Stay away from penalty traits.. — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Stay away from penalty traits..

I sincerely hope that arena net stays away from unavoidable minor traits that nerf your class. It's not fun.

Daredevil having 600 range steal was bad. Now engineer scrapper, a spec that was meant to be a tanky bruiser has -300 vitality just for equipping the elite spec.

Its just not good design. Period. Please change this... scrappers really got gutted..... stay away from these unavoidable nerf traits please.

<13

Comments

  • Sojourner.4621Sojourner.4621 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Hannelore.8153 said:
    No, I like them, they make taking an elite and gaining the power it brings to be a risk instead of free candy.

    The barrier is just a little weak and needs to be affected by outgoing condi.

    I think it needs a minor adjustment. It should absolutely NOT universally be affected by outgoing condition damage AND power damage at the same time. That would make the class, once again, an unstoppable force. They SHOULD keep the -300 vita baseline, move the 20% condition damage reduction baseline, and make two of the grandmasters give you EITHER condi based barrier OR power based barrier. You should never have both at once. That would be insanely broken on any grieving or viper setup.

  • My hope is that, after Anet implements all of these tradeoffs, that they'll buff the classes that they introduced massive changes to. I.E. buffing chronophantasm back to previous levels.

    Though that is a pipedream at the minute.

    "Self awareness is knowing when you're sitting at the throne of ignorance." --Leo G.

  • Odinens.5920Odinens.5920 Member ✭✭✭

    I don't know...I haven't really noticed a difference honestly. I'm still hard to kill, and usually one of the last ones standing in fights we get wiped on.

    shrugs shoulders

  • Elmo Benchwarmer.3025Elmo Benchwarmer.3025 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 21, 2019

    I hope they stick to their current approach.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Odinens.5920 said:
    I don't know...I haven't really noticed a difference honestly. I'm still hard to kill, and usually one of the last ones standing in fights we get wiped on.

    shrugs shoulders

    Tested with my condi scrapper versus my power scrapper and the power one can achieve a barrier that equates to the loss in vit but the condi one does not. So my impression is they are saying scrapper should be power. For the power builds it's a ok fit but for the condi is feels more of a nerf.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • dodgerrule.8739dodgerrule.8739 Member ✭✭✭

    Every class needs something their good at and something they’re not so good at.

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

    @sokeenoppa.5384 said:

    @Chichimec.9364 said:

    @LaFurion.3167 said:
    I sincerely hope that arena net stays away from unavoidable minor traits that nerf your class. It's not fun.

    Daredevil having 600 range steal was bad. Now engineer scrapper, a spec that was meant to be a tanky bruiser has -300 vitality just for equipping the elite spec.

    Its just not good design. Period. Please change this... scrappers really got gutted..... stay away from these unavoidable nerf traits please.

    Agreed. My scrapper was a lot tankier before the "balance" update.

    Yeah.. thats why its balance patch as it was too tanky.

    In the very same patch they said they wanted to make it more tanky, though.

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

  • Sigmoid.7082Sigmoid.7082 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I find them interesting. Not only do they allow for some interesting mechanics to be added but it essentially allows Anet to change a spec from its base type of adventurer , scholar , and soldier.

    I know there have been topics around it in the past about elite specs having different base HP it being a different armour weight This is kind of a way of achieving that.

  • Lilyanna.9361Lilyanna.9361 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I still drag two people off of point to come chase me and now I have damage. I say this is a win I am still pumping 5k barrier, but now I have much more cc, longer cc chains, and damage.

    I see nothing wrong with this for me, as a scrapper main, in the slightest. It made scrapper WAY more interesting and gets people off of scrapper that were never dedicated to it in the first place.

  • @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @sokeenoppa.5384 said:

    @Chichimec.9364 said:

    @LaFurion.3167 said:
    I sincerely hope that arena net stays away from unavoidable minor traits that nerf your class. It's not fun.

    Daredevil having 600 range steal was bad. Now engineer scrapper, a spec that was meant to be a tanky bruiser has -300 vitality just for equipping the elite spec.

    Its just not good design. Period. Please change this... scrappers really got gutted..... stay away from these unavoidable nerf traits please.

    Agreed. My scrapper was a lot tankier before the "balance" update.

    Yeah.. thats why its balance patch as it was too tanky.

    In the very same patch they said they wanted to make it more tanky, though.

