Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Elite-level specializations for basic professions


Recommended Posts

The way I see it is, the core specialisation introduces you to the class and most of the mechanics of a class. The specialisations then add to this, once you have already learnt the "core/backbone" of a profession. Playing a core class in open world is sufficient enough to clear all content.

The beauty of core classes is that you are not locked into any trait line, so you can build pretty much any way that you want. The specialisations are well.. specialised, and when you specialise in something, it means you are good at it, so it makes sense that the specialisations would be strong in what they specialise in.

Of course this is different from a PvP or WvW standpoint, you are objectively at a disadvantage without the expansions (less so in PvP, some core classes are viable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Dante.1763 said:

@xenon.3264 said:ehm no. core profession are core. what if i wanted core guardian to be buffed to be a condition dps and not a healer ?

And elite specs where supposed to come with some sort of negative so that it wasnt a straight out upgrade, and they do not do that at all for most classes. I cant even play my Ranger without SB these days cause Ranger is so weak on its own. Anets balancing has never been great, but elite specs made it way more obvious. Same with my ele and weaver.

I play ranger as beast mastery and longbow . Guess what ? I love it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Voltekka.2375 said:I am pretty sure this would simply break competitive modes even more. As it is, core professions excel still in wvw roaming/smallscale and in pvp. Core guard, mesmer, thief, ele (yes, ele), necro, warrior, theyre absolutely more than just viable. I cant even begin to imagine a more buffed core warr, or thief.

As I said, I don't care about competitive modes. This idea would be for PvE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Cyninja.2954" said:Ignoring elite specializations and how they are currently still often more potent compared to core trait lines, which can also be considered a good thing since most priority balance happens around how trait lines synergize with 1 elite trait line (which in turn reduces work load a lot since not all trait lines need to be equally powerful), this suggestion would result in:

  • a LOT of extra work in balancing old content which currently works fine. Work hours which could be spent on developing new content, most directly new elite specializations
  • future balance workload becoming overproportionatly higher since designing and balancing 2 for each core trait line would require double to constant monitoring
  • create more unintuitive barriers where some players already need time to adjust and understand the current traitline system
  • no significant shift in class performance abilities. For example: heal guardian works just fine, it simply is outperformed by heal firebrand. The role as such though is more than possible on guardian, unlike say a thief or mesmer. The net gain of possible roles per core class would not significantly increase, definitely a lot less than with a new set of elite specilaizations
  • many core builds are quite powerful currently in different game modes

In short: this idea creates more current and future work for less return than alternative areas where these resoucres could be used, has no significant impact on the class role distribution and doe not provide any significant actual new content.

TL;DR:Another one of those "great" ideas where people just start talking about what they think would be great without actually spending even 2 minutes on refining their idea into a state where it would make sense to implement into the game or even discuss. Another idea which has a chance of 0.00001% of ever getting taken serious by people who actually have to manage the workload at a time where resources are strained already.

What is so complex about multiplying numbers? Change NOTHING ELSE. Just multiply all values by the percentage targeted by elites now. (Which I don't know, but I assume ANet does. One person above suggested +20%.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Lottie.5370" said:The way I see it is, the core specialisation introduces you to the class and most of the mechanics of a class. The specialisations then add to this, once you have already learnt the "core/backbone" of a profession. Playing a core class in open world is sufficient enough to clear all content.

The beauty of core classes is that you are not locked into any trait line, so you can build pretty much any way that you want. The specialisations are well.. specialised, and when you specialise in something, it means you are good at it, so it makes sense that the specialisations would be strong in what they specialise in.

Of course this is different from a PvP or WvW standpoint, you are objectively at a disadvantage without the expansions (less so in PvP, some core classes are viable).

Except the elite specs commonly have nothing at all to do with the profession. Think ranger and druid. What on earth do they have in common besides pets? Soulbeast is closer, but daggers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Daddicus.6128 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:Ignoring elite specializations and how they are currently still often more potent compared to core trait lines, which can also be considered a good thing since most priority balance happens around how trait lines synergize with 1 elite trait line (which in turn reduces work load a lot since not all trait lines need to be equally powerful), this suggestion would result in:
  • a LOT of extra work in balancing old content which currently works fine. Work hours which could be spent on developing new content, most directly new elite specializations
  • future balance workload becoming overproportionatly higher since designing and balancing 2 for each core trait line would require double to constant monitoring
  • create more unintuitive barriers where some players already need time to adjust and understand the current traitline system
  • no significant shift in class performance abilities. For example: heal guardian works just fine, it simply is outperformed by heal firebrand. The role as such though is more than possible on guardian, unlike say a thief or mesmer. The net gain of possible roles per core class would not significantly increase, definitely a lot less than with a new set of elite specilaizations
  • many core builds are quite powerful currently in different game modes

In short: this idea creates more current and future work for less return than alternative areas where these resoucres could be used, has no significant impact on the class role distribution and doe not provide any significant actual new content.

TL;DR
:Another one of those "great" ideas where people just start talking about what they think would be great without actually spending even 2 minutes on refining their idea into a state where it would make sense to implement into the game or even discuss. Another idea which has a chance of 0.00001% of ever getting taken serious by people who actually have to manage the workload at a time where resources are strained already.

What is so complex about multiplying numbers? Change NOTHING ELSE. Just multiply all values by the percentage targeted by elites now. (Which I don't know, but I assume ANet does. One person above suggested +20%.)

Thanks for proving my point.

If you had any idea how multiplicative values work in this game, you'd understand how hilarious bad this idea is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Daddicus.6128 said:

@"Lottie.5370" said:The way I see it is, the core specialisation introduces you to the class and most of the mechanics of a class. The specialisations then add to this, once you have already learnt the "core/backbone" of a profession. Playing a core class in open world is sufficient enough to clear all content.

The beauty of core classes is that you are not locked into any trait line, so you can build pretty much any way that you want. The specialisations are well.. specialised, and when you specialise in something, it means you are good at it, so it makes sense that the specialisations would be strong in what they specialise in.

Of course this is different from a PvP or WvW standpoint, you are objectively at a disadvantage without the expansions (less so in PvP, some core classes are viable).

Except the elite specs commonly have nothing at all to do with the profession. Think ranger and druid. What on earth do they have in common besides pets? Soulbeast is closer, but daggers?

Nature...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Daddicus.6128 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:Ignoring elite specializations and how they are currently still often more potent compared to core trait lines, which can also be considered a good thing since most priority balance happens around how trait lines synergize with 1 elite trait line (which in turn reduces work load a lot since not all trait lines need to be equally powerful), this suggestion would result in:
  • a LOT of extra work in balancing old content which currently works fine. Work hours which could be spent on developing new content, most directly new elite specializations
  • future balance workload becoming overproportionatly higher since designing and balancing 2 for each core trait line would require double to constant monitoring
  • create more unintuitive barriers where some players already need time to adjust and understand the current traitline system
  • no significant shift in class performance abilities. For example: heal guardian works just fine, it simply is outperformed by heal firebrand. The role as such though is more than possible on guardian, unlike say a thief or mesmer. The net gain of possible roles per core class would not significantly increase, definitely a lot less than with a new set of elite specilaizations
  • many core builds are quite powerful currently in different game modes

In short: this idea creates more current and future work for less return than alternative areas where these resoucres could be used, has no significant impact on the class role distribution and doe not provide any significant actual new content.

TL;DR
:Another one of those "great" ideas where people just start talking about what they think would be great without actually spending even 2 minutes on refining their idea into a state where it would make sense to implement into the game or even discuss. Another idea which has a chance of 0.00001% of ever getting taken serious by people who actually have to manage the workload at a time where resources are strained already.

What is so complex about multiplying numbers? Change NOTHING ELSE. Just multiply all values by the percentage targeted by elites now. (Which I don't know, but I assume ANet does. One person above suggested +20%.)

Here are a couple of "obvious" problems with this idea (where by "obvious", I really mean they occurred to me without much thought):

For many traits, it just doesn't make sense to scale the numbers up by 20% (or whatever other arbitrary value you pick). Take, for example, the Thief's Trickery traitline: Kleptomaniac grants 2 initiative when you steal, Preparedness increases maximum initiative by 3, and Quick Pockets grants 3 initiative when you swap weapons. In the elite slot, would these traits now grant 2.4 and 3.6 initiative? What does that even mean?

For traits where scaling by 20% does make sense, it's unlikely that this scaling would benefit all traits equally. Some traits might become overpowered, while others would barely benefit at all. The scaling for each trait would have to be calculated separately.

Also, there's a deeper point that you seem to think ANet have a deliberate intention that elite specs should be "20% better" (or at least some percentage better) than core specs. But 20% better at what? It's totally unclear (at least to me) how that would be quantified, or what it would really mean. Sure, some things are easy to quantify - you could ask, for example, that elites deal 20% more damage than core professions. But if that's what you mean, ANet definitely isn't taking that approach. As an example, Druid doesn't have a 20% damage bonus over core Ranger; on the other hand, it is more than "20% better" at healing.

