The new elite specs are extremely underwhelming and uninspired

[draxynnic.3719]

On 9/26/2021 at 7:04 AM, fenriswolfman.5486 said:

Ranger hammer is an og GW reference. Next one needs to get no weapon and just touch you to death.

Melee scepter - used to get extra reach by draining the enemy's life force through the scepter rather than having to touch them by hand.

[Kodama.6453]

9 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Melee scepter - used to get extra reach by draining the enemy's life force through the scepter rather than having to touch them by hand.

.... did you just suggest a spec which drains life force from foes by poking them with a stick?

[Mik.3401]

They are all about looks, not functionality. This is why casual players defend them so fiercely. They are just not the same thing as HoT or PoF specs it seems simply - Open world specs.

[draxynnic.3719]

22 hours ago, Kodama.6453 said:

.... did you just suggest a spec which drains life force from foes by poking them with a stick?

Not exactly seriously, but I guess I did.

 

On second thoughts, though, a 'touch ranger' theme might be more likely to be done via utilities.

[Obtena.7952]

9 hours ago, Mik.3401 said:

They are all about looks, not functionality. This is why casual players defend them so fiercely. They are just not the same thing as HoT or PoF specs it seems simply - Open world specs.

To be fair, no one should be expecting continued releases to especs to add functionality to a class anyways. That's not what especs are there for and it only makes sense that more especs are released over time than are functionally necessary. I don't think casual players are the only ones to defend this ... I think it's more about who is reasonable. 

[draxynnic.3719]

12 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

To be fair, no one should be expecting continued releases to especs to add functionality to a class anyways. That's not what especs are there for and it only makes sense that more especs are released over time than are functionally necessary. I don't think casual players are the only ones to defend this ... I think it's more about who is reasonable. 

They're not supposed to be 'this is better than the available options', but they areare supposed to offer new ways to play and to adapt to situations that the existing builds have trouble with.

 

Which is part of why Catalyst has been getting so much pushback - it really feels like it's just trying to occupy an awkward niche between tempest and weaver rather than actually taking elementalist in a new direction.

[Obtena.7952]

1 minute ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

They're not supposed to be 'this is better than the available options', but they areare supposed to offer new ways to play and to adapt to situations that the existing builds have trouble with.

 

Which is part of why Catalyst has been getting so much pushback - it really feels like it's just trying to occupy an awkward niche between tempest and weaver rather than actually taking elementalist in a new direction.

Right ... when I say function, I don't equate that to a different way to play the class though. Admittedly, Catalyst is a weak implementation of a different way to play the Ele, but I believe that the concept of the class is sound because when you can do so, Catalyst does play different than base ele. 

[draxynnic.3719]

15 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Right ... when I say function, I don't equate that to a different way to play the class though. Admittedly, Catalyst is a weak implementation of a different way to play the Ele, but I believe that the concept of the class is sound because when you can do so, Catalyst does play different than base ele. 

Different ways to play often do come with new functionality (at the expense of some of the functionality of other builds). 

 

Catalyst...sure, it's different to core ele, but even then I'd say it's probably less different than the other two. Problem is that the other two absolutely do exist, and catalyst doesn't really offer much more than an uncomfortable juxtaposition of the tempest's generation of combo fields and auras with the weaver's focus on shifting through attunements quickly. There are some things that catalyst can do (poorly...) that existing options can't, but it really feels like it's competing with weaver and tempest rather than really doing anything new.

[Mik.3401]

2 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

To be fair, no one should be expecting continued releases to especs to add functionality to a class anyways. That's not what especs are there for and it only makes sense that more especs are released over time than are functionally necessary. I don't think casual players are the only ones to defend this ... I think it's more about who is reasonable. 

I agree that most roles are filled already and adding new specs just adds flavour and that’s it. But I’d like them to be an actual viable options so I can play them in endgame. Even if they don’t bring much to the table - at least make them equally powerful.

[Veka.8710]

On 9/27/2021 at 6:18 AM, Mesket.5728 said:

yeah its a pattern. People who don't like warrior suddenly like this spec, while people who main warrior for 9 years hates it.

That's how us Mes main feels about our elite spec.

[draxynnic.3719]

4 hours ago, Veka.8710 said:

That's how us Mes main feels about our elite spec.

Bit of a no-true-Scotsmen fallacy, there. Personally, if anything, I think Virtuoso is closer to the mesmer I mained from 2005 to 2012, when the only way you could get something like the GW2 mesmer was the Ebon Vanguard Assassin Support spamming build (which didn't exist in PvP).