    No they did not. They said, and I quote "These changes aim to refocus the scrapper as a tank-like character that utilizes personal barrier applications to stay in a fight."
    If you do not understand what that means, in laymans terms it means they aim to shift how the scrapper tanks and gains its survivability. With the intent for a scrapper to instead tank through barrier application to increase sustainability.

    Otherwise known as they dont want to make it more tanky but instead change HOW it can tank.

  • Zunki.3916Zunki.3916 Member ✭✭✭

    While I agree that pure -stat traits are lazy as kitten, having a clever penalty is a good thing imho.
    Weaver as an example gets increased cd on attunments not switchimg to and from and loses direct access to the third slots skill. That's very clever design and is a real penalty at times, but you get good stuff for it.
    Tempest can overload, but by using that mechanic he gets a big cd on that attunment so it's risky to switch out as you cant get back fast.
    Both penalties are tied to the benefit in thw first place.
    -300hp on the other side........

    Viable != Optimal

    Not viable = You only get carried, 10 players with a build as "viable as yours" can't properly do it.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Sometimes when you want to add something to the class (which especs often do), you have to take something away so it won't be a striaght upgrade of the core. Which is powercreep. Which actually would be a bad design despite of you suggesting otherwise.

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

    I actually agree on this.
    But not because I think penalty traits are inherently bad.
    I mean the berserker penalty was kinda on theme and understandable but the penalty on scrapper is stupid and makes no sense.
    And berserker got atleast a trait to compensate.

  • Yasai.3549Yasai.3549 Member ✭✭✭

    Scrapper should have had -300 Vitality trait if they had given them a regenerating 2000~3000 point barrier which recharges when not taking damage for 10 seconds.

    How on earth is a base -300 Vitality gonna make up for barrier generation if and only if yu hit the target, and deal substantial amount of damage to actually get a meaningful amount of barrier?

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

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    This is a terrible way to balance.

    Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 26, 2019

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    This is a terrible way to balance.

    Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

    What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance? If elite spec is significantly stronger than core builds, then it's only logical that the elite spec needs something toned down or taken away -even moreso when it brings a new playstyle or possibilities to the table (and most, if not all, specs do exactly that). If you think elite spec is overnerfed compared to core then... play core builds? Or maybe you just got so used to certain elite specs being stronger than core that pulling them back in line is what really irritates you, but you don't want to admit it so you blame the "terrible way to balance"?

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 26, 2019

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    This is a terrible way to balance.

    Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

    What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance?

    I was pretty clear with my examples. Nerfing auto-elixir S was a step in the right direction to make gameplay more skill-based and remove a heavy-handed "carry me" trait. Deleting such a large amount of stat points is opposite of that. It re-introduces a heavy-handed "carry me" trait, only this time it is the opponent being carried. So I suppose it should be called a heavy-handed "handicapping" trait.

    If the new barrier provided is so strong that they needed to add such a handicapping trait for it, then it's a terrible balance change. What is the point of adding something that is going to be too strong without a paired handicapping? This would be like them adding burning stacks to core condi engi build skills but they need a corresponding trait that subtracts 600 points from condi dmg to "pull them back in line".

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 26, 2019

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    This is a terrible way to balance.

    Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

    What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance?

    I was pretty clear with my examples.

    Yup, but the thread is claiming that they should stay away from penalty traits altogether. Even you write that "it's a terrible way to balance", while in reality it's not and it makes sense. Your singular "overnerfed examples", whether they are correct or not, don't change the fact that it's NOT a bad way to balance. In fact it's overally a good way to balance especs.
    It's like saying that "changing stats is a terrible way to balance because they overnerfed 2 skills that one time". That claim is simply false. So is this thread and your initial claim. (which, again, was "This is a terrible way to balance.")

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 27, 2019

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    This is a terrible way to balance.

    Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

    What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance?

    I was pretty clear with my examples.

    Yup, but the thread is claiming that they should stay away from penalty traits altogether. Even you write that "it's a terrible way to balance", while in reality it's not and it makes sense. Your singular "overnerfed examples", whether they are correct or not, don't change the fact that it's NOT a bad way to balance. In fact it's overally a good way to balance especs.
    It's like saying that "changing stats is a terrible way to balance because they overnerfed 2 skills that one time". That claim is simply false. So is this thread and your initial claim. (which, again, was "This is a terrible way to balance.")

