Helgaley.3619

Had to check the wiki, but this is correct - thanks for pointing that out. Either way, I think there are some small interactions between story dialogue+ profession, so I think the issue would remain. I know NPCs will make small comments about the commander's profession in some of the more recent story content like IBS and EoD, so it seems like they wouldn't be able to give us the ability to change race or profession without also making changes to these other elements.

I would love the ability to buy race change tokens like you can do in other games. Unfortunately for both of us, I don't think either option is possible. During character creation, some of the customization options you select during the process (like racial backstory and favored element for Elementalist) are actually tied to story paths during the main story arc. Since those options are tied to the story itself and determine which NPCs you interact with, which cutscenes you see, where you go during the story, and what you see in your story journal, I don't think it would be possible to race or profession swap.

It seems like they are aware of that, and it's probably why we're seeing really smooth boon support builds like quickness firebrand versus really clunky builds like quickness catalyst. They're tying role defining boons and even DPS/HPS abilities to specialization mechanics and weapons in such a way that every class can fill a certain role and reach a certain max DPS range while still feeling unique, but they aren't really considering whether it feels good or fun to play. Another example would be chronomancer and how quickness is tied to clones and shatters. It provides the buff in a way that is unique to that class, but it's another profession with a high learning curve and a complex rotation that most players aren't going to enjoy. Power catalyst is also capable of some really high DPS with hammer, another play style unique to catalyst alone, but it's frantic, complex, and again, not something many players enjoy. The professions already have unique enough playstyles that I think Anet could safely design them to fulfill the same roles without them feeling homogeneous. Just using catalyst as an example, they could have kept the sphere just to have an AoE field, but they could have easily added a trait that would expand the benefits of augment skills to the entire group + provide quickness. The mechanism for providing quickness would be similar to quickness firebrand in that they both have an on demand utility skill that can react to movement, but other than that, the way catalyst plays is still fundamentally different and unique from firebrand, so I don't think it would feel homogeneous. In thinking about it, I don't know that I would worry so much about professions in GW2 feeling homogeneous the same way they do in other MMOs. Anet could give every profession a trait to provide quickness via shouts for the sake of convenience and playability, but as far as playstyles goes, a tempest with a scepter and focus would still feel very different from a firebrand with a scepter and focus.

100% this, & this is really what I was trying to get at. Even though most professions are able to fill the same roles, so many of them are just not even remotely fun to play. The sheer number of variables that quickness cata has to keep track of just to provide the quickness buff alone is enough to make it not fun, but the fact that, even if performed optimally, it will never be able to provide the same level of DPS and utility as some other quickness builds, is a joke.

I said they need to start incorporating the feedback, not that the feedback wasn't available. The initial post is broad because it is about Anet's broad approach to balance, but there are also numerous specific examples in several comments from myself and others. I'm always happy for discussion, but taking the initial post + my examples from the comment you replied to, saying it's all "extremely vague," and claiming I need to be, "(way) more descriptive than just talking points," is literally the definition of a straw man argument, and that is not worth anybody's time.

Yeah I get you. Ele is my main, but every time I try cata, I just feel so disappointed that it's the last espec we're going to get. It's SO clunky and disjointed. I feel like quickness should go to tempest with a trait to provide it via shouts, and alacrity should go to cata since it would synergize with the orb. That would be too much fun, though, and we can't have that...

Stone Heart is still being taken because there are literally zero alternatives for a meaningful boost to survivability. Also, even though Anet specifically said it was a problem in PVP, they nerfed it in all game modes.

