Weapon Swap to manage Weaver Elements?

I was trying to brainstorm ways to make Weaver operate a bit more simply. I, like apparently many people (but not all, of course), find the Weaver spec interesting, but very complicated, and requiring really dancing on a wire to play well.

I was thinking, perhaps instead of having your first click change the main element, then your second push that element to second and a new one into first, and so on, what if you could manually just swap “mainhand” and “offhand” elements at will, so you could go from fire/air to fire/earth or water/air, in whichever order you prefer.

But how to do the controls for this, we only have four f-keys, not counting the f5 this doesn’t use. Well why not the weapon swap that Eles can’t use anyway?

So that’s my UI suggestion. Have the standard row of four elements, bound to f1-4. Then, above that, have a smaller row of elements, also bound to f4. If you start jamming on f-keys, then all that will change is the 1-3 attacks, they’ll keep swapping around to whatever element you pick. If you hit “~” or “Weapon Swap,” then the larger bottom row and the smaller top row flip places, and then jamming on the f-keys will only change the 3-5 attacks (since the 3rd is a dual skill).

In terms of overall balance, it’s not that different than the current design, you can still reach the same targets, just maybe in a couple less cycles of the keys, but I think it would make the class much easier to operate.

Just as an example, if you were in fire/fire, and wanted to switch to air/earth, you would see the big row on the bottom and the small row on the top. You would hit f3 to swap main to air, and therefore be in air/fire, then after the CD you’d hit ~ and then f4 to swap to air/earth.

Since the ~ key doesn’t actually change anything it wouldn’t need a cooldown like Weapon Swap does. If they have difficulty implementing it that way since Weapon Swap isn’t meant to work that way, they could do the same thing using the unused f5 key, but personally I think ~ would be more intuitive.

So what do you think, better than the current? Worse in some way I’m not seeing?

tl:dr, show eight element buttons at once, four for mainhand and four offhand, use Weapon Swap to swap which bar is active, allowing you to directly position each element rather than FILO.

Weaver is fine. Challenging specs breathe life into the game since you won't just master them in your first 10 minutes of gameplay.

Its issues arise from functionality and gameplay design choices. Gaming these days is changing to be easier and easier. IMO these hard-to-master roles should be embraced and treasured, for they will be completely removed in a few more years, favoring "accessibility" :)

@Razor.6392 said:Weaver is fine. Challenging specs breathe life into the game since you won't just master them in your first 10 minutes of gameplay.

Well look, I can understand that viewpoint, but you have to understand that it doesn't appeal to everyone. Some people like the way Weaver currently is, but others like the _idea _of it, but find the execution to be more complicated than they're interested in.

I think that at the very least there should be a "hi spec" version of the spec and a "casual" version of it, controlled via Trait, perhaps. For players that are jazzed about the current version, they can run it in "hi spec" mode and it will play like it currently does, but more casual players would have an option to get a lot of the "fun" of the new spec, in a way that's a bit easier to manage (either like I proposed above, or some other method that is similarly easier to keep track of). The "hi spec" version could be made more powerful when played expertly, so that expert players would see a performance boost for mastering it, but for casual players they could use the more casual method and it would at least work for them. Hardcore raiders and tournament PvPers would tend to migrate to the hi spec option, while everyone else could just have fun with it.

Wouldn't it be better if everyone could enjoy the spec?

I think there are already pleeeeeeeenty of easy-mode specs as it is. If anything, there's a shortage of complex ones. Why should every spec cater to casual players? Leave some for those that love a challenge too! There's beauty in variety.

@Ohoni.6057 That is why A-net has suggested using Unravel when you are learning how to play the weaver. You are giving up a utility for it but most spec have a free utility slot for whatever. The rotations really matter for pvp/wvw more than pve/raider, since its about burst and timing for your survival.

@Razor.6392 said:I think there are already pleeeeeeeenty of easy-mode specs as it is. If anything, there's a shortage of complex ones. Why should every spec cater to casual players? Leave some for those that love a challenge too! There's beauty in variety.

It's not about quantity. 100% of specs should be fun and playable by 100% of players. Again though, the original complicated version could still be available for those that prefer it, this would just be an alternative. For players who are good enough to make the most out of the existing method, this should be balanced out to be the absolute best version to use. The simplified method would be balanced out to be equivalent in performance to a more casual player half-kittening his way through the current version.

