Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Accepting these new elite specializations have observably less synergy/interaction with core trait lines, I don't see this is a surprising trend. An alternative that generates higher levels of diversity is unquestionably desirable, but considering historical balance practices tend to gut core traits and abilities while maintaing existing synergies suggests it is impractical given whatever limitations ANET is experiencing. This trend may very well be a conscious decision given their current capabilities and evaluations of their historical balance and design approaches rather than made in ignora
  2. Well said on all accounts! The rotational bit is especially important considering that appears to be intrinsic to Tempest and Weaver. It is absolutely all about perception. Players struggle to see equivalence in a full package and I'm not sure I've seen any particular commentary from the devs elaborating on their vision of (equitable) tradeoffs to help steer those perceptions.
  3. Numbers Vs design. Numbers can be cranked up and down to make anything meta or not-meta. The call for equivalence isn't just about effectiveness, it is about design and the relationship between the two. Isn't this exactly why we've seen Firebrand gutted in PvP? It gave far too much with the only effective option available to adjust numbers until its use was dramatically lowered.
  4. That is an unreasonable interpretation. Players expect a sense of equivalence between what is given and what is taken. Instant Activation is huge, no doubt about it, but 3 instant activation skills are not equivalent to 5 skills with a resource limiter each that can contribute the same effects + more.
  5. SUMMARY -Hammer needs more fields and finishers to make use of its traits as much as, if not more than, core weapons. -Hammer needs more accessible healing, cleansing, and defense. -Hammer needs some minor cast time and damage tweaks. -Hammer's circular projectiles need quality of life improvements to make them easier to utilize. -Hammer needs a little more reach/range to help better carve it's own niche. -Augments lack payoff for extreme setup requirements. -Address the accessibility and useability of Jade Sphere. SPECIFICS Hammer's
  6. I'm failing to follow your reasoning on this one. Please help me to understand where you are coming from with the specific tradeoffs you mentioned. Catalyst: Gains Jade Sphere for free. Unless the addition of the Jade Sphere mechanic is equivalent to other Minor Adept traits or is otherwise paid for via purposefully lack-luster traits, but neither appears to be the case. Virtuoso: Mesmer has built in tradeoffs via clones destroyed for a scalable instant cast effect. Clones provide target saturation and auto-attack effects (defense and offense potential) and are destroyabl
  7. It looks like this is assuming hammer is being run, in which case I can see where this commentary is coming from. Dagger focus works just great with Catalyst, which is not entirely unexpected considering the strength of the skills, and can utilize Catalyst traits in a superior fashion. Would be nice if hammer was designed to take advantage of Catalyst traits in a way that is superior to core weapons because, you know, it's the only time hammer can be run.
  8. I think a lot of what we are seeing is not a trade off design issue. I think what we are seeing is (1) learning curve, (2) a numbers issue, (3) missing quality of life tweaks, and (4) a lack of proper trade offs for existing elite specializations. 2 and 3 are what the beta is all about. Numbers are a numbers fix. Quality of life (cast times, after cast, movement while casting, etc.) should smooth out gameplay where it feels clunky and disjointed. We saw the same problems for previous elite specializations and they didn't even have proper trade offs on release. 4 is an
  9. I agree with the sentiment that not all specs have been sufficiently updated to properly meet tradeoff design requirements. Don't quote me, but I think part of the Holo tradeoff is locking the player into Holoforge and disabling kits for that initial period, trading free kit access to create a pseudo weapon swap. As Engi is theoretically balanced around free kit access, temporal denial may have seemed to be an adequate trade off to the developers, alongside the F5 toolbelt skill. Certainly the F5 and overheating alone is insufficient tradeoff. In fact, as overheating shouldn't be happenin
  10. I mostly just PvP. Conceptually I find them all to be original enough if not thematically great, even if the theme doesn't personally appeal to me. What I'm not so sure about is whether they feel like they transform the play patterns of the profession enough to feel uniquely different. Virtuoso - It just feels like a shatter Mesmer, full stop. The trade off between clones and blades is a great start but it does not feel transformative enough on its own. Skill design still forces (near)melee shatters to control projectile pathing. Harbinger - Mobility and boon support are new t
  11. Isn't the sustain issue a Mesmer-wide problem? Providing a solution for Mirage only doesn't help core, Chrono, or the upcoming Virtuoso.
  12. Shouldn't match making and low population be the target of that toxicity?
  13. We can rage into the void in response to frustrating changes and choices, but the only real recourse is to just stop playing and remove ourselves from the equation entirely ... Or just accept the game on the terms with which it presents itself. This is all especially so if you don't have a voice in the discussion that would/could be listened to for whatever reason, reasonable or not. The constant refusal/inability to directly address problematic mechanics and the affordance/willingness to only touch everything else around them instead ... It has left a bad taste in my mouth too. It
  • Create New...