Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Elite specialization tradeoffs?


Shroud.2307

Recommended Posts

@ThrakathNar.4537 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.

Not once did I say Core Guard was bad, but way to completely miss the point there.

This here is exactly what I mean when I say Guardians have no clue what an actual trade-off is. In the mind of a Guardian, you think the fact that you can't take all 3 core trait lines plus an elite spec trait line is some huge trade off. Like wow, it must suck so bad that you can't make your amazing elite spec even stronger, but you are completely missing the point here. You see, some classes have to make legit sacrifices just for choosing an elite spec, and this is in addition to what you already consider to be a trade off for your Guardian. To use as an example again, the Druid has heavily nerfed pets just for being a druid. The Soulbeast can only use one pet in combat. Mirages only get a single bar of endurance. Scrappers have nerfed vitality. Reapers lose ranged damage in shroud and their shroud degenerates faster. Scourges lose the ability to remain in shroud. Stuff like this is what I am talking about. These are not simply changing out one skill for another, they are deliberate weaknesses placed on the class to put them more on par with their core counterparts.

And again, the issue isn't necessarily that Guardian has no trade offs. The issue here is that some classes have these trade offs being forced on them, while other classes are not receiving the same treatment. It was some project Anet started on and then just abandoned. I really don't think I can explain it any simpler than that man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Obtena.7952" said:Can someone confirm it was Anet's actual intention to apply trade offs to every single core/espec combo in the game? I recall they were going to do it where they felt it was necessary, but I don't remember if they were going to apply this concept comprehesively.

They kind of talked about it here.https://massivelyop.com/2019/04/19/guild-wars-2-is-heavily-overhauling-some-class-elite-specs-in-next-weeks-balance-patch/

I cant find when the elite spec came out for HoT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jski.6180 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:Can someone confirm it was Anet's actual intention to apply trade offs to every single core/espec combo in the game? I recall they were going to do it where they felt it was necessary, but I don't remember if they were going to apply this concept comprehesively.

They kind of talked about it here.

I cant find when the elite spec came out for HoT.

Thanks. From the article, it seems to me that from what is said by Anet in it ... not every class/espec was intended to get tradeoffs.

“To use the example of necromancer, by choosing an elite specialization, you lose access to your core Death Shroud abilities, but you gain different abilities,” ArenaNet says. “This is a clear trade-off. In the case of elite specializations like druid, herald, chronomancer, berserker, or scrapper, this type of trade-off isn’t possible because the specialization adds a completely new ability. With this update, we’re targeting a few elite specializations to receive trade-offs, and we expect to continue doing this in future updates."

I don't think anyone should assume Anet 'dropped' the idea or didn't finish implementing it; it was never all that clear the scope of the trade off implementation in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Can someone confirm it was Anet's actual intention to apply trade offs to every single core/espec combo in the game? I recall they were going to do it where they felt it was necessary, but I don't remember if they were going to apply this concept comprehesively.

They kind of talked about it here.

I cant find when the elite spec came out for HoT.

Thanks. From the article, it seems to me that from what is said by Anet in it ... not every class/espec was intended to get tradeoffs.

“To use the example of necromancer, by choosing an elite specialization, you lose access to your core Death Shroud abilities, but you gain different abilities,” ArenaNet says. “This is a clear trade-off. In the case of elite specializations like druid, herald, chronomancer, berserker, or scrapper, this type of trade-off isn’t possible because the specialization adds a completely new ability. With this update, we’re targeting a few elite specializations to receive trade-offs, and we expect to continue doing this in future updates."

I don't think anyone should assume Anet 'dropped' the idea or didn't finish implementing it; it was never all that clear the scope of the trade off implementation in the first place.

I think they where saying some elite spec have trade off build into like the DS compile changes where other classes dont like scraper in that update they did make a changes to scraper to lose something from its core class but got something for its own effect. So anet wants there to be a trade off now if we think its enofe of one that up in the air. We have other classes that do not lose any thing from there core class atm and there room to add in more effects to the elite spec to make them more so meaningfully different. What this shows is anet is willing to do both a + and a - at the same time. Add to an elite spec and take something away from that elite spec to make up for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Shaogin.2679" said:Not once did I say Core Guard was bad, but way to completely miss the point there.