@Ulion.5476 said:@Ohoni.6057 That is why A-net has suggested using Unravel when you are learning how to play the weaver. You are giving up a utility for it but most spec have a free utility slot for whatever. The rotations really matter for pvp/wvw more than pve/raider, since its about burst and timing for your survival.

I haven't spent enough time on Weaver yet, but from what I understand, Unravel not only takes up a Utility slot, but also disables Dual powers, which is the entire point of the spec. I mean, what advantage is there to playing a Weaver with Unravel on over a vanilla Ele? The method I suggested would allow players to fully use the dual-attack options, just in a way that is more direct than the standard Weaver method.

Weaver to me just felt clunky due to the universal 4 sec cd on attunement swaps. Kinda kills the ability to make quick reaction based swaps and then the flow of the class feels interrupted. I'm not particularly good at ele so maybe it's a learning problem but to me I felt the class needed some adjustments for flow.

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Razor.6392 said:I think there are already pleeeeeeeenty of easy-mode specs as it is. If anything, there's a shortage of complex ones. Why should every spec cater to casual players? Leave some for those that love a challenge too! There's beauty in variety.

@Ulion.5476 said:@Ohoni.6057 That is why A-net has suggested using

Unravel

when you are learning how to play the weaver. You are giving up a utility for it but most spec have a free utility slot for whatever. The rotations really matter for pvp/wvw more than pve/raider, since its about burst and timing for your survival.

Weaver is currently playable to all. Fun is subjective and ANet can't make every class fun for everyone, it's impossible.

Not all classes or specializations need to be easy for everyone to master. There should be some really easy ones for the players who can't or don't want to get better at the game. There should conversely be some complicated ones for the players who enjoy the challenge.

The balance should be in that and not making all classes and all specializations able to be mastered by the lowest common denominator.

If they do your suggestion it should be a trait. A player who chooses to lose the cool down to swap attunement positions, should give up something else.

It all takes preplanning. The biggest thing is if you mess up your rotation most people don't know how to get back into rotation quick enough

@Seera.5916 said:Weaver is currently playable to all. Fun is subjective and ANet can't make every class fun for everyone, it's impossible.

Not to engage in semantics, but can we at least agree that while they can't make the class fun for all, it would be possible to make the class fun for more, and that this would be a worthwhile goal to pursue?

It's currently "playable" by all, but a lot of people are reporting that it is too complicated for them to enjoy, and offering a less complicated option would broaden the number of people capable of enjoying it.

Not all classes or specializations need to be easy for everyone to master. There should be some really easy ones for the players who can't or don't want to get better at the game. There should conversely be some complicated ones for the players who enjoy the challenge.

I disagree. Classes and specs are about flavor, and should be about what style of character you enjoy. Every class and spec should offer something to players of all skill level. Where high player skill comes in is in maximizing the potential of the spec, getting the absolute most it has to offer, but any player should be able to pick it up and get a reasonably balanced play experience out of it. This is why I say perhaps make this an option via traits, so that players who prefer the current method can continue to use it.

If they do your suggestion it should be a trait. A player who chooses to lose the cool down to swap attunement positions, should give up something else.

Right, I said that.

@FrownyClown.8402 said:It all takes preplanning. The biggest thing is if you mess up your rotation most people don't know how to get back into rotation quick enough

Exactly, this would make things a lot simpler, since you could always backtrack or just pivot on the hand that you wanted to change.

Oh yeah sure, and while you're at it, please make engie rotations easy cause although I love the class in pvp and wvw I avoid playing it in raids due to the "fun" rotation lol

Not every class is for everyone, not every spec is for everyone. Weaver seems well balanced in that you get all these dual attunements BUT for a price - i.e. the global cooldown.

@Raguel.9402 said:Not every class is for everyone, not every spec is for everyone.

One should never speak in absolutes.

Sure, not every class is for everyone and not every spec is for everyone. That's not the point. The point is that this spec could be made for MORE players than it seems to be at the moment, and wouldn't that be great? No benefit to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I expect the "cost" of playing the Weaver to be the same either way, this is just a way that I believe casual players would find more accessible.