 

There are problems with virtuoso, to be sure, but I think a lot of the backlash is that people who have been near-exclusively playing mesmer can't see themselves playing without clones, have spent years compensating for the very real issues clones have, and see problems as gamebreaking that other professions see as normal gameplay considerations.

 

Meanwhile, I've been ripping apart Bladesworn despite Warrior probably being my least played profession because I want to see a Warrior spec I'd enjoy playing more, and BS isn't it. Of course, it's possible that what I'd want to see is different to what warrior mains want to see.

 

Mind you, there is a degree to which elite specialisations attracting people who haven't been playing the profession isn't a bad thing. Elite specialisations are supposed to open up more playstyles, which might attract people who didn't enjoy the existing one, while people who are mostly playing the existing builds are presumably happy with what they've got. If every elite specialisation is just more of the same, you end up with Catalyst.

[Obtena.7952]

On 9/30/2021 at 1:01 PM, draxynnic.3719 said:

Different ways to play often do come with new functionality (at the expense of some of the functionality of other builds). 

 

Catalyst...sure, it's different to core ele, but even then I'd say it's probably less different than the other two. Problem is that the other two absolutely do exist, and catalyst doesn't really offer much more than an uncomfortable juxtaposition of the tempest's generation of combo fields and auras with the weaver's focus on shifting through attunements quickly. There are some things that catalyst can do (poorly...) that existing options can't, but it really feels like it's competing with weaver and tempest rather than really doing anything new.

Functionality is not derived from the classes though ... it's derived from the how the game encounters are designed.

For instance ... if there was 20 ways to apply damage to NPC's, there would be LOTS of room for especs to cover those ways. We have ... TWO. SO basically ... for damage, that space gets covered by a small number of especs ... only need three to cover them. here are other instances but the basic idea here is to demonstrate that even if we got 20 especs ... we still only have direct and condi damage, so it's inevitable those specs have overlap for applying damage. This also applies to other functions like healing or whatever. 

Edited October 2, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[draxynnic.3719]

4 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Functionality is not derived from the classes though ... it's derived from the how the game encounters are designed.

For instance ... if there was 20 ways to apply damage to NPC's, there would be LOTS of room for especs to cover those ways. We have ... TWO. SO basically ... for damage, that space gets covered by a small number of especs ... only need three to cover them. here are other instances but the basic idea here is to demonstrate that even if we got 20 especs ... we still only have direct and condi damage, so it's inevitable those specs have overlap for applying damage. This also applies to other functions like healing or whatever. 

Oh, come on. Even just limiting to damage, we can double that to four by considering whether it's AoE or single-target, and then triple that to twelve by considering whether something is long range, melee, or in that close-in category that isn't really melee but you wouldn't really consider it ranged either (things like flamethrower and elementalist dagger). You can double up the AoE types by splitting between AoE based on persistent fields and AoE that applies its effects right away, so that twelve becomes eighteen. Torment and confusion are optimised for specific circumstances (stationary targets and fast attackers respectively), so that splits 'condi' into 'confusion-heavy', 'torment-heavy', and 'mostly just does unconditional dots', which means the nine out of eighteen DPS types that are condition-oriented are actually twenty-seven out of thirty-six. And I've barely gotten started.

 

Now, you could say that the majority of these distinctions don't matter in most raids, strikes, fractals, and so on, and you'd be right. Some of them do, though, and that stuff about range and whether AoEs are field-based or not absolutely does matter in competitive modes. And that's without even getting into the other two corners of the GW2 trinity, or aspects that don't even fit nicely into the trinity like mobility and how they mitigate damage.

 

I don't expect every profession to cover every base, of course, but there is definitely still plenty of room for elite specs to bring additional functionality even if they're fully DPS-oriented.

[Obtena.7952]

Well, 

14 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

I don't expect every profession to cover every base, of course, but there is definitely still plenty of room for elite specs to bring additional functionality even if they're fully DPS-oriented.

I think you don't understand. I'm not saying an espec can't have functionality beyond DPS (because clearly that's wrong ... we already have specs that have good function beyond just DPS).

