss in PvP
    • Skill 3: 4 seconds of quickness in PvE and 2 seconds of quickness in PvP

    Meanwhile what would ranger lose from their weapons?

    • Staff: 20% cooldown and daze on weapon swap
    • Dagger: literally nothing lost

    I think the difference in efficiency is too big here.
    Also engineer doesn't get a choice that elite spec doesn't have.... engineer's elite spec weapons so far are hammer and sword. You can't use both weapons, since hammer is 2handed and engineer doesn't have weapon swap. Other classes like elementalist are favoured, yes, since they would be able to combine their elite spec weapons, which their elite specs couldn't do.

    So in general: this system would be a gigantic "kitten you" to engineers. I prefer to not go that route and keep the system as it is.

    I get that but that is what though classes are specialized in. Core is a gen. class so it should get some effects from its elite spec.

    By what logic "core should get some effects from its elite spec"?

    The elite spec should lose something and giving core classes all of the elite spec weapons would be a real lost for each elite spec chose.

    Giving e-spec weapon to core class doesn't make an e-spec "lose something", what are you even talking about?

    If the game updates with elite spec the ideal of being a gen. class must update as well. So throwing in a new wepon would be the best way for the core classes to keep up with the ideal of being a gen. class as well as makes the elite spec more specialized in there wepon set by losing other elite spec weapons that the core class has as well.

    If you give core the weapons of the elite spec then when you chose an elite spec you lose the set of weapons from all other elite spec as well as what the core class has.

    But considering some of the weapons will be barely usable outside of their respective especs, it means that choosing "the other espec" doesn't really use anything valuable. You're just looking at it from the perspective of "wanting sword on ele" and that's about it, right? :D > @Zoser.7245 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Zoser.7245 said:

    @Shroud.2307 said:

    • Mirage: Endurance bar reduced to 1
    • Chronomancer: ??? Shatters changed ???

    Wrong.

    • The Mirage tradeoff is the reduced ability to move while dodging. The movement is very limited to the sides and almost null backward so you often end caught by AoE attacks. The "Endurance bar reduced to 1" is a plain nerf, in fact, an overnerf they did to not dedicate time to rework what was needed. Its lack of sustain, something all mesmers suffer, make it not desirable in the actual meta.

    Wrong, you have actually more precise control over your movement here than in regular dodge and you can cast while in it. If you want to move in one direction like you would with regular dodge, pressing R has you covered. And mirage has more means of avoiding dmg than his regular endurance-fueled dodge.

    Going fordward cover you? You are predictable and the AoE in this game cover a lot area often. Remember that you only have a single dodge...

    Yeah, because you can totally "only go forward". Tbh I don't really understand what you mean by "going forward cover you"?

    It's very easy place your AoE in a way that those means to avoid damage that Mirage has must be used always in a defensive way to flee rather than to reposition or used offensively.

    That's false and it can be easly used as both at the same time.

    Cast while dodge is an advantage yes, but

    It's an advantage but mirages like to consistently pretend everything about that is a disadvantage, so... yeah, "just saying".

    now with a single dodge you don't have enough burst and time to profit it before being forced to escape.

    If you think mirage doesn't have enough burst then you don't seem to be a good mirage. Same goes if you think mirage is some kind of "one-dodge-and-done" type of deal, because it's not (outside of players who literally try to burst you down ONCE and kill or run away, because these are also the players I sometimes meet playing mirage).

  • Zoser.7245Zoser.7245 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 18, 2021

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    Going fordward cover you? You are predictable and the AoE in this game cover a lot area often. Remember that you only have a single dodge...

    Yeah, because you can totally "only go forward". Tbh I don't really understand what you mean by "going forward cover you"?

    I mean that a single dodge cover x distance if you go forward and with 2 dodges you cover twice distance without the need to use other skills or save one dodge for other purpose. The single dodge don't cover what you have lost, that is.

    It's very easy place your AoE in a way that those means to avoid damage that Mirage has must be used always in a defensive way to flee rather than to reposition or used offensively.

    That's false and it can be easly used as both at the same time.

    Yes, maybe i did not explained it properly. What i mean is that now you lost flexibility and use them offensively is not optimal in several situations when you don't have the second dodge as a backup. So you also lost that option.

    now with a single dodge you don't have enough burst and time to profit it before being forced to escape.

    If you think mirage doesn't have enough burst then you don't seem to be a good mirage.

    I'm not thinking that. But obviously Mirage lost burst from being able to ambush twice. If you only have one maybe that should be as decisive as the skills of other professions have available or balance better all them.

    Same goes if you think mirage is some kind of "one-dodge-and-done" type of deal, because it's not (outside of players who literally try to burst you down ONCE and kill or run away, because these are also the players I sometimes meet playing mirage).

    I don't think so.
    Anyways, the single nerf they did affect Mirage in several ways. And some of them were not needed and now you miss those things.

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

    @Sobx.1758

    Its not important if you get use out of or not as long as your a core class you should have the chose to use the wepon of all of the class elite spec. as the core class is the gen. class and with out it your elite spec ARE the weapons or the elite spec is simply power creep from the core class not a real chose with trade offs.

    I am not realty one who wants a sword on core ele i can see its use but i like dagger way more i very much dislike sword on the weaver class the range on the attks are way too short. If any thing i want to see the next elite spec weapons set (every one is hoping ele getting another 1,200 ranged wepon).

    Over all i want to see core classes have a real place in this game and not just be a pure chopping block class where you have your free game as core classes only and pay to have elite spec. Up to this point anet seems intent to make GW2 a more P2W game by making elite spec get every thing from expansion and nothing for the core classes not even real trade off for choosing to be an elite spec vs a core class. This would be something and be impossible to over power the core classes in the process(as a core class can not use a elite spec wepon better then that eleit spec.)

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.