Mechanist design is very-very questionable.

[Obtena.7952]

17 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

So it's not that i think the mechanist is unhealthy...it's the way this class, and really all the elite specs are designed which are unhealthy...in particular how it treats diversity.

 

Like others mentioned, the spec is so closed off from it's trait-lines, that the spec is an all or nothing "Invest in the Mech or Die." spec. On top of that, the trait-lines are designed around granting stats to the player...which is a huge HUGE mistake, because the spec is thus designed around a completely passive element of the game.

 

In other words...you aren't fighting the mech...you are fighting the stats of the mech. 

 

Likewise as the Mechanist...you aren't playing the game, the stats are playing the game for you.

 

For the sake of diversity...every single elite spec, needs a complete rethinking and really just a lesson in what synergies are...because that is what is lacking from every spec...

 

Surprisingly synergistics is the main "thing" behind my constant yapping about complexity theory... and low and behold we got specs that have no synergy which just clearly indicates that my voice has fallen on deaf ears. I'm not sour about that im not expecting for Anet to read my posts and exercise them...but I just hate being right about something because honestly this whole beta coulda been totally different and could have completely avoided such a bad reception. 

Well, I would agree this is a problem ... if there wasn't 3 other specs to play on the class. To be fair, I don't suspect this is totally unwanted by players or Anet, unhealthy or not. The spec IS all about the Mech ... and in this case I see little option for it not to be another way. In all fairness, that's a nice departure from the other pet class Ranger where the pet is a sort of side show. It's about choice here ... and clearly, the intent is a more pet focused spec than Ranger can give. 

I agree it's a little 'easy mode' with mechanist ... that's tuning. I wouldn't expect at this point, we get a tuned spec or even at release for that matter. 

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Well, I would agree this is a problem ... if there wasn't 3 other specs to play on the class. To be fair, I don't suspect this is totally unwanted by players or Anet, unhealthy or not. The spec IS all about the Mech ... but in this case I see little option for it not to be that way. In all fairness, that's a nice departure from Ranger where the pet is a sort of side show. It's about choice here ... and clearly, the intent is a pet focused spec. 

That’s the thing…the theme of the class isn’t a problem…having a pet is cool and there’s nothing wrong with that. The issue is that the traits are designed around giving the pet stats, rather then….well designed game elements that interact with the Engi’s core traitlines to produce a larger variety of build types and dynamic gameplay.

[Obtena.7952]

38 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

That’s the thing…the theme of the class isn’t a problem…having a pet is cool and there’s nothing wrong with that. The issue is that the traits are designed around giving the pet stats, rather then….well designed game elements that interact with the Engi’s core traitlines to produce a larger variety of build types and dynamic gameplay.

That's true ... but on the other hand, we know how well designed game elements that interact with a core traitlines to produce a larger variety of build types and dynamic gameplay would result in for a pet class ... it's exactly like a Ranger implementation. The thing is that ranger as a CLASS is designed to support pets ... Engi is not. Therefore, the mechanist traits MUST focus on the pet.

The other problem is that Rangers have multiple pet groups that have various stats assigned to them. That is not available on Mechanist. I mean, if the complaint is that mechanist traits are more 'hardcoded' and 'focused' to deliver a pet implementation, what is the alternative? Do we honestly think Anet is going to expand golem families and modify existing traits to simply enable ONE espec? I think that's unreasonable because it's simply unnecessary to do so. I don't think Mechanist is deficient in it's design ... but it's definitely not a wide a scope as we are used to for a pet class. 

Also, I've noticed this trend you speak of that traits are isolated to the spec but it's not just present on Mechanist... the isolated nature of the  traitlines is apparent on all the EoD specs to some degree. Seems like a more general design decision than a mechanist trait characteristic. 

Honestly, you are right ... I see the reduction in diversity across the EoD especs, but I don't think that's  necessarily a bad thing because we do have relevant options from the other existing specs. If a spec lacks diversity WITHIN it, then we aren't locked into that. 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

13 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

That's true ... but on the other hand, we know how well designed game elements that interact with the Engi’s core traitlines to produce a larger variety of build types and dynamic gameplay would result in ... a ranger-ized pet implementation. The problem is that Rangers have multiple pet groups that have various stats assigned to them and this also has it's problems. That implementation doesn't work on Mechanist because it has ONE pet, so it's stats have to exist from SOMETHING. If it's not trait based, then ... from where? 

I get you…only reason I’m not being to clear is cause I’m on a phone and I can’t explain everything as concise as id like.
 

it’s not that the stats can’t come from somewhere…but the stats shouldn’t define the capability of the spec…the effects and how those effects interact with other trait-lines, is how the capability of the spec should be defined.