I probably should have worded my initial post differently, because I do agree that differences should exist, and complexity should be rewarded with something, so I think a more reasonable goal would be for more accessible builds for each profession. Just using the player statistics on gw2efficiency, we can see the more popular professions include guardian, necro, & ranger. Other than untamed, I would guess these professions are popular because they have a wide variety of builds with low skill floors that can perform relatively well in all game modes. On the other hand, you have professions like elementalist, thief, and warrior that, even though they might be popular in pvp, wvw, and open world, they aren't really represented in group pve content. They don't have nearly as much variety when it comes to builds, thief & ele have no room for mistakes because 1) their performance will suffer & 2) they can easily get 1 shot. I also don't think any of them can bring much utility without having to make fairly substantial sacrifices that other professions just do not have to make to fill the same role. It should be possible for Anet to address all these issues, but they are going to have to start incorporating more qualitative feedback from the player base to do that. I feel like these two points belong together, & I agree with both of them. If complexity is not rewarded, then it's just a barrier that players have no incentive to overcome. This is reflected in how underrepresented complex professions are in PvE group content - all of the elementalist specs, untamed, thief, etc. Just compare quickness catalyst to quickness CFB: catalyst has to build energy just to provide quickness, but the only weapon it has access to that can efficiently build energy is the hammer, which itself is clunky, more frantic than weaver, and really not that flexible. Once you have built energy to put the sphere down, it goes on a 15 second CD, you have to build energy again, and if the group has to move out of range from the sphere, you did all that work for nothing. You also have to deal with how fragile ele is in general, so you can't make mistakes, but you also can't adjust the build to increase your personal survivability without sacrificing dps or boon uptime. On the other hand, QCFB can provide quickness on demand at the push of a button without the need to build energy, it can easily respond to movement, it can vomit aegis & stability like it's nothing, it doesn't have to rely on one particular weapon that has a piano-like rotation to provide those boons, it can change weapons during combat to react to different situations, it has a much wider variety of utility skills and trait options it can swap out as needed, and it has far more survivability than ele. The disparity between the skill floors of just those two builds is so vast that it the average player is almost punished for even choosing catalyst because unless you are able to play it at a very high level, you are going to be a burden to your group. On top of that, even if you do master it, QCFB can still out damage you by several thousand DPS. It just does not make sense to have that kind of design philosophy - it's absurd, illogical, and arguably lazy. It also really doesn't matter what Anet says in their announcements and posts about balance when their actions demonstrate they are still largely making decisions based on what 1% of players are capable of achieving on a DPS golem under perfect conditions.

I made a few comments about this in a recent Reddit post, but I wanted to post them here in a consolidated format: I feel like Anet is approaching balance with the intent of making all of the professions/specializations "equal" in terms of the roles they can fill & the maximum DPS/HPS they can achieve IF played optimally, but they really need to put more focus on balancing the professions to be equitable in terms of accessibility, skill requirements, and the ease of achieving optimal performance. They rarely seem to do more than make small adjustments to the numbers that might make the classes closer in terms of what they are capable of achieving, but it's always at the cost of raising or lowering the skill floor without addressing the massive disparity that exists between the skill floors of all 9 professions. It also really sucks the fun out the game when the profession you want to play gradually gets harder and more complex than others without there being any reward or payoff for the complexity. It doesn't really matter if two professions are capable of providing the same boons and same DPS output when one of those professions requires a two page long rotation while the other has all the complexity and excitement of just standing there. The quickbrand change is just another example of them tweaking the numbers and calling it a day instead of addressing the underlying factors contributing to the disparities with other professions. If they could give all professions similar levels of accessibility as mech and FB while still keeping them relatively close in terms of max DPS/HPS, then I think that would make a lot of players happy - myself included. As it is right now, you have builds like condi weaver, probably one of the most challenging builds in the game, performing only marginally better than relatively simple builds, like condi virtuoso. Anet might like that their max numbers are similar, but in reality, your average player is going to be horrible at condi weaver and will almost ALWAYS perform worse than an average condi virtuoso. If Arena Net really wants to increase build diversity, they need to stop tweaking the numbers and work on making builds accessible and fun. If a few outlier builds exist that perform better at the expense of having a complex rotation, then let them exist - they are always going to be there. It doesn't really matter if every specialization is capable of achieving the same max DPS/HPS if 85% of those builds are so clunky and un-fun that they are rarely seen. Fine tuning every profession to have the same skill ceiling without addressing the fact they have vastly different skill floors is not balance.