    Ok so tell us objectively why hard-carry/hard-handicap traits are a good way to balance without making subjective (and laughable) judgements about what you personally think irritates other people.

    Your argument about comparing specs is pretty weak because such traits can be applied to other specs and that seems to be what you are advocating for. If a core spec became overpowered, would you say that the proper way to nerf it is to apply a handicapping trait? I said it is a terrible way to balance, but really that's terrible design in general. All such traits lead to is more carry-me builds when the very thing you seem against is overpowered builds that carry people.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 27, 2019

    And btw, this seems like a sort of joke talking about scrapper as overpowered compared to other specs like core. What exactly was it overpowered at? Certainly not in PvE, where engi is one of the only classes with a CORE build good enough for raids (the other is core warrior).

    Yet another reason why an argument about comparing specs is weak.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 27, 2019

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    This is a terrible way to balance.

    Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

    What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance?

    I was pretty clear with my examples.

    Yup, but the thread is claiming that they should stay away from penalty traits altogether. Even you write that "it's a terrible way to balance", while in reality it's not and it makes sense. Your singular "overnerfed examples", whether they are correct or not, don't change the fact that it's NOT a bad way to balance. In fact it's overally a good way to balance especs.
    It's like saying that "changing stats is a terrible way to balance because they overnerfed 2 skills that one time". That claim is simply false. So is this thread and your initial claim. (which, again, was "This is a terrible way to balance.")

    I said it is a terrible way to balance, but really that's terrible design in general. All such traits lead to is more carry-me builds when the very thing you seem against is overpowered builds that carry people.

    No, it's not. And not removing certain aspects of core spec while adding new ones in the especs just makes it so especs potentially become direct upgrades over core specs, which in fact would be a terrible design. It's not really hard to understand. And as I said, if you think picking espec isn't worth it, then pick core spec. No? I wonder why.

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    And btw, this seems like a sort of joke talking about scrapper as overpowered compared to other specs like core. What exactly was it overpowered at? Certainly not in PvE, where engi is one of the only classes with a CORE build good enough for raids (the other is core warrior).

    Yet another reason why an argument about comparing specs is weak.

    What are you even talking about, where did I say anything about scrapper being overpowered? Go reread my post and this time make sure you understand it.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    This is a terrible way to balance.

    Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

    What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance?

    I was pretty clear with my examples.

    Yup, but the thread is claiming that they should stay away from penalty traits altogether. Even you write that "it's a terrible way to balance", while in reality it's not and it makes sense. Your singular "overnerfed examples", whether they are correct or not, don't change the fact that it's NOT a bad way to balance. In fact it's overally a good way to balance especs.
    It's like saying that "changing stats is a terrible way to balance because they overnerfed 2 skills that one time". That claim is simply false. So is this thread and your initial claim. (which, again, was "This is a terrible way to balance.")

    I said it is a terrible way to balance, but really that's terrible design in general. All such traits lead to is more carry-me builds when the very thing you seem against is overpowered builds that carry people.

    No, it's not. And not removing certain aspects of core spec while adding new ones in the especs just makes it so especs potentially become direct upgrades over core specs, which in fact would be a terrible design. It's not really hard to understand. And as I said, if you think picking espec isn't worth it, then pick core spec. No? I wonder why.

    Ok so tell us objectively why hard-carry/hard-handicap traits are a good way to balance. You never answered so I'm saying it again.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 27, 2019

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    What are you even talking about, where did I say anything about scrapper being overpowered? Go reread my post and this time make sure you understand it.

    Right here:
    "If elite spec is significantly stronger than core builds, then it's only logical that the elite spec needs something toned down"
    and
    "If you think elite spec is overnerfed compared to core"

    You just aren't laying out a clear argument if you think you didn't call scrapper overpowered compared to core and needed toning down and it is making me question why I should bother continuing with this conversation. I provided clear rationalization for why hard traits like that are terrible and Anet has historically been removing such traits.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 27, 2019

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    This is a terrible way to balance.

    Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

    What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance?

    I was pretty clear with my examples.