 

for example…the mech has a string of 3 auto attacks, and a handful of skills where the traitlines boost the stats of the mech so that those auto attacks and skills do damage. That means that in order for the mech to do damage requires an investment in  a specific trait to perform. 

 

what should be the case instead, is that the traits should define how those skills the mech has access to, interact with other traits on the class as a whole. This way the mech isn’t tied to its stats…it’s tied to what traits you picked on core traitlines and other skills of the class.
 

That way the mech isn’t tied down to just one trait on the elite spec…it’s tied to those other traits.

Edited October 26, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Obtena.7952]

8 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I get you…only reason I’m not being to clear is cause I’m on a phone and I can’t explain everything as concise as id like.
 

it’s not that the stats can’t come from somewhere…but the stats shouldn’t define the capability of the spec…the effects and how those effects interact with other trait-lines, is how the capability of the spec should be defined.

 

for example…the mech has a string of 3 auto attacks, and a handful of skills where the traitlines boost the stats of the mech so that those auto attacks and skills do damage. That means that in order for the mech to do damage requires an investment in specific traits.

 

what should be the case instead, is that the traits should define how those skills the mech has access to, interact with other traits on the class as a whole. This way the mech isn’t tied to its stats…it’s tied to what traits you picked on core traitlines and other skills of the class.
 

That way the mech isn’t tied down to just one trait on the elite spec…it’s tied to those other traits.

I mean, we can imagine all kinds of different ways it could be. It COULD have been like Ranger pets and traits ... but then why would  Anet do that? That's not really a different offering except in name. Again, we can't assume what SHOULD be based on how other things work or our imaginations. I see no reason to claim Golem stats tied to Traits shouldn't have been the way they did it. It's just not a relevant way to think. If it works, it will work. If it doesn't, Anet will do something else. 

I really can't see Anet doing what you are saying here. It's highly unlikely that they work one element of one espec into a whole bunch of core traits to enable that approach. 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

4 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I mean, we can imagine all kinds of different ways it could be. It COULD have been like Ranger pets and traits .. but then why would  Anet do that? That's not really a different offering except in name. Again, we can't assume what SHOULD be based on how other things work or our imaginations. I see no reason to claim Golem stats tied to Traits shouldn't have been the way they did it. It's just not a relevant way to think. If it works, it will work. If it doesn't, Anet will do something else. 

sure there are a plethora of possible things they could do, mine is just an example of how to think about the problem with the spec

 

again, adopting that mentality, means that we could regard anything anet does as fine…which is equivalent to saying that smoking is fine because people enjoy smoking.

 

I am a smoker btw…but I would be ignorant to think that smoking isn’t killing me.

Edited October 26, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Obtena.7952]

6 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

sure there are a plethora of possible things they could do, mine is just an example of how to think about the problem with the spec

 

again, adopting that mentality, means that we could regard anything anet does as fine…which is equivalent to saying that smoking is fine because people enjoy smoking.

 

I am a smoker btw…but I would be ignorant to think that smoking isn’t killing me.

I'm not following that analogy ... because it seems that no 'unhealthy' approach to designing the game has been established to claim it shouldn't have been done. Anyways, I honestly don't see the unhealthy thing Anet did here with tying golem stats to traits; even if Anet just fixed the stats on the golem to some static values, I don't think it would change the diversity you are saying is lost by not making traits interact better with it. Seems to me it was a reasonable way for players to choose how they want to 'define' the golem, without rehashing the whole Ranger pet implementation ...  which is the whole point of the espec IIRC.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

8 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I'm not following that analogy ... because it seems that no 'unhealthy' approach to designing the game has been established to claim it shouldn't have been done. 

 

Alternate analogy...is that drinking and driving exists...so what's the issue just let people drink and drive since people don't mind doing it.

 

You will see, the consequences come from that decision eventually. Once bystanders start dropping like flies. Why act retroactively to fix that issue, when you could have alleviated that issue before it started? 

 

Drinking and Driving, is still a thing even though it's illegal...so yes, it's not like we can know for sure what will solve the problem, but there are some obvious solutions that at least not make the issue as bad as it could be. Making it illegal is one such solution...and i'm sure there is out there, a better way to solve that problem.

 

42 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Also, I've noticed this trend you speak of that traits are isolated to the spec but it's not just present on Mechanist... the isolated nature of the  traitlines is apparent on all the EoD specs to some degree. Seems like a more general design decision than a mechanist trait characteristic. 

Honestly, you are right ... I see the reduction in diversity across the EoD especs, but I don't think that's  necessarily a bad thing because we do have relevant options from the other existing specs. If a spec lacks diversity WITHIN it, then we aren't locked into that. 