I generally agree with what you're saying, and I think it wraps back around to a point I tried to make in my original post: Arena Net needs to change their approach to balance. They seem to be trying to make the classes equal in terms of the roles they are able to fill, but they are not equitable. The balance updates that have come out in the past 2-years give no indication that Anet incorporates player feedback before making balance decisions. I think they rely very heavily on quantitative data and theory crafting from high end players without incorporating qualitative feedback from the majority of regular players, and this is why we see so many decisions from Anet that just make zero sense to the majority of the player base. I main Elementalist these days, and I think the recent change to Stone Heart in the earth traitline is a perfect example of how flawed their approach to balance is. Their notes said they made the change to make earth-based tempest builds slightly easier to bring down in PVP, and I have no doubt they have some quantitative data Stone Heart was showing up in a lot of tempest builds. Now, Stone Heart has been in the game since release, and aside from 1 update in 2015 to reflect a specialization mechanic, it has been unchanged, so why did it all of a sudden need a nerf in 2023? Elementalist players have been saying for YEARS that the class is far too squishy, and unless you take the earth traitline, the class just does not have enough inherent defensive stats to make up for it without having to supplement with runes, stat affixes, etc. Arcane used to have a trait that would proc arcane shield below 50% hp, but they changed it to only proc when we use an elite skill, so now it's primarily the earth traitline. Given the inherent squishiness of Elementalist, Stone Heart was basically a near required trait for Eles to not just survive, but to perform at or near the same level as tankier and easier to play professions. If Anet had incorporated even some of the player feedback that has come up over the years about how squishy Ele is on its own, they probably wouldn't have had to nerf Stone Heart because it wouldn't be as required a trait. They also could have made the other grandmaster traits more competitive with Stone Heart, but there are plenty of alternatives they could have gone with. The problem is that they took a lazy approach that was most likely guided by quantitative data that means nothing without context, and they made a change that does make Elementalist more "equal," but, as usual, it is not equitable. They've made the class even harder to play than it already was, so it's now less appealing and competitive, and they made the change across ALL game modes even though they said it was a PVP problem. In any case, I think the point is that Arena Net needs to fundamentally change their approach to how they balance the game. We know balance is always hard in every MMO, and it's never going to be perfect, but their decisions always just seem obtuse, if not lazy. Just based on the profession popularity graphs on gw2wingman, it's pretty clear that Anet's balance decisions have ultimately resulted in certain professions becoming consistently more popular while others become consistently less popular, but the disparity is massive. Honestly, I can't even type anymore because their balance decisions are just SO absurd and it's SO obvious that they've needed to reevaluate their approach for SO long - I just can't. On a scale of one to even, I literally cannot.

It's definitely heavy handed and lazy, but that's pretty typical for how they balance Elementalist. There were so many other ways they could have approached this problem, but they picked the one that created the least amount of work for them, and implemented it across all game modes even though it was only an issue in PVP. I really hope the June patch and their decision to not add more elite specs is going to lead to some positive and equitable changes to Elementalist. I understand the complexity makes it hard to balance, but it's also a class that always has to give more to achieve the same results that other classes get for less effort, and the way Anet balances Elementalist always makes that problem worse instead of better. You have to do more complex rotations to get the same DPS output as other classes, sacrifice more damage and utility to get the same survivability as other classes, and this change is just going to make things worse.

The problem with PVP and WVW data is I don't know that there are any sources that can provide information similar to what's gw2wingman. Gw2efficiency provides the closest look since it has professions by character count, but even then, Elementalist only goes from being 9th for group PVE content to being 7th for all content. I agree with what you're saying about it being casual heavy and your example of mechanist, but I think the problem is that players seem to want that same level of accessibility on all classes, and regardless of what Anet says about their philosophy and puts in their balance patches, what little data we can access as players does seem to point to a disconnect between their balance approach and the reality of gameplay. As players, we can tell Anet what's wrong with the professions, but it's up to them to fix it. The issue is that we're telling them one thing, and then we're getting balance patches like the June 28 2022 patch. Lol.

I don't think it's fair to say we were tricked into buying the game, but the way they communicate to us about balance and the content of the balance patches relative to the player feedback we can see does come across as disrespectful. I love the game, and I think the complexity and dynamic nature of the combat and profession mechanics naturally makes it hard to balance, but I really think they need to do a better job incorporating player feedback. A big part of the problem seems to be the disparity between the skill floors for each profession and the fact that some professions, even if all perform the same roles, are objectively easier to play than others. It isn't necessarily a bad thing that all professions are able to play the same roles, but the fact that some have a very low skill floor (mechanist) while others have much higher skill floors (elementalist) yet do not achieve better results, is a very bad thing. If Anet would rely less on the quantitative data they have to balance professions played by a small percentage of the player population, especially in competitive game modes, and more on qualitative player feedback and player expertise, they might be able to start eliminating some of the disparities between professions.

The main reason I chose to focus on PvE is because the gw2wingman data only includes numbers from raids, fractals, and strikes, but I did just ask Bard for the top 10 recurring themes related to profession balance in the PVP forums for the same dates, input that data into the same ChatGPT 4.0 conversation I used for my main post, and this was its response: "The addition of PvP-specific concerns can help provide a more comprehensive understanding of the balance issues in Guild Wars 2. However, it does not significantly change the earlier responses and conclusions. The recurring themes from the PvP forums are similar to the concerns raised in the profession-specific forums. Many of these issues revolve around balancing overpowered and underpowered professions, addressing build diversity, and enhancing the overall balance and viability of all professions in various game modes. Additionally, players express dissatisfaction with matchmaking and request more attention to bugs and overpowered abilities/traits. Similar to previous discussions, there is a desire for ArenaNet to listen to player feedback and make necessary changes. Overall, the incorporation of this new data reinforces the earlier conclusions about the disconnect between ArenaNet's stated balance philosophy and player concerns. It emphasizes the need for ArenaNet to address the balance issues more effectively, enhance communication with the player base, and be more responsive to feedback to create a better game experience." I'm sure you could get more and more specific with the AI by incorporating more posts & specific patch notes, but I don't know that it would change the underlying problems related to communication, transparency, and responsiveness to feedback. My suspicion is that Anet incorporates some player feedback, but they probably rely pretty heavily on quantitative data, which I don't think is a particularly good approach. We also know they've balanced based on theory crafting rather than actual gameplay, & that's also problematic. Glad you like it! I know posts involving AI are still pretty controversial, but I like seeing how they draw objective conclusions based on whatever data we can provide it. It would be nice if Anet would share more of the data they have access to so the players could incorporate it into feedback & get a better sense of why Anet makes some of their decisions.

TL;DR • I played around with some of the profession data on gw2efficiency & gw2 wingman + themes from forum posts to get an AI chat bot’s take on balancing. • ArenaNet's stated balance philosophy focuses on accessibility, rewarding mastery, and incorporating player feedback, but there is a disconnect between this philosophy and player concerns. • Players are concerned about professions being too strong/weak in high-end content, complexity, reliance on specific builds, and lack of build diversity. • Quantitative data shows disparities in profession popularity, which seem to support players' concerns about balance issues. • The most likely cause of the disconnect is the complexity of game design, as balancing numerous professions, skills, and game modes is challenging. • Despite ArenaNet's efforts to balance the game, the complexity in Guild Wars 2 makes it difficult to achieve a perfect balance that satisfies all players' preferences and playstyles. Like many, I have been dabbling with AI chat bots lately, and what I enjoy about them is their ability to quickly analyze a large amount of information and articulate a number of possible conclusions, and I thought it would be interesting to talk to an AI chat bot about Guild Wars 2 profession balance, so I wanted to share some of what came up. We obviously don’t have access to much data as players, but this is what I used: • Professions by characters from https://gw2efficiency.com/account/player-statistics • Profession popularity in raids, fractals, and strikes from https://gw2wingman.nevermindcreations.de/popularity o For the data from gw2wingman, I just added the specializations for each profession for all eras and for each of the 3 game modes included (raids, fractals, strikes). The totals may be off by a small percentage since the bar for the core profession gets smaller as time goes on, & I wasn’t sure if it was possible to export it to Excel to get the exact numbers. For those who haven’t used Google Bard much, if you provide it a link to a forum, it can see everything from the first and last posts in the forum and the content of the posts. So, for qualitative data, I asked Google Bard to review the profession forums (https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/forum/12-professions/) to identify recurring themes related to balance between the dates of January 1st, 2021, and May 1st 2023. I chose those dates because I wanted themes related to more recent balance patches. I don’t want this post to be too long, so I’m not going to provide all the prompts or the exact responses from Bard, because a) it’s long & b) there are a lot of recurring themes that most of you can probably already guess, but if you would like to know the prompts, just let me know in the comments. For actually analyzing the data & drawing conclusions, I mostly used ChatGPT 4.0 since it seems to have better reasoning skills than other chatbots. I provided it with the recurring themes Bard identified along with the quantitative data from gw2efficiency and gw2wingman, and then I asked what conclusions it would draw based on that information. This was ChatGPT 4.0’s response: Based on the qualitative data from the Guild Wars 2 Profession forums and the quantitative data from gw2efficiency and gw2 Wingman, the following conclusions can be drawn: • There is a noticeable disparity in profession representation and popularity across different types of content (raids, fractals, and strikes). This suggests that some professions may be more suitable or favored in specific content types due to their abilities, roles, or synergies with other professions. • Guardians are consistently popular across all types of content, indicating that they are perceived as versatile, effective, and desired in various game modes. This may be due to their strong support capabilities, damage output, or overall utility. • Elementalists and Thieves have lower representation in end-game content compared to their overall player character percentage, suggesting that they might be perceived as less effective or desirable in high-end content. This could be due to issues with their performance, build diversity, or overall complexity. • The recurring themes from the forums point to concerns regarding profession balance, complexity, build diversity, and developer communication. Players seem to feel that certain professions are too strong or weak in high-end content and that some professions are overly complex or reliant on specific builds. These concerns suggest that there is room for improvement in balancing professions and addressing player feedback. • There is a desire for more frequent balance patches, better communication, and transparency from the developers regarding their balance philosophy. This indicates that players are invested in the game's balance and want to see ongoing adjustments and improvements based on community feedback. I went down various rabbit holes using the same quantitative data, but different qualitative data by having Bard gather more specific information from the individual profession forums. Since GPT specifically identified the disparity between guardians and elementalists/thieves, that’s the one I’ll share here: Taking into account the previous qualitative and quantitative data and the new data from the Elementalist, Guardian, and Thief forums, the following insights can be drawn: • Elementalists' concerns align with their lower representation in end-game content. Players perceive Elementalists as too weak, complex, and lacking build diversity for high-end content, which could explain their lower popularity in raids, fractals, and strikes compared to other professions. • Guardian concerns focus on the Firebrand being too strong and Willbender being too weak in high-end content. This suggests that while Guardians are popular and versatile, there might be some imbalance within the profession's elite specializations, leading to a reliance on specific builds and limited build diversity. • Thief concerns indicate that Deadeye is too weak, and Specter is too strong in high-end content. Similar to Elementalists, Thieves suffer from a lack of build diversity and meta representation, potentially contributing to their lower popularity in end-game content. • All three professions share common concerns regarding balance patches, developer communication, transparency, responsiveness, and the overall state of the game's balance. These concerns indicate that players from different professions feel that improvements are needed in these areas to address profession-specific balance issues and enhance the overall game experience. • The profession-specific balance concerns further emphasize the need for improvements in build diversity, complexity, and balancing strong and weak aspects of each profession. Addressing these concerns could lead to a more diverse and balanced representation of professions across different content types. I also asked it to use the data to make an inference about the impact of the balance patches that have occurred between those same time periods in consideration of the Guild Wars 2 Balance Philosophy from this post (https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/123508-guild-wars-2-balance-philosophy/), and this was the response: Based on the data points, conclusions, and the balance patches that have occurred between the time periods you mentioned, it's possible to infer the following: • Some Progress: The fact that there have been balance patches indicates that Arena Net is making efforts to address balance issues in the game. However, without detailed information about the specific changes made in those patches, it's difficult to assess the full impact of the adjustments on the overall balance. • Persistence of Concerns: Despite the balance patches, the recurring themes and concerns in the qualitative data suggest that some issues have persisted. This could mean that the balance patches might not have been as effective as intended, or they might not have fully addressed the concerns of the players. • Complexity and Build Diversity: The data still highlights concerns about complexity and build diversity, which are important aspects of Arena Net's balance philosophy. This suggests that while they might have made some progress, there is still room for improvement in achieving their goals of offering accessible and diverse builds for different player skill levels. • Communication and Responsiveness: The qualitative data reveals ongoing concerns about communication, transparency, and responsiveness to player feedback. This indicates that despite posting their balance philosophy on the forums, Arena Net might not have sufficiently improved in these areas to meet player expectations. I put a similar prompt into Bard using that balance philosophy post, but I only used the recurring themes from the forums related to profession balance, and my question for it was, “what conclusions can be drawn about their stated philosophy relative to the themes expressed by players?” The response was a bit long, but it can be summarized with this quote: “Based on the top recurring themes related to profession balance between 01/01/2021 and 05/01/2023, it appears that there is a disconnect between ArenaNet's stated balance philosophy and the themes expressed by players.” I then asked it to articulate the nature of the disconnect between their stated philosophy and the concerns from the players: The disconnect between the stated balance philosophy and the concerns of the players is a complex issue with many contributing factors. Some of the key factors include: • The difference between theorycrafting and actual gameplay. When developers are designing and balancing a game, they often rely on theorycrafting to make their decisions. Theorycrafting is the process of using mathematical analysis and logical reasoning to predict the outcome of a game mechanic. However, theorycrafting can only take you so far. The reality of actual gameplay is often different from what theorycrafting predicts. This is because players will often find ways to exploit game mechanics in ways that the developers did not anticipate. • The different perspectives of developers and players. Developers and players often have different perspectives on what constitutes a balanced game. Developers are focused on creating a game that is fair and challenging for all players. Players, on the other hand, are focused on creating a game that is fun and rewarding to play. These different perspectives can lead to conflict between developers and players. • The difficulty of balancing a complex game. Guild Wars 2 is a complex game with a lot of different mechanics. This makes it difficult for developers to balance the game in a way that pleases everyone. There will always be some professions or builds that are stronger than others. It is the job of the developers to make sure that no one profession or build is so strong that it is unbeatable. Part of why I wanted to do this is because Anet seems to have made some exceptionally bad balance decisions the past 2-3 years, and even though their balance philosophy post was nice, that’s ultimately just PR & marketing, and the words of any for-profit corporation mean little. I don’t think there is anything particularly groundbreaking in any of the above responses from the chat bots, but there are some overarching issues that I think are worth pointing out: 1. The persistence of not just the same concerns, but the same disparities between the same professions for YEARS at a time. 2. Bard’s comment about the difference between theorycrafting and actual gameplay. I feel like this has always been a huge issue for Guild Wars 2 across all game modes & not just those tracked on gw2wingman, and we can’t forget the fiasco that followed the June 28, 2022, balance patch. 3. How the ongoing issues related to communication and responsiveness to player feedback compound on virtually all of these other problems. As I said, I don’t think there is anything particularly profound in any of this, but I wanted to share it in case it encourages some discussion. I also hope it gives other players some ideas on prompts to use with the chat bots that could help with feedback for the game, especially since Bard is able to “see” forum posts.

Yes. It does not seem like they incorporated any of the ideas and wishes Ele fans had for the next elite specialization, so I don't think it's remotely close to what many seemed to be hoping for, but I think the worst part is just how clunky and thrown together at the last minute the Catalyst feels. I think it compounds on a lot of the problems Elementalist already had without adding anything new beyond the jade sphere, which itself is lazy and poorly designed - it's just a stationary field with a 15 second cooldown and an energy requirement. It also manages to be overly complex and difficult to play for most players, but when it's played well, it's so potent that the developers have had trouble balancing it. It's definitely my least favorite of not just the ele specializations, but all of the EoD specs. The hammer is also a mess, and I don't know what they were thinking with the 600 yard range for fire/air, engagement ability in water that is your heal, and CC ability that also CCs the player. I have a conspiracy theory that Catalyst was originally intended to receive what Necro ended up getting with Harbinger, but rather than a pistol, it would have gotten a rifle since ele was up to receive a 2h weapon. I think Catalyst having a rifle with utility abilities like "bottled lightning" would have made way more sense than a hammer and the augments, especially since catalysts are related to chemical reactions & could easily be tied into throwing "bottled elements" and infusing them with ammo for the rifle. But then someone had the idea to say "hey wouldn't it be neat if we switched the catalyst and harbinger." Lol. That's just my tinfoil hat theory, though 😛

I took some time off after I finished the EoD story around this time last year, but I just got back and decided to play my Elementalist since it's always been my favorite, and I have to ask - why in the world does Catalyst still have an energy mechanic on top of a cooldown for the jade sphere? It's SO much easier to generate energy with hammer that it limits our already limited range of weapon options, so right off the bat you have a double whammy of a flexibility problem and a balance problem, but it's also an unnecessary layer of complexity on an already complex class. The spec already has a mountain of other issues, so what would be the consequence of entirely removing the energy mechanic from the jade sphere? Simplifying the spec for newer players? Giving players slightly more agency in their choice of weapon? It still wouldn't be possible to spam it because of the cooldown, and the buffs would still be wasted if the group had to move away from the sphere, so why is it still there? Why did I come back just in time to see Anet to disable an entire Elementalist elite spec because of a combat tonic bug? Anet, why is it so hard to remove a useless mechanic that would give you one less mechanic to balance around AND make the players happy? Whyyyy

Having more damage from hammer skills other than skill 3 and not needing to frantically cycle through attunements for the orbs definitely makes Catalyst feel better, but after playing around with it for a few hours, it's hard to ignore the fact that it still needs adjustments that go beyond tuning the numbers. - The sphere is still poorly designed, and the energy mechanic really needs to go. The spec is already held back by having a stationary orb that pulses buffs in a short area of effect on a 15 second CD, so placing an energy mechanic on top of all that is just punishing. Every other quickness provider can provide it almost on demand with minimal build up and without having to worry about movement. Why is it so much harder for Catalyst when there isn't really any payoff for the added difficulty? It would be a lot easier to provide quickness and react to movement if it were tied to a trait that caused every attunement to provide it when the sphere is dropped rather than hoping air attunement is off CD. Air attunement could just provide fury by default instead of quickness. Either way, the energy mechanic still needs to go. - Since the orbs are strong enough that they feel like a profession mechanic, it would be nice if they came up automatically when you changed attunement so that we could take advantage of them regardless of which weapon we use. Having it as the #3 skill on hammer for every attunement seems like a cop out. - Speaking of the hammer, it really needs to have more than 600 range on fire/air attunements. It should be 900 at minimum, but 1200 would be ideal. It's a nice gimmick since we still can't change weapons during combat despite the game being out for almost a decade and you guys adding mechanics to certain bosses that literally require you to run out of melee and attack from a range, but 600 just isn't enough. On the flip side, adding more range means we'd also need more gap closers - but that's needed anyway because it makes no sense for the only gap closer to be tied to a heal. Air 4 also needs to be redesigned so that it doesn't blast you away from the target. If I don't have any other air skills up and I need to CC a target, why would I want to blast myself away from them when I will likely need to switch to water or earth to attack them? - The traits are still boring and almost frustrating to use. I can't even comment on the top row since auras are really a tempest niche, so I've never used them. The middle row is also pretty meh since it's just a generic stat increase and I rarely ever have enough stacks to actually take advantage of empowered empowerment. The bottom row is the only one I get much use out of, but even then, they don't feel particularly impactful. Tying quickness to one of the traits on the bottom row would definitely help with this, though, and it would make it easier to balance between quickness provider and pure DPS. Since this is a power oriented build, it would be nice if the middle row had some traits that increased strike damage instead of a flat % increase to all attributes. I'm of the mindset that the best defense is to kill the mob before it kills you, so I'd rather have an increase to strike damage/power/precision/ferocity without having to worry about accidentally pulling aggro because Empowered Empowerment gave me 1200 toughness. It seems like it's time for ele to be allowed to change weapons in combat and for its base HP/armor to be increased. It's all glass with no cannon, and it's boon support specialization is held back by a 15 second CD, a stationary sphere, an energy mechanic, and its most valuable boon being tied to a single attunement. It's really frustrating that catalyst centers on the same combo and aura mechanics that have been in the game for years while doing almost nothing to fix the inherent problems associated with ele, so it would be nice if we could at least get the same basic toolkit as literally every other profession in the game - as in simply changing weapons in combat and not worrying about getting one-shot after making a single mistake. In case the devs in the back of the room can't hear me, BUFF STAFF.

The way they treat ele really is just a meme at this point. I have never seen a development team so egregiously out of touch not just with what the community wants, but with the objective reality of how the class is performing in situations BEYOND the golem benchmark. It is literally like they looked at the title of a benchmark video, ignored the context, description, and comments, and made a knee-jerk reaction to nerf the class. I can't even grasp the profound level of ineptitude, mediocrity, and sheer audacity it takes to make balance and tuning decisions off one single measurement - and it isn't even a good measurement at that. Golem benchmarks reflect what the class could do under 100% perfect conditions that practically never exist in any game mode. There is literally no point to playing elementalist right now. Core is useless, all of the core weapons have been nerfed into oblivion, and there is absolutely nothing that any of the elite specializations can do that other classes cannot do for less effort and better results. What is the point of even providing them with feedback? There are over 40 pages in the Catalyst feedback thread, multiple videos, multiple forum threads - and all of it has been ignored in favor of a golem benchmark. Asking for player feedback and then ignoring it with zero communication is just disrespectful to the players who wasted the time and energy to provide legitimate feedback via the forums and YT videos. I really haven't had much desire to play since finishing the main EOD story, but this just cements it for me. Most of the new EoD specializations are half baked and not fun, the old meta is tired and stale, and I have zero confidence in the ability of the design team to consider feedback from the people actually playing their game to make a balance decision that is actually grounded in reality.

