Renegade trade off

[Sigmoid.7082]

@bravan.3876 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@"Ganathar.4956" said:Soulbeast does not have an inherent trade-off. Merging with your pet does make you lose your pet, but that is not a trade-offWrong, that is exactly a trade off.

You're mistaken, the trade off for losing your pet while merging is that your character got access to 3 skills and bonus stats. The reason why ANet reduce the number of pet you have access to while in combat is that there is no trade off for the fact that you have an extra mechanism that allow you to merge with your pet.

If core ranger's mechanic is 8 units of skills (1 unit per pet skill granted that the pet have 4 skills), the soulbeast's mechanic should also be 8 units (4 unit of skills for the pet while unmerged and 4 units of skills while merged). That's the principle of "balance".

It's true that can perceive that the renegade "sacrifice" only one unit of skill for 3 units of skills but it's also true that the renegade use ressources for that. ANet's devs just estimate that the extra cost in ressource is worth 2 extra units of skills. And technically, each of the renegade's mechanic skills cost from 35 to 60 point more energy than the core mechanism which you can average at roughly half an energy bar worth of energy.

The same goes for the mirage trade off. The mirage simply had 2 extra unit of skills (attack when dodging) on top of the original amount of skill unit (shatter skills). ANet's devs chose to reduce these extra unit of skills by halving the access to basic dodge. And before you attack with the dodge duration being lower, it does have the trade off to let you attack while you dodge. Note that technically, Mirage, after the patch, will still retain an extra unit of skill over the core profession, which show how much ANet value a dodge. They could have decided to simply remove dodge and have the mirage dodge through it's utility skills to trigger the "on dodge" mechanic effect.

No that is exactly my point. Soulbeast has an inherent trade off by having to decide between merging and pet skills. It didn't get a second class mechanic on top of the normal one. It only gets the ability to switch between 2 different ones.

So what is beast mode if not a new class mechanic added on top of the ability to swap between two pets? It's literally a second/ additional class mechanic. Literally ranger+ when you look at the class mechanics overall.

The fact you lose a pet when merged has nothing to do with you have a class mechanic and you just added more functionality to that mechanic as a whole.

Reapers don't just gain access to reapers shroud on top of death shroud. They fully lose something from the base mechanic, the entire of death shroud, to gain a new one , reapers shroud. Same with chrono shatters, steal, virtues etc etc.

It's actually baffling that people don't understand why soul beast is losing a pet and thinking that the going from access to 2 pets to 2 pets and beast mode is not a pure mechanical gain on what , as a class mechanic, soul beast can do over core.

[Clownmug.8357]

The tradeoff is one costless utility skill for three energy based utility skills. Also the first Renegade utility skill does nothing without Kalla's Fervor.

[Thorstienn.1642]

I dont understand what your real issue is? Why does everyone on this forum have to place things with sarcasm, or imply something else is super strong, without just saying "their" class is weak?Cause obviously you can't be serious about Renegade, so you clearly chose it to make a point. After all the tradeoff is super easy to see: on a resource heavy class, you lose an F that gave you said resource, in exchange for 3 Fs that USE said resource.

@Leonidrex.5649 said:There were already people prefering core ranger over soulbeast, I dont play the class but if core is already on par with soulbeast, then nerfing soulbeast just puts it in the dirt. Insta merge revive is stupid tho, making pet impossible to kill.

I see people playing core Warrior, Guardian, mesmer, thief, necro, ranger, and even engi; so Spellbreaker, FB/DH, Mirage, DE/DD, Reaper, Soulbeast and Holo are all borderline dirt. (I'm sure some people see core rev or ele too, but I cant remember the last time I did).

[storm.3120]

@Sigmoid.7082 said:Reapers don't just gain access to reapers shroud on top of death shroud. They fully lose something from the base mechanic, the entire of death shroud, to gain a new one , reapers shroud. Same with chrono shattersDont even mention chrono there, we didnt get NEW shatters, its the same trash as before but pretending to be better with new names on it. Their pseudo-trade off happened when they replaced F4 with F5 and didnt bother to reduce it cd.

[bravan.3876]

@"Thorstienn.1642" said:I dont understand what your real issue is? Why does everyone on this forum have to place things with sarcasm, or imply something else is super strong, without just saying "their" class is weak?Cause obviously you can't be serious about Renegade, so you clearly chose it to make a point. After all the tradeoff is super easy to see: on a resource heavy class, you lose an F that gave you said resource, in exchange for 3 Fs that USE said resource.

@Leonidrex.5649 said:There were already people prefering core ranger over soulbeast, I dont play the class but if core is already on par with soulbeast, then nerfing soulbeast just puts it in the dirt. Insta merge revive is stupid tho, making pet impossible to kill.

I see people playing core Warrior, Guardian, mesmer, thief, necro, ranger, and even engi; so Spellbreaker, FB/DH, Mirage, DE/DD, Reaper, Soulbeast and Holo are all borderline dirt. (I'm sure some people see core rev or ele too, but I cant remember the last time I did).

We were not talking about the gold and below newby just don't know about meta builds or about the meme player having fun in using bad builds and handicap themself on purpose. We were talking about players seriously picking Core Ranger as equally alternative over Soulbeast by being fully aware of the capability of both specs, the different strengths they have while being aware of meta and having class and game knowledge and no incentives to self handicap themself with some self created hardmode game.

[phokus.8934]

@Clownmug.8357 said:The tradeoff is one costless utility skill for three energy based utility skills. Also the first Renegade utility skill does nothing without Kalla's Fervor.

Yep.

People assume that a trade-off should have a negative attachment to it when in fact, it's a trade-off from core.

[Thorstienn.1642]

@bravan.3876 said:

@"Thorstienn.1642" said:I dont understand what your real issue is? Why does everyone on this forum have to place things with sarcasm, or imply something else is super strong, without just saying "their" class is weak?Cause obviously you can't be serious about Renegade, so you clearly chose it to make a point. After all the tradeoff is super easy to see: on a resource heavy class, you lose an F that gave you said resource, in exchange for 3 Fs that USE said resource.

@Leonidrex.5649 said:There were already people prefering core ranger over soulbeast, I dont play the class but if core is already on par with soulbeast, then nerfing soulbeast just puts it in the dirt. Insta merge revive is stupid tho, making pet impossible to kill.

I see people playing core Warrior, Guardian, mesmer, thief, necro, ranger, and even engi; so Spellbreaker, FB/DH, Mirage, DE/DD, Reaper, Soulbeast and Holo are all borderline dirt. (I'm sure some people see core rev or ele too, but I cant remember the last time I did).

We were not talking about the gold and below newby just don't know about meta builds or about the meme player having fun in using bad builds and handicap themself on purpose. We were talking about players seriously picking Core Ranger as equally alternative over Soulbeast by being fully aware of the capability of both specs, the different strengths they have while being aware of meta and having class and game knowledge and no incentives to self handicap themself with some self created hardmode game.

I'm aware. Which core class would you say are not viable in the Meta then?

[CutesySylveon.8290]

The tradeoff is that you are taking a subpar traitline and legend in exchange for permanent alacrity and might spam. There is no other reason to use renegade, it's a badly designed spec held up solely because it poops an extremely valuable boon at instant cast and gives a damage buff. It changes absolutely nothing about how the class functions or brings anything unique to the class as a whole.

The renegade traitline is a jumbled mess of nonsense that doesn't work together. Bleed being introduced on a class with NO other sources of bleed output means no synergy with anything else, an absolutely terrible ranged weapon that killed any hope of core getting a condi ranged weapon, a new legend who's skills are just the rejected love children of Wells and Phantasms that not only did nobody want, but are functionally terrible; they die far too quickly and are easily CC locked and made completely useless, uninspired F skills held up because of might and alacrity.

There's a reason Herald is used for every viable PvP spec, and if you removed alacrity for groups and Kalla's Fervor, you'd see this spec die faster than chrono did. (Chrono is also dead because Anet are too full of themselves to realize they absolutely butchered the spec and can't swallow their pride and revert the changes.)

[bravan.3876]

@Thorstienn.1642 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@Thorstienn.1642 said:I dont understand what your real issue is? Why does everyone on this forum have to place things with sarcasm, or imply something else is super strong, without just saying "their" class is weak?Cause obviously you can't be serious about Renegade, so you clearly chose it to make a point. After all the tradeoff is super easy to see: on a resource heavy class, you lose an F that gave you said resource, in exchange for 3 Fs that USE said resource.

@Leonidrex.5649 said:There were already people prefering core ranger over soulbeast, I dont play the class but if core is already on par with soulbeast, then nerfing soulbeast just puts it in the dirt. Insta merge revive is stupid tho, making pet impossible to kill.

I see people playing core Warrior, Guardian, mesmer, thief, necro, ranger, and even engi; so Spellbreaker, FB/DH, Mirage, DE/DD, Reaper, Soulbeast and Holo are all borderline dirt. (I'm sure some people see core rev or ele too, but I cant remember the last time I did).

We were not talking about the gold and below newby just don't know about meta builds or about the meme player having fun in using bad builds and handicap themself on purpose. We were talking about players seriously picking Core Ranger as equally alternative over Soulbeast by being fully aware of the capability of both specs, the different strengths they have while being aware of meta and having class and game knowledge and no incentives to self handicap themself with some self created hardmode game.

I'm aware. Which core class would you say are not viable in the Meta then?

If you are good you can make everything work in ranked (not in tryhard AT teams) to some degree but core Engi and core Ele are most likely the hardest to make them work by compensating their weaknesses with higher playerskill. Core Mesmer is only viable because of a completely broken and low skill ceiling core traitline (Chaos) what gives noobfriendly passive facetank sustain easy on-cd-spam or stealthspam abuse selfbuff boon rewards without the need to change the playstyle and care for the rewards on shatters or on stealth in an active way. Chaos also adds the needed mobility by the superspeed trait to the roaming power build that currently is viable and already better than Powermirage without Chaos. Core power gs shatter Mesmer without Chaos would be around the same non viable lvl as core Engi and core Ele, simply because of the lack in mobility current other roaming builds have for fast rotations (this lack in mobility can't be compensated by playerskill). Chrono in general and the new Mirage one dodge spec (at least on power) are even more trash than core Engi/ Ele. Guard is acceptable core spec, Warrior has core builds even better to deal with specific builds than both elite specs, means depending on meta and what matchups to expect. Core Ranger is very strong and has viable builds you can play, Necro has strong core builds. Thief has viable core builds. Rev has no viable core build but just as for Renegade i am not sure if that is true or only a result of the lack in gameknowledge and lack in high lvl theory crafting from what is left of good players in the game and the overall too low average and permanently decreasing skill lvl/ gameknowledge/ class understanding from ppl left in the game.

@Sigmoid.7082 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@"Ganathar.4956" said:Soulbeast does not have an inherent trade-off. Merging with your pet does make you lose your pet, but that is not a trade-offWrong, that is exactly a trade off.

You're mistaken, the trade off for losing your pet while merging is that your character got access to 3 skills and bonus stats. The reason why ANet reduce the number of pet you have access to while in combat is that there is no trade off for the fact that you have an extra mechanism that allow you to merge with your pet.

If core ranger's mechanic is 8 units of skills (1 unit per pet skill granted that the pet have 4 skills), the soulbeast's mechanic should also be 8 units (4 unit of skills for the pet while unmerged and 4 units of skills while merged). That's the principle of "balance".

It's true that can perceive that the renegade "sacrifice" only one unit of skill for 3 units of skills but it's also true that the renegade use ressources for that. ANet's devs just estimate that the extra cost in ressource is worth 2 extra units of skills. And technically, each of the renegade's mechanic skills cost from 35 to 60 point more energy than the core mechanism which you can average at roughly half an energy bar worth of energy.

The same goes for the mirage trade off. The mirage simply had 2 extra unit of skills (attack when dodging) on top of the original amount of skill unit (shatter skills). ANet's devs chose to reduce these extra unit of skills by halving the access to basic dodge. And before you attack with the dodge duration being lower, it does have the trade off to let you attack while you dodge. Note that technically, Mirage, after the patch, will still retain an extra unit of skill over the core profession, which show how much ANet value a dodge. They could have decided to simply remove dodge and have the mirage dodge through it's utility skills to trigger the "on dodge" mechanic effect.

No that is exactly my point. Soulbeast has an inherent trade off by having to decide between merging and pet skills. It didn't get a second class mechanic on top of the normal one. It only gets the ability to switch between 2 different ones.

So what is beast mode if not a new class mechanic added on top of the ability to swap between two pets? It's literally a second/ additional class mechanic. Literally ranger+ when you look at the class mechanics overall.

The fact you lose a pet when merged has nothing to do with you have a class mechanic and you just added more functionality to that mechanic as a whole.

Reapers don't just gain access to reapers shroud on top of death shroud. They fully lose something from the base mechanic, the entire of death shroud, to gain a new one , reapers shroud. Same with chrono shatters, steal, virtues etc etc.

It's actually baffling that people don't understand why soul beast is losing a pet and thinking that the going from access to 2 pets to 2 pets and beast mode is not a pure mechanical gain on what , as a class mechanic, soul beast can do over core.

I explained that to you (or was it someone else saying the same? I don't know, anyway:), i already answered that in the PvP update thread, pls check there i don't want to say it twice. Or want me to copy paste the answer into this thread too? Soulbeast enables a SWITCH between 2 different class mechnaics not adding a secodn class emchanic on top of it wihtout taking away the other mechanic as compensation. The only thing needs to be done to Soulbeast is normal nerfing the more in buttons Soulbeas have to reduce the overall power lvl of the more buttons.

Otherwise core Ele needs a trade off for having more skills available compared to other core classes. I mean balance doesn't stop by comparing core with elite. It also needs to care to compare core vs core from other classes and elites vs elites from other classes.

[bravan.3876]

@phokus.8934 said:

@Clownmug.8357 said:The tradeoff is one costless utility skill for three energy based utility skills. Also the first Renegade utility skill does nothing without Kalla's Fervor.

Yep.

People assume that a trade-off should have a negative attachment to it when in fact, it's a trade-off from core.

My problem is that on some specs it clearly has a very negativ attachment to it, while on other specs it has not. That is not fair and that is also (as you say yourself) not needed to have a negative attachement.

[Dadnir.5038]

@"bravan.3876" said:No that is exactly my point. Soulbeast has an inherent trade off by having to decide between merging and pet skills. It didn't get a second class mechanic on top of the normal one. It only gets the ability to switch between 2 different ones, wheile the switch always lock Soulbeast out form the other one. It is even written on the Soulbeast description that the penalty for merging is to lose the pet during merge. That Soulbeast has overall more cds it can choose from and chain, means has a skill kit/ skill ensemble with overall more skills/button to use is than something you have to adjust by normal nerfs, means nerfing the overall power lvl of the skill kit of Soulbeast. So you can balance out the power of the Soulbeast skill kit without deleting active gameplay option, without just straight up deleting parts of the Soulbeast mechanic which are meant to be there. You can nerf dmg from merge skills and pet skills on Soulbeast, you can higher the cds of single skills, you can make the overall reward Soulbeast gets from Pet skills+merge skill overall the same lvl as core Ranger gets reward from pet only. Simple stat penalty on pets just like Druid got is a way better way of nerfing Soulbeasts power lvl. Combine that with nerfing merge skill power by higher cds and lower skill rewards (less dmg, deleting double and triple rewards) and Soulbeast will be fine compared to core. Because then Soulbeast needs to use more buttons to have the same dmg/ power lvl than core Ranger what jutsifies to have more buttons in the first place.

As said compared to what they do with Mirage Soulbeast still can be happy. The pet swap remove is not totally unlogical and totally contrary to the Soubeast mechanic. It is just an unecessary deletion of active gameplay options you could avoid and just balance out Soulbeats in better ways.

During Mirage gets completely overnerfed by the one dodge rule of the resource it even needs to work in a more active and skilled way. There is a reason another elite (Daredevil) which is also build around pretty strong dodges got MORE dodges compared to other classes and not less. Mirage in current state already has less access to dodges than most classes, what compensates already for having stronger dodges. Why they do not change Daredevil also to only one dodge? Because it would contradict the whole elite design. You cannot build a spec around dodges and then overnerf and with that overlimit the resource the elite needs to work. Mirage already had the trade off from higher opportunity costs and harder decision making in dodge management, that Mirage needs to use dodges for more than just evading attacks, while not rly having more access to the dodge resource than other classes. Mirage also got the weakest dodge trait in the game as basic mechanic of the spec , a dodge trait that needs a second trait to use or additional build-up work from the player to work like other dodge traits in the game. Mirage has the only dodge in the game can be affected by cripple and chill in its mobility distance.

Sure Mirage was still overperforming. But not in general, it only was overperfroming on specific builds because the condi ambushes are bad designed (they are too passive designed and too strong in the dmg they provide). You could solve all these problems by simply locking out Mirage from having clone normal autoattacks with passive condi dmg. So Mirage doesn't have double passive condi dmg from normal clone autoattacks (core mechanic) and from op condi clone ambushes making offensive dodges unnecessary and condi ambushes for that completely passive. You could just rework or nerf condi ambushes in addition to the lock out of normal condi autotattcks so that they are more like power ambushes (more about having effects the player needs to use well timed and by dodging offensive at needed times and for that less about big dmg).

If you want to add a 4. trade off to Mirage so badly because you say the dodge it got is so insanely powerful that it needs more than just normal nerfs and adjustments of the power lvl on top of the inherent trade offs Mirage already has, than you got ideas like a lower clone cap of 2 or locking out Mirage from traitlines like Chaos and Inspiration (to avoid the broken synergy Mirage has with those traitlines). Whatever there are more than enough ways to balance Mirage to a not overperforming lvl which doesn't contradict the whole basic elite mechanic, which doesn't overnerf the resource it is based on, which doesn't push Mirgae into even more passive and noobfriendly playstyle (by making offensive and tactical dodges impossible), which doesn't kill skill ceiling, which doesn't kill not overperforming, more active and highly skilled power builds as a spin-off.

You basically have no idea of what is a trade off and this is concerning...First of all, keep in mind that I don't think ANet do a good job with the "trade-off" given to most of the professions. The fact that you're content with the powercreep on the mechanism is also understandable because people prefer to have more than less. Objectively:

Elementalist:

• Tempest: the e-spec don't have much of trade-off and ANet should probably work on it. Yes it's weak but by definition it is still powercrept and in need of a trade off. (Note that I have no idea in what direction ANet should go to adress this powercreep and I like the tempest as is, but I'm aware that the powercreep is present and that it would be fair to introduce a true trade-off.)
• Weaver: It's stronger than tempest but still the trade-off is fair. No problem there.

Engineer:

• Scrapper: The new mechanism isn't worth much but there is a trade-off. It's fair.
• Holosmith: They basically gain a kit like the necromancer's shroud and have 4 tool belt skills. It's like have scourge with access to death shroud. There is a need for ANet to work on a true trade-off for this e-spec.

Guardian:

• Dragonhunter: A skill for a skill, nothing much to say, the trade-off is "fair".
• Firebrand: There is basically no trade-off there, it's pure powercreep. Pretty much like Holosmith there is a need for ANet to produce a true trade-off for the spec. The current don't make up for how much power is packed onto the tomes.

Mesmer:

• Chronomancer: The "double trade-off" they implemented is more crippling than anything. There is no reason for the loss of the self shatter after the change of the shatter skills. Here ANet objectively over did it on the trade-off. Personally, I'd have skill that create clones no longer create clone but only increase the clone pool which would be expanded by self shatter, effectively reducing much of the shatter damage of the chronomancer and the confusion generated by the poped AI (that wouldn't pop), obviously the shatter 'numbers' would have to be balanced around a single 'explosion'.
• Mirage: The "trade-off" of the 2nd dodge is "smart" (because it halve the access to mirage cloack out of the utility skills) but not "wise" (because dodge isn't the powercrept thing). The sensible choice would have been to reduce heavily the shatter skills' damage since more damage have been put on the "on dodge" option.

Necromancer:

• Reaper: Purely speaking the trade off with the core here is fair. The issue with him is the shroud design itself. A mechanism with such a defensive nature shouldn't have high offense. The sensible trade-off would be to remove the second health bar when entering this shroud.
• Scourge: Making the mechanism cluncky to use isn't a trade-off. Scourge's mechanism issue is that the shade skills end up doing to many things at the same time. Objectively, there is no reason for shade skills to deal damage since they do not lock the scourge out of it's weapon and utility skills. That's where the trade-off should be.

Ranger:

• Druid: The issue of this e-spec is that it's new mechanism have basically no correlation with the core mechanism. Reducing the pet's damage objectively isn't a trade-off to the powercreep introduced. Personnally I'd change it's pets to become shadows of the current pets, dealing token amount of damage but hardly damaged by any incoming damage (their only real usefulness becoming their support skills).
• Soulbeast: Objectively restraining access to a single pet feel like the proper trade-off here.

Revenant:

• Herald: Before they introduced Ancient echo, I'd have say that there is no trade off. Now if feel pretty fair.
• Renegade: Before they introduced Ancient echo, I'd have say that there is no trade off. Now if feel pretty fair.

Thief:

• Daredevil: Personally I don't think that the trade-off of mobility for an extra dodge is "fair" but it can be seen as agreeable.
• Deadeye: I'd say that the trade-off is fair here. Similar to the necromancer with the shroud, the issue is mostly in the bursty design of the stealth attacks. Trade offs on the profession's mechanism don't fix a design broken at the core of the profession as a whole.

Warrior:

• Berserker: An e-spec not designed with any trade-off that ended up crippled to keep a design without trade-off. The e-spec should just use berserk as it's default unique burst skill. (wanting to keep the primal bursts and slap toughness reduction is ANet's mistake, this is no trade-off)
• SpellBreaker: Slightly different than Berserker in the sense that ANet tried to slap a failed trade-off on it. The e-spec should have Full counter as it's main and only burst skill.

[ZDragon.3046]

The trade off is that none of those skills give you energy back and unique buff like the core skill does lmao people just dont see value in the core skill because people are boosted on the busted herald build.

Dot not assume there is no trade off when in reality there is one you just dont see it because people dont play core much.Considering where this patch is going extra energy restoration is going to more valuable than it is now so i would say the trade off is in line.

Can we talk about why Distortion does not lock skill bars though when all other invulnerability skills no longer allow the casters to use any skills and why this is the only oddball one.

[bravan.3876]

@Dadnir.5038 said:

Sry i think you don't rly know what a trade off is, some of your points and examples are accidently true but for everyhting else i don't want to restart a wall of text.

@ZDragon.3046 said:Can we talk about why Distortion does not lock skill bars though when all other invulnerability skills no longer allow the casters to use any skills and why this is the only oddball one.

Already done, you are late to the party:

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:

@hotte in space.2158 said:

@bravan.3876 said:You rly should consider to rethink balance planes about Obsidian Flesh on Ele

Thx bravan for mentioning OBSIDIAN FLESH.Nerfing this skill was intended to reduce tankyness of weaver. But as many weavers didnt even use focus, they will be able to compensate this change and still be viable in the future.For all core eles and tempests its the end. Obsidian Flesh is the one and only, most essential, indispensable defensive skill for them. Core ele and tempest were the weakest specs in PvP the last years, and the plan to nerf Obsidian Flesh means to bring them down from useless to absolutely useless.Playing tempest with a damage build (sage amulet/fire-stone traitline) I made it even up to P2 a few times (when lucky with matchmaking), but realistically P1 was the maximum possible to achieve the last seasons. There had been just a few core ele and tempest specialists left in PvP, but if this change on Obsidian Flesh should be realised, there will be non of them anymore. In the name of balance and diversity : DONT NERF OBSIDIAN FLESH !As there are not many playing core ele or tempest, there is also no lobby, no major feedback for them. Thats why I am happy about everybody who puts his finger on that problem. So thx again bravan^^

Except the problem with Obsidian Flesh was that it was one of the only

true

invuln skills (things like Elixir S, Renewed Focus, skills like that) that allowed the character to be invulnerable

and

use all of their skills at the same time. Distortion is another one and I think that needs to get looked at as well and potentially get the same treatment considering the duration you can stack on it being pretty similar in length.

Now I know Endure Pain and Signet of Stone will get tossed into this particular discussion but what many people seem to forget is that Endure Pain and Signet of Stone only negate power damage and

thats it

. Conditions can still be applied and deal damage and CC effects can also still be applied. Which means you can still successfully lock down someone using Endure Pain or Signet of Stone for its duration whereas with other

true

invuln skills this was not possible and Obsidian Flesh just essentially gave the Ele free opportunities for damage. Obsidian Flesh essentially got the benefit of both worlds, the ability to still use skills as well as be completely immune to literally

everything

for 4 seconds.

As for Tempest and Ele becoming "absolutely useless" in sPvP I honestly think that has less to do with how they worked and more to do with how overtuned Weaver has become as well as many other PoF elite specs were made. Look at how much of a monopoly PoF elite specs have had in sPvP over this span of 3 years, with some obvious exceptions, one of them being Renegade. Mirage being chief among them as it held a monopoly on both Power and Condi builds, regardless of your feelings or others ideas on how hard Mirage has had it over these years there was literally no reason to take Core or Chrono over it because just like every other PoF spec it was horrendously overtuned. The issue also lies in some fundamental issues with Conquest as a game mode and how it functions, as well as Solo/Duo Queue also being a fundamental problem with Ranked but that is an entirely different discussion and not something to dive deep into here.

Yeah but such comparisions between classes do not always make sense. Ofc adding a 3-4s invuln without skill lock out to everything a class like Warrior already has, a class that has already insane stat advantage compared to other classes, is facetanky as hell even on glassy speced builds or has still very high dmg on tanky speced builds, has a lot of other out of jail cards etc. would be a bad idea. Just like there are reasons current Warrior specs don't have access to teleports and stealth. There is a reason skills in core game were designed differently and why Engi, Guards and Warriors (classes with simply higher base defense and enough other stuff instead) have different invuln skills than Ele or Mesmer. With other words: Classes are different, they have different mechanics, different strengths and for that need to have different skills.

Mesmer i would take out of this completely anyway, because it is not a just click a button for 4s invuln skill, it consumes all active class resources aside from the cd itself (the skill would cost way too much for the reward it gives when locking out of skills, it would even punish the Mesmer for collecting too many clones for a longer invuln, totally unlogical) and Mesmers are (same as FA Ele just on all builds) from the basic class mechanic build around comboing with instant shatters and cover casts with invuln. It would not make sense and would not be fair to treat their invuln skills like Warriors or Engis invuln skills (for all the bunker Ele specs it might be acceptable but not for glassy Ele specs like FA, a build that is like Mesmer build around comboing with instant stuff and cover casts with invuln. That is why Ele compared to Warrior also has blocks during the Ele can still cast other skills).

Also other invuln skills have other rewards in addition to the invuln. Some are also stunbreaker, some reset other important skills (f skills on Guard). There is no logic behind making all invuln skills the same when classes are differently designed what creates the need for different designed invuln skills, classes have different need of using invuln time for other actions and when the invuln skills itself are not the same (as said other invuln skills have addition rewards). Mesmer once again would be doomed the most by this change. 1. the invuln skill doesn't have addition rewards (no stunbreak, no reset of other skills) and it has already double costs by cd itself and consuming all active class resources in addition. And it would be totally contrary to the class shatter mechanic, Mesmer would be clunky as hell. Maybe even unplayable on glassy specs, just like FA Ele because it contradicts the whole playstyle of the build/ class.

Currently it seems the balance philosophy it to tar all with the same brush. To treat different stuff not different and even try to make different stuff equal without them being equal by basic nature (means there are reasons they are different and should stay different). Doesn't always make sense. Some stuff the origin def team did during creating and balancing the core game rly makes sense and should be retained for several reasons.

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:

@hotte in space.2158 said:

@bravan.3876 said:You rly should consider to rethink balance planes about Obsidian Flesh on Ele

Thx bravan for mentioning OBSIDIAN FLESH.Nerfing this skill was intended to reduce tankyness of weaver. But as many weavers didnt even use focus, they will be able to compensate this change and still be viable in the future.For all core eles and tempests its the end. Obsidian Flesh is the one and only, most essential, indispensable defensive skill for them. Core ele and tempest were the weakest specs in PvP the last years, and the plan to nerf Obsidian Flesh means to bring them down from useless to absolutely useless.Playing tempest with a damage build (sage amulet/fire-stone traitline) I made it even up to P2 a few times (when lucky with matchmaking), but realistically P1 was the maximum possible to achieve the last seasons. There had been just a few core ele and tempest specialists left in PvP, but if this change on Obsidian Flesh should be realised, there will be non of them anymore. In the name of balance and diversity : DONT NERF OBSIDIAN FLESH !As there are not many playing core ele or tempest, there is also no lobby, no major feedback for them. Thats why I am happy about everybody who puts his finger on that problem. So thx again bravan^^

Except the problem with Obsidian Flesh was that it was one of the only

true

invuln skills (things like Elixir S, Renewed Focus, skills like that) that allowed the character to be invulnerable

and

use all of their skills at the same time. Distortion is another one and I think that needs to get looked at as well and potentially get the same treatment considering the duration you can stack on it being pretty similar in length.

Now I know Endure Pain and Signet of Stone will get tossed into this particular discussion but what many people seem to forget is that Endure Pain and Signet of Stone only negate power damage and

thats it

. Conditions can still be applied and deal damage and CC effects can also still be applied. Which means you can still successfully lock down someone using Endure Pain or Signet of Stone for its duration whereas with other

true

invuln skills this was not possible and Obsidian Flesh just essentially gave the Ele free opportunities for damage. Obsidian Flesh essentially got the benefit of both worlds, the ability to still use skills as well as be completely immune to literally

everything

for 4 seconds.

As for Tempest and Ele becoming "absolutely useless" in sPvP I honestly think that has less to do with how they worked and more to do with how overtuned Weaver has become as well as many other PoF elite specs were made. Look at how much of a monopoly PoF elite specs have had in sPvP over this span of 3 years, with some obvious exceptions, one of them being Renegade. Mirage being chief among them as it held a monopoly on both Power and Condi builds, regardless of your feelings or others ideas on how hard Mirage has had it over these years there was literally no reason to take Core or Chrono over it because just like every other PoF spec it was horrendously overtuned. The issue also lies in some fundamental issues with Conquest as a game mode and how it functions, as well as Solo/Duo Queue also being a fundamental problem with Ranked but that is an entirely different discussion and not something to dive deep into here.

Yeah but such comparisions between classes do not always make sense. Ofc adding a 3-4s invuln without skill lock out to everything a class like Warrior already has, a class that has already insane stat advantage compared to other classes, is facetanky as hell even on glassy speced builds or has still very high dmg on tanky speced builds, has a lot of other out of jail cards etc. would be a bad idea. Just like there are reasons current Warrior specs don't have access to teleports and stealth. There is a reason skills in core game were designed differently and why Engi, Guards and Warriors (classes with simply higher base defense and enough other stuff instead) have different invuln skills than Ele or Mesmer. Mesmer i would take out of this completely anyway, because it is not a just click a button for 4s invuln skill, it consumes all active class resources aside from the cd itself (the skill would cost way too much for the reward it gives when locking out of skills, it would even punish the Mesmer for collecting too many clones for a longer invuln, totally unlogic) and Mesmers are (same as FA Ele just on all builds) from the basic class mechanic build around comboing with instant shatters and cover casts with invuln. It would not make sense and would not be fair to treat their invuln skills like Warriors or Engis invuln skills (for all the bunker Ele specs it might be acceptable but not for glassy Ele specs like FA, a build that is like Mesmer build around comboing with instant stuff and cover casts with invuln. That is why Ele compared to Warrior also has blocks during the Ele can still cast other skills).

Also other invuln skills have other rewards in addition to the invuln. Some are also stunbreaker, some reset other important skills (f skills on Guard). There is no logic behind making all invuln skills the same when classes are differently designed what creates the need for different designed invuln skills, classes have different need of using invuln time for other actions and when the invuln skills itself are not the same (as said other invuln skills have addition rewards). Mesmer once again would be doomed the most by this change. 1. the invuln skill doesn't have addition rewards (no stunbreak, no reset of other skills) and it has already double costs by cd itself and consuming all active class resources in addition. And it would be totally contrary to the class shatter mechanic, Mesmer would be clunky as hell. Maybe even unplayable on glassy specs, just like FA Ele because it contradicts the whole playstyle of the build/ class.

Currently it seems the balance philosophy it to tar all with the same brush. To treat different stuff not different and even try to make different stuff equal without them being equal by basic nature (means there are reasons they are different and should stay different). Doesn't always make sense. Some stuff the origin def team did during creating and balancing the core game rly makes sense and should be retained for several reasons.

The philosophy they used in using a wide brush to go over everything with the same changes was meant to establish a base to work from. They even say in this very thread that was the intent, so that they can use it as a point so make iterative changes on based on circumstances and how things might change when the update does hit. Thats likely why they didn't give Distortion the same treatment because of how it works but it could still

potentially

become a problem but we'll just have to wait and see.

They can do that with dmg coefficient, with condi and boon duration etc. these are things ofc can be equally turned down and then get fine adjusted later. But atm some planned changes are compeltely unlogical and bad and make specs clunky if not unplayable by contradicting their mechanics. You can treat stuff equally that is equal, you never should treat stuff equally that is per se different and for that needs different treatment. You can treat the same what is the same type of skill or same type of effect or same type of dmg coefficient but you cannot treat different class mechanics and different skill types the same. It will destroy inherent logic that was build up by the origin def team at game release for several reasons.

Its possible they do need to add an additional benefit to Obsidian Flesh but currently, even with the change that locks skills, it is still the shortest cooldown invuln skill in the game. When traited its a low 40 second cooldown compared to the 50, 60 and even over 90 second cooldowns other true invuln skills have. I understand Ele is typically seen as squishier than some of the other classes but it was essentially something that allowed things like Weaver to abuse evades and other defenses while running very high damage stats and being able to quite literally just attack people while they are completely immune to everything. Sure it wasn't a problem back in the Core days, but things are very different now and Weaver especially can abuse it.

The only invul skill with 90s cd is an elite skill that is not locking out of actions, it just locks out of playerskills while automatically doing something (resetting very strong and long cd f-skills). Means it is not totally dead time for the Guard (he is not doomed into passivity), he is invuln and refreshes his f skill cds and he doesn't even need to do that manually, the game does it for him. That is like triple/ quad the reward from Obsidian. Engi Elixir s has a stunbreak and an additional toolbelt skill (aoe stealth) included for only 60s cd on the invuln. Neither Guard nor Engi have restrictions in the accessibility of the invuln skill (Ele needs to be on right attunement and not have Earth on cd). 50s basic cd and no skill lock out is justified in comparision (also fits the way some Ele builds are suppose to be played way better, doesn't contradict FA mechanic). Maybe better think about replacing the cd reduction trait in Earth with something else instead? FA builds don't even use Earth traitline, if anything then bunker specs only use Earth. Bunker Ele specs can be nerfed on different places to be less tanky (and i suggest to go for passive facetank sustain first before touching active defense that needs to be timed well), no need to kill the very few active defense skills glassy Ele builds have.

It is simple: If you want ppl to play less facetanky and less lame builds on a specific class, then you better do not kill these less lame and more skilled builds as a spin-off while nerfing op and braindead facetanky builds on that class (at least as long as you have other possible ways to nerf op builds without touching not op builds and in most cases you have other ways).

[Lincolnbeard.1735]

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@"bravan.3876" said:No that is exactly my point. Soulbeast has an inherent trade off by having to decide between merging and pet skills. It didn't get a second class mechanic on top of the normal one. It only gets the ability to switch between 2 different ones, wheile the switch always lock Soulbeast out form the other one. It is even written on the Soulbeast description that the penalty for merging is to lose the pet during merge. That Soulbeast has overall more cds it can choose from and chain, means has a skill kit/ skill ensemble with overall more skills/button to use is than something you have to adjust by normal nerfs, means nerfing the overall power lvl of the skill kit of Soulbeast. So you can balance out the power of the Soulbeast skill kit without deleting active gameplay option, without just straight up deleting parts of the Soulbeast mechanic which are meant to be there. You can nerf dmg from merge skills and pet skills on Soulbeast, you can higher the cds of single skills, you can make the overall reward Soulbeast gets from Pet skills+merge skill overall the same lvl as core Ranger gets reward from pet only. Simple stat penalty on pets just like Druid got is a way better way of nerfing Soulbeasts power lvl. Combine that with nerfing merge skill power by higher cds and lower skill rewards (less dmg, deleting double and triple rewards) and Soulbeast will be fine compared to core. Because then Soulbeast needs to use more buttons to have the same dmg/ power lvl than core Ranger what jutsifies to have more buttons in the first place.

As said compared to what they do with Mirage Soulbeast still can be happy. The pet swap remove is not totally unlogical and totally contrary to the Soubeast mechanic. It is just an unecessary deletion of active gameplay options you could avoid and just balance out Soulbeats in better ways.

During Mirage gets completely overnerfed by the one dodge rule of the resource it even needs to work in a more active and skilled way. There is a reason another elite (Daredevil) which is also build around pretty strong dodges got MORE dodges compared to other classes and not less. Mirage in current state already has less access to dodges than most classes, what compensates already for having stronger dodges. Why they do not change Daredevil also to only one dodge? Because it would contradict the whole elite design. You cannot build a spec around dodges and then overnerf and with that overlimit the resource the elite needs to work. Mirage already had the trade off from higher opportunity costs and harder decision making in dodge management, that Mirage needs to use dodges for more than just evading attacks, while not rly having more access to the dodge resource than other classes. Mirage also got the weakest dodge trait in the game as basic mechanic of the spec , a dodge trait that needs a second trait to use or additional build-up work from the player to work like other dodge traits in the game. Mirage has the only dodge in the game can be affected by cripple and chill in its mobility distance.

Sure Mirage was still overperforming. But not in general, it only was overperfroming on specific builds because the condi ambushes are bad designed (they are too passive designed and too strong in the dmg they provide). You could solve all these problems by simply locking out Mirage from having clone normal autoattacks with passive condi dmg. So Mirage doesn't have double passive condi dmg from normal clone autoattacks (core mechanic) and from op condi clone ambushes making offensive dodges unnecessary and condi ambushes for that completely passive. You could just rework or nerf condi ambushes in addition to the lock out of normal condi autotattcks so that they are more like power ambushes (more about having effects the player needs to use well timed and by dodging offensive at needed times and for that less about big dmg).

If you want to add a 4. trade off to Mirage so badly because you say the dodge it got is so insanely powerful that it needs more than just normal nerfs and adjustments of the power lvl on top of the inherent trade offs Mirage already has, than you got ideas like a lower clone cap of 2 or locking out Mirage from traitlines like Chaos and Inspiration (to avoid the broken synergy Mirage has with those traitlines). Whatever there are more than enough ways to balance Mirage to a not overperforming lvl which doesn't contradict the whole basic elite mechanic, which doesn't overnerf the resource it is based on, which doesn't push Mirgae into even more passive and noobfriendly playstyle (by making offensive and tactical dodges impossible), which doesn't kill skill ceiling, which doesn't kill not overperforming, more active and highly skilled power builds as a spin-off.

You basically have no idea of what is a trade off and this is concerning...First of all, keep in mind that I don't think ANet do a good job with the "trade-off" given to most of the professions. The fact that you're content with the powercreep on the mechanism is also understandable because people prefer to have more than less. Objectively:

Elementalist:

• Tempest: the e-spec don't have much of trade-off and ANet should probably work on it. Yes it's weak but by definition it is still powercrept and in need of a trade off. (Note that I have no idea in what direction ANet should go to adress this powercreep and I like the tempest as is, but I'm aware that the powercreep is present and that it would be fair to introduce a true trade-off.)
• Weaver: It's stronger than tempest but still the trade-off is fair. No problem there.

Engineer:

• Scrapper: The new mechanism isn't worth much but there is a trade-off. It's fair.
• Holosmith: They basically gain a kit like the necromancer's shroud and have 4 tool belt skills. It's like have scourge with access to death shroud. There is a need for ANet to work on a true trade-off for this e-spec.

Guardian:

• Dragonhunter: A skill for a skill, nothing much to say, the trade-off is "fair".
• Firebrand: There is basically no trade-off there, it's pure powercreep. Pretty much like Holosmith there is a need for ANet to produce a true trade-off for the spec. The current don't make up for how much power is packed onto the tomes.

Mesmer:

• Chronomancer: The "double trade-off" they implemented is more crippling than anything.

Triple trade-off - worse shatters, no ip, no distortion.

• Mirage: The "trade-off" of the 2nd dodge is "smart" (because it halve the access to mirage cloack out of the utility skills) but not "wise" (because dodge isn't the powercrept thing). The sensible choice would have been to reduce heavily the shatter skills' damage since more damage have been put on the "on dodge" option.

The trade off is worse movement distance than a regular dodge. This one dodge stuff is the second trade-off.

Thief:

• Daredevil: Personally I don't think that the trade-off of mobility for an extra dodge is "fair" but it can be seen as agreeable.

Not an extra dodge, it is an extra dodge + better dodges + unbloackable on swipe.Is it fair? Depends, for thieves might not be fair because the loss of range is too punishing, for me it isn't fair because you lose 1 thing and get 3 in return.

[ZDragon.3046]

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:Can we talk about why Distortion does not lock skill bars though when all other invulnerability skills no longer allow the casters to use any skills and why this is the only oddball one.

Already done, you are late to the party:Can you point me to where one of the devs has addressed it?I have not seen any confirmation that would imply its already done.

[bravan.3876]

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:Can we talk about why Distortion does not lock skill bars though when all other invulnerability skills no longer allow the casters to use any skills and why this is the only oddball one.

Already done, you are late to the party:Can you point me to where one of the devs has addressed it?I have not seen any confirmation that would imply its already done.

No sry i meant the discussion about it is already done. The discussion i copy pasted for you in the previous post. The change itself is not done. The discussion just makes clear why changing Distortion and even Obsidian with adding a skill lock out is not a good move and why it probably is not done to Distortion by Devs (maybe they just overlooked it, because looking at the whole trade off mess that make a lack of elite spec and class mechanics knowledge obvious, in particular in terms of Mesmers, means it might just be overlooked instead of not done for good reasons, who knows these days). Reading the discussion will help you to understand why asking for a skill lock out on Distortion makes even less sense than on Obsidian already and why the change to Obsidian should be canceled before patch release already.

[ZDragon.3046]

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:Can we talk about why Distortion does not lock skill bars though when all other invulnerability skills no longer allow the casters to use any skills and why this is the only oddball one.

Already done, you are late to the party:Can you point me to where one of the devs has addressed it?I have not seen any confirmation that would imply its already done.

No sry i meant the discussion about it is already done. The discussion i copy pasted for you in the previous post. The change itself is not done. The discussion just makes clear why changing Distortion and even Obsidian with adding a skill lock out is not a good move and why it probably is not done to Distortion by Devs (maybe they just overlooked it, because looking at the whole trade off mess that make a lack of elite spec and class mechanics knowledge obvious, in particular in terms of Mesmers, means it might just be overlooked instead of not done for good reasons, who knows these days). Reading the discussion will help you to understand why asking for a skill lock out on Distortion makes even less sense than on Obsidian already and why the change to Obsidian should be canceled before patch release already.

I seeIt should be done for all invulns or none of them which if none of them then i would argue invulns need to be removed infavor for only being immune to one damage type or another and nothing more.

There should not be a 100% invulnerable state a player can apply to themselves while being able to attack others in competitive modes even if its only for a few seconds, in this game a few seconds is enough to kill someone while that someone cannot interact with you in anyway which is just beyond broken especially if every profession does not have the same invuln type mechanics.

I personally think you guys should not be comparing things like endure pain with things like renewed focus or obsidian fleshDamage negation of a particular type and being completely invulnerable are not the same things by far as one has counter play and the other does not.

Flat out Invulnerability

• Can you interact with the target while the buff is applied= No.....
• Can you be damaged by at least one damage type be it physical strikes or condition damage = No
• Can your boons be ripped or conditions applied = No
• Can you be CC'ed = No
• Can skills that normally cannot be evaded Effect you such as Spectral ring, Ring of Warding etc = No

Damage negation be it physical or conditional

• Can you interact with the target while the buff is applied = Yes.... ok continue
• Can you be damaged by at least one damage type be it physical strikes or condition damage = Yes
• Can boons be ripped or conditions applied (even if they do no damage) = Yes
• Can they be CC'ed = Yes
• Can skills that normally cannot be evaded Effect you such as Spectral ring, Ring of Warding etc = Yes

Just to be clear Signet of stone is not = to obsidian fleshEndure pain is not = to DistortionEven dagger storm is not = to obsidian flesh or distortion (as is not immune ward type spells / skills that require stability to pass through)

Thats why my argument is that distortion even with the clone requirement should lock the skill bar.

That said this is off topic about rev and i will stop talking about it now.

[hotte in space.2158]

@bravan.3876 said:

Btw also still don't know what the trade off for Tempest overload mechanic is, that comes on top of core. And the FB trade off i miss too. Pls enlighten me.

Regarding the CD times of weapon skills, ele is designed to permanently change attunements to gain all benefits, the builds offer.The CD of attunements is 10 seconds. When overloading an attunement its 20 seconds.Did this answer your question ? (I am german and as my english isnt perfect, I wasnt 100% sure what you mean with trade off :) )

[bravan.3876]

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:Can we talk about why Distortion does not lock skill bars though when all other invulnerability skills no longer allow the casters to use any skills and why this is the only oddball one.

Already done, you are late to the party:Can you point me to where one of the devs has addressed it?I have not seen any confirmation that would imply its already done.

No sry i meant the discussion about it is already done. The discussion i copy pasted for you in the previous post. The change itself is not done. The discussion just makes clear why changing Distortion and even Obsidian with adding a skill lock out is not a good move and why it probably is not done to Distortion by Devs (maybe they just overlooked it, because looking at the whole trade off mess that make a lack of elite spec and class mechanics knowledge obvious, in particular in terms of Mesmers, means it might just be overlooked instead of not done for good reasons, who knows these days). Reading the discussion will help you to understand why asking for a skill lock out on Distortion makes even less sense than on Obsidian already and why the change to Obsidian should be canceled before patch release already.

I seeIt should be done for all invulns or none of them which if none of them then i would argue invulns need to be removed infavor for only being immune to one damage type or another and nothing more.

There should not be a 100% invulnerable state a player can apply to themselves while being able to attack others in competitive modes even if its only for a few seconds, in this game a few seconds is enough to kill someone while that someone cannot interact with you in anyway which is just beyond broken especially if every profession does not have the same invuln type mechanics.

I personally think you guys should not be comparing things like endure pain with things like renewed focus or obsidian fleshDamage negation of a particular type and being completely invulnerable are not the same things by far as one has counter play and the other does not.

Flat out Invulnerability

• Can you interact with the target while the buff is applied= No.....
• Can you be damaged by at least one damage type be it physical strikes or condition damage = No
• Can your boons be ripped or conditions applied = No
• Can you be CC'ed = No
• Can skills that normally cannot be evaded Effect you such as Spectral ring, Ring of Warding etc = No

Damage negation be it physical or conditional

• Can you interact with the target while the buff is applied = Yes.... ok continue
• Can you be damaged by at least one damage type be it physical strikes or condition damage = Yes
• Can boons be ripped or conditions applied (even if they do no damage) = Yes
• Can they be CC'ed = Yes
• Can skills that normally cannot be evaded Effect you such as Spectral ring, Ring of Warding etc = Yes

Just to be clear Signet of stone is not = to obsidian fleshEndure pain is not = to DistortionEven dagger storm is not = to obsidian flesh or distortion (as is not immune ward type spells / skills that require stability to pass through)

Thats why my argument is that distortion even with the clone requirement should lock the skill bar.

That said this is off topic about rev and i will stop talking about it now.

It gets clear that you didn't read the stuff i copy pasted for you. No one compared Endure Pain with Obsidian during that. And also you would understand why you have to treat different invuln skill different (they are different because some have more and other rewarsds aside form the invuln than others) and why you have to treat different classes with different mechanic and different strengths different in what their skills are able to do and what not. On some classes a complete invuln while being able to attack is not per se and beyond broken but on other classes it would be. Some classes/builds are designed to have the ability of a short invuln while being able to use skills, for that they have insane weaknesses on other parts other classes have not. Lot of your arguments and assertions are already refuded by what is written in the copy paste. I don't feel like starting the same discussion that already is done from zero. Just read what i copy pasted for you after you asked for it before writing, so we don't have to restart from point zero because you just ignored/ didn't read what already was said.

[ZDragon.3046]

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:Can we talk about why Distortion does not lock skill bars though when all other invulnerability skills no longer allow the casters to use any skills and why this is the only oddball one.

Already done, you are late to the party:Can you point me to where one of the devs has addressed it?I have not seen any confirmation that would imply its already done.

No sry i meant the discussion about it is already done. The discussion i copy pasted for you in the previous post. The change itself is not done. The discussion just makes clear why changing Distortion and even Obsidian with adding a skill lock out is not a good move and why it probably is not done to Distortion by Devs (maybe they just overlooked it, because looking at the whole trade off mess that make a lack of elite spec and class mechanics knowledge obvious, in particular in terms of Mesmers, means it might just be overlooked instead of not done for good reasons, who knows these days). Reading the discussion will help you to understand why asking for a skill lock out on Distortion makes even less sense than on Obsidian already and why the change to Obsidian should be canceled before patch release already.

I seeIt should be done for all invulns or none of them which if none of them then i would argue invulns need to be removed infavor for only being immune to one damage type or another and nothing more.

There should not be a 100% invulnerable state a player can apply to themselves while being able to attack others in competitive modes even if its only for a few seconds, in this game a few seconds is enough to kill someone while that someone cannot interact with you in anyway which is just beyond broken especially if every profession does not have the same invuln type mechanics.

I personally think you guys should not be comparing things like endure pain with things like renewed focus or obsidian fleshDamage negation of a particular type and being completely invulnerable are not the same things by far as one has counter play and the other does not.

Flat out Invulnerability

• Can you interact with the target while the buff is applied= No.....
• Can you be damaged by at least one damage type be it physical strikes or condition damage = No
• Can your boons be ripped or conditions applied = No
• Can you be CC'ed = No
• Can skills that normally cannot be evaded Effect you such as Spectral ring, Ring of Warding etc = No

Damage negation be it physical or conditional

• Can you interact with the target while the buff is applied = Yes.... ok continue
• Can you be damaged by at least one damage type be it physical strikes or condition damage = Yes
• Can boons be ripped or conditions applied (even if they do no damage) = Yes
• Can they be CC'ed = Yes
• Can skills that normally cannot be evaded Effect you such as Spectral ring, Ring of Warding etc = Yes

Just to be clear Signet of stone is not = to obsidian fleshEndure pain is not = to DistortionEven dagger storm is not = to obsidian flesh or distortion (as is not immune ward type spells / skills that require stability to pass through)

Thats why my argument is that distortion even with the clone requirement should lock the skill bar.

That said this is off topic about rev and i will stop talking about it now.

It gets clear that you didn't read the stuff i copy pasted for you. No one compared Endure Pain with Obsidian during that. And also you would understand why you have to treat different invuln skill different (they are different because some have more and other rewarsds aside form the invuln than others) and why you have to treat different classes with different mechanic and different strengths different in what their skills are able to do and what not. On some classes a complete invuln while being able to attack is not per se and beyond broken but on other classes it would be. Some classes/builds are designed to have the ability of a short invuln while being able to use skills, for that they have insane weaknesses on other parts other classes have not. Lot of your arguments and assertions are already refuded by what is written in the copy paste. I don't feel like starting the same discussion that already is done from zero. Just read what i copy pasted for you after you asked for it before writing, so we don't have to restart from point zero because you just ignored/ didn't read what already was said.

The point is calling out other professions "defenses" how ever you want to title those tools by "exact name" or by a generic term like "Defenses" my point is that there should not be a form regardless of the class which makes one person unable to be interacted by any means while also allowing them to aggress someone at the same time. IF a buff or effect allows you to avoid interaction of any kind then you should not be able to interact with others during that time frame either.

Make this a global thing for consistency which is fair OR remove invulns altogether and make them only partial immunities like reducing incoming physical damage to 0 or conditional immunity getting one or the other but not both.

No matter how you try to word it im not for an effect that makes a player immune to any kind of interaction while allowing them to put out damage at the same time that needs to go for obvious balance reasons.

[Ragnar.4257]

@bravan.3876 said:

Ok i would not rly have called that a trade off because that is just inherent logic of turning one button skill into a whole kit of skills (which then ofc should not all be instant and ofc should also have individual cds otherwise it would be even more powerful compared to core than it already is). But on the other side you are also right, adding these tome skills removes the core skill, all the power they had and the advantage that they were instant is gone.Still you have to agree, that the overall power lvl of tomes compared to core virtues is still insanely higher. With that logic other elites like Soulbeats and Mirage get ADDITIONAL trade off over the inherent ones (and inherent trade off from FB is kinda weak you have to admit).

.

@"Dadnir.5038" said:Guardian:

• Dragonhunter: A skill for a skill, nothing much to say, the trade-off is "fair".
• Firebrand: There is basically no trade-off there, it's pure powercreep. Pretty much like Holosmith there is a need for ANet to produce a true trade-off for the spec. The current don't make up for how much power is packed onto the tomes.

You're massively under-estimating how much losing instant-cast virtues and having to deal with the long cast-times on tome-abilities hurts the class.

Why do you think Core is preferred over DH or FB as the DPS build? Why is Core still a better choice for a DPS guardian than FB?

If people would rather use Core than e-spec, I'm not sure how you can say there is "no trade off".

That said, I agree with the underlying intention of this thread, that Mirage going down to 1 dodge is a stupid way to try and address power-creep. The culprits are obviously the ambush attacks with IH, especially the condi ones. Why not just nerf those?

[bravan.3876]

@Ragnar.4257 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

Ok i would not rly have called that a trade off because that is just inherent logic of turning one button skill into a whole kit of skills (which then ofc should not all be instant and ofc should also have individual cds otherwise it would be even more powerful compared to core than it already is). But on the other side you are also right, adding these tome skills removes the core skill, all the power they had and the advantage that they were instant is gone.Still you have to agree, that the overall power lvl of tomes compared to core virtues is still insanely higher. With that logic other elites like Soulbeats and Mirage get ADDITIONAL trade off over the inherent ones (and inherent trade off from FB is kinda weak you have to admit).

.

@"Dadnir.5038" said:Guardian:

• Dragonhunter: A skill for a skill, nothing much to say, the trade-off is "fair".
• Firebrand: There is basically no trade-off there, it's pure powercreep. Pretty much like Holosmith there is a need for ANet to produce a true trade-off for the spec. The current don't make up for how much power is packed onto the tomes.

You're massively under-estimating how much losing instant-cast virtues and having to deal with the long cast-times on tome-abilities hurts the class.

Why do you think Core is preferred over DH or FB as the DPS build? Why is Core still a better choice for a DPS guardian than FB?

If people would rather use Core than e-spec, I'm not sure how you can say there is "no trade off".

That said, I agree with the underlying intention of this thread, that Mirage going down to 1 dodge is a stupid way to try and address power-creep. The culprits are obviously the ambush attacks with IH, especially the condi ones. Why not just nerf those?

Fb is also a pretty strong (condi/ hybrid) dps build or not? Also ofc FB is meant as en elite build around support (same as Druid), so ofc it has more value the more you play it in the supportive way. As said i understand that you say giving up 3 instant skills for 15 none instant skills with additional individual cds is a harder trade off than it might sound on the first view. But my point anyway was not, that i think FB should get a SECOND trade off (i was just seriously asking what the FB trade off is, while considering tomes being way more powerful overall than the 3 core skills). I am not the one saying Fb should lose 1-2 tomes or lose weapons swap as second trade off. But that can happen when you look at what Anet did to other classes. I just try to stop the trade off mess until it reaches even more elite specs. And hope they rethink some of the trade offs they already did.

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:Can we talk about why Distortion does not lock skill bars though when all other invulnerability skills no longer allow the casters to use any skills and why this is the only oddball one.

Already done, you are late to the party:Can you point me to where one of the devs has addressed it?I have not seen any confirmation that would imply its already done.

No sry i meant the discussion about it is already done. The discussion i copy pasted for you in the previous post. The change itself is not done. The discussion just makes clear why changing Distortion and even Obsidian with adding a skill lock out is not a good move and why it probably is not done to Distortion by Devs (maybe they just overlooked it, because looking at the whole trade off mess that make a lack of elite spec and class mechanics knowledge obvious, in particular in terms of Mesmers, means it might just be overlooked instead of not done for good reasons, who knows these days). Reading the discussion will help you to understand why asking for a skill lock out on Distortion makes even less sense than on Obsidian already and why the change to Obsidian should be canceled before patch release already.

I seeIt should be done for all invulns or none of them which if none of them then i would argue invulns need to be removed infavor for only being immune to one damage type or another and nothing more.

There should not be a 100% invulnerable state a player can apply to themselves while being able to attack others in competitive modes even if its only for a few seconds, in this game a few seconds is enough to kill someone while that someone cannot interact with you in anyway which is just beyond broken especially if every profession does not have the same invuln type mechanics.

I personally think you guys should not be comparing things like endure pain with things like renewed focus or obsidian fleshDamage negation of a particular type and being completely invulnerable are not the same things by far as one has counter play and the other does not.

Flat out Invulnerability

• Can you interact with the target while the buff is applied= No.....
• Can you be damaged by at least one damage type be it physical strikes or condition damage = No
• Can your boons be ripped or conditions applied = No
• Can you be CC'ed = No
• Can skills that normally cannot be evaded Effect you such as Spectral ring, Ring of Warding etc = No

Damage negation be it physical or conditional

• Can you interact with the target while the buff is applied = Yes.... ok continue
• Can you be damaged by at least one damage type be it physical strikes or condition damage = Yes
• Can boons be ripped or conditions applied (even if they do no damage) = Yes
• Can they be CC'ed = Yes
• Can skills that normally cannot be evaded Effect you such as Spectral ring, Ring of Warding etc = Yes

Just to be clear Signet of stone is not = to obsidian fleshEndure pain is not = to DistortionEven dagger storm is not = to obsidian flesh or distortion (as is not immune ward type spells / skills that require stability to pass through)

Thats why my argument is that distortion even with the clone requirement should lock the skill bar.

That said this is off topic about rev and i will stop talking about it now.

It gets clear that you didn't read the stuff i copy pasted for you. No one compared Endure Pain with Obsidian during that. And also you would understand why you have to treat different invuln skill different (they are different because some have more and other rewarsds aside form the invuln than others) and why you have to treat different classes with different mechanic and different strengths different in what their skills are able to do and what not. On some classes a complete invuln while being able to attack is not per se and beyond broken but on other classes it would be. Some classes/builds are designed to have the ability of a short invuln while being able to use skills, for that they have insane weaknesses on other parts other classes have not. Lot of your arguments and assertions are already refuded by what is written in the copy paste. I don't feel like starting the same discussion that already is done from zero. Just read what i copy pasted for you after you asked for it before writing, so we don't have to restart from point zero because you just ignored/ didn't read what already was said.

The point is calling out other professions "defenses" how ever you want to title those tools by "exact name" or by a generic term like "Defenses" my point is that there should not be a form regardless of the class which makes one person unable to be interacted by any means while also allowing them to aggress someone at the same time. IF a buff or effect allows you to avoid interaction of any kind then you should not be able to interact with others during that time frame either.

Make this a global thing for consistency which is fair OR remove invulns altogether and make them only partial immunities like reducing incoming physical damage to 0 or conditional immunity getting one or the other but not both.

No matter how you try to word it im not for an effect that makes a player immune to any kind of interaction while allowing them to put out damage at the same time that needs to go for obvious balance reasons.

I guess you should play another game then, because that mechanic you have in different types on all classes. Stuff like Daggerstorm, Rev and Warrior heals (neutralize the dmg they receive and even rewards them for facetanking by hp gain) and a lot of other skills enable classes to attack while factual being not attackable themself. Ofc complete invuln is the strongest form of it but in the end the mechanic is everywhere.You just overaxaggerate and make simplyfied propaganda claims like "that should not exist", "that is beyond broken" while ignoring all arguments which stand against that simplyfied view. Invuln skills are different because they have different rewards aside from the invuln, they are balanced around different class mechanics and different class strengths and are for that for good reasons different. Lets just agree to disagree.

There is no reason Obsidian Flesh or Distortion should have the same treatment than RF or Elixir s. RF and Elixir s have addition rewards to the invuln (stunbreak and aoe stealth skill on toolbelt on Engi or cd reset from f skills on Guard) while both classes have no restriction in the accessibility (Ele needs to be on the right attunement to get access to Obsidian, Mesmer needs to build up a lot of clones for max duration) and neither Guard nor Engi has extra costs from consuming class mechanic resources aside from the cd itself. There is no reason Obsidian and Distortion should have the same skill lock out, the same treatment than other invuln skills with more and stronger rewards aside form the invuln. And just claiming invuln while being able to attack is per se byond broken is simply wrong, when classes and builds are literally build around that and have defined weaknesses to compensate the advantage for full invuln while attacking.

[DonArkanio.6419]

Am I reading a joke post?

Renegade is a trade-off im itself. Its design is so poor that only these massive AoE utilities can make up for how bad this E-Spec is to play.

As for the F skills - Citadel Bombardment is so unreliable that you'de be better not using it at all in PvP. Might and Alacrity - it's a boonbot.

So, rather than proposing to delete Renegade's skills I'd suggest trying to fix this E-Spec

[Math.5123]

@bravan.3876 said:

@Ragnar.4257 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

Ok i would not rly have called that a trade off because that is just inherent logic of turning one button skill into a whole kit of skills (which then ofc should not all be instant and ofc should also have individual cds otherwise it would be even more powerful compared to core than it already is). But on the other side you are also right, adding these tome skills removes the core skill, all the power they had and the advantage that they were instant is gone.Still you have to agree, that the overall power lvl of tomes compared to core virtues is still insanely higher. With that logic other elites like Soulbeats and Mirage get ADDITIONAL trade off over the inherent ones (and inherent trade off from FB is kinda weak you have to admit).

.

@"Dadnir.5038" said:Guardian:

• Dragonhunter: A skill for a skill, nothing much to say, the trade-off is "fair".
• Firebrand: There is basically no trade-off there, it's pure powercreep. Pretty much like Holosmith there is a need for ANet to produce a true trade-off for the spec. The current don't make up for how much power is packed onto the tomes.

You're massively under-estimating how much losing instant-cast virtues and having to deal with the long cast-times on tome-abilities hurts the class.

Why do you think Core is preferred over DH or FB as the DPS build? Why is Core still a better choice for a DPS guardian than FB?

If people would rather use Core than e-spec, I'm not sure how you can say there is "no trade off".

That said, I agree with the underlying intention of this thread, that Mirage going down to 1 dodge is a stupid way to try and address power-creep. The culprits are obviously the ambush attacks with IH, especially the condi ones. Why not just nerf those?

Fb is also a pretty strong (condi/ hybrid) dps build or not? Also ofc FB is meant as en elite build around support (same as Druid), so ofc it has more value the more you play it in the supportive way. As said i understand that you say giving up 3 instant skills for 15 none instant skills with additional individual cds is a harder trade off than it might sound on the first view. But my point anyway was not, that i think FB should get a SECOND trade off (i was just seriously asking what the FB trade off is, while considering tomes being way more powerful overall than the 3 core skills). I am not the one saying Fb should lose 1-2 tomes or lose weapons swap as second trade off. But that can happen when you look at what Anet did to other classes. I just try to stop the trade off mess until it reaches even more elite specs. And hope they rethink some of the trade offs they already did.

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@bravan.3876 said:

@ZDragon.3046 said:Can we talk about why Distortion does not lock skill bars though when all other invulnerability skills no longer allow the casters to use any skills and why this is the only oddball one.

Already done, you are late to the party:Can you point me to where one of the devs has addressed it?I have not seen any confirmation that would imply its already done.

No sry i meant the discussion about it is already done. The discussion i copy pasted for you in the previous post. The change itself is not done. The discussion just makes clear why changing Distortion and even Obsidian with adding a skill lock out is not a good move and why it probably is not done to Distortion by Devs (maybe they just overlooked it, because looking at the whole trade off mess that make a lack of elite spec and class mechanics knowledge obvious, in particular in terms of Mesmers, means it might just be overlooked instead of not done for good reasons, who knows these days). Reading the discussion will help you to understand why asking for a skill lock out on Distortion makes even less sense than on Obsidian already and why the change to Obsidian should be canceled before patch release already.

I seeIt should be done for all invulns or none of them which if none of them then i would argue invulns need to be removed infavor for only being immune to one damage type or another and nothing more.

There should not be a 100% invulnerable state a player can apply to themselves while being able to attack others in competitive modes even if its only for a few seconds, in this game a few seconds is enough to kill someone while that someone cannot interact with you in anyway which is just beyond broken especially if every profession does not have the same invuln type mechanics.

I personally think you guys should not be comparing things like endure pain with things like renewed focus or obsidian fleshDamage negation of a particular type and being completely invulnerable are not the same things by far as one has counter play and the other does not.

Flat out Invulnerability

• Can you interact with the target while the buff is applied= No.....
• Can you be damaged by at least one damage type be it physical strikes or condition damage = No
• Can your boons be ripped or conditions applied = No
• Can you be CC'ed = No
• Can skills that normally cannot be evaded Effect you such as Spectral ring, Ring of Warding etc = No

Damage negation be it physical or conditional

• Can you interact with the target while the buff is applied = Yes.... ok continue
• Can you be damaged by at least one damage type be it physical strikes or condition damage = Yes
• Can boons be ripped or conditions applied (even if they do no damage) = Yes
• Can they be CC'ed = Yes
• Can skills that normally cannot be evaded Effect you such as Spectral ring, Ring of Warding etc = Yes

Just to be clear Signet of stone is not = to obsidian fleshEndure pain is not = to DistortionEven dagger storm is not = to obsidian flesh or distortion (as is not immune ward type spells / skills that require stability to pass through)

Thats why my argument is that distortion even with the clone requirement should lock the skill bar.

That said this is off topic about rev and i will stop talking about it now.

It gets clear that you didn't read the stuff i copy pasted for you. No one compared Endure Pain with Obsidian during that. And also you would understand why you have to treat different invuln skill different (they are different because some have more and other rewarsds aside form the invuln than others) and why you have to treat different classes with different mechanic and different strengths different in what their skills are able to do and what not. On some classes a complete invuln while being able to attack is not per se and beyond broken but on other classes it would be. Some classes/builds are designed to have the ability of a short invuln while being able to use skills, for that they have insane weaknesses on other parts other classes have not. Lot of your arguments and assertions are already refuded by what is written in the copy paste. I don't feel like starting the same discussion that already is done from zero. Just read what i copy pasted for you after you asked for it before writing, so we don't have to restart from point zero because you just ignored/ didn't read what already was said.

The point is calling out other professions "defenses" how ever you want to title those tools by "exact name" or by a generic term like "Defenses" my point is that there should not be a form regardless of the class which makes one person unable to be interacted by any means while also allowing them to aggress someone at the same time. IF a buff or effect allows you to avoid interaction of any kind then you should not be able to interact with others during that time frame either.

Make this a global thing for consistency which is fair OR remove invulns altogether and make them only partial immunities like reducing incoming physical damage to 0 or conditional immunity getting one or the other but not both.

No matter how you try to word it im not for an effect that makes a player immune to any kind of interaction while allowing them to put out damage at the same time that needs to go for obvious balance reasons.

I guess you should play another game then, because that mechanic you have in different types on all classes. Stuff like Daggerstorm, Rev and Warrior heals (neutralize the dmg they receive and even rewards them for facetanking by hp gain) and a lot of other skills enable classes to attack while factual being not attackable themself. Ofc complete invuln is the strongest form of it but in the end the mechanic is everywhere.You just overaxaggerate and make simplyfied propaganda claims like "that should not exist", "that is beyond broken" while ignoring all arguments which stand against that simplyfied view. Invuln skills are different because they have different rewards aside from the invuln, they are balanced around different class mechanics and different class strengths and are for that for good reasons different. Lets just agree to disagree.

There is no reason Obsidian Flesh or Distortion should have the same treatment than RF or Elixir s. RF and Elixir s have addition rewards to the invuln (stunbreak and aoe stealth skill on toolbelt on Engi or cd reset from f skills on Guard) while both classes have no restriction in the accessibility (Ele needs to be on the right attunement to get access to Obsidian, Mesmer needs to build up a lot of clones for max duration) and neither Guard nor Engi has extra costs from consuming class mechanic resources aside from the cd itself. There is no reason Obsidian and Distortion should have the same skill lock out, the same treatment than other invuln skills with more and stronger rewards aside form the invuln. And just claiming invuln while being able to attack is per se byond broken is simply wrong, when classes and builds are literally build around that and have defined weaknesses to compensate the advantage for full invuln while attacking.

Just going to mention that renewed focus is the only elite skill in the game that gives an invuln. It's also by far the weakest one in the game. Seeing that you can't res, stomp or even use skyhammer platforms while channeling it. It also has almost triple the cooldown of obsidian flesh. There's absolutely no reason you should ever be able to cast through obsidian flesh rofl.

Edit: I guess the invuln on Earth shield conjure is weaker. But no one uses that.

[shadowpass.4236]

@"AngelLovesFredrik.6741" said:Just going to mention that renewed focus is the only elite skill in the game that gives an invuln. It's also by far the weakest one in the game. Seeing that you can't res, stomp or even use skyhammer platforms while channeling it. It also has almost triple the cooldown of obsidian flesh. There's absolutely no reason you should ever be able to cast through obsidian flesh rofl.

Edit: I guess the invuln on Earth shield conjure is weaker. But no one uses that.

Renewed Focus' effectiveness scales depending on how strong the Virtues it resets are.

On Core Guard and DH it might not make that big of a difference but it's super strong on Firebrand when you get the option to reset 15-24 impactful skills.