(By the way, I actually think the essence of what you're suggesting is a good idea - but I don't see any practical way to implement it, given the somewhat convoluted nature of the trait system and the wide range of effects and interactions that traits can have,)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Daddicus.6128 said:

@Voltekka.2375 said:I am pretty sure this would simply break competitive modes even more. As it is, core professions excel still in wvw roaming/smallscale and in pvp. Core guard, mesmer, thief, ele (yes, ele), necro, warrior, theyre absolutely more than just viable. I cant even begin to imagine a more buffed core warr, or thief.

As I said, I don't care about competitive modes. This idea would be for PvE.

Fair enough. Yet i still fail to understand how anyone cant clear pve with core classes, even today...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Daddicus.6128 said:

@Game of Bones.8975 said:I would still like to see a kick-kitten elite longbow ranger.I have the Dragonhunter for an elite bowman to run around with instead.

Exactly my point. Why on earth is a guardian better with a longbow than a ranger? That makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, here it stares us in the face.They're... not? Ranger longbow's still great on soulbeast, while dragonhunter longbow got nerfed into the ground (along with the traps) because of lazy PVPers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tommo Chocolate.5870 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:Ignoring elite specializations and how they are currently still often more potent compared to core trait lines, which can also be considered a good thing since most priority balance happens around how trait lines synergize with 1 elite trait line (which in turn reduces work load a lot since not all trait lines need to be equally powerful), this suggestion would result in:
  • a LOT of extra work in balancing old content which currently works fine. Work hours which could be spent on developing new content, most directly new elite specializations
  • future balance workload becoming overproportionatly higher since designing and balancing 2 for each core trait line would require double to constant monitoring
  • create more unintuitive barriers where some players already need time to adjust and understand the current traitline system
  • no significant shift in class performance abilities. For example: heal guardian works just fine, it simply is outperformed by heal firebrand. The role as such though is more than possible on guardian, unlike say a thief or mesmer. The net gain of possible roles per core class would not significantly increase, definitely a lot less than with a new set of elite specilaizations
  • many core builds are quite powerful currently in different game modes

In short: this idea creates more current and future work for less return than alternative areas where these resoucres could be used, has no significant impact on the class role distribution and doe not provide any significant actual new content.

TL;DR
:Another one of those "great" ideas where people just start talking about what they think would be great without actually spending even 2 minutes on refining their idea into a state where it would make sense to implement into the game or even discuss. Another idea which has a chance of 0.00001% of ever getting taken serious by people who actually have to manage the workload at a time where resources are strained already.

What is so complex about multiplying numbers? Change NOTHING ELSE. Just multiply all values by the percentage targeted by elites now. (Which I don't know, but I assume ANet does. One person above suggested +20%.)

Here are a couple of "obvious" problems with this idea (where by "obvious", I really mean they occurred to me without much thought):

1: For many traits, it just doesn't make sense to scale the numbers up by 20% (or whatever other arbitrary value you pick). Take, for example, the Thief's Trickery traitline: Kleptomaniac grants 2 initiative when you steal, Preparedness increases maximum initiative by 3, and Quick Pockets grants 3 initiative when you swap weapons. In the elite slot, would these traits now grant 2.4 and 3.6 initiative? What does that even mean?

For traits where scaling by 20% does make sense, it's unlikely that this scaling would benefit all traits equally. Some traits might become overpowered, while others would barely benefit at all. The scaling for each trait would have to be calculated separately.

2: Also, there's a deeper point that you seem to think ANet have a deliberate intention that elite specs should be "20% better" (or at least some percentage better) than core specs. But 20% better at what? It's totally unclear (at least to me) how that would be quantified, or what it would really mean. Sure, some things are easy to quantify - you could ask, for example, that elites deal 20% more damage than core professions. But if that's what you mean, ANet definitely isn't taking that approach. As an example, Druid doesn't have a 20% damage bonus over core Ranger; on the other hand, it is more than "20% better" at healing.

3: (By the way, I actually think the essence of what you're suggesting is a good idea - but I don't see any practical way to implement it, given the somewhat convoluted nature of the trait system and the wide range of effects and interactions that traits can have,)

At least you have logical arguments. I've numbered them for clarity.

1: They aren't integers even now. They go up over time at rates determined by your traits, which can be varied based on equipment and other traits. They APPEAR as integers, but it's how often they appear that matters.

However, there probably are instances where integer arithmetic really does occur. Those would be instances where it would require balancing by ANet, and make this idea harder to implement than I described above. However, these are few in number and scattered. I'm guessing they could be managed relatively easily. But, the bulk of the numbers are not integral in nature, and would be served by simple math.

2: 20% (if that's the number) would apply to everything. For a druid, but is usually in healing/buffing mechanics. While I'm not sure what the number is (or numbers are), it's guaranteed that they have them positioned they way they want them. All game designers go through a process to determine the relative power of items in the game. They wouldn't tell the public, lest someone game the system. But, they have them.

3: Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Voltekka.2375 said:

@Voltekka.2375 said:I am pretty sure this would simply break competitive modes even more. As it is, core professions excel still in wvw roaming/smallscale and in pvp. Core guard, mesmer, thief, ele (yes, ele), necro, warrior, theyre absolutely more than just viable. I cant even begin to imagine a more buffed core warr, or thief.

As I said, I don't care about competitive modes. This idea would be for PvE.

Fair enough. Yet i still fail to understand how anyone cant clear pve with core classes, even today...

HoT and PoF are both designed to be harder than core areas. In fact, they were done so to raise the challenge for people with ... elite specifications. (And mounts, gliding, etc., but primarily because of elites.) Fractals are designed to be more challenging than core maps, as were dungeons. This isn't an idea to beef up new characters. It should require roughly the same amount of game interaction as the 18 elites do now.

My idea isn't to make things easier. It's to make the original professions not be a second tier to elite specialization professions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Aeolus.3615 said:a core spec would be interesting across all the game modes even... some stuff could be removed from its original trait and used to boost core elite spec.

Imo this would facilitate the balance team as well.

Yeah, it probably would give them more new work than I originally envisioned in the idea. But, I don't think it would be too much.

The nice thing is that since it would be PvE only, they don't have to worry about unbalancing competitive, which is where most of the balance changes seem to happen. I would guess for PvE, they simply count up the death ratios across Tyria, and then balance when they see imbalances. (For example, when they saw a chronomancer meta build on half the characters being played, they decided they had made them a little too powerful, and nerfed them. Happens almost every PvE balance build, and strongly indicates this would be almost trivial to balance.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hyper Cutter.9376 said:

@Game of Bones.8975 said:I would still like to see a kick-kitten elite longbow ranger.I have the Dragonhunter for an elite bowman to run around with instead.

Exactly my point. Why on earth is a guardian better with a longbow than a ranger? That makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, here it stares us in the face.They're... not? Ranger longbow's still great on soulbeast, while dragonhunter longbow got nerfed into the ground (along with the traps) because of lazy PVPers.

But, you're making my point: a soulbeast is NOT a ranger. It's a soulbeast. Why does a ranger have to give up being a ranger in order to use a longbow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed this game gives zero choice these days.. its either play the power creep expac specs or nothing at all... Its crazy that they totally voided their old content and will not overhaul.. The game is stagnating and dying due to Anets way of game design.

@Voltekka.2375 said:

@Voltekka.2375 said:I am pretty sure this would simply break competitive modes even more. As it is, core professions excel still in wvw roaming/smallscale and in pvp. Core guard, mesmer, thief, ele (yes, ele), necro, warrior, theyre absolutely more than just viable. I cant even begin to imagine a more buffed core warr, or thief.

As I said, I don't care about competitive modes. This idea would be for PvE.

Fair enough. Yet i still fail to understand how anyone cant clear pve with core classes, even today...

Most core classes have real issues surviving and passing Expac and living story content because of the power creep.. the newer content is extremely OP to them.. The only core class i can think of that breezes through later content imo is Engi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dante.1508 said:Agreed this game gives zero choice these days.. its either play the power creep expac specs or nothing at all... Its crazy that they totally voided their old content and will not overhaul.. The game is stagnating and dying due to Anets way of game design.

@Voltekka.2375 said:I am pretty sure this would simply break competitive modes even more. As it is, core professions excel still in wvw roaming/smallscale and in pvp. Core guard, mesmer, thief, ele (yes, ele), necro, warrior, theyre absolutely more than just viable. I cant even begin to imagine a more buffed core warr, or thief.

As I said, I don't care about competitive modes. This idea would be for PvE.

Fair enough. Yet i still fail to understand how anyone cant clear pve with core classes, even today...

Most core classes have real issues surviving and passing Expac and living story content because of the power creep.. the newer content is extremely OP to them.. The only core class i can think of that breezes through later content imo is Engi.

Ever tried a minon master necro?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Daddicus.6128 said:Let's try a different tack: Can someone please justify why an elite specialization is always more powerful than the profession it is built upon? And, there is no option to play the basic profession at the same relative power level?

I don't know what you are talking about...

There is a ton of core builds which perform very close to elite specialization levels like core power guardian (easy 32-33k dps benchmark on golem) and core banner warrior (still a very valid and strong support warrior build). Most other classes have builds which are no further than maybe 10-15% in performance output on their core builds with the main inconsistencies being among support classes which have their support skills tied to elite specializations (like druid versus core ranger).

As mentioned by me earlier: buffing core trait lines would not open up any or even close to as many role options as a new elite specialization could. As such if you want overall better class representation (at least that is what I'd be in favor of) it makes more sense to introduce a new elite specialization.

This gets even more critical if we look at all game modes where just about every class has viable core builds in some game mode (with the only real exception being elementalist and mesmer).

@"Dante.1508" said:Most core classes have real issues surviving and passing Expac and living story content because of the power creep.. the newer content is extremely OP to them.. The only core class i can think of that breezes through later content imo is Engi.

That is strait up untrue. If people have issues on ANY class or build in any story or open world content, it's a player issue. There is enough guides and core build guides available for players who struggle to improve. As a matter of fact, most people who come to the "Players Helping Players" section of the forums asking for help often have huge flaws in their builds, playstyle and execution (which is not their fault, that's what asking for help is for).

The only content which is remotely affected by core versus elite specialization balance is either top end pve content where every little bit difference counts, or competative modes (where a lot more core builds work just fine atm). In most cases due to better support role availability of elite specializations for group content, where as solo or small scale content see a lot of core build gameplay still (in competative modes for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dante.1508 said:Agreed this game gives zero choice these days.. its either play the power creep expac specs or nothing at all... Its crazy that they totally voided their old content and will not overhaul.. The game is stagnating and dying due to Anets way of game design.

@Voltekka.2375 said:I am pretty sure this would simply break competitive modes even more. As it is, core professions excel still in wvw roaming/smallscale and in pvp. Core guard, mesmer, thief, ele (yes, ele), necro, warrior, theyre absolutely more than just viable. I cant even begin to imagine a more buffed core warr, or thief.

As I said, I don't care about competitive modes. This idea would be for PvE.

Fair enough. Yet i still fail to understand how anyone cant clear pve with core classes, even today...

Most core classes have real issues surviving and passing Expac and living story content because of the power creep.. the newer content is extremely OP to them.. The only core class i can think of that breezes through later content imo is Engi.

Core classes have a hard time surviving? This is so wrong, in fact it couldnt be more wrong. Do same stats work differently on various specs? No, they dont. Some even are meta, like core warr and guard.Core warr/mesmer/guard/Engi/ele/necro/ranger/thief can certainly dish out more damage than whats needed for most pve content. Instanced content as well, there are still vids where people solo dungeons on core specs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Linken.6345 said:

@Dante.1508 said:Agreed this game gives zero choice these days.. its either play the power creep expac specs or nothing at all... Its crazy that they totally voided their old content and will not overhaul.. The game is stagnating and dying due to Anets way of game design.

@Voltekka.2375 said:I am pretty sure this would simply break competitive modes even more. As it is, core professions excel still in wvw roaming/smallscale and in pvp. Core guard, mesmer, thief, ele (yes, ele), necro, warrior, theyre absolutely more than just viable. I cant even begin to imagine a more buffed core warr, or thief.

As I said, I don't care about competitive modes. This idea would be for PvE.

Fair enough. Yet i still fail to understand how anyone cant clear pve with core classes, even today...

Most core classes have real issues surviving and passing Expac and living story content because of the power creep.. the newer content is extremely OP to them.. The only core class i can think of that breezes through later content imo is Engi.

Ever tried a minon master necro?

So we are all suppose to play 6 characters to be as good as an one elite spec..

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Daddicus.6128 said:Let's try a different tack: Can someone please justify why an elite specialization is always more powerful than the profession it is built upon? And, there is no option to play the basic profession at the same relative power level?

I don't know what you are talking about...

There is a ton of core builds which perform very close to elite specialization levels like core power guardian (easy 32-33k dps benchmark on golem) and core banner warrior (still a very valid and strong support warrior build). Most other classes have builds which are no further than maybe 10-15% in performance output on their core builds with the main inconsistencies being among support classes which have their support skills tied to elite specializations (like druid versus core ranger).

As mentioned by me earlier: buffing core trait lines would not open up any or even close to as many role options as a new elite specialization could. As such if you want overall better class representation (at least that is what I'd be in favor of) it makes more sense to introduce a new elite specialization.

This gets even more critical if we look at all game modes where just about every class has viable core builds in some game mode (with the only real exception being elementalist and mesmer).

@Dante.1508 said:Most core classes have real issues surviving and passing Expac and living story content because of the power creep.. the newer content is extremely OP to them.. The only core class i can think of that breezes through later content imo is Engi.

That is strait up untrue. If people have issues on ANY class or build in any story or open world content, it's a player issue. There is enough guides and core build guides available for players who struggle to improve. As a matter of fact, most people who come to the "Players Helping Players" section of the forums asking for help often have huge flaws in their builds, playstyle and execution (which is not their fault, that's what asking for help is for).

The only content which is remotely affected by core versus elite specialization balance is either top end pve content where every little bit difference counts, or competative modes (where a lot more core builds work just fine atm). In most cases due to better support role availability of elite specializations for group content, where as solo or small scale content see a lot of core build gameplay still (in competative modes for example).

If this is true why aren't the core builds all over metabattle, 99.9% of the builds are espec builds... For ever style of content not just hardcore raiding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dante.1508 said:

@Dante.1508 said:Agreed this game gives zero choice these days.. its either play the power creep expac specs or nothing at all... Its crazy that they totally voided their old content and will not overhaul.. The game is stagnating and dying due to Anets way of game design.

@Voltekka.2375 said:I am pretty sure this would simply break competitive modes even more. As it is, core professions excel still in wvw roaming/smallscale and in pvp. Core guard, mesmer, thief, ele (yes, ele), necro, warrior, theyre absolutely more than just viable. I cant even begin to imagine a more buffed core warr, or thief.

As I said, I don't care about competitive modes. This idea would be for PvE.

Fair enough. Yet i still fail to understand how anyone cant clear pve with core classes, even today...

Most core classes have real issues surviving and passing Expac and living story content because of the power creep.. the newer content is extremely OP to them.. The only core class i can think of that breezes through later content imo is Engi.

Ever tried a minon master necro?

So we are all suppose to play 6 characters to be as good as an one elite spec..

@Daddicus.6128 said:Let's try a different tack: Can someone please justify why an elite specialization is always more powerful than the profession it is built upon? And, there is no option to play the basic profession at the same relative power level?

I don't know what you are talking about...

There is a ton of core builds which perform very close to elite specialization levels like core power guardian (easy 32-33k dps benchmark on golem) and core banner warrior (still a very valid and strong support warrior build). Most other classes have builds which are no further than maybe 10-15% in performance output on their core builds with the main inconsistencies being among support classes which have their support skills tied to elite specializations (like druid versus core ranger).

As mentioned by me earlier: buffing core trait lines would not open up any or even close to as many role options as a new elite specialization could. As such if you want overall better class representation (at least that is what I'd be in favor of) it makes more sense to introduce a new elite specialization.

This gets even more critical if we look at all game modes where just about every class has viable core builds in some game mode (with the only real exception being elementalist and mesmer).

@Dante.1508 said:Most core classes have real issues surviving and passing Expac and living story content because of the power creep.. the newer content is extremely OP to them.. The only core class i can think of that breezes through later content imo is Engi.

That is strait up untrue. If people have issues on ANY class or build in any story or open world content, it's a player issue. There is enough guides and core build guides available for players who struggle to improve. As a matter of fact, most people who come to the "Players Helping Players" section of the forums asking for help often have huge flaws in their builds, playstyle and execution (which is not their fault, that's what asking for help is for).

The only content which is remotely affected by core versus elite specialization balance is either top end pve content where every little bit difference counts, or competative modes (where a lot more core builds work just fine atm). In most cases due to better support role availability of elite specializations for group content, where as solo or small scale content see a lot of core build gameplay still (in competative modes for example).

If this is true why aren't the core builds all over metabattle, 99.9% of the builds are espec builds... For ever style of content not just hardcore raiding.

Opened metabattle and found the following builds with a rating 4 and above, for open world:One for ele4 for engiOne for guardOne for mesmerOne for necroOne for rangerOne for reveOne for thief2 for warr.

Are elite specs better? In most cases, yes. But core builds are just as viable, for open world content. People used to run dungeons solo on core builds for a long time. Doesnt get more meta than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...