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Razor.6392 said:I think there are already pleeeeeeeenty of easy-mode specs as it is. If anything, there's a shortage of complex ones. Why should every spec cater to casual players? Leave some for those that love a challenge too! There's beauty in variety.

@Ulion.5476 said:@Ohoni.6057 That is why A-net has suggested using

Unravel

when you are learning how to play the weaver. You are giving up a utility for it but most spec have a free utility slot for whatever. The rotations really matter for pvp/wvw more than pve/raider, since its about burst and timing for your survival.

Unravel allows you to dual attune to your primary element. So if you are Fire/Air and click Unravel you will then be Fire/Fire. I don't understand why Unravel states "lose dual attacks" because when you dual-attune you lose access to dual attacks anyway even without Unravel. There are no dual attacks when you are attuned to the same element.

I concur I had more trouble trying out the weaver than when starting out tempest, since it changes the flow of the elementalist in a much more profound way. However, I believe it is best to wait until people have had a chance to play it a few weeks before making big changes though, it will probably feel less clunky once people get used to it. I guess I'll be trying to play it with weapons I'm familiar with first, when that works out I'll try the sword.

@maddoctor.2738 said:Unravel allows you to dual attune to your primary element. So if you are Fire/Air and click Unravel you will then be Fire/Fire. I don't understand why Unravel states "lose dual attacks" because when you dual-attune you lose access to dual attacks anyway even without Unravel. There are no dual attacks when you are attuned to the same element.

Ok, but my point is, I want to be able to have two elements, I just want more direct control over which element goes where, rather than the current FILO system which is more prone to confusion. If you're going to stick to only one element at a time, then what's even the point of the spec?

@Galespark.7835 said:I concur I had more trouble trying out the weaver than when starting out tempest, since it changes the flow of the elementalist in a much more profound way. However, I believe it is best to wait until people have had a chance to play it a few weeks before making big changes though, it will probably feel less clunky once people get used to it.

True, although reducing the barrier to entry is nice even if people can eventually get the hang of it.

More complicated professions give players the ability to improve themselves. So even the hardest profession out there offers something to players.

@Seera.5916 said:More complicated professions give players the ability to improve themselves. So even the hardest profession out there offers something to players.

That's up to players whether they see that as a benefit or not. If players want to take advantage of that "feature," then great. If they see that as something they don't care about, then it might be better for them to have alternatives. To each their own.

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Seera.5916 said:More complicated professions give players the ability to improve themselves. So even the hardest profession out there offers something to players.

I wouldn't have a problem with your suggestion being put in, but you need to not make claims that will not be achievable or that the current situation is any way bad for the specialization. It's not bad for it to be complicated and take skill and dedication to master. Sure, it will attract a different subset of the population, but that's not a bad thing either.

How is the ability to improve oneself not a benefit? Do you mean it's up to the player to take advantage of that benefit? And adding it in as a trait means one of the other traits Weaver currently has has to go. Which trait should be removed? What do you tell the people who had that trait as part of their build who wouldn't want to use your trait? Why does the group you're arguing for trump that other group? Because theoretically 1/3 of all Weavers would have that trait you removed. 1/3 of a subset isn't something to just casually toss aside because of another group of unknown size.

@Seera.5916 said:I wouldn't have a problem with your suggestion being put in, but you need to not make claims that will not be achievable or that the current situation is any way bad for the specialization. It's not bad for it to be complicated and take skill and dedication to master. Sure, it will attract a different subset of the population, but that's not a bad thing either.

"Bad" and "good," is subjective, obviously, but I think that overall, it's best to give classes the potential to appeal to the widest possible spectrum of players as possible. After all, we only get one new spec per class, per 2-3 years. There are some people around here who seem to take a view "so long as a given spec is good at doing one very tiny portion of the game, that's fine." I disagree. I think that every spec should be good in every mode, and that every player who likes the general concept of the spec should have away of playing it that they enjoy, within reason. Basically I think that anyone who wants to play a Weaver should be able to play a Weaver, regardless of skill level or interest in skill level.Now, within each spec I think it's fine to have sub-specs, trait and build combinations that are specific to a certain portion, like only useful in PvP, or only useful in Raiding, or only useful for very high skill players, but this should only be one way to go within each build.