True, your exact words were "You want top power dps, you take Dh, not core" which is not true, given the useage of core for record runs.

This here is exactly what I mean when I say Guardians have no clue what an actual trade-off is. In the mind of a Guardian, you think the fact that you can't take all 3 core trait lines plus an elite spec trait line is some huge trade off.

You're slightly missing the point here. The fact that 3 core traitlines can give a better DPS build than 2 core + 1 elite traitline indicates that the elite spec is of a comparable power level to the core elite spec across all its aspects. That includes the profession mechanic. Taking the elite spec in this case is a huge tradeoff, because you have to sacrifice the > 30% potential DPS buff from virtues for DPS from your traps and Spear of Justice. Losing one aspect and gaining another in return is pretty much the dictionary definition of a tradeoff.

You see, some classes have to make legit sacrifices just for choosing an elite spec, and this is in addition to what you already consider to be a trade off for your Guardian. To use as an example again, the Druid has heavily nerfed pets just for being a druid. The Soulbeast can only use one pet in combat. Mirages only get a single bar of endurance. Scrappers have nerfed vitality. Reapers lose ranged damage in shroud and their shroud degenerates faster. Scourges lose the ability to remain in shroud. Stuff like this is what I am talking about. These are not simply changing out one skill for another, they are deliberate weaknesses placed on the class to put them more on par with their core counterparts.

Even setting aside the whole traitline comparison thing, guardian has this sort of tradeoff as well. Core guard virtues are instant cast, whereas dragonhunter and firebrand virtues both have cast times, as well as significantly increased cooldowns on some of the virtues. While they can arguably do more, that happens on a longer cooldown, and in the case of firebrand, using your f2 and f3 tomes on a DPS build will completely mess up your rotation. Soulbeast's "trade-off" doesn't even matter in PvE, because there's no reason not just to stay merged with the highest DPS pet. Reaper's loss of ranged damage and shorter time in shroud is a good trade-off, but it isn't just a sacrifice, since they gain stronger power coefficients on average from it. Scrapper's nerfed vitality comes with the ability to have permanent barrier for half of your health. Those aspects in isolation may look like deliberate weaknesses, but in the wider context of the elite specs, they don't make them less powerful.

The issue here is that some classes have these trade offs being forced on them, while other classes are not receiving the same treatment. It was some project Anet started on and then just abandoned. I really don't think I can explain it any simpler than that man.

That I agree on. Anet's vision for how to balance elite specs with core has changed drastically since they were first introduced with HoT, and a lot of their balance changes have only made it worse, nerfing core utilities and traits when in actual fact it was aspects of the elite specs that made them powerful, but hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lan Deathrider.5910 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.

...yes, that's the point. They still have viable builds as core - because core can compete with the elite specs. Whatever you might say about the core virtues, losing core traitline #3 is itself a significant tradeoff, unlike other professions.

@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.

Core guardian gets used in all mode, so it isn't just a matter of nerfing in PvP.

FB has better heals and support than core? Well, duh. This is just like druid, chronomancer, tempest, and scourge being clearly better at support than the core professions. Funnily enough, making a support-oriented elite spec means that that spec is going to be better at support than core, but it doesn't say anything about how well balanced core is compared to the elite spec. Similarly, firebrand being better at condition damage is to be expected due to how little of core guardian is actually intended to be condi-oriented, including the complete lack of an actual condition weapon. That condi guard exists in core at all is testament to the strength of the core traits... and giving up a third core traitline in exchange for an elite specialisation is a real penalty.

And that's the real distinction. I play all professions, and for most of them, for any given build there's usually two core traitlines that you really care about and one that's mostly filler, and easily replaced by an elite specialisation. For guardian, all of the core traitlines are good.