    Yup, but the thread is claiming that they should stay away from penalty traits altogether. Even you write that "it's a terrible way to balance", while in reality it's not and it makes sense. Your singular "overnerfed examples", whether they are correct or not, don't change the fact that it's NOT a bad way to balance. In fact it's overally a good way to balance especs.
    It's like saying that "changing stats is a terrible way to balance because they overnerfed 2 skills that one time". That claim is simply false. So is this thread and your initial claim. (which, again, was "This is a terrible way to balance.")

    I said it is a terrible way to balance, but really that's terrible design in general. All such traits lead to is more carry-me builds when the very thing you seem against is overpowered builds that carry people.

    No, it's not. And not removing certain aspects of core spec while adding new ones in the especs just makes it so especs potentially become direct upgrades over core specs, which in fact would be a terrible design. It's not really hard to understand. And as I said, if you think picking espec isn't worth it, then pick core spec. No? I wonder why.

    Ok so tell us objectively why hard-carry/hard-handicap traits are a good way to balance. You never answered so I'm saying it again.

    I have no idea what you mean by "hard-carry/hard-handicap traits", these look like terms you made up yourself, so feel free to elaborate.

    ...while we're at "I'm saying it again":
    And as I said, if you think picking espec isn't worth it, then pick core spec. No? I wonder why.

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    What are you even talking about, where did I say anything about scrapper being overpowered? Go reread my post and this time make sure you understand it.

    Right here:
    "If elite spec is significantly stronger than core builds, then it's only logical that the elite spec needs something toned down"
    and
    "If you think elite spec is overnerfed compared to core"

    You just aren't laying out a clear argument if you think you didn't call scrapper overpowered compared to core and needed toning down and it is making me question why I should bother continuing with this conversation.

    What exactly is not clear about what I've wrote? Re-read the thread and my answers and -like I already wrote before- try reaaally hard to understand it this time. I also literally wrote why you're wrong because you base the overall opinion about balancing approach on the single example(s?). And I told you why by that logic any balancing attempt would a "terrible way to balance". Then you just dodged it.
    Also stop dismantling your answer into multiple posts for no reason, that's just weird.

    I provided clear rationalization for why hard traits like that are terrible and Anet has historically been removing such traits.

    What are "hard traits"? What were they removing? What are you talking about and how's that relevant to what I wrote?
    tl;dr: what?

    (and btw writing "IT'S A BAD WAY OF BALANCING BECAUSE SCRAPPER WASN'T OP!" is not "clear rationalization". In fact there's nothing rational about it in the context of this thread or contents of my posts)

  • NICENIKESHOE.7128NICENIKESHOE.7128 Member ✭✭✭

    imo they should've started this 5 years ago

    [RED] Crimson Sunspears...your small family guild since 2015.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 27, 2019

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    What are "hard traits"? What were they removing? What are you talking about and how's that relevant to what I wrote?

    sigh I guess you aren't familiar with the history.

    "Traits that immediately punish players for successfully landing their skills, particularly when they are not very visible, teach the wrong things. The reworked traits are intended to encourage more active play and to provide new opportunities for the defender without outright punishing the attacker."

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/62731/game-update-notes-december-11-2018

    The traits they nerfed in that patch are examples of the kind of traits I'm describing and their nerfed versions are examples of a good balance philosophy. Many of those changes were on core traitlines. There's been other similar nerfs over the years that I'm not about to dig up the patch notes for.

    Removing stats on the other hand is a direct punishment. In this case it punishes the defender in favor of the attacker and it punishes just by chosing the scrapper traitline since it is a minor trait.

  • Penalty traits are the consequence of adding bloated abilities to the game. They are a necessary evil to even out the power creep. If you don't like penalties, then advocate for a toning down of every ability and trait in the game.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 27, 2019

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    What are "hard traits"? What were they removing? What are you talking about and how's that relevant to what I wrote?

    sigh I guess you aren't familiar with the history.

    "Traits that immediately punish players for successfully landing their skills, particularly when they are not very visible, teach the wrong things. The reworked traits are intended to encourage more active play and to provide new opportunities for the defender without outright punishing the attacker."

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/62731/game-update-notes-december-11-2018

    The traits they nerfed in that patch are examples of the kind of traits I'm describing and their nerfed versions are examples of a good balance philosophy. Many of those changes were on core traitlines. There's been other similar nerfs over the years that I'm not about to dig up the patch notes for.

    sigh there's nothing that says anything about "hard traits" there, so instead of dramatically sighing, maybe you should admit you made the term up and not expect everyone to understand what you mean by that. Not to mention that you conveniently cut that out of context to -barely- fit your silly agenda.

