Why Pet Swap Nerfed for Soulbeast?

[AlexndrTheGreat.8310]

9 hours ago, anduriell.6280 said:

The temporary argument is very weak, the soulbeast gets the trade off of losing the pet when it gets access to the sepcialization mechanics : the merged pet and the extra bonuses from utilities and traits.

While is not in beastmode the soulbeast is just a ranger with access to stances and there is no need for any tradeoff in those moments.

This is literally point that there is no trade off for Soulbeast if you have two pets.

By taking Soulbeast, there is no permanent difference between that and a Ranger. You can still exist in a state where you are the exact same as a base Ranger, but better (can access Beastmode, have more utility, have better trait synergy, etc). It’s like old Berserker, where you had access to all the regular bursts and power that normal Warrior had, but now you can *also* do Berserk mode and do something else. You’re acting like by losing the pet when merging the class is now somehow fundamentally different than a base Ranger. Being in Beastmode in almost every case is already still better than having the pet out anyway. But you also can get more compared to the base class if you still had two pets. You can do something like: let the pets do it’s abilities -> use your F2 ability -> swap -> let the pet use it’s abilities -> F2 again -> merge -> do even more stuff in form -> unmerge. “Losing” your pet for all of 5-10 seconds is not a trade off when you can still do everything the base class does and more.

You can’t just look at a class when it’s “in a moment” to say if there’s a tradeoff. No “when I’m merged I have no pet” or “when I’m not merged I have no Beastmode”. None of that is a permanent effect from choosing Soulbeast. Druid loses 20% of their pets stats. Firebrand, Guardian, and Willbender lose their base virtues for different ones. Berserker cannot use normal bursts. Spellbreaker can only use level 1 bursts. Engineer elites lose the elite F5. Reaper loses normal shroud. Harbinger loses shroud health pool. Scourge has shades instead of shroud. Daredevil loses steal range. Deadeye loses steal. All of these are a permanent with no way to revert back to a “base” class state.

[Lazze.9870]

 

15 hours ago, AlexndrTheGreat.8310 said:

Firebrand, Guardian, and Willbender lose their base virtues for different ones. Engineer elites lose the elite F5. Reaper loses normal shroud.

 

Loss doesn't make sense when they make a fundamental change to a core mechanic like with Firebrand/DH and Reaper. And the engie one? Better off not mentioning it, because losing that worthless core F5 skill is a sorry excuse for a trade-off.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Lazze.9870

[anduriell.6280]

On 9/22/2021 at 8:48 AM, Lazze.9870 said:

Loss doesn't make sense when they make a fundamental change to a core mechanic like with Firebrand/DH and Reaper. And the engie one? Better off not mentioning it, because losing that worthless core F5 skill is a sorry excuse for a trade-off.

Agreed, discussing DH or Firebrand is a very poor point to deffend, they literally got an improved version from core. That is not a trade-off. 

To translate that to soulbeast it is the same case as while in beastmode the soulbeast get to keep other pet out in game. They replace the F1-F3 for the soulbeast abilities so that is a trade-off. 

 

Soulbeast with pets doesn't sounds any bad either... 

 

As i said the only profession i think it got some actual trade off was daredevil with the reduced range of steal. It does not seems much but it impacted the specialization in some degree. 

 

I don't know any other specialization which got the same treatment. 

 

 

 

[Lazze.9870]

27 minutes ago, anduriell.6280 said:

To translate that to soulbeast it is the same case as while in beastmode the soulbeast get to keep other pet out in game. They replace the F1-F3 for the soulbeast abilities so that is a trade-off. 

Soulbeast trade-off is fine. Trading in-combat pet swap for merge is fine.

It's the lack of trade-offs on other specializations that are not. 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Lazze.9870

[anduriell.6280]

Just now, Lazze.9870 said:

Soulbeast trade-off is "fine".

It's the lack of trade-offs on other specializations that are not.

My point is if the other proffesions don't have any trade-offs maybe neither should the soulbeast. Either case we are in an agreement. 

[Arheundel.6451]

On 9/20/2021 at 1:45 PM, Kodama.6453 said:

Losing the pet temporarily (or other skills temporarily) is not a trade off. Soulbeast still was able to do everything a core ranger could do. You were able to unmerge and have the pet, let it cast beast skills, command it to attack, etc.