Sure, you can design a spec to only be suited to a very small portion of the players, but why would you do that when instead it could appeal to a much larger audience? Why shouldn't lower "fiddly" Eles have anything new to do with their class between now and the next expansion?

How is the ability to improve oneself not a benefit? Do you mean it's up to the player to take advantage of that benefit?

This is a very subjective benefit. Many players value having fun in the game over getting better at playing it, and might see "improving how you play a game" as a bit of a waste of their time and energy when they could be improving practical aspects of their lives, and just playing the game for entertainment and relaxation. To each their own.

And adding it in as a trait means one of the other traits Weaver currently has has to go. Which trait should be removed?

I'm very flexible on that, which do you think should be removed? Keep in mind that the actual effects of it could be juggled over to a different trait, or if it were something particularly suited to the existing methods, it could just take over that option. Just off the top of my head though, I might mix and match a few existing traits. Maybe combine Elemental Pursuit and Swift Revenge into a single Adept or Master trait, and make this new control system, "Antipode Wielder" into the remaining slot. Or shift Invigorating Strikes to Major instead, and put Antipode Wielder into a GM slot. Whichever.

Because theoretically 1/3 of all Weavers would have that trait you removed. 1/3 of a subset isn't something to just casually toss aside because of another group of unknown size.

Rather than speak in hypotheticals, it would be worth trying to determine the relative sizes of these groups before making any decisions. I am confident that a compromise could be reached that would please more people than it upset, but either way it's worth trying to determine those numbers. I'm sure ANet will be able to compile numbers of Weaver users verses other Ele specs and other PoF specs, how many of them choose which traits, things like that.

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Seera.5916 said:I wouldn't have a problem with your suggestion being put in, but you need to not make claims that will not be achievable or that the current situation is any way bad for the specialization. It's not bad for it to be complicated and take skill and dedication to master. Sure, it will attract a different subset of the population, but that's not a bad thing either.

How is the ability to improve oneself not a benefit? Do you mean it's up to the player to take advantage of that benefit?

And adding it in as a trait means one of the other traits Weaver currently has has to go. Which trait should be removed?

Because theoretically 1/3 of all Weavers would have that trait you removed. 1/3 of a subset isn't something to just casually toss aside because of another group of unknown size.

Attracting another subset of players when you don't push away others from a game (there are other less complicated specs out there) is not a subjective usage of "not a bad thing". It would be entirely different if all of the other specs in the game were complicated but Weaver wasn't and someone wanted to make Weaver complicated. Then that would be a subjective usage. Right now we're at mostly all uncomplicated with Weaver being added as a complicated one.

Yea, Weaver is a sub-spec of Elementalist. It's one of the options you can pick when you want to delve into a complicated spec. I'd be more upset if the only way to get a complicated spec is to pick a certain series of traits. Because then that's boring. One would not be able to shake things up without making it uncomplicated. It will have some metas for complicated raid builds, complicated WvW builds, complicated Fractal builds, complicated PvP builds, complicated open world builds.

Again, you're confusing something being a benefit and someone taking advantage of a benefit. Many places of employment have benefit packages including things like health care. There's also an option to turn parts of that package down and not take advantage of it. Doesn't mean that their company didn't offer the benefit of health care. Just that they didn't take advantage of it. Complicated specs give players the benefit of being able to improve their play. Whether or not they take advantage of it is entirely up to them.

I'd say all players do want to get better a game. Who wouldn't want to get better at something (short of illegal things)? Some players may just not care how fast they get better at the game and don't care if they've plateaued for long periods of time. Some players are annoyed by any length of time they aren't getting better at a game. Some also really would rather get better but accept that they aren't going to as fast as they want or have limitations that prevent them from doing so.

I don't know what trait to remove. Builds aren't my strong suit in the game. I'd love to improve on that, but I've got more important things in my life than theory crafting builds. That's why I punted it to you since you're the one who suggested it. You should put in the work to figure out just how they should change the game to fit in your trait.

And if I can't use words that indicate how many players are in a group, neither can you. So you can't say many more would prefer your set up to the one that's currently in place.

@Seera.5916 said:Attracting another subset of players when you don't push away others from a game (there are other less complicated specs out there) is not a subjective usage of "not a bad thing". It would be entirely different if all of the other specs in the game were complicated but Weaver wasn't and someone wanted to make Weaver complicated. Then that would be a subjective usage. Right now we're at mostly all uncomplicated with Weaver being added as a complicated one.