    This update reworks all traits that react automatically to incoming control effects by applying control effects on the attacker. Traits that immediately punish players for successfully landing their skills, particularly when they are not very visible, teach the wrong things. The reworked traits are intended to encourage more active play and to provide new opportunities for the defender without outright punishing the attacker.

    It's about traits that react for the player and -more or less- mirror attacker's actions 'for free' and 'without a tell'. When an espec gets automatic and unavoidable playstyle or stats alteration you can tell it's there, because you know what espec your enemy plays. It's also giving a trade-off for the player picking the trait and not his opponent that lands a skill at him. So yeah, I'm so unfamiliar with that history, because it's nothing what you claim it to be.
    Seems you need to re-read the source you provided, because it's irrelevant to what you claim it proves, huh. You literally didn't understand what you linked.

    Removing stats on the other hand is a direct punishment. In this case it punishes the defender in favor of the attacker and it punishes just by chosing the scrapper traitline since it is a minor trait.

    Yeah, it ""punishes"" the defender because the espec gives you new tools at your disposal, so it needs to take away something in order for especs to not be direct and undeniable upgrades over core specs. Again, to be super kitten clear, what you linked has nothing to do with espec trade-offs like this.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 27, 2019

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    Yeah, it ""punishes"" the defender because the espec gives you new tools at your disposal, so it needs to take away something in order for especs to not be direct and undeniable upgrades over core specs. Again, to be super kitten clear, what you linked has nothing to do with espec trade-offs like this.

    Do you even have a cohesive argument for why such penalty traits are good balancing? Your points are all over the map and nitpicking everything I write doesn't invalidate my main opinion. Now you are agreeing that such a trait is punishing! You may opine that this is a good way to balance, but I already told you why it wasn't: if the "new tools" are so powerful that a punishing trait needs to be added, the better design is to nerf those "new tools".

    Again, to be super kitten clear:

    • Especs don't matter. All professions have traits.
    • Penalty traits are no different in concept from past traits that have been nerfed for punishing the attacker. Such traits carry whoever is not being punished rather than encourage skilled play which is terrible design.
    • Penalty traits for "trade-off" is lazy and terrible balancing because the thing that is requiring the trade-off should be the real target of a nerf.
  • redwing.9580redwing.9580 Member ✭✭

    @Hannelore.8153 said:
    No, I like them, they make taking an elite and gaining the power it brings to be a risk instead of free candy.

    The barrier is just a little weak and needs to be affected by outgoing condi.

    I'd like them if they where optional traits (like a adept, major, or grand master) not a minor trait, as well as provide buffs that make it worth having the penalty, scrapper is mainly played as a support in wvw, so they will rarely be dealing damage as is, so the"positive" of the trait will go largely unused (not to mention it gimps what the update was suppose to be about has the max barrier you can have is based off you HP)

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 27, 2019

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    Yeah, it ""punishes"" the defender because the espec gives you new tools at your disposal, so it needs to take away something in order for especs to not be direct and undeniable upgrades over core specs. Again, to be super kitten clear, what you linked has nothing to do with espec trade-offs like this.

    Do you even have a cohesive argument for why such penalty traits are good balancing? Your points are all over the map and nitpicking everything I write doesn't invalidate my main opinion. Now you are agreeing that such a trait is punishing! You may opine that this is a good way to balance, but I already told you why it wasn't: if the "new tools" are so powerful that a punishing trait needs to be added, the better design is to nerf those "new tools".

    Why do you keep pretending half of my posts don't even exist, immediately drop any statement/question that proves you wrong or show an inherrent logical flaw in your arguments and then ask me "if I have any cohesive argument"? What a bad joke.

    Again, to be super kitten clear:

    • Especs don't matter. All professions have traits.

    Every complaint and "example of this being a terrible way to balance things" was about especs. You literally can't suddenly say especs don't matter, because you have nothing else to support your claim (considering what you said about especs made sense, but it didn't).
    Link to the patch that you posted here has nothing to do with "this way of balancing" or anet contradicting itself by "removing it in the past". I told you why you clearly didn't understand those patch notes. Which core "pentalty traits" are so terrible that they have no right to exist or prove that it's a "terrible way of balancing specs"?