If you really think that losing your pet temporarily is a trade off, then put photon forge on F6 and give holosmith the elite toolbelt back. Because guess what, when you go into photon forge, you lose access to your weapon skills and kits are also unavailable for 5 seconds. If losing access to something temporarily is enough of a trade off, then holosmith has it already in the photon forge itself and doesn't need to give up F5, right?

That's not how this works.

About replacing the entire toolbelt: this is brought up alot by people, but the problem is that Anet has designed themselves in a corner with engineer, they can't replace the entire toolbelt without the entire class stopping to function. For example, med kit stops working as a healing skill alternative, since the actual healing skill is placed on the toolbelt (F1, bandage self). For this kind of trade off to get considered, engineer requires a serious rework first to open up design space.

And losing the entire toolbelt is not equal to losing a second pet... losing the entire toolbelt means losing the ENTIRE class mechanic. Losing a second pet means losing one half of the class mechanic, not the class mechanic entirely. You still have one of your two pets available.

Soulbeast trade off was justified..no complaints there, it is true that soulbeast was core ranger 2.0 so negating pet swap was a good call from Anet but at the same time we should stop pretending the loss of F5 is an actual trade off for holosmith, for all purposes..holosmith remains engineer 2.0, there is absolutely nothing a core engi can do better than a holosmtih, no reason to ever playing one over the other.

Meanwhile it's totally possible to see a core ranger having a go at a soulbeast and trulu come up on top at equal skill level...possibly, it would be a 50/50 - 60/40 battle. Meanwhile a core engi stands absolutely zero chance against a holosmith.

For the sake of argument we can all keep pretending that the loss of F5 means anything in the face of holosmith but players know better...the honest ones at least, at least you did confess that losing F5 means nothing compared to holoforge, so kudos to you for the honesty...majority of players on this forum are typically hypocrites 

Edited September 27, 2021 by Arheundel.6451

[Kodama.6453]

2 hours ago, Arheundel.6451 said:

but at the same time we should stop pretending the loss of F5 is an actual trade off for holosmith, for all purposes..holosmith remains engineer 2.0, there is absolutely nothing a core engi can do better than a holosmtih, no reason to ever playing one over the other.

When I said that holosmith is not a literal engineer+, I meant because there are skills in the engineer kit which holosmith has no access to.

Yes, holosmith is in power an engineer+. It doesn't feel like a trade off simply because the core F5 abilities are way weaker than what holosmith provides.

If the F5 abilities would actually be powerful, so that it really hurts to lose them, then it also would feel more like a trade off. F5 abilities are currently not powerful or special, giving them up is a no brainer. But there is this lever for Anet, they could buff core engineer without buffing the elite specs by buffing the F5 skills, something the elite specs don't have.

This was not the case for ranger. Every single skill and every single trait which ranger could access was also available for soulbeast. There was not a single thing Anet could have buffed in core ranger without also buffing soulbeast. That's why I say it was a ranger+.

In general, I also think engineer needs a complete rework, but they won't do it. The class is lacking design space, there is not much engineer can give up for the new class mechanics. Replacing the toolbelt entirely doesn't work, hence why just the F5 keeps getting replaced.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Kodama.6453

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

FWIW I think the whole 'Tradeoff' thing is utter BS in it's entirety.

A better approach would be to undo all the 'tradeoffs' that have been added after the fact and instead lock the Elite Specs out of the core mechanic traitline. Core should not however be forced into the core mechanic traitline.

That right there would truly be a universal tradeoff, and the e-specs that feel like they have no true tradeoff (FB, DH, Holo etc.) would finally have an appropriate tradeoff.

Any weapon traits inside of the core mechanic traitlines would have to be moved out though and into other traitlines.

[AlexndrTheGreat.8310]

4 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

 

FWIW I think the whole 'Tradeoff' thing is utter BS in it's entirety.

A better approach would be to undo all the 'tradeoffs' that have been added after the fact and instead lock the Elite Specs out of the core mechanic traitline. Core should not however be forced into the core mechanic traitline.

That right there would truly be a universal tradeoff, and the e-specs that feel like they have no true tradeoff (FB, DH, Holo etc.) would finally have an appropriate tradeoff.

Any weapon traits inside of the core mechanic traitlines would have to be moved out though and into other traitlines.

 

I agree that this would be a good way to implement a trade-off that is agnostic to every class. Only downside is what we already see in the current trade-offs in that each elite spec’s trade-off is weighted differently to one another.

As seen stated in this thread above, Engineer and Guardian specs *do* have trade-offs, it’s just insignificant compared to what they get instead (ie, Function Gyro, Tomes, Holomode, etc). So whether they should simply get more significant trade-offs compared to classes with more tangible ones (such as Soulbeast in this case) would probably be a better conversation to have.

In addition, losing the “core mechanic” traitline (ie, Illusions, Virtues, Soul Reaping, Beastmastery, Arcane, Tactics, Invocation, Tools, Trickery) would already affect elite specs and builds at a different rate than others. For example, Weaver doesn’t use Arcane in PvE, so base Ele won’t magically become viable or have a niche since Weaver and it’s dual casting is substantially better than the base Ele mechanic. Basically every Soulbeast build on the other hand uses Beastmastery, which would really hurt to lose.

That type of change though can definitely work though as long as a traitline rebalancing is also done so that losing the core mechanic line actually has a tangible effect on the elite spec.

[Kodama.6453]

6 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

FWIW I think the whole 'Tradeoff' thing is utter BS in it's entirety.

A better approach would be to undo all the 'tradeoffs' that have been added after the fact and instead lock the Elite Specs out of the core mechanic traitline. Core should not however be forced into the core mechanic traitline.

That right there would truly be a universal tradeoff, and the e-specs that feel like they have no true tradeoff (FB, DH, Holo etc.) would finally have an appropriate tradeoff.

Any weapon traits inside of the core mechanic traitlines would have to be moved out though and into other traitlines.

You would just shift the problem around with this.

New elite spec mechanics don't all hold the same power. Specs with more powerful elite spec mechanics should have to pay a bigger cost to access it.

Which is exactly what Anet tries to do with bladesworn, btw. They gave a powerful mechanic which adds many new skills to warrior and on top of it the most ridiculously powerful skill we have ever seen (50.0 power coefficient is insane). They are justifying it by giving bladesworn alot of harsh trade offs in return.

Now let's say that we do your suggestion. Holosmith still has no "appropriate trade off", since tools is so bad that absolutely no one would bat an eye over losing it for holosmith. Then it also becomes unfair, since photon forge is potentially a more powerful mechanic than other elite specs have received.

This also limits build diversity, which is not a good thing in my eyes. Soulbeast for example was designed with great synergy with beast mastery, which they would lose in your suggestion.

Individual trade offs make more sense in my opinion, if they are done properly.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

7 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

You would just shift the problem around with this.

New elite spec mechanics don't all hold the same power. Specs with more powerful elite spec mechanics should have to pay a bigger cost to access it.

Which is exactly what Anet tries to do with bladesworn, btw. They gave a powerful mechanic which adds many new skills to warrior and on top of it the most ridiculously powerful skill we have ever seen (50.0 power coefficient is insane). They are justifying it by giving bladesworn alot of harsh trade offs in return.

Now let's say that we do your suggestion. Holosmith still has no "appropriate trade off", since tools is so bad that absolutely no one would bat an eye over losing it for holosmith. Then it also becomes unfair, since photon forge is potentially a more powerful mechanic than other elite specs have received.

This also limits build diversity, which is not a good thing in my eyes. Soulbeast for example was designed with great synergy with beast mastery, which they would lose in your suggestion.

Individual trade offs make more sense in my opinion, if they are done properly.

Anet has long needed to redo several traitlines, and locking the especs out of one such gives an immense amount of room for buffing core without also buffing the especs.

 

Any change like this would have to be in tandem with core traitline reworks.

[Kodama.6453]

3 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Anet has long needed to redo several traitlines, and locking the especs out of one such gives an immense amount of room for buffing core without also buffing the especs.

 

Any change like this would have to be in tandem with core traitline reworks.

Ok, this solves the problem of terrible trait lines like tools being no appropriate trade off.

But the problem that not all elite spec mechanics hold the same power remains. You just shift the problem of the system now feeling unfair because some classes get way more powerful mechanics than others for the same trade off.

This problem is there unless you always create elite specs with mechanics which are roughly on the same power level. Which 1. is extremely unrealistic to achieve and 2. would limit design space by a ton.

I think the current system of having individual trade offs works better, since it still allows you to have a variety of power levels for the elite spec mechanics as long as you associate them with strong trade offs to counterbalance them.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

1 hour ago, Kodama.6453 said:

Ok, this solves the problem of terrible trait lines like tools being no appropriate trade off.

But the problem that not all elite spec mechanics hold the same power remains. You just shift the problem of the system now feeling unfair because some classes get way more powerful mechanics than others for the same trade off.

Then those Especs need to be buffed/nerfed respectively, by means on the espec traitline itself, which is also then easier knowing that there is one traitline fewer to add complexity/cheese to it.

1 hour ago, Kodama.6453 said:

This problem is there unless you always create elite specs with mechanics which are roughly on the same power level. Which 1. is extremely unrealistic to achieve and 2. would limit design space by a ton.

I think the current system of having individual trade offs works better, since it still allows you to have a variety of power levels for the elite spec mechanics as long as you associate them with strong trade offs to counterbalance them.

I think the current system OVER penalizes certain especs while others  get off almost scot-free to the point where they are 95% strait upgrades to the core spec. Truthfully certain especs need the Berserker treatment more so than Berserker ever did. Why is it that two especs are deemed perfectly acceptable to receive negative stats, but others somehow are not?  

[Leonidrex.5649]

some other classes have trade-offs too.
laughs in berserker no F skills, no disort chrono and 1 dodge mirage.
Speaking off slb, at first I was against the removal of a pets swap, simply due to dislike of removing mechanics from the game.
But its one of the ones that turned out for the better IMO. Now soulbeast can be more of what it was supposed to be, and it also gets rid of some of the kitten like insta-swapping to gaz for CC, while also having smoke scale, while also having 2 ways of pet revival making them more or less invulnerable.
Now you actually have to choose a pet and what your build will focus on, and I like that.
On power I always struggle to take gaz for mobility or smokescale for dmg and dueling potential.
On condi, bird for damage or wolf for CC and potential stun-removal/endure pain thing.

[Lazze.9870]

18 hours ago, Kodama.6453 said:

This was not the case for ranger. Every single skill and every single trait which ranger could access was also available for soulbeast. There was not a single thing Anet could have buffed in core ranger without also buffing soulbeast. That's why I say it was a ranger+.

Except giving it an F5 like they did to engie?

It's a no-brainer, really. Both druid and soulbeast added an F5.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Lazze.9870

[Kodama.6453]

8 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Then those Especs need to be buffed/nerfed respectively, by means on the espec traitline itself, which is also then easier knowing that there is one traitline fewer to add complexity/cheese to it.

Ok, let's keep thinking further. You want to remove trade offs. This also means the following:

• Reaper's shroud gets added as a f2 mode and death shroud is preserved on f1 for reaper
• Tomes and dragonhunter virtues are added as f4-f6 abilities, core virtues are kept for both elite specs as well
• Chronomancer gets old shatters restored, but also added the rewind skill on top of their distortion shatter
• Scourge gets death shroud on f1 restored, the sand shade mechanic is added as f2-f5 skills

Are you really fine with that stuff? I personally prefer these mechanics to replace something than just to keep adding buttons with every elite spec.

9 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

I think the current system OVER penalizes certain especs while others  get off almost scot-free to the point where they are 95% strait upgrades to the core spec. Truthfully certain especs need the Berserker treatment more so than Berserker ever did. Why is it that two especs are deemed perfectly acceptable to receive negative stats, but others somehow are not?

That is also just a question of balancing, isn't it? If some classes are over penalized, then make the trade off less harsh. If other get away scot free, either add trade offs or make the trade offs more harsh. I think the current system would work, IF they make an effort to balance it fairly.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

14 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

Ok, let's keep thinking further. You want to remove trade offs. This also means the following:

• Reaper's shroud gets added as a f2 mode and death shroud is preserved on f1 for reaper

Yeah, Reaper's Shroud's only actual tradeoff is the faster LF degen. That mechanic is a straight upgrade. Yes, I in fact do play a Reaper.

14 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

• Tomes and dragonhunter virtues are added as f4-f6 abilities, core virtues are kept for both elite specs as well

Virtues and tomes are straight upgrades. Those two specs frankly do not have actual tradeoffs. Yes, I in fact also play them.

14 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

• Chronomancer gets old shatters restored, but also added the rewind skill on top of their distortion shatter

Honestly I have 0 problems with that. Poor mesmers need some QOL.

14 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

• Scourge gets death shroud on f1 restored, the sand shade mechanic is added as f2-f5 skills

This here I lump into the FB/DH side since Shades overall are just a straight upgrade.

14 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

Are you really fine with that stuff? I personally prefer these mechanics to replace something than just to keep adding buttons with every elite spec.

You are confused, but then so is Anet when it comes to 'Tradeoffs' which is the problem in it's entirety. Things like Reaper's Shroud or Tomes are 100% upgrades and not in any way 'Tradeoffs' like what other classes give up.

14 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

That is also just a question of balancing, isn't it? If some classes are over penalized, then make the trade off less harsh. If other get away scot free, either add trade offs or make the trade offs more harsh. I think the current system would work, IF they make an effort to balance it fairly.

This is really the problem as I just alluded to. Some classes are indeed over penalized, while others are not. Some receive actual negatives ( lol -180 vitality, -300 toughness).

So, from my perspective, if some especs have to give up toughness or vitality, then each espec should be taking a thematic stat hit as well, on top of what is currently there. That would be actual balance. Though the easier thing would be to not have reduced statss on certain especs anyway.

[Kodama.6453]

@Lan Deathrider.5910

It seems we have a general miscommunication here, in the sense that we are talking about 2 different things when using the term "trade off".

How I see it: replacing a skill for another skill is classified as a trade off, even if the new skill is an upgrade of the skill it replaces

There are some classes which don't replace an old skill with another for their elite spec mechanic. Druid would be one example of this. They get the f5 celestial avatar added without it replacing another button on ranger.

You said you want to remove trade offs from all classes, which for me means that you want to make all elite spec mechanics work like druid: they get added as buttons and don't replace another button. Because replacing another button is a trade off.

Hence why I said guardian needs to get tomes and new virtues added on top of their old virtues. Or why sand shades and reaper's shroud then would be added on top of death shroud.

If this is not what you meant and reaper's shroud still replaces the death shroud, I would once again call this system unfair. Because you are giving something up (old death shroud) to get access to something new, while other classes like druid just get something added and still have all the same stuff they also have from core.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Kodama.6453

[Lazze.9870]

11 hours ago, Kodama.6453 said:

If this is not what you meant and reaper's shroud still replaces the death shroud, I would once again call this system unfair. Because you are giving something up (old death shroud) to get access to something new, while other classes like druid just get something added and still have all the same stuff they also have from core.

The entire point of reaper is to give up that part of the core necromancer in exchange for a melee oriented, less tanky and more offensive shroud. It's pointless to talk about trade offs because the way Anet has designed the necro elite specs are perfect. They directly affect the main mechanic and can be adjusted to fill different niches.

The equivalent to getting a second mechanic like druid did wouldn't be for DH to have access to three old and three new virtues, because their virtues are still affected by traits throughout the core class. The avatar is affected by nothing except druid traits.

Druid is in general a poor example because it was poorly designed from the start and has since been done dirty in so many ways. It was already out of the meta by the time the trade offs came. Not in PvE ofc, but no one cared about the pet doing a bit more damage in PvE.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Lazze.9870

[Abyssisis.3971]

9 hours ago, Kodama.6453 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910

It seems we have a general miscommunication here, in the sense that we are talking about 2 different things when using the term "trade off".

How I see it: replacing a skill for another skill is classified as a trade off, even if the new skill is an upgrade of the skill it replaces

There are some classes which don't replace an old skill with another for their elite spec mechanic. Druid would be one example of this. They get the f5 celestial avatar added without it replacing another button on ranger.

You said you want to remove trade offs from all classes, which for me means that you want to make all elite spec mechanics work like druid: they get added as buttons and don't replace another button. Because replacing another button is a trade off.

Hence why I said guardian needs to get tomes and new virtues added on top of their old virtues. Or why sand shades and reaper's shroud then would be added on top of death shroud.

If this is not what you meant and reaper's shroud still replaces the death shroud, I would once again call this system unfair. Because you are giving something up (old death shroud) to get access to something new, while other classes like druid just get something added and still have all the same stuff they also have from core.

It’s not a miscommunication when you straight up choose to believe a trade up is a trade off.

These are trade offs…

Druid’s trade off, isn’t CA form, it’s 20% reduced pet stats.

Soulbeast trade off is it’s limited to 1 pet in combat.

These are trade ups…

Holosmith, Lost a junk f5 skill to gain 5 better skills. 🤦‍♂️

DH/FB lost alittle active burning for upgraded virtues with more skills. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Abyssisis.3971

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

16 minutes ago, Abyssisis.3971 said:

It’s not a miscommunication when you straight up choose to believe a trade up is a trade off.

These are trade offs…

Druid’s trade off, isn’t CA form, it’s 20% reduced pet stats.

Soulbeast trade off is it’s limited to 1 pet in combat.

These are trade ups…

Holosmith, Lost a junk f5 skill to gain 5 better skills. 🤦‍♂️

DH/FB lost alittle active burning for upgraded virtues with more skills. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
 

 

 

This. Scrapper at least took a stat hit, but holo is a straight upgrade. DH/FB, straight upgrades.

 

Loss of pet swap is a tradeoff. Loss of Tier 2 and Tier 3 bursts is a tradeoff. Loss off all core bursts, and a stat penalty is a double tradeoff.

 

If Berserker for instance only had primal bursts, no berserk mode to manage, and no stat penalty then it would be on the order of DH or FB. If Scrapper did not have a stat penalty it would be closer to holo.

[Abyssisis.3971]

1 minute ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

This. Scrapper at least took a stat hit, but holo is a straight upgrade. DH/FB, straight upgrades.

 

The problem with scrapper’s trade off is, that it also received a way of negating that stat loss in the same trait!!!  10%-15% of strike damage converted into a barrier… who the kitten comes up with these ideas? 😅

Is it a trade off when they give them the tools to pretty much negate it???

[Kodama.6453]

23 minutes ago, Abyssisis.3971 said:

It’s not a miscommunication when you straight up choose to believe a trade up is a trade off.

These are trade offs…

Druid’s trade off, isn’t CA form, it’s 20% reduced pet stats.

Soulbeast trade off is it’s limited to 1 pet in combat.

These are trade ups…

Holosmith, Lost a junk f5 skill to gain 5 better skills. 🤦‍♂️

DH/FB lost alittle active burning for upgraded virtues with more skills. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
 

 

 

And what is the difference between trade off and trade up in your eyes? Quality, isn't it?

Yes, holosmith doesn't feel as a trade off, since you are giving up 1 weak skill for 5 new and better skills. If the skill you are giving up wouldn't be bad, but actually really strong, it would be a trade off.

This is my entire point. Mechanically, these are all trade offs, your argument here is simply that the things given up are not strong enough to warrant the power you gain. Hence why I said the current system makes more sense, if it is done properly and balanced.

[Kodama.6453]

8 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

This. Scrapper at least took a stat hit, but holo is a straight upgrade. DH/FB, straight upgrades.

 

Loss of pet swap is a tradeoff. Loss of Tier 2 and Tier 3 bursts is a tradeoff. Loss off all core bursts, and a stat penalty is a double tradeoff.

 

If Berserker for instance only had primal bursts, no berserk mode to manage, and no stat penalty then it would be on the order of DH or FB. If Scrapper did not have a stat penalty it would be closer to holo.

See my reply to Abyssis. You guys are actually just complaining that the things given up for some specs are not powerful enough to warrant the power you gain. Which is exactly my point: they are trade offs mechanically, they just don't feel like it because the trade offs are not properly balanced among the elite specs.

About Berserker: you might not like it, but according to Anet's philosophy, berserker just has 1 trade off. The trade off is losing the core bursts. You have a stat penalty, but it is only active during berserk mode. It is temporary. Just like losing the pet during beastmode is temporary, which was also not acknowledged by Anet as a trade off, hence why soulbeast got a trade off installed by losing pet swap.

Additionally, berserkers can nullify their stat penalty with a trait choice.

[Abyssisis.3971]

5 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

And what is the difference between trade off and trade up in your eyes? Quality, isn't it?

Yes, holosmith doesn't feel as a trade off, since you are giving up 1 weak skill for 5 new and better skills. If the skill you are giving up wouldn't be bad, but actually really strong, it would be a trade off.

This is my entire point. Mechanically, these are all trade offs, your argument here is simply that the things given up are not strong enough to warrant the power you gain. Hence why I said the current system makes more sense, if it is done properly and balanced.

A trade off is when you are actually giving something up, not just replacing it with something better. 🙄