Ok, but Weaver is the new Ele spec, so for Ele players, they either play a Weaver or have nothing new to play with until the next expansion. My point is, they can continue to allow the Weaver to be a complicated spec for those that want it that way, AND allow it to be a simpler spec for people who prefer it that way, so that bot groups can enjoy playing it. I think there is value in having a new Weaver spec that is fun and playable to the widest possible group, rather than to relegate the entire spec to just people who prefer complicated fiddling. I don't see the benefit in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Complicated specs give players the benefit of being able to improve their play. Whether or not they take advantage of it is entirely up to them.

But my point is, "being able to improve your play (because you'll have to)" is not an objective benefit. It does not objectively make anything better for you. If you enjoy that, then it's a benefit. If you don't enjoy that, then it's not a benefit.

I'd say all players do want to get better a game. Who wouldn't want to get better at something (short of illegal things)? Some players may just not care how fast they get better at the game and don't care if they've plateaued for long periods of time.

Well that's the trick of it though. Sure, in the abstract, players might prefer to get better at a game, but if there are trade-offs involved, then they might not value that growth as much as the costs involved. Basically, if you ask a person "would you like to get better at playing this class?" Then they might say "yeah," but if you then say "well good, because this class is going to be really complicated and you'll be dying left and right until you do get a lot better at it," then they might prefer for the class itself to be made easier so that they don't need to overcome that skill barrier. Again, making something more difficult and requiring players to adapt to it is not an inherent benefit. So you can't say "it requires you to get better" as if that is an automatically beneficial trait for it to have. It's beneficial to some, and frustrating to others.

I don't know what trait to remove. Builds aren't my strong suit in the game. I'd love to improve on that, but I've got more important things in my life than theory crafting builds. That's why I punted it to you since you're the one who suggested it. You should put in the work to figure out just how they should change the game to fit in your trait.

I did. It's in the post above yours.

I both like and dislike this idea. It gives us more options but I think it would require extra keypresses and actually be -more- complicated, not less. It would certainly make the rotation less punishing and give us quicker access to important offhand abilities however. For the most part I'll reserve judgment until I play weaver in real situations (I tried it during the stress test and trial weekends and thought it seemed decent enough as is).

My concern is how quickly I'll be able to reach Swirling Winds, or a specific CC, or a condi clear, or whatever other weapon-based utility to react to unexpected situations. Those situations can't always be reasonably planned for, and I could be left as much as 8 seconds away from a skill I desperately need when I need it. I generally look forward to the Weaver, and I actually hope it's quite challenging (and rewarding) to play well. I just hope it doesn't put an insurmountable limit on my ability to play reactively, because that's when the challenge will start to seem less worth the effort.

You have a choice between two builds or classes that have comparable DPS and survivability. The first has a very complicated rotation and extremely active playstyle. The second runs autoattack only and has a very passive playstyle. Which do you choose to play? I'll take the second every time, because it'll be consistent and it'll easily recover if I need to dodge, pop a utility, or heal. I'd even give up a not-insignificant amount of damage to have that easy rotation. In-game, the consistency alone will make up for it.

Weaver is definitely not that second option. It will not react well and it benefits most from unwavering adherence to your rotation. You're going to have to trait and gear for things you used to get with two quick keypresses (e.g. F2 > 5) or you won't have those things when you need them. Or, you have a teammate provide them for you so you can keep grinding away at the rotation.

@typographie.1742 said:My concern is how quickly I'll be able to reach Swirling Winds, or a specific CC, or a condi clear, or whatever other weapon-based utility to react to unexpected situations. Those situations can't always be reasonably planned for, and I could be left as much as 8 seconds away from a skill I desperately need when I need it. I generally look forward to the Weaver, and I actually hope it's quite challenging (and rewarding) to play well. I just hope it doesn't put an insurmountable limit on my ability to play reactively, because that's when the challenge will start to seem less worth the effort.

Yes this is the problem with the Weaver you need to "plan" ahead, so in 8seconds I will need to clean all my conditions, or daze someone, or become invulnerable. I don't think even the best players can plan 8 seconds in advance in any mode, PVE or PVP.