    • Penalty traits are no different in concept from past traits that have been nerfed for punishing the attacker. Such traits carry whoever is not being punished rather than encourage skilled play which is terrible design.

    They are very different, you failed to understand what they wrote in that patch description. These changes were VERY CLEARLY aimed at the opponent and not the person that picked the spec/trait. Try reading it again. If that won't be enough, try being objective this time and keep re-reading until it "clicks".

    • Penalty traits for "trade-off" is lazy and terrible balancing because the thing that is requiring the trade-off should be the real target of a nerf.

    No, it's not, because in case of scrapper all it does is promotes more proactive gameplay. But, again, you probably just failed to understand that. And I'm commenting on that, because that's what you seem to have the main problem with even though you suddenly try to say "it's also core problem" (it's not).
    Ah, right, you wrote about daredevil nerf too. Did I like that nerf? Nope, nobody likes their class nerfed. Was the nerf justified? Actually yes, the whole screaming about it was a major overreaction. It's not as "spec-breaking" as some people try to make it seem to be.
    Also the especs are supposed to bring at least slgihtly different light to the class, nerfing 'fresh stuff' to the point it's irrelevant (because major parts of the core class are still included) would make nearly no sense for the especs to exist.

  • Leo Schrodingers Cat.2497Leo Schrodingers Cat.2497 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 27, 2019

    @Hannelore.8153 said:
    No, I like them, they make taking an elite and gaining the power it brings to be a risk instead of free candy.

    The barrier is just a little weak and needs to be affected by outgoing condi.

    Guardians can manage being tanky with low vitality. Scrapper can as well.

    But the 600 range nerf on a class that CANT compete in brawling? And if he can compete ok. Lets talk about how DD is SUPPOSED to be mobile and get in your face.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 28, 2019

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    They are very different, you failed to understand what they wrote in that patch description. These changes were VERY CLEARLY aimed at the opponent and not the person that picked the spec/trait. Try reading it again. If that won't be enough, try being objective this time and keep re-reading until it "clicks".

    I didn't fail to understand. Let me repeat:

    • Penalty traits are no different in concept from past traits that have been nerfed for punishing the attacker. Such traits carry whoever is not being punished rather than encourage skilled play which is terrible design.

    in case of scrapper all it does is promotes more proactive gameplay. But, again, you probably just failed to understand that. And I'm commenting on that, because that's what you seem to have the main problem with even though you suddenly try to say "it's also core problem" (it's not).

    Yes, yes, this is a common thing said in response. Since penalty traits "carry whoever is not being punished rather than encourage skilled play", there isn't more proactive gameplay in the case of scrapper. Also, build a scrapper that can put out enough damage proactively to make it worth the trade-off. (Hint: good luck.) Compare with other low HP specs that do not have penalty traits to achieve proper risk-reward balance .

    • Penalty traits for "trade-off" is lazy and terrible balancing because the thing that is requiring the trade-off should be the real target of a nerf.

    Ah, right, you wrote about daredevil nerf too. Did I like that nerf? Nope, nobody likes their class nerfed. Was the nerf justified? Actually yes, the whole screaming about it was a major overreaction. It's not as "spec-breaking" as some people try to make it seem to be.

    Show us where daredevil was nerfed using a penalty trait. It was nerfed in a far more creative way than lazy subtraction of stats.

    Also the especs are supposed to bring at least slgihtly different light to the class, nerfing 'fresh stuff' to the point it's irrelevant (because major parts of the core class are still included) would make nearly no sense for the especs to exist.

    Show us where penalty traits provide for a "different light" to a class. Show us what "fresh stuff" on an espec was made irrelevant by a nerf.

    • Especs don't matter. All professions have traits.
  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Remember when Anet removed stats from traitlines and it opened up build diversity?

  • The Scrapper is now functionally a dead spec, so I suppose that's one way to make a '''trade off'''. The Vit loss is just the kitten icing on the kitten spec redesign cake.

  • Yannir.4132Yannir.4132 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 31, 2019

    I think they should've gone with -300 Condition Damage, or something, instead of -300 Vitality. I wouldn't mind -300 Vit if this was necromancer or warrior but on engi/scrapper it's a bit much to lose, especially now that their other defenses are down so significantly. They can't even produce the DPS required to make a build relying on Impact Savant to be viable anywhere.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.