I'm saying that a classes especs eventually cover all the functionality that exists relevant to it and at some point, you simply get overlap. That's relevant to the discussion here because some people think Especs exist to create new function for classes. They can, but that's not their purpose. Function that is needed in the game is derived from the game content, not the class design. Therefore, when we see people claiming the espec design fails because it doesn't bring 'new function' to the class ... they clearly don't understand what they are talking about since especs don't exist for new function, they exist for different playstyle. 

Edited October 2, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[draxynnic.3719]

4 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Well, 

I think you don't understand. I'm not saying an espec can't have functionality beyond DPS (because clearly that's wrong ... we already have specs that have good function beyond just DPS).

I'm saying that a classes especs eventually cover all the functionality that exists relevant to it and at some point, you simply get overlap. That's relevant to the discussion here because some people think Especs exist to create new function for classes. They can, but that's not their purpose. Function that is needed in the game is derived from the game content, not the class design. Therefore, when we see people claiming the espec design fails because it doesn't bring 'new function' to the class ... they clearly don't understand what they are talking about since especs don't exist for new function, they exist for different playstyle. 

I wasn't saying that either, I was pointing out a massive hole in your 'DPS only has two modes' argument.

 

Take virtuoso, for instance. It's, basically, more power damage on a profession that already had power damage options. But in the process, it's also providing an option that isn't susceptible to clones dying before it can use them, and it offers a lot of AoE that has traditionally been a weakness of mesmer. Your analysis would deem that as not adding functionality, but it does, because while it deals power damage it does so in a different way to regular mesmer which means it has a chance to thrive in some situations regular mesmer will struggle in (at the cost of struggling in some other situations regular mesmer thrives in).

[Junkpile.7439]

It's so annoyin how players think that new elite specs should to be best at everything. Expansion come and automatically you start to play new elite spec in every game mode and every situation. Well to be fair after path of fire it was like that and i hated it.

[Obtena.7952]

15 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

I wasn't saying that either, I was pointing out a massive hole in your 'DPS only has two modes' argument.

 

Take virtuoso, for instance. It's, basically, more power damage on a profession that already had power damage options. But in the process, it's also providing an option that isn't susceptible to clones dying before it can use them, and it offers a lot of AoE that has traditionally been a weakness of mesmer. Your analysis would deem that as not adding functionality, but it does, because while it deals power damage it does so in a different way to regular mesmer which means it has a chance to thrive in some situations regular mesmer will struggle in (at the cost of struggling in some other situations regular mesmer thrives in).

Right ... that's not adding function. It's just a different way to play. Those are two different things. Adding function would be more like Anet releasing a team-healing mesmer espec.  When I'm saying function, I'm talking about what it can do. Changing playstyle is more about how it can be done. 

Edited October 3, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Grand Marshal.4098]

Personally, aside from gameplay reasoning, the reason I don't like Bladesworn is because it is nothing new in terms of flavor. 

 

Its just a Core Warrior using a special weapon. Nothing else. Not identity into the spec, no special way of using adrenaline (Flow is garbage) just a forced weapon on a class which has the possibility for the most thematic play. Just go around and see how many types of warriors exist. No way they couldn't get another idea or two and give us something more similar to Spellbreaker and Berserker who fundamentally change something. 

[draxynnic.3719]

21 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Right ... that's not adding function. It's just a different way to play. Those are two different things. Adding function would be more like Anet releasing a team-healing mesmer espec.  When I'm saying function, I'm talking about what it can do. Changing playstyle is more about how it can be done. 

You think there's no difference in functionality between melee power and long-range power?

 

I'm guessing you only play stack-and-smack instances, since range versus melee can make a big difference in competitive modes... and in some open world content.

[Obtena.7952]

2 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

You think there's no difference in functionality between melee power and long-range power?

Again, the need for melee vs. range function isn't derived from the spec. It is determined by the content. That 'function' isn't even limited by the espec to begin with so that's not even a 'function' that differentiates especs anyways. 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[draxynnic.3719]

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Again, that function isn't derived from the spec. Whether you need melee or ranged DPS is determined by the encounter and that 'function' isn't even limited by the espec to begin with. 

Last I checked, deadeye was more suited to ranged damage than daredevil. I'd consider that a functionality distinction even if they're both using power. Sure, you COULD run melee deadeye with, say, d/d and s/p or something, but it's not exactly what it's designed for, is it?

 

Sure, switching from a melee-oriented build to ranged or vice versa is a means of adapting to an encounter - but it's still switching from one functionality to another. That's pretty much exactly what adapting to an encounter IS- trading out functionalities that aren't helpful for ones that are.

[Obtena.7952]

24 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Last I checked, deadeye was more suited to ranged damage than daredevil. I'd consider that a functionality distinction even if they're both using power. Sure, you COULD run melee deadeye with, say, d/d and s/p or something, but it's not exactly what it's designed for, is it?

 

Sure, switching from a melee-oriented build to ranged or vice versa is a means of adapting to an encounter - but it's still switching from one functionality to another. That's pretty much exactly what adapting to an encounter IS- trading out functionalities that aren't helpful for ones that are.

OK ... except the need for those functions is based on the content, not the espec itself. I don't think you understand my point. The content determines how much 'function' exists for the different specs to cover ... if there isn't much function in the content, it's easy for a small number of specs to cover it and then we start getting overlap. 

As ONE example, if the primary differentiators for the 'damage function' are range and type (direct/condi) ... then it's not hard to see we are probably already hitting the wall in terms of coverage for many specs. 

Let's stick to the example. Let's say Anet invents "PLAGUE" damage, associated with new spec X ... except PLAGUE damage doesn't exist in content, so that's a meaningless 'damage function' for spec X to possess. The content MUST be the thing that defines what functions the classes can cover. The content is the reason for the functions on the specs to exist, not the other way around. 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Crackmonster.2790]

On 10/3/2021 at 3:22 PM, Junkpile.7439 said:

It's so annoyin how players think that new elite specs should to be best at everything. Expansion come and automatically you start to play new elite spec in every game mode and every situation. Well to be fair after path of fire it was like that and i hated it.

It's a good thing we are not discussing numbers then. Wakey wakey, matey.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Crackmonster.2790

[draxynnic.3719]

19 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

OK ... except the need for those functions is based on the content, not the espec itself. I don't think you understand my point. The content determines how much 'function' exists for the different specs to cover ... if there isn't much function in the content, it's easy for a small number of specs to cover it and then we start getting overlap. 

As ONE example, if the primary differentiators for the 'damage function' are range and type (direct/condi) ... then it's not hard to see we are probably already hitting the wall in terms of coverage for many specs. 

Let's stick to the example. Let's say Anet invents "PLAGUE" damage, associated with new spec X ... except PLAGUE damage doesn't exist in content, so that's a meaningless 'damage function' for spec X to possess. The content MUST be the thing that defines what functions the classes can cover. The content is the reason for the functions on the specs to exist, not the other way around. 

I gave examples of how the functions adapt to different content in an earlier post. Range isn't important in a stack-and-smack approach for most instanced PvE bosses, but it makes a big difference in the tactics you'll use in competitive modes. Confusion is more useful against fast-attacking enemies than slow-attacking ones (even if that was pared back a bit recently). Sure, there are some encounters where it doesn't really matter if you use function X over function Y, but that isn't the case for every encounter. Heck, in competitive modes, there are times when having ranged damage or melee damage is more important than if you have power or condi.

 

That's four right there, before we get into finer distinctions between specific condis, instant damage versus damaging fields (which can matter when some encounters are more dynamic than others, while in competitive persistant damage fields can contribute to area denial or be combined with control effects), tanky versus control versus mobility versus pure DPS, different kinds of support, yada yada yada. I don't think there's any profession that's even approaching the limit. 

 

Sure, if all you're doing is PvE stack-and-smack, I can see why you might be missing a lot of that and that condi/power is the main distinction you notice (due to bosses having widely varying armour values so there are some you want to use mostly power, some you want mostly condi), but that doesn't mean the other functionalities aren't important in other cirucmstances.

[Obtena.7952]

Again, I'm not arguing what is 'function' or not because it's not really my point. My point is that there is a finite functional space that exists and it's determined by the game content, not how classes are conceived. Finer distinctions don't change that. If anything, the finer distinctions in function become much less meaningful as primary characteristics for especs to be built around. If we want to talk about underwhelming espec design ... then focusing on 'finer' distinctions would certainly be the way for Anet to do that. 

I mean, Catalyst does suffer from exactly that ... somehow Anet thinks that getting an Aura from finishing a Jade Sphere ... is different than simply using a skill that gives you an Aura. Same function, just a different way to do it. Function vs. gameplay. There is nothing Anet can do with Catalyst that will convince any player that they got a whole pile of new functionality by finishing on a Jade Sphere to get an Aura ... because function doesn't derive from the spec design, it's a result of content.  

Edited October 5, 2021 by Obtena.7952