trade offs are failing

[Shagie.7612]

@ArthurDent.9538 said:From a flavor standpoint, I kind of like the soulbeast trade-off where a ranger forms an extremely strong bond with one particular pet enabling the merging but this might just end up dumbing down gameplay by making the kit simpler.This is how I think most rangers feel about it?Thematically a neat idea, and it actually makes sense and I'm kinda surprised Slb didn't launch that way, but I imagine most rangers and non-rangers alike would prefer the class not be made more simplistic, even if said change reduces the effectiveness in the way they want, especially when you consider the future down the road (ie buffs to more basic things like damage if it starts underperforming as a result of the design changes).

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

What's so bad about removing powercreeped speces from content?

so sad ppl actually agree with this. goes to show ppl don't actually want balance they just want whats killing them removed from the game.

To be fair some elite specs are objectively poorly designed for pvp, either by being powercrept, or by not having much use. Their removal or redesign would probably make the game more enjoyable for a lot of people.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

What's so bad about removing powercreeped speces from content?

so sad ppl actually agree with this. goes to show ppl don't actually want balance they just want whats killing them removed from the game.

To be fair some elite specs are objectively poorly designed for pvp, either by being powercrept, or by not having much use. Their removal or redesign would probably make the game more enjoyable for a lot of people.

if those specs are fixed then fine. otherwise that's a dumb argument, more like an excuse for mediocrity. its not fair to the ppl that play those specs, and maybe they leave. we shouldn't have to ask to have usable specs. if you follow this train of thought then half the specs will be gone since they're deemed poorly designed. really lol pls think about what you're going to say before posting.

[Shao.7236]

@Leonidrex.5649 said:

@"Stand The Wall.6987" said:i'm wondering who does these since they seem to be all over the place. seems like they should be done by the new competitive balance team, or at least one small group of people so they aren't so disproportionate. imo the only trade off that is 100% good is berserker. anet pls don't set these trade offs in stone, you are straight up removing classes from content. at this rate a better balanced game will not matter.

Logically Especs should not even need trade offs.Core traitlines all should give you the feeling of " kitten I really wish I had this " and trading that tree for espec IS the trade.some especs are stronger then others, and some classes have stronger core trees then others.But when they are really so dead set on providing trade for the espec, they should really think harder, one of them is not like the others.

It's not a trade off when it still does everything better.

Elites are to approach the profession differently, not improve it above 50%+ in everything.

It's okay anyway, at every release people say it's garbage and awful until someone has a breakthrough with the broken new unbalanced ideas then everyone starts riding the bandwagon ironically.

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

What's so bad about removing powercreeped speces from content?

so sad ppl actually agree with this. goes to show ppl don't actually want balance they just want whats killing them removed from the game.

To be fair some elite specs are objectively poorly designed for pvp, either by being powercrept, or by not having much use. Their removal or redesign would probably make the game more enjoyable for a lot of people.

if those specs are fixed then fine. otherwise that's a dumb argument, more like an excuse for mediocrity. its not fair to the ppl that play those specs, and maybe they leave. we shouldn't have to ask to have usable specs. if you follow this train of thought then half the specs will be gone since they're deemed poorly designed. really lol pls think about what you're going to say before posting.

So fixing broken specs is fine, but saying that they need fixing is mediocrity? Obviously a spec isnt going to get removed. I think you are taking this discussion too literally.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:So fixing broken specs is fine, but saying that they need fixing is mediocrity? Obviously a spec isnt going to get removed. I think you are taking this discussion too literally.

you're not taking it seriously. since when does saying they need fixing = removing them completely? how is that a solution? whats obvious is that certain classes are either so clunky that they're not worth the effort or they have basically no trade off at all. that's whats obvious. being the diligent citizen that I am, i'm merely ringing the alarm bell.