 

About this, yes the issue is pervasive across all the elite specs and not just Mechanist. I do see what you are saying...and by and large, we will have more diversity then before regardless of what they do, because we now have 4 elite specs to choose from instead of 3...however when looking at the specs locally (the diversity within the spec) the expansion if designed in a better way, could give us 100 different kinds of viable builds, rather then 1 or 2 kinds of builds...and that has to do with how interactable those elements are with other elements.

 

For me, i always provide scientific arguments to back up my claims about what changes to the game should be enacted to give more diversity. There's always an uncertainty but we can at least pull from sources we know that have researched how diversity works in able to make a suitable argument for such changes. That's really what seperates things that i say, from those of the typical forum-goer.

 

Back to the analogy... Imagine back at the advent of driving vehicles...we didn't know at the time, if drinking and driving causes reckless deaths of bystanders...But you can at least look at the effects of alcohol...how it impairs motor-function and actively consider and address how such behavior happens as a result of the combination of the two before it actually happens...rather then retroactively alleviating the issue because we don't know for sure how alcohol effects driving. 

[Bomboed.5697]

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

The thing is that ranger as a CLASS is designed to support pets ... Engi is not. Therefore, the mechanist traits MUST focus on the pet.

Actually, this is not true at all. Pet could be designed to be with temporary uptime. Something like a Hologforge, but instead of temporary replacing weapon skills, it would temporary replace toolbelt.
With uptime like ~50%, traits could be designed to provide to both engi and pet.

Also, current design of Mechanist has a lot of wasted spaces. For example, F5 is not used at all. And a lot of traits could be merget together. All minors traits could be merged into one. And there are also no real reason to tie stat inheritance to traits at all - it could be done baseline, there is not problem if pet will inherit ALL stats, because it will be limited by Engi-stats. What the point of limiting stat inheritance by trait choice, if it is already limited by players stats? It is okay for pet to inherit, for example, condition damage in power builds, because it will inherit already small stat due to power focus of the build. And vice versa. 

[Obtena.7952]

43 minutes ago, Bomboed.5697 said:

Actually, this is not true at all. Pet could be designed to be with temporary uptime. Something like a Hologforge, but instead of temporary replacing weapon skills, it would temporary replace toolbelt.
With uptime like ~50%, traits could be designed to provide to both engi and pet.

No, hold on ,... what COULD be is irrelevant here. What is relevant here is what actually IS. So the fact that ranger as a class is designed to support pets and Engi as a class is not IS a truth. 

Sure ... Anet COULD change that .. but only THEN I would be wrong. Just because scenarios COULD exist where I'm wrong does not mean I am wrong. 

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Bomboed.5697]

9 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

No, hold on ,... what COULD be is irrelevant here. What is relevant here is what actually IS. So the fact that ranger as a class is designed to support pets and Engi as a class is not IS a truth. 

Sure ... Anet COULD change that .. but only THEN I would be wrong. Just because scenarios COULD exist where I'm wrong does not mean I am wrong. 

 

Nah. You said that mechanist traits MUST focus on the pet, because Engi, as a class, is not designed to support pet.
I proved this to be wrong, because pet support could be a part of pet itself, instead of traits. And pet abilities could be linked to anything else, instead of traits.
There is no obligatory reasons for traits to be focused on pet.
Mechanist is done how it is done not because of "must", but because of design decision. Just the one from the many. And pretty bad one.

[Allarius.5670]

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 ignorance.

[Obtena.7952]

3 hours ago, Bomboed.5697 said:

Nah. You said that mechanist traits MUST focus on the pet, because Engi, as a class, is not designed to support pet.
I proved this to be wrong, 

That doesn't make sense (and you took that out of context since the original discussion was focused on JUST traits). Where does the golem aspect of the spec come from if it's not the mechanist traits and doesn't exist anywhere else in the Engi class skillset? 

Again, I'm not arguing with you what could be done and this isn't an academic research paper on the best way to implement a golem on Engi class in GW2. If you aren't talking about what is the reality of the situation here, then you aren't talking to me. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Bomboed.5697]

11 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

You don't get it ... What is relevant is the reality of the situation we are in. The only 'proof' that is needed is what is real ... is what things are. Engi is not class that supports pets, so the logicaly place for Anet to introduce the golem element is in the traits. I don't know how you prove that wrong .. because that's how it works. You proved something wrong that is reality? Better recheck your logic there. 