I played it for a few days just to give it a fair chance, but I'm still really disappointed with Catalyst. A lot of people seem to be pointing out that the spec does good dps, but I don't think the numbers should really be a factor in rating the spec because they can be tuned. From a design standpoint, I think it's absolutely terrible, and that's more of a concern than DSP output. The hammer is frantic and almost stressful to use, but it's also the highest dps because of the orbs and it being the most efficient way build energy for the sphere, so you almost have to use it. The mixture of melee/ranged abilities is also weird, especially calling 600 yards "ranged." The sphere itself almost feels like an afterthought, and the energy mechanic is entirely unnecessary to the point that it's punishing that it even exists. The only thing Catalyst can do that the other specializations can't is provide quickness, but it isn't even able to reliably do that because of the energy mechanic. The traits are so boring and uninspired that the entire trait line seems like it was designed for core in 2012, and the same goes for the augments. Everything about it just feels neutered, cobbled together at the last second, and more frustrating to use than it is fun. It doesn't seem like Anet knows what to do with Elementalist in general since they've nerfed it into oblivion, pushed it into melee range without buffing base HP/armor, gated its quickness behind a cumbersome energy mechanic, and basically made sure that it isn't particularly competitive in any game mode. Also, obligatory BUFF STAFF side note.

It’s frustrating that, despite there being years of ideas from the community for the next Elementalist elite spec, we received the Catalyst – a spec that has too many mechanics going to even have an identity, with a weapon nobody asked for. Literally all they had to do was give us a new ranged weapon and 70% of the community would have been happy with that alone. Imagine going to a restaurant, taking time to consider and review your options, placing your order, receiving something completely different from what you asked for, and then being asked for feedback on how they can make it better after they ignored you the first time. It's challenging to provide feedback for a specialization that has no clear identity setting it apart from Tempest and Weaver other than being in downstate with a hammer. Hammer: Hammer feels like an arbitrary choice that was selected for no reason other than “being different.” I really wouldn’t mind it if it had identity, but just like the rest of the specialization, hammer does not know whether it wants to be a melee or ranged weapon. Tempest performs best in melee range because of how overloads are designed, weaver already takes the role of melee brawler with its sword and barriers, so what is the point of a hammer wielding catalyst? - Either make all of the abilities ranged or replace it with a ranged weapon all together. The community has been very vocal about wanting a ranged weapon, would you please just give us a little fan service and give us what we are asking for. - Hammer 3 needs to be replaced with something else or changed to last longer. It’s hectic trying to get all of the orbs up and does not feel worthwhile once you get them going. - Seriously, get rid of hammer and give us a ranged weapon. Why would anyone choose “Catalyst, a steady presence in melee combat” when they could take a sword wielding weaver in celestial gear and achieve that role 10x better than Catalyst? Jade Sphere: Again, what does jade sphere bring to the table that Tempest cannot do better? What is the purpose of the cooldown on the sphere when you change attunement? Why does it need to be limited by both cooldown and energy cost? - Get rid of the energy cost and the cooldown. As a mechanic, it is not impactful enough to gameplay to justify so many limiting factors. It could be entirely removed from the specialization, and you literally would not notice the difference in combat. Traits: Unimpactful. If this specialization is going to even attempt to be better than weaver at melee combat, we need more traits that improve survivability in melee range. It also seems like traits have too many limiting factors – why tie the damage reduction to auras instead of just giving us a damage reduction for wielding a god forsaken hammer in the first place? - The benefits of the traits should not be tied to auras unless you give us a weapon that can more efficiently take advantage of the fields to grant auras. - Just to compare, Virtuoso has a minor trait to increase strike damage increase just for standing in melee range, and a grandmaster trait that automatically stocks blades when below the count. Harbinger has a master trait with reduced pistol recharge and increased expertise based on vitality, and grandmaster traits that give flat increases to power or condition damage with pulsing damage auras that happen automatically when in shroud. There seems to be a discrepancy in terms of how traits are being designed for the scholar professions. At this point, the overall design philosophy for Elementalist seems to be “less payoff for more effort,” but that seems to be particularly true for Catalyst and its traits. I know it isn’t productive to say, but you guys really missed the mark with Catalyst.