[Thorstienn.1642]

@Leonidrex.5649 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@"otto.5684" said:I would not call trade-offs failing. I would call them non-existent. In order for them to exist, it theoretically means different builds of a class, can play various power builds with equal performance (same for condi and support). The difference would be the builds offer various strengths and weakness. In reality, most classes barely have 2-3 viable builds, and rarely more than 2 competitive builds. If Anet added a "trade-off" effectively nerfing the meta build. They just nerfed the meta build. That is... it. The "trade-off" here is nothing more than beating around the bush.

Take the SlB change, locking pets. Is this really a "trade-off?" Does core ranger or druid have any competitive builds? And thus all this fancy "trade-off" talk is nothing more than a nerf to SlB. Nothing else here.

When every class has various competitive builds, with various strengths and weaknesses, let me know. Right now, this whole "trade-off" is nothing more than empty PR bull kitten.

The trade off for each spec does not account for whether its meta or not nor should it. After patch the team can now work on what changes are needed to help bring soulbeast into the meta all while keeping its trade off, same as every other spec.

while looking at chrono or druid i lean towards them gutting the spec and leaving it unplayable since they put NO effort to try and fix them.I dislike ranger and soulbeast equally and it doesnt make much difference to me if ranger mains plays core or slb, but im fairly sure that ranger mains are going to be mighty upset that now they can only play ranger, expecially since the things that are wrong with ranger are not fixed, but slb got one of its kneecaps busted for the sake of an idea.To all people that are happy that soulbeast will be gone, that chrono is gone and druid is gone. Remember that your favourite espec from your favourite class will too be doomed for trade off. and when SPB loses its f1 entirely for fullcounter or some other stupid shenanigans come back to this moment and realise that in the end balance is what matters and removing entire spec from playability doesnt do that.

I like your points, but I think the point of tradeoffs is not "supposed" to be centered around PvP, but more the idea of the espec. In which case, druid (as the 1st introduced healer) for example is still fine with a weak pet.Unfortunately, they made too many DPS especs for "all" DPS classes, so they are trying to make tradeoffs (after the fact) to re-dedicate classes. Eg, soulbeast instill a good boon sharing power house after losing one pet (ignoring competitive modes obviously).

[Kuma.1503]

Scrapper does not needed a trade off. It already two tradeoffs:

1. It can never hope to deal as much damage as core engi or holosmith save for very niche scenarios.
2. It loses its elite toolbelt skill

Druid, likewise, does not need its tradeoff. It is a defensive/supportive traitline. Druid's tradeoff is that it cannot hope to match the damage potential of soulbeast or core.

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:So fixing broken specs is fine, but saying that they need fixing is mediocrity? Obviously a spec isnt going to get removed. I think you are taking this discussion too literally.

since when does saying they need fixing = removing them completely?

You seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying. I said some specs are poorly designed, and the solution is to rework or remove them. I thought it was obvious that they arent getting removed, so therefore the only solution is to rework them. However, you then claimed that is a dumb argument and an excuse for mediocrity, while agreeing that some specs need to be fixed. I never argued that removing specs is a good idea, or even a possibility. I only stated that their removal technically would be a solution to address power creep.

[Revolution.5409]

I will be curious to see the Firebrand trade-off

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:snips

there are so many contradictions in your post lol. we agree that removing specs is bad, that's good. except with some of the trade offs classes are getting they are effectively removed. so... yeah. hopefully anet makes them usable again.

[CroTiger.7819]

Mesmer tradeoff is fine whats not fine is some weapon skills and traits which was nerfed before should gain some power back for example staff 3 is now funny effect for such a cd.. Whats bad is thiefs didn t gained nerf they needed most and its not even about tradeoff on especs. Thief is bigest counter to mes and while mesmer got hard deserved nerf thief wich deserved same nerf in mobility or sword 2 retreat are staying untouched and even gain new unblockable aoe interupt on already best weapon in game thiefs shortbow. This update is best for thiefs and core necros but thiefs was meta always and now when everyhting is nerfed they even gained slight buff while they are already best performing spec in game. Kinda funny decision to give thiefs unblockable aoe cc on first land (initiative cost is not a deal for such op skill which shouldn t be on thief in first place if you still remember ranger have shortbow too and it sucks since start).

[voltaicbore.8012]

@steki.1478 said:

@voltaicbore.8012 said:

Ranger has

always

started from behind, thanks to having a bunch of our personal stats shaved off and given to a pet

What stats?

When not merged with their pets, all rangers (soulbeasts included) suffer a stat penalty. I don't remember which specific stats are taken down by how much, but power is the easiest one to observe. I have a ranger and thief wearing identical gear (full exotic berserker stats with scholar runes), and if my thief is not running any power-increasing traits, my ranger has 200 less power than my thief. When my thief is running d/d and traits for more power, that gap jumps to 440. Merging with a power-bonus pet gives my ranger an additional 200 power, bringing into line with my un-traited thief.

So compared to other classes, without pet merge, rangers are essentially running around with an amulet missing.

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

What's so bad about removing powercreeped speces from content?

so sad ppl actually agree with this. goes to show ppl don't actually want balance they just want whats killing them removed from the game.

Sad, but true.

[Abelisk.5148]

Nothing is getting removed from the game calm your horses

[felix.2386]

Berserker/chrono trade off is done by skill team aka pve skill team aka only care about pve aka berserker/chrono is garbage in pvp

trade off in the pvp update post are done by pvp team aka can only tweak numbers

[steki.1478]

@voltaicbore.8012 said:

@steki.1478 said:

@voltaicbore.8012 said:

Ranger has

always

started from behind, thanks to having a bunch of our personal stats shaved off and given to a pet

What stats?

When not merged with their pets, all rangers (soulbeasts included) suffer a stat penalty. I don't remember which specific stats are taken down by how much, but power is the easiest one to observe. I have a ranger and thief wearing identical gear (full exotic berserker stats with scholar runes), and if my thief

is not

running any power-increasing traits, my ranger has 200 less power than my thief. When my thief

is

running d/d and traits for more power, that gap jumps to 440. Merging with a power-bonus pet gives my ranger an additional 200 power, bringing into line with my un-traited thief.

So compared to other classes, without pet merge, rangers are essentially running around with an amulet missing.

Classes dont work like that. Every class has skills with different coefficients, values, cooldowns etc, not to mention boon coverage and other buffs from traits/utilities, as well as healthpool difference and sustain options. 200 power is nothing.

[voltaicbore.8012]

@"steki.1478" said:Classes dont work like that. Every class has skills with different coefficients, values, cooldowns etc, not to mention boon coverage and other buffs from traits/utilities, as well as healthpool difference and sustain options.

I get that other classes see stat deficits for various reasons, such as lower base HP for thief/ele/guard and whatnot. For the most part, These deficits are supposed to be made up for by things players control. As an example with the lower base HP issue, Guards excel at aegis and blocks, thief can hide from or avoid a lot more hits than many other classes, and ele has to find a way to survive by swapping stances and tapping into defensive tools in tandem with offensive ones. Elite specs for each of these classes helps the core class in many ways that directly improves on their ability to make up for that deficit (DH got a directional longer duration block, Weaver added a ton of barrier/evade/invuln, Daredevil added an extra dodge, etc). Not to mention that these classes generally heavily outperform ranger in ending threats altogether.

The ranger penalty when it comes to power feels specifically like a penalty because (1) every other class has the same baseline power aside from rangers, and (2) the pet that is supposed to make up for the stat deficit simply fails so much of the time and is under very limited player control.

200 power is nothing.

Sure, it isn't a huge percentage of stats, but it's more than a single piece of gear's worth of stats, so to me that's hardly "nothing." It would be hilarious if the game, every time you loaded into a non-ranger power character, just took away your amulet and maybe a backpiece and told you "eeeh it's nothing, you don't even need these."