When it comes to power dragonhunter... well, first, there IS a power core build on Snowcrows, and they don't have "if you only have core available" pity builds. How many other professions have a DPS build at all for high-end PvE that just use core? I'll give you a hint - the only other core build on Snowcrows is boon thief. And boon daredevil does more DPS.

What you're bringing up as "evidence" that guardian elite specs don't have enough tradeoffs could be applied to claim that EVERY profession doesn't have enough tradeoffs. If anything, guardian is in the best position in this way, because there are core guardian specs that get used in every mode. No other profession can claim that.

ArenaNet's placement of more explicit tradeoffs on other professions has largely come about because they don't have the quality core traitlines that guardian has, so that giving up their least-valuable core traitline wasn't a big tradeoff. Now, if the core traitlines were better, there'd probably be less need for a tradeoff - but considering that most of these tradeoffs were introduced because an elite specialisation was overperforming, ArenaNet was more interested in slapping on a direct nerf rather than buffing core and possibly making the problematic builds even stronger. Which is essentially what they did with firebrand as well - but instead of increasing the tradeoff, they just nerfed firebrand directly over and over again until it was no longer competitive in sPvP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good, because right now, your argument is basically an attempt to paper over your lack of a real argument through an implied ad hominem.

There is no balance problem that would be resolved through applying (further) nerfs to firebrand or dragonhunter. Core guardian maintains more use than the core of any other profession, and the areas in which firebrand is dominant are when what people want is something that can pump out a tonne of quickness and/or stability: in other words, the specialisation acting as intended. Yes, this makes it a strong contender for instanced PvE and zerg WvW support, but that's because those boons are highly valued there. The appropriate response if firebrand is too dominant is to introduce new specialisations on other professions that can do the job.

Pretty much every argument I've seen for slapping tradeoffs on guardian elite specs basically seems to boil down to "My favourite elite specialisation got hit with a heavy-handed tradeoff, now it's your turn!" But in those cases, ArenaNet didn't drop those tradeoffs just for the sake of having a tradeoff. Mirage in PvP was because Mirages were too hard to land damage on (apparently - I didn't find them that oppressive to fight, but that was the justification). Soulbeast because being able to have both a damage pet and a mobility pet made them just too versatile. Druid because having a pet whose stats didn't depend on the Druid's own meant they could build themselves to be virtually unkillable while relying on a pet to deal damage (that I did run into a few times). Scrappers were basically bunkering gods for a short period in between their reworks. Now, in a lot of those cases I think they were kneejerk reactions when there were probably more elegant ways to solve the problem, but if you ask me the appropriate thing to do is to go back to those professions and find a better long-term solution rather than kicking something that isn't broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fueki.4753 said:And Holosmith currently outperforms Berserker in every way possible, be it sustain, defense or damage.

Yes and this is a sign that berserker probably is deserving of a buff. Doesn't have to necessarily be the removal of the toughness penalty, tho.

Yet these no longer mean anything since the power creep that started with HoT.

This whole discussion here resolved around the fact that berserker has a toughness penalty installed while in berserk mode.So what is it now, does armor matter or not? If having additional armor doesn't matter, then this entire discussion is meaningless and berserker can keep their toughness penalty, since it doesn't change anything anyway.

Kits effectively are weapon Swaps, Holoforge is effectively a weapon swap+ that also improves utilities and sword.

Completely missing the point I made. My point was that the weapon swap allows warrior to slot in a second defensive weapon in the offhand, which engineer can't. Engineer can get more defense by dedicating utility slots to it, but warrior can do the same with their defensive utilities.Also the only really defensive kit on engineer right now is tool kit, since it has a block. And no one is using it, since it sucks right now.Photonforge doesn't add any more defense to the holosmith as long as you are not investing into it through traits, which once again, berserker can do the same.

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.

Who says holosmith is overperforming in damage? It isn't top damage dealer in the game in any environment as far as I know.

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.