That is not how logic works.
You said: "the mechanist traits MUST focus on the pet". What does "must" mean? It means that it is the only option. If there are other options - there is no "must".
By talking about "must" you are not talking about something in present - you are talking about reasons in the past, which determine present. By talking about "must" you imply that there are reasons which determines the only one possible variant in the present, and this variant, by your opinion, is "the mechanist traits MUST focus on the pet".
This is proved wrong by showing other variants of how it could be done. This is proved wrong by showing that there is nothing to obligate traits to be focused on pet, because there are several possible options of what could be focused on pet.

[Obtena.7952]

54 minutes ago, Bomboed.5697 said:

That is not how logic works.

Here is some logic ... I'm discussing what is REAL. I'm not discussing what CAN be. Because one has value and the other doesn't. One is relevant to getting Anet to consider changes ... and the other isn't. 

I get your strategy here, but it's not going to work because you can't assume Anet has not designed the spec the way they want it work or they left themselves open to including players as part of the design process. It's not about the 100's of other ways they could have done it with the possibility one of those is better than the current way. It's about the ONE way Anet DID do it. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Bomboed.5697]

57 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

I'm discussing what is REAL. I'm not discussing what CAN be.

 

16 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

The thing is that ranger as a CLASS is designed to support pets ... Engi is not. Therefore, the mechanist traits MUST focus on the pet.

 

1 hour ago, Bomboed.5697 said:

By talking about "must" you are not talking about something in present - you are talking about reasons in the past, which determine present. By talking about "must" you imply that there are reasons which determines the only one possible variant in the present, and this variant, by your opinion, is "the mechanist traits MUST focus on the pet".

You keep contradicting yourself.
 

1 hour ago, Obtena.7952 said:

It's not about the 100's of other ways they could have done it with the possibility one of those is better than the current way. It's about the ONE way Anet DID do it. 

The thing is that when you started talking about this ONE way is real because it MUST be so, you already started a discussion about possibilities. Because what MUST be done and was done is determined by reasons in past. And those reasons provide 100`s of other ways they could have done, not only the ONE in present.

[Obtena.7952]

19 minutes ago, Bomboed.5697 said:

You keep contradicting yourself.

Well, believe what you like ... I'm not waxing academic with you on possibilities because we don't control the design and it's not relevant. It's also unlikely to shame or embarrass Anet into rethinking their design by contemplating better alternatives or highlighting contradictions in reveal scripts and marketing PR.  

If you want to talk about what is real, ingame right now ... I'm game because for all the academic points you make and the big mountain of logic you reside over ... there is a practical aspect to all this that can't be ignored that overrides ALL that stuff. In the end of the day, what matters is that the spec works like Anet wants it to work, people adopt it and it's ready for release in EoD. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Bomboed.5697]

25 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

If you want to talk about what is real, ingame right now

You cannot discuss what is real without discussing about what it could have been and what it can be. Without it there is not discussion, just statement of facts. Facts are real. Reality is all about facts. But there is nothing to discuss in fact by themselves, we can only assert them.
But if we want to discuss something around these fact, we inevitably start to discuss something not real. If we think that facts are bad - we discuss about reasons of those facts, so we discuss about past. If we think that facts could be improved - we discuss about ways to so, so we discuss possibilities of future.

It is not about academic stuff, it is about making sense or not making sense. When you say "I want to discuss what only what is real" - you are not making sense. Because there is nothing to discuss.
 

35 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

In the end of the day, what matters is that the spec works like Anet wants it to work, people adopt it and it's ready for release in EoD. 

But what if it does not work? What if players don't like how it works? The game is for players or for devs?
It is in devs interest to make something players will like. And if players don't like something - it is in players interest to discuss what they don't like, why they don't like it and how they think it could be done better. It is in players interest to discuss not only what is real, but what it could become.

[Obtena.7952]

22 minutes ago, Bomboed.5697 said:

But what if it does not work? What if players don't like how it works? The game is for players or for devs?

Then it gets changed. I mean, what kind of question is that? Of course it's dev's interest to make something players will like ... and there is a WHOLE PROCESS there that we can see in action from the patch notes. I mean, I'm not having a philosophical debate with you. The value of a discussion about what COULD be is low unless it's determined that it will be changed and that's Anet's domain. 

I mean, you can discuss what could be, but don't think that's a compelling argument for Anet to change what it is ... because that much is obvious about your motivation. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[displacedTitan.6897]

1 minute ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Then it gets changed. I mean, I'm not having a philosophical debate with you. The value of a discussion about what COULD be is low unless it's determined that it will be changed and that's Anet's domain. 

 

Derailing threads with tautologies and then bowing out when people question why you engage in feedback threads when you dont actually have feedback. Nice!

More to the thread title. