Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Elite specialization tradeoffs?


Shroud.2307

Recommended Posts

@Konrad Curze.5130 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:Sounds like you should be playing Holo of FF14 then. Neither would be bad choices.

nah, despite what it may look like Im not too keen of holo either, its just the perfect class to draw comparisons to berserker from a design and mechanical PoV._

I already play firebrand and renegade, why would I settle for anything less than vast overpoweredness if Anet lets me pick it free of any cost whatsoever. specs that are simply better than the rest for no reason, they just are.

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:That said you would be better served talking about how to make Berserker function better at a higher level in regards to it's own mechanics rather than be QQing about it in relation to a different espec from another class.

yeah, because that has worked wonders for the hundreds if not thousands of people that have been talking about how to make Berserker function better at a higher level for years and years. because you know, they have not been totally, completly, utterly neglected and ignored all this time, right

I mean, berserker did get a rework long ago, which in many ways left it in a more ackward (if not downright worse) spot. and since that radio silence.

and you still have faith that constructive criticism does anything? man, I admire your tenacity

Tenacious like a badger.

That said Anet does respond in their own time. I just expect no serious changes until pre EoD patch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Trianox.3486" said:People seem stuck with the whole "trade-off" part, but you can also see it as a change in terms of game play.Necro, reaper and scourge are great examples of that. They quite differently from one another.

Bottom line, all those three play very differently. You could play them similarly, more or less, but they have inherent differences. Here is your trade-off, or change.Unfortunately, the term "trade-off" misleads into thinking about balance... while that is a whole different issue.Of course, we could argue about power level, but that's a different story. One might argue Repear shroud or Scourge shades or whatever to be better or worse... but it depends on circumstances... and individual skills and trait lines then, and their synergies with core trait lines...!

The balance discussion isn't about whether those trade-off are sufficiant in terms of change of mechanics. It should be, in my opinion, about the disporportionate strength between "3 core trait lines" VS "1 elite + 2 core trait lines". Is it outof tune completely or not? (Then of course, we have to account that not every single combination of traits is optimal for DPS or survivability. "Everything" more or less work for open world, but not everything is enjoyable or effective, regardless of trait lines, e-specs, and individual traits you took or not.)

The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs.

Also, lets stop pretending things like Guardian virtue changes between the specs are a trade off. That is extremely laughable. DH and FB virtues/tomes are in no way weaker than Guardian virtues, they are simply different.

What would be nice is if Anet was consistent across the board with this. Either all Elite Specs get a legit trade off, or they don't. This business of handing out heavy nerfs to some classes in the name of E-Spec Trade Offs without doing the same for others is really shitty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Shaogin.2679" said:

The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs.

I have to point out once again: Scrapper is NOT a support spec by design!!

Scrapper is currently used as a support in environments like WvW, but this is because of other reasons. They are used because their gyros are giving some supportive qualities and engineer in general lacks a third support specialization (we just have inventions + alchemy).

If you are looking into scrapper's design closely, you see that the spec really doesn't provide that much support. In the trait line, the only supportive qualities found are some super speed share. But the very big majority of scrapper traits are absolutely selfish in nature.Even all 3 grandmaster traits are just giving benefits to the scrapper themselves and nothing for allies:

  • more barrier and reduced condition damage taken by the scrapper
  • stuns and dazes grant the scrapper stability and super speed
  • gain quickness based on your might and extra power while you have quickness

Another evidence is that the used support scrapper build has an entirely dead grandmaster minor trait. The grandmaster minor is converting 15% of your strike damage into barrier, but this support build doesn't deal any damage at all! It is camping the med kit all day to keep healing and doesn't even invest any stats in power!

Want more? The weapon. Scrapper's hammer has emphasis on damage, CC and personal defense. Support elite specs have supportive weapons which are either granting boons to allies or healing them. Scrapper's hammer does neither.

Scrapper, as repeatedly stated by Anet themselves, is supposed to be a bruiser spec! Which is defined by having some damage, while having a heavy focus on CC and durability. Scrapper is not a support spec like firebrand, scourge, tempest or druid. It is a bruiser, like spellbreaker or daredevil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kodama.6453 said:

@"Shaogin.2679" said:

The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs.

I have to point out once again: Scrapper is
NOT
a support spec by design!!

Scrapper is currently used as a support in environments like WvW, but this is because of other reasons. They are used because their gyros are giving some supportive qualities and engineer in general lacks a third support specialization (we just have inventions + alchemy).

If you are looking into scrapper's design closely, you see that the spec really doesn't provide that much support. In the trait line, the only supportive qualities found are some super speed share. But the very big majority of scrapper traits are absolutely selfish in nature.Even all 3 grandmaster traits are just giving benefits to the scrapper themselves and nothing for allies:
  • more barrier and reduced condition damage taken by the scrapper
  • stuns and dazes grant the scrapper stability and super speed
  • gain quickness based on your might and extra power while you have quickness

Another evidence is that the used support scrapper build has an entirely
dead grandmaster minor trait
. The grandmaster minor is converting 15% of your strike damage into barrier, but this support build doesn't deal any damage at all! It is camping the med kit all day to keep healing and doesn't even invest any stats in power!

Want more? The weapon. Scrapper's hammer has emphasis on damage, CC and
personal defense
. Support elite specs have supportive weapons which are either granting boons to allies or healing them. Scrapper's hammer does neither.

Scrapper, as
repeatedly stated by Anet themselves
, is supposed to be a bruiser spec! Which is defined by having some damage, while having a heavy focus on CC and durability. Scrapper is not a support spec like firebrand, scourge, tempest or druid. It is a bruiser, like spellbreaker or daredevil.

I listed it because it is widely used as a support spec and performs incredibly well in the role. Also, even if you want to deny it as a support spec, there is no point in delving into an off topic rant about it here, since it neither disproves my point nor does it have anything to do with this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shaogin.2679 said:

I listed it because it is widely used as a support spec and performs incredibly well in the role. Also, even if you want to deny it as a support spec, there is no point in delving into an off topic rant about it here, since it neither disproves my point nor does it have anything to do with this thread.

I agree with your general point, it was always weird for me that druid is basically hard locked into a healer support role while other support elite specs have no such restrictions.

One of my major complaints about firebrands in the past has been that they are just too versatile. It feels like they can do basically everything, since their elite spec mechanic just gives them so many different tools.

But I read repeatedly that people claim scrapper to be a support elite spec, which is not true. So it is not supporting your argument here. Scrapper has decent dps builds, because it is supposed to have these as as bruiser spec. Spellbreaker and Daredevil also get to have their viable dps builds in comparison.

So whenever this misconception pops up, I try to fight it. Especially since I wish for engineer to get a proper support elite spec in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kodama.6453 said:

I listed it because it is widely used as a support spec and performs incredibly well in the role. Also, even if you want to deny it as a support spec, there is no point in delving into an off topic rant about it here, since it neither disproves my point nor does it have anything to do with this thread.

I agree with your general point, it was always weird for me that druid is basically hard locked into a healer support role while other support elite specs have no such restrictions.They can run condi pretty well.One of my major complaints about firebrands in the past has been that they are just too versatile. It feels like they can do basically everything, since their elite spec mechanic just gives them so many different tools.Just means that Firebrands don't have a proper tradeoff now doesn't it? Honestly Imbued Haste should have a stat penalty on it. Ditto for Laser's Edge for Holo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:They can run condi pretty well.

As far as I know, ancient seeds is literally the only source of damaging conditions that gets added by druid and it comes with a condition damage penalty for your pet. I think people are running druid in these builds because of their supportive features to self sustain, not because it really adds so much towards a condition damage playstyle.If you really seek to improve your ability to deal damage through conditions, then running soulbeast is better.

Meanwhile other support elite specs are directly improving the condition playstyle for their classes. Firebrand adds alot of burning to guardian. Scourge adds alot of boon corrupt, torment, burning...

So my point is: druid by itself is basically entirely supportive. Meanwhile other support specs have some condition damage mixed in to run as an alternative build.

Just means that Firebrands don't have a proper tradeoff now doesn't it? Honestly Imbued Haste should have a stat penalty on it. Ditto for Laser's Edge for Holo.

Can't say I agree with that conclusion for holosmith. The premise of this discussion was that some specs are allowed to go for several gameplay niches while druid is more restricted. Looking at holosmith, it basically really is just played in one niche: dps. Which is entirely on purpose, considering that holosmith is supposed to be engineers prime dps spec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Berserker would greatly benefit from the following:

F1: Enter Berserk Mode. While in Berserk Mode becomes the Primal Burst of the equipped weapon.F2: Strikes around the Berserker, gains 1 Strike of adrenaline per foe struck (10 total strikes if you hit 5 people), and gains 1 stack of might per foe struck. If you are in Berserk Mode this skill causes you to exit Berserk Mode. Does not cost adrenaline, does not count towards burst related traits, 6s CD. This skill is available while in or out of Berserk Mode.

Berserk Mode can be entered at 0, 10, 20, or 30 adrenaline. Base duration is 12s, with an extra 6s of duration gained per 10 adrenaline spent. Adrenaline spent triggers burst related traits as normal per adrenaline spent, but if entered with 0 adrenaline these traits are not triggered. The base CD of Berserk Mode is unchanged.

I kinda like where you're going with this, but I'd go a tiny step further.Non-berserking and berserk retains three adrenaline bars.F1: Spend all adrenaline. Enter berserk for 6 seconds, plus 6 seconds per adrenaline bar spent. This, at 3 bars, lasts longer than the current one, but at the shortest allows for a quick pop-in, and execution of one burst (two with certain skills and traits).F1 (in berserk): Execute the rage burst. All rage bursts are T1, spend one bar. Otherwise unchanged.F2 (in berserk only): Ends berserk instantly, perform a medium (comparable to GS1-1) strike around you, expend all adrenaline, gain health (my brane farted, wrote in might here originally, always meant health, as it is to be a defensive or resource-saving measure) based on adrenaline spent.F3 (in berserk only): Increases current berserk by 5 seconds, regains ~33 Endurance, spends one bar of adrenaline. 10s cooldown.This would allow the warrior more control over their berserk duration. They could pop in and out based more on their build, and less on the clunky, slow-to-build, locked-in style they have right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Boz.2038 said:

Berserker would greatly benefit from the following:

F1: Enter Berserk Mode. While in Berserk Mode becomes the Primal Burst of the equipped weapon.F2: Strikes around the Berserker, gains 1 Strike of adrenaline per foe struck (10 total strikes if you hit 5 people), and gains 1 stack of might per foe struck. If you are in Berserk Mode this skill causes you to exit Berserk Mode. Does not cost adrenaline, does not count towards burst related traits, 6s CD. This skill is available while in or out of Berserk Mode.

Berserk Mode can be entered at 0, 10, 20, or 30 adrenaline. Base duration is 12s, with an extra 6s of duration gained per 10 adrenaline spent. Adrenaline spent triggers burst related traits as normal per adrenaline spent, but if entered with 0 adrenaline these traits are not triggered. The base CD of Berserk Mode is unchanged.

I kinda like where you're going with this, but I'd go a tiny step further.Non-berserking and berserk retains three adrenaline bars.F1: Spend all adrenaline. Enter berserk for 6 seconds, plus 6 seconds per adrenaline bar spent. This, at 3 bars, lasts longer than the current one, but at the shortest allows for a quick pop-in, and execution of one burst (two with certain skills and traits).F1 (in berserk): Execute the rage burst. All rage bursts are T1, spend one bar. Otherwise unchanged.F2 (in berserk only): Ends berserk instantly, perform a medium (comparable to GS1-1) strike around you, expend all adrenaline, gain might based on adrenaline spent.F3 (in berserk only): Increases current berserk by 5 seconds, regains ~33 Endurance, spends one bar of adrenaline. 10s cooldown.This would allow the warrior more control over their berserk duration. They could pop in and out based more on their build, and less on the clunky, slow-to-build, locked-in style they have right now.

Why not just have berserk mode 15s CD just start when you use berserk mode. That would hopefully save the traits that depend on adrenaline use more faithfully than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dadnir.5038 said:

Berserker would greatly benefit from the following:

F1: Enter Berserk Mode. While in Berserk Mode becomes the Primal Burst of the equipped weapon.F2: Strikes around the Berserker, gains 1 Strike of adrenaline per foe struck (10 total strikes if you hit 5 people), and gains 1 stack of might per foe struck. If you are in Berserk Mode this skill causes you to exit Berserk Mode. Does not cost adrenaline, does not count towards burst related traits, 6s CD. This skill is available while in or out of Berserk Mode.

Berserk Mode can be entered at 0, 10, 20, or 30 adrenaline. Base duration is 12s, with an extra 6s of duration gained per 10 adrenaline spent. Adrenaline spent triggers burst related traits as normal per adrenaline spent, but if entered with 0 adrenaline these traits are not triggered. The base CD of Berserk Mode is unchanged.

I kinda like where you're going with this, but I'd go a tiny step further.Non-berserking and berserk retains three adrenaline bars.F1: Spend all adrenaline. Enter berserk for 6 seconds, plus 6 seconds per adrenaline bar spent. This, at 3 bars, lasts longer than the current one, but at the shortest allows for a quick pop-in, and execution of one burst (two with certain skills and traits).F1 (in berserk): Execute the rage burst. All rage bursts are T1, spend one bar. Otherwise unchanged.F2 (in berserk only): Ends berserk instantly, perform a medium (comparable to GS1-1) strike around you, expend all adrenaline, gain might based on adrenaline spent.F3 (in berserk only): Increases current berserk by 5 seconds, regains ~33 Endurance, spends one bar of adrenaline. 10s cooldown.This would allow the warrior more control over their berserk duration. They could pop in and out based more on their build, and less on the clunky, slow-to-build, locked-in style they have right now.

Why not just have berserk mode 15s CD just start when you use berserk mode. That would hopefully save the traits that depend on adrenaline use more faithfully than anything else.

That would be nice as well to be honest but I don't think the warriors really want a means to exit directly more than anything related to CD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Kodama.6453" said:Looking at holosmith, it basically really is just played in one niche: dps. Which is entirely on purpose, considering that holosmith is supposed to be engineers prime dps spec.

Berserker is Warrior's "prime DPS spec", yet has a stat reduction during Berserk.Holosmith should be handled similarly while being in Photon Forge or while cooling down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fueki.4753 said:

@"Kodama.6453" said:Looking at holosmith, it basically really is just played in one niche: dps. Which is entirely on purpose, considering that holosmith is supposed to be engineers prime dps spec.

Berserker is Warrior's "prime DPS spec", yet has a stat reduction during Berserk.Holosmith should be handled similarly while being in Photon Forge or while cooling down.

I don't think that it necessarily needs to have a stat penalty just because berserker has one.They are building on different classes with different advantages and disadvantages. Berserker, as a warrior elite spec, naturally has more "base defense" than holosmith as an engineer elite spec.

Core warrior already has the stat advantage, since it is the class with the highest health tier and highest armor class in the game. It is the class with the highest inherent defensive stats.Core warrior has the ability to weapon swap, allowing it to take 2 defensive weapons in the offhand. Core engineer doesn't have the ability to weapon swap, this class can just slot in a shield in the offhand as a defensive option.

Both classes can get additional defense by investing utility slots and traits, of course.My point is: I think berserker got this stat penalty to move it more towards the direction of a glass cannon. It inherently already has more defense and this penalty is supposed to remove some of these stat advantages which come naturally by being a warrior.

Berserker then has the opportunity to buy these defenses back in the trait system, but that requires investment that doesn't go towards more damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:I'm just of the opinion that if some especs get negative stats, then they all should.

I don't think this should necessarily be a thing.Berserker (in my opinion) gets the stat penalty, because it is built upon a naturally tanky class (warrior has both the highest health tier and highest armor class in the game), while the elite spec is supposed to function as a glass cannon.

Taking daredevil as an example, which stat penalty would you want to install in this class?Vitality/toughness? Counter-intuitive, since the spec is supposed to be a bruiser playstyle for thief. They are supposed to be more resilient. And thief already is in the lowest vitality tier...Power? Bruisers are supposed to deal some damage, even if not as much as dedicated dps elite specs.And every other stat (healing power/expertise/concentration/precision/ferocity) has a baseline of 0 and therefore the potential to hold no penalty at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Kodama.6453" said:I don't think that it necessarily needs to have a stat penalty just because berserker has one.They are building on different classes with different advantages and disadvantages. Berserker, as a warrior elite spec, naturally has more "base defense" than holosmith as an engineer elite spec.And Holosmith currently outperforms Berserker in every way possible, be it sustain, defense or damage.

Core warrior already has the stat advantage, since it is the class with the highest health tier and highest armor class in the game. It is the class with the highest inherent defensive stats.Yet these no longer mean anything since the power creep that started with HoT.

Core warrior has the ability to weapon swap, allowing it to take 2 defensive weapons in the offhand. Core engineer doesn't have the ability to weapon swap, this class can just slot in a shield in the offhand as a defensive option.Kits effectively are weapon Swaps, Holoforge is effectively a weapon swap+ that also improves utilities and sword.

My point is: I think berserker got this stat penalty to move it more towards the direction of a glass cannon. It inherently already has more defense and this penalty is supposed to remove some of these stat advantages which come naturally by being a warrior.For the over-performance in damage, Holosmith ought to be directed towards glass cannon as well.Yet it gets bonus sustain in addition to said overperforming damage.

Berserker then has the opportunity to buy these defenses back in the trait system, but that requires investment that doesn't go towards more damage.And yet these defense have been neutered or turning into 300s placeholders in PvP, where they mattered most, drastically reducing their usefulness.It ought to be obvious that the Toughness reduction simply isn't justified, especially compared to Holosmith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:I'm just of the opinion that if some especs get negative stats, then they all should.

I'd say it's appropriate when if it fit the flavor and it there is a gain that's worth the loss coming along.

Let's not make it like the berserker don't get 300 condition damage and 300 power at the cost of 300 toughness. ANet want the flavor of the beserker to be one that sacrifice it's defense for high amount of offense and that's understandable.

The same goes for scrapper (albeit it's the trad feel a bit more arguable) who chose to sacrifice vitality for temporary hit points. Technically the scrapper sacrifice 180 vitality (or roughly 1800 hit point) for the opportunity to build up barrier out of power damage.

I mean, those traits who come with stat loss also come with great advantage, they aren't trade-off for advantage that already exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kodama.6453 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:I'm just of the opinion that if some especs get negative stats, then they all should.

I don't think this should necessarily be a thing.Berserker (in my opinion) gets the stat penalty, because it is built upon a naturally tanky class (warrior has both the highest health tier and highest armor class in the game), while the elite spec is supposed to function as a glass cannon.

Taking daredevil as an example, which stat penalty would you want to install in this class?Vitality/toughness? Counter-intuitive, since the spec is supposed to be a bruiser playstyle for thief. They are supposed to be more resilient. And thief already is in the lowest vitality tier...Power? Bruisers are supposed to deal some damage, even if not as much as dedicated dps elite specs.And every other stat (healing power/expertise/concentration/precision/ferocity) has a baseline of 0 and therefore the potential to hold no penalty at all.

Welcome to the crux of my point Kodama. There shouldn't be stat penalties at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:I'm just of the opinion that if some especs get negative stats, then they all should.

I'd say it's appropriate when if it fit the flavor and it there is a gain that's worth the loss coming along.

Let's not make it like the berserker don't get 300 condition damage and 300 power at the cost of 300 toughness. ANet want the flavor of the beserker to be one that sacrifice it's defense for high amount of offense and that's understandable.

The same goes for scrapper (albeit it's the trad feel a bit more arguable) who chose to sacrifice vitality for temporary hit points. Technically the scrapper sacrifice 180 vitality (or roughly 1800 hit point) for the opportunity to build up barrier out of power damage.

I mean, those traits who come with stat loss also come with great advantage, they aren't trade-off for advantage that already exist.

And FB doesn't get 450 stats from imbued haste but no stat lose? Or Soulbeast getting 200-300 stats while merged with no negatives, which would certainly be thematic for the pet archetypes would they not? Not to mention all the stat gain from Beast mastery that Soulbeast can leverage.

There shouldn't be stat penalties on the especs, and certainly not on only a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:And FB doesn't get 450 stats from imbued haste but no stat lose? Or Soulbeast getting 200-300 stats while merged with no negatives, which would certainly be thematic for the pet archetypes would they not? Not to mention all the stat gain from Beast mastery that Soulbeast can leverage.

There shouldn't be stat penalties on the especs, and certainly not on only a few.

FB have no excuse (except maybe being favored by the gods ;) ) but Soulbeast lose the support of it's pet when merged. Beside, for Soulbeast it's part of it's mechanism, not a trait, you could say that it's the equivalent of the 15% increased attack speed of the berserker while in berserk mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FB should have the same armor class as an mages. I am all for making support classes super glass.

I can see classes losing hp but are healed better kind of like scraper but with out dmg to barrier self healing though a class roll of dmg or support is not good balancing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shaogin.2679 said:

@"Trianox.3486" said:People seem stuck with the whole "trade-off" part, but you can also see it as a change in terms of game play.Necro, reaper and scourge are great examples of that. They quite differently from one another.

Bottom line, all those three play very differently. You could play them similarly, more or less, but they have inherent differences. Here is your trade-off, or change.Unfortunately, the term "trade-off" misleads into thinking about balance... while that is a whole different issue.Of course, we could argue about power level, but that's a different story. One might argue Repear shroud or Scourge shades or whatever to be better or worse... but it depends on circumstances... and individual skills and trait lines then, and their synergies with core trait lines...!

The balance discussion isn't about whether those trade-off are sufficiant in terms of change of mechanics. It should be, in my opinion, about the disporportionate strength between "3 core trait lines" VS "1 elite + 2 core trait lines". Is it outof tune completely or not? (Then of course, we have to account that not every single combination of traits is optimal for DPS or survivability. "Everything" more or less work for open world, but not everything is enjoyable or effective, regardless of trait lines, e-specs, and individual traits you took or not.)

The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs.

Also, lets stop pretending things like Guardian virtue changes between the specs are a trade off. That is extremely laughable. DH and FB virtues/tomes are in no way weaker than Guardian virtues, they are simply different.

What would be nice is if Anet was consistent across the board with this. Either all Elite Specs get a legit trade off, or they don't. This business of handing out heavy nerfs to some classes in the name of E-Spec Trade Offs without doing the same for others is really kitten.

I think the problem in the case of druid is that with other supports, you had a choice of speccing for DPS or support. Ranger pets, however, always have the same stats, so you could go full support or survivability with a druid while still having good DPS out of the pet.

With regard to Guardians, for all people point at the virtues, Guardians are still the profession where you see core builds most often, so clearly it does have enough of a tradeoff, even if it's coming more from having to give up on a core traitline than the virtues. Which, IMO, is a better way to do tradeoffs in general - make the core traitlines good enough that they do represent a real tradeoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@draxynnic.3719 said:

@"Trianox.3486" said:People seem stuck with the whole "trade-off" part, but you can also see it as a change in terms of game play.Necro, reaper and scourge are great examples of that. They quite differently from one another.

Bottom line, all those three play very differently. You could play them similarly, more or less, but they have inherent differences. Here is your trade-off, or change.Unfortunately, the term "trade-off" misleads into thinking about balance... while that is a whole different issue.Of course, we could argue about power level, but that's a different story. One might argue Repear shroud or Scourge shades or whatever to be better or worse... but it depends on circumstances... and individual skills and trait lines then, and their synergies with core trait lines...!

The balance discussion isn't about whether those trade-off are sufficiant in terms of change of mechanics. It should be, in my opinion, about the disporportionate strength between "3 core trait lines" VS "1 elite + 2 core trait lines". Is it outof tune completely or not? (Then of course, we have to account that not every single combination of traits is optimal for DPS or survivability. "Everything" more or less work for open world, but not everything is enjoyable or effective, regardless of trait lines, e-specs, and individual traits you took or not.)

The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs.

Also, lets stop pretending things like Guardian virtue changes between the specs are a trade off. That is extremely laughable. DH and FB virtues/tomes are in no way weaker than Guardian virtues, they are simply different.

What would be nice is if Anet was consistent across the board with this. Either all Elite Specs get a legit trade off, or they don't. This business of handing out heavy nerfs to some classes in the name of E-Spec Trade Offs without doing the same for others is really kitten.

I think the problem in the case of druid is that with other supports, you had a choice of speccing for DPS or support. Ranger pets, however, always have the same stats, so you could go full support or survivability with a druid while still having good DPS out of the pet.

With regard to Guardians, for all people point at the virtues, Guardians are still the profession where you see core builds most often, so clearly it
does
have enough of a tradeoff, even if it's coming more from having to give up on a core traitline than the virtues. Which, IMO, is a better way to do tradeoffs in general - make the core traitlines good enough that they
do
represent a real tradeoff.

Frankly people over value the instant cast nature of virtues. I say this and I enjoy my charrdian, particularly as a burn DH in WvW.

Both especs are straight upgrades as far as profession mechanics go, you just see lots of core guards because unlike some classes it has a viable builds still as core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:And FB doesn't get 450 stats from imbued haste but no stat lose? Or Soulbeast getting 200-300 stats while merged with no negatives, which would certainly be thematic for the pet archetypes would they not? Not to mention all the stat gain from Beast mastery that Soulbeast can leverage.

There shouldn't be stat penalties on the especs, and certainly not on only a few.

FB have no excuse (except maybe being favored by the gods ;) ) but Soulbeast lose the support of it's pet when merged. Beside, for Soulbeast it's part of it's mechanism, not a trait, you could say that it's the equivalent of the 15% increased attack speed of the berserker while in berserk mode.

Iirc, this increase in attack speed is non-existent, since it does not stack with quickness, which we gain access to upon entering Berserk. Same for the 3rd Arms GM, Dual Wielding. Therefore no, Soulbeast has an advantage in this comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@draxynnic.3719 said:

@"Trianox.3486" said:People seem stuck with the whole "trade-off" part, but you can also see it as a change in terms of game play.Necro, reaper and scourge are great examples of that. They quite differently from one another.

Bottom line, all those three play very differently. You could play them similarly, more or less, but they have inherent differences. Here is your trade-off, or change.Unfortunately, the term "trade-off" misleads into thinking about balance... while that is a whole different issue.Of course, we could argue about power level, but that's a different story. One might argue Repear shroud or Scourge shades or whatever to be better or worse... but it depends on circumstances... and individual skills and trait lines then, and their synergies with core trait lines...!

The balance discussion isn't about whether those trade-off are sufficiant in terms of change of mechanics. It should be, in my opinion, about the disporportionate strength between "3 core trait lines" VS "1 elite + 2 core trait lines". Is it outof tune completely or not? (Then of course, we have to account that not every single combination of traits is optimal for DPS or survivability. "Everything" more or less work for open world, but not everything is enjoyable or effective, regardless of trait lines, e-specs, and individual traits you took or not.)

The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs.

Also, lets stop pretending things like Guardian virtue changes between the specs are a trade off. That is extremely laughable. DH and FB virtues/tomes are in no way weaker than Guardian virtues, they are simply different.

What would be nice is if Anet was consistent across the board with this. Either all Elite Specs get a legit trade off, or they don't. This business of handing out heavy nerfs to some classes in the name of E-Spec Trade Offs without doing the same for others is really kitten.

I think the problem in the case of druid is that with other supports, you had a choice of speccing for DPS or support. Ranger pets, however, always have the same stats, so you could go full support or survivability with a druid while still having good DPS out of the pet.

With regard to Guardians, for all people point at the virtues, Guardians are still the profession where you see core builds most often, so clearly it
does
have enough of a tradeoff, even if it's coming more from having to give up on a core traitline than the virtues. Which, IMO, is a better way to do tradeoffs in general - make the core traitlines good enough that they
do
represent a real tradeoff.

LMAO. Um, no, people playing Core Guardian doesn't indicate sufficient trade-offs. What it does indicate, is that both DH and FB have been nerfed to hell over and over and over again in PvP due to dominating the meta and player complaints. When it comes to PvE, if you want top heals and support, you take FB, not core. If you want top condi damage, you take FB, not core. You want top power dps, you take Dh, not core. All these Guardian players have 0 idea of what a "trade-off" even means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shaogin.2679 said:

@"Trianox.3486" said:People seem stuck with the whole "trade-off" part, but you can also see it as a change in terms of game play.Necro, reaper and scourge are great examples of that. They quite differently from one another.

Bottom line, all those three play very differently. You could play them similarly, more or less, but they have inherent differences. Here is your trade-off, or change.Unfortunately, the term "trade-off" misleads into thinking about balance... while that is a whole different issue.Of course, we could argue about power level, but that's a different story. One might argue Repear shroud or Scourge shades or whatever to be better or worse... but it depends on circumstances... and individual skills and trait lines then, and their synergies with core trait lines...!

The balance discussion isn't about whether those trade-off are sufficiant in terms of change of mechanics. It should be, in my opinion, about the disporportionate strength between "3 core trait lines" VS "1 elite + 2 core trait lines". Is it outof tune completely or not? (Then of course, we have to account that not every single combination of traits is optimal for DPS or survivability. "Everything" more or less work for open world, but not everything is enjoyable or effective, regardless of trait lines, e-specs, and individual traits you took or not.)

The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs.

Also, lets stop pretending things like Guardian virtue changes between the specs are a trade off. That is extremely laughable. DH and FB virtues/tomes are in no way weaker than Guardian virtues, they are simply different.

What would be nice is if Anet was consistent across the board with this. Either all Elite Specs get a legit trade off, or they don't. This business of handing out heavy nerfs to some classes in the name of E-Spec Trade Offs without doing the same for others is really kitten.

I think the problem in the case of druid is that with other supports, you had a choice of speccing for DPS or support. Ranger pets, however, always have the same stats, so you could go full support or survivability with a druid while still having good DPS out of the pet.

With regard to Guardians, for all people point at the virtues, Guardians are still the profession where you see core builds most often, so clearly it
does
have enough of a tradeoff, even if it's coming more from having to give up on a core traitline than the virtues. Which, IMO, is a better way to do tradeoffs in general - make the core traitlines good enough that they
do
represent a real tradeoff.

LMAO. Um, no, people playing Core Guardian doesn't indicate sufficient trade-offs. What it does indicate, is that both DH and FB have been nerfed to hell over and over and over again in PvP due to dominating the meta and player complaints. When it comes to PvE, if you want top heals and support, you take FB, not core. If you want top condi damage, you take FB, not core. You want top power dps, you take Dh, not core. All these Guardian players have 0 idea of what a "trade-off" even means.

Yes, core guardian is so bad in PvE that

.

But setting that aside, how does viability in competetive gamemodes not indicate appropriate tradeoffs? Tradeoffs are not about having the same power level of profession mechanic, but are about making sure that that the core traitlines are just as viable as elite traitlines. In PvE, it makes sense that the majority of DPS builds will not use core, since very few classes have 3 core DPS traitlines and an elite that focuses on DPS is pretty important. However, for competetive gamemodes you need a mix of damage and support traitlines to be a sustainable, non-glassy build, in which case just making unused core traitlines stronger increases the tradeoff of taking an elite spec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...