I thought toughness doesn't matter? So how can it not be justified if it's meaningless?I agree that the placeholder traits need work, tho. Unfortunate that balancing is on halt right now since they are working on EoD....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Kodama.6453" said:Yes and this is a sign that berserker probably is deserving of a buff. Doesn't have to necessarily be the removal of the toughness penalty, tho.

Like what others above already said. Berserker have like 2 trade offs. First is the Core F1 Burst which affects a majority of the core warrior traitlines - Because it was build that way. Second is the addition of the toughness penalty (300 is a big reduction which I believe puts warrior's rating more or less equal to that of the light armored ones). If we gotta choose only ONE trade off, the toughness reduction is uncalled for. (also, wonder who QQ'ed alot back then resulting in the state of warrior? "We do not know when he will berserk or use Core F1, its unfair!! yada-yada-yada")

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Toughness

This whole discussion here resolved around the fact that berserker has a toughness penalty installed while in berserk mode.So what is it now, does armor matter or not? If having additional armor doesn't matter, then this entire discussion is meaningless and berserker can keep their toughness penalty, since it doesn't change anything anyway.

But it does. PvE wise,1) If you go on like raids and fractal groups then sure it doesn't matter that much since you'll get protection and heals.2) Solo PvE on open world would cause everything that hit you feel like your getting hit by a truck unless you kill them fast - sure I can equip the Trait that adds back the 300 toughness loss but it removes the 10% you get from Blood Roar (heck I can even use defense trait line if needed or MMR on STR line to compensate) - so yes, it still changes something.3) PvP and WvW wise, your a walking glass cannon in the literal sense (unless you trait for that +300 toughness GM trait) much like how you would use a light armored full zerker build character on those fights without the fancy teleports, stealths, etc. etc.

Completely missing the point I made. My point was that the weapon swap allows warrior to slot in a second defensive weapon in the offhand, which engineer can't. Engineer can get more defense by dedicating utility slots to it, but warrior can do the same with their defensive utilities.Also the only really defensive kit on engineer right now is tool kit, since it has a block. And no one is using it, since it sucks right now.Photonforge doesn't add any more defense to the holosmith as long as you are not investing into it through traits, which once again, berserker can do the same.

The down side of this is that you kinda forgot engineer in general has access to a lot more defensive boons that warriors do. Also heal blasting does a lot more than warrior's heals (passive or active) considering it was nerfed so much in the previous balance patches years ago. And yes, you have a passive healing via heat therapy which you don't even need to slot in). Heal Turret drop -> Blast, F1 utility waterfield + 1 blast, Heat therapy, elixir gun's #5 VS Mending/To The LImit / Signet of Healing + Adrenal Health (if u can stack it up via burst skills - means you gotta hit them first) + MMR (if strength line but still gotta hit and crit cause u gotta have that GS trait line to gain might)

Sure warrior can equip a shield with 1 block skill every 25 seconds for 3 seconds - Sword 5, Mace 2 (oh wait, its over 1 weapons wap now), and that's about it. Our utility is basically stance or bulls charge or something which are majority offensive oriented. (Stances was a thing back then but hey, it got nerfed so yay?!).

If you are gonna argue about how warriors can travel miles without issue then how about holo's Rifle 5 + rocket boots + super speed on holo leap 2 which is basically every few seconds?

The point is, the argument of warriors weapon swap being greater than engineer's tool belt is simply false at this point.

Who says holosmith is overperforming in damage? It isn't top damage dealer in the game in any environment as far as I know.

True that on meta comps and/or group comps Holo ain't the VERY HIGHEST but between warrior and holo's DPS, holo win by a mile (unless you haven't seen those holo that does insane damage?) Pre cooking Heat to 75% for an insane burst.

Add also the fact that holo has this nifty trick that a lot of holo players use to compensate lack of skills that Anet tried to fix but was easily bypassed a few minutes after said patch. Most holo players knows this. Heck even non holo players knows this and its kinda irritating to say the least. Obviously I wont say what it is.

I thought toughness doesn't matter? So how can it not be justified if it's meaningless?I agree that the placeholder traits need work, tho. Unfortunate that balancing is on halt right now since they are working on EoD....

Because between having access to a lot of boons (quite easily I might add - elixir and alchemy), having access to a lot more ways to sustain and be defensive while being able to inflict a lot of damage, melee and/or range wise, access to barriers easily VS a class who needs to literally go near a target, hit them to even trigger some of the sustain it should be having, prone to range attacks unless can LOS, has the defensive stance nerfed, passive healing nerfed. Getting 300 toughness reduction matters quite a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the spe that has 0 compromise is FireBrand.

He gains just 18 different skills with F123 that he can use with skills 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.Your virtues are always there and proc.When he gets in and out of these books (F123) he activates the passive and buff.It allows to vomit stab and aegis which allows not to do 90% of the mechanics in all PVE.It makes burst better than most DPS power while providing support for dps, heal, stab, dispell and projectile blocking zone.

It is meta in all game modes since the release of POF, strangely enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you need to stop comparing professions. A Vitality penalty for example would be a lot more significant if placed on Guardian, Thief, or Elemenalist. Trade-offs will differ between each profession and spec but should have similar degrees of significance. Losing access to Toolbelt F5 (Holosmith) isn't the same significance as losing an Endurance bar (Mirage), and losing access to a core Trait line isn't a trade-off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shroud.2307 said:Some of you need to stop comparing professions. A Vitality penalty for example would be a lot more significant if placed on Guardian, Thief, or Elemenalist. Trade-offs will differ between each profession and spec but should have similar degrees of significance. Losing access to Toolbelt F5 (Holosmith) isn't the same significance as losing an Endurance bar (Mirage), and losing access to a core Trait line isn't a trade-off.

Ok, but what is the end goal of tradeoffs? Ultimately, why do we need them?If the goal with tradeoffs is that the core profession is not invalidated by the elite specs, then why is considering the traitlines not relevant? An indisputable fact is that guardian has meta builds in at least two gamemodes (PvE and PvP). Doesn't that show that there is an implicit tradeoff within the traitlines to mean that core guard is not invalidated? Surely there's something more to tradeoffs than just nerfing profession mechanics?

Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ThrakathNar.4537 said:Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

The right thing to do would be buffing core trait lines, so that losing the third core line becomes a significant trade off.And then they can start to remove the current trade-offs they gave to Berserker, Scrapper etc.

But I can't see Arenanet do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fueki.4753 said:

@ThrakathNar.4537 said:Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

The right thing to do would be buffing core trait lines, so that losing the third core line
becomes
a significant trade off.And then they can start to remove the current trade-offs they gave to Berserker, Scrapper etc.

But I can't see Arenanet do that.

It's not that easy, tho.

Some classes naturally have a trade off built into the elite spec mchanically. Like how the reaper's shroud is replacing the death shroud, holosmith replaces the elite toolbelt skill with photonforge, dragonhunter replaces his virtues with new ones, etc.

If you really want to make the opportunity cost (not being able to pick a third core trait line) the trade off and remove the other installed trade offs, then you would have to rework this stuff too, to make it fair. Like giving reaper the reaper's shroud as a F2 skill and let them keep the core shroud on F1, holosmith gets the photonforge on F6 and keeps their elite toolbelt, dragonhunter virtues become F4-F6 skills instead, and so on. Which will all come with their own package of balancing problems.

This is the actual problem here. Some elite specs got designed with their own inherent trade off from the very beginning, while others were designed as flat out upgrades to core (druid, soulbeast, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shroud.2307 said:What are the tradeoffs for each specialization? Here are the ones I know;

  • Scrapper: Reduced maximum health, no access to elite F5

  • Holosmith: No access to elite F5

  • Reaper: Increased Shroud degeneration

  • Scourge: Some traits (Path of Corruption, Dhuumfire) work differently, much higher recharge on Shroud.

  • Daredevil: Reduced range on Steal

  • Deadeye: ??? Stolen skills changed ???

  • Herald: ???

  • Renegade: ???

  • Druid: Reduced pet damage

  • Soulbeast: Only one pet can be used at a time

  • Berserker: Reduced armor

  • Spellbreaker: All Bursts count as 2 bars of Adrenaline

  • Dragonhunter: ???

  • Firebrand: ???

  • Mirage: Endurance bar reduced to 1

  • Chronomancer: ??? Shatters changed ???

  • Tempest: ???

  • Weaver: ???

Tradeoff = a balance achieved between two desirable but incompatible features; a compromise."a trade-off between objectivity and relevance"

Which of these elite specs do not have this?

I would say a good tradeoff shouldn't affect attributes, just skills.

For example, daredevil and mirage replace the dodge ability with a new variant. Chronomancer gets new shatters (even if they're too similar to the originals). Reaper gains an alternate shroud. Dragonhunter and firebrand get virtue variants. This is the way to go.

Sadly, core professions weren't built with either tradeoffs or elite specializations in mind, so problems arise pretty easily. They've gone back and given new skills to some of the core professions, like the revenant's Ancient Echo, but that solution won't work for everyone. Ranger, engineer, and elementalist are in the worst positions, mostly due to the lack of space on their mechanic bar.

Some elite specialization mechanics are pretty poor too. For example, spellbreaker's Full Counter should work like a "block burst" skill, and change depending on the off-hand weapon you're wielding. Tradeoffs for the sake of tradeoffs (like randomly removing things without actually replacing them, like berserker's primal bursts) are no good either.

@ThrakathNar.4537 said:

@Shroud.2307 said:Some of you need to stop comparing professions. A Vitality penalty for example would be a lot more significant if placed on Guardian, Thief, or Elemenalist. Trade-offs will differ between each profession and spec but should have similar degrees of significance. Losing access to Toolbelt F5
(Holosmith)
isn't the same significance as losing an Endurance bar
(Mirage),
and losing access to a core Trait line isn't a trade-off.

Ok, but what is the end goal of tradeoffs? Ultimately, why do we need them?If the goal with tradeoffs is that the core profession is not invalidated by the elite specs, then why is considering the traitlines not relevant? An indisputable fact is that guardian has meta builds in at least two gamemodes (PvE and PvP). Doesn't that show that there is an implicit tradeoff within the traitlines to mean that core guard is not invalidated? Surely there's something more to tradeoffs than just nerfing profession mechanics?

Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

Not him, but personally, I think tradeoffs are a mistake.

First of all, professions and elite specializations weren't built with those tradeoffs in mind. Some are easy to apply (just replace a mechanic skill) but others don't have anywhere to go without ruining the core experience.

I think elite specializations should have remained superior to core professions. Feel free to reinforce the playstyle of said core professions by releasing elite specializations that improve the core mechanics instead of adding new mechanics, and there you go. For example, reaper can be considered necromancer 2.0, so to speak, while scourge is a whole new thing.

That doesn't mean the idea of tradeoffs is bad, it's just that they won't work for GW2 without a heavy redesign of the core professions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kodama.6453 said:

@"ThrakathNar.4537" said:Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

The right thing to do would be buffing core trait lines, so that losing the third core line
becomes
a significant trade off.And then they can start to remove the current trade-offs they gave to Berserker, Scrapper etc.

But I can't see Arenanet do that.

It's not that easy, tho.

Some classes naturally have a trade off built into the elite spec mchanically. Like how the reaper's shroud is replacing the death shroud, holosmith replaces the elite toolbelt skill with photonforge, dragonhunter replaces his virtues with new ones, etc.

If you really want to make the opportunity cost (not being able to pick a third core trait line) the trade off and remove the other installed trade offs, then you would have to rework this stuff too, to make it fair. Like giving reaper the reaper's shroud as a F2 skill and let them keep the core shroud on F1, holosmith gets the photonforge on F6 and keeps their elite toolbelt, dragonhunter virtues become F4-F6 skills instead, and so on. Which will all come with their own package of balancing problems.

This is the actual problem here. Some elite specs got designed with their own inherent trade off from the very beginning, while others were designed as flat out upgrades to core (druid, soulbeast, etc.).

I kinda agree and disagree.

I think a large part of how we've come to where we are is that ArenaNet has largely been pulling balance levers to address immediate problems rather than actually having a holistic strategy to boost up the cores. Where the big "tradeoff" nerfs have come have generally been where a particular elite specialisation was overperforming, but where the overperforming builds are still largely using core skills rather than skills from the elite specialisation. This sort of situation generally means that buffing core will just make the elite stronger, nerfing it will naturally make core weaker as well, and the only thing that's really left to attack is the profession mechanics, either nerfing them directly or introducing a tradeoff (which is essentially just nerfing the elite specialisation mechanics indirectly).

Which might well be another part of why guardian balancing has followed a different trajectory. Problem DH and FB builds usually have leaned heavily on skills from those elite specialisations. So when they overperform, ArenaNet can usually attack the overperforming elements directly, whether they're utility skills or virtues, without core guardian being caught in the crossfire. Which, when combined with the general quality of guardian core traitlines, means that there is a point at which the elite specialisation's skills and virtues can be nerfed to the point where core starts to look better, without requiring a stronger explicit tradeoff than the trade of core virtues for elite ones.

Which, itself, comes in part because the guardian elite specialisation mechanics do completely replace the base virtues, so they can be nerfed directly, and the virtues represent a not-inconsiderable part of their power budget. Necromancer is in a similar position - reaper and scourge completely replace the base necromancer mechanic, so if either is overperforming, they can be nerfed directly. They've always had that tradeoff baked in. Ranger elites, by contrast, always have their pets. Druid now makes their pets weaker, and soulbeast makes it so they have only one, but the pet is still present. Even now, instead of completely replacing the core mechanic, the tradeoffs are only weakening the core mechanic in exchange for getting something else on top.

Even so, though, they could probably afford to make the tradeoffs a little less harsh if they improved the core traitlines and rebalanced so that the thrid core traitline was a genuine tradeoff for all professions. For some, they're either there or close to it. For others, there's usually only two traitlines that really add to most builds, and without tradeoffs the third might as well be an elite specialisation because why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

@ThrakathNar.4537 said:

@Shroud.2307 said:Some of you need to stop comparing professions. A Vitality penalty for example would be a lot more significant if placed on Guardian, Thief, or Elemenalist. Trade-offs will differ between each profession and spec but should have similar degrees of significance. Losing access to Toolbelt F5
(Holosmith)
isn't the same significance as losing an Endurance bar
(Mirage),
and losing access to a core Trait line isn't a trade-off.

Ok, but what is the end goal of tradeoffs? Ultimately, why do we need them?If the goal with tradeoffs is that the core profession is not invalidated by the elite specs, then why is considering the traitlines not relevant? An indisputable fact is that guardian has meta builds in at least two gamemodes (PvE and PvP). Doesn't that show that there is an implicit tradeoff within the traitlines to mean that core guard is not invalidated? Surely there's something more to tradeoffs than just nerfing profession mechanics?

Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

Regarding Guardian, there could be multiple perspectives with regards to trade-offs:

  • What you're saying that the presence of the core build in certain meta formations means the trade-offs are basically what you decide to fill your shopping cart with (i.e. which lines you loadout with). This was probably the utopia the game was built on to be reflected across the whole of the game.
  • The loudouts that Guardian are blessed with are just that niche or easy enough to play that even a noob can capitalize on it in most game modes, overshadowing any trade-offs that could be perceived (i.e. it's trade-offs may exist but they are small)
  • The core traits that are also used to build upon the elite spec traits are quite strong (maybe even too strong) which then can be seen as the elite specs are more like gameplay specializations that force the player down a niche, making them more like funnels instead of improvements over core.

There are others, I'm more or less highlighting how some could view the profession when skewed from various perspectives. Me personally, I think the overall mechanics of Guardian are a bit simplified. As an unseasoned player, even I can understand its inherent balance of offense and defense but the extra layer of passive and active on top of that that is further enhanced by traits is kind of hilarious. If I were to instill a trade-off, I'd probably just make the virtues in e-specs no longer give any passive effect except if specifically traited. That might seem like funneling you down the Virtues line for all especs but those other lines are pretty useful and I doubt a seasoned player really cares about those passive buffs. In turn, I'd also lower the cooldown on the e-spec Virtues a tad. And a bit more dramatic, I'd also look into shifting some of the traited bonus effects for virtues into the passive effects, making the overall bonuses more mild.

That all being said, I am no seasoned player. These are just my basic observations with limited experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fueki.4753 said:

@ThrakathNar.4537 said:Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

The right thing to do would be buffing core trait lines, so that losing the third core line
becomes
a significant trade off.And then they can start to remove the current trade-offs they gave to Berserker, Scrapper etc.

But I can't see Arenanet do that.

I think that's likely more significantly difficult than you'd think since those core trait lines are also usable by the elite specs. That and it would be a whole lot more power creep. If people thought the initial HoT e-spec intro was power creep, multiple that x5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, daredevil and mirage replace the dodge ability with a new variant. Chronomancer gets new shatters (even if they're too similar to the originals). Reaper gains an alternate shroud. Dragonhunter and firebrand get virtue variants. This is the way to go.

Slightly pitching in that yes, the Chronomancers got a new shatter with Continuum Split, but the other 3 still remain the same as the original. Which in my opinion is lazy on their part for giving everyone else something new and yet the only thing they did for us was change the icons for F1-3 and called it “a new shatter, which it isn’t....so that was a missed opportunity to give those three F skills something time/chronomancer based, but again we get stuck with stupid basic unoriginal shatters.

Here’s hoping they do away with shatters in EoD and change it into something more unique. They should have never tied so many traits to shatters because now that makes it difficult to balance out....and this is why they should’ve kept HEXES (in GW2 they’re essentially a reverse barrier...) from the original and just have shatters & clones be in an elite spec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some are not trade offs, but functional changes to a class that has it's own trade off.

Holosmith for example kind of looks like a straight up buff to Engineer, but features the overheating mechanic.

Scourges don't "lose" death shroud, but instead it changes into the sand shades.

I'm hoping something like this happens with Mesmers in EoD. We're almost a decade in and Mesmers are still stuck with relying on fragile AI/shattering mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Leo G.4501" said:I think that's likely more significantly difficult than you'd think since those core trait lines are also usable by the elite specs. That and it would be a whole lot more power creep. If people thought the initial HoT e-spec intro was power creep, multiple that x5.

I don't think it'd be all that much power creep if Warrior's Defence trait line suddenly becomes something that is worth giving up Berserker or Spellbreaker.It could even be some niche traits like "You receive 30% less condition damage while staying in an enemy AoE."Such a trait would make Defence a bit more viable for PvP again after Arenanet practically gutted it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fueki.4753 said:

@"Leo G.4501" said:I think that's likely more significantly difficult than you'd think since those core trait lines are also usable by the elite specs. That and it would be a whole lot more power creep. If people thought the initial HoT e-spec intro was power creep, multiple that x5.

I don't think it'd be all that much power creep if Warrior's Defence trait line suddenly becomes something that is worth giving up Berserker or Spellbreaker.It could even be some niche traits like "You receive 30% less condition damage while staying in an enemy AoE."Such a trait would make Defence a bit more viable for PvP again after Arenanet practically gutted it.

You're only presenting one trait in one traitline on one profession. I never said buffs can't happen, just that it would create a lot of more powerful combinations over what is currently available. On top of that, you're advocating adding to the core so you can give even more (by removing trade-offs) from the e-specs. Just using basic math, that will create a greater sum of power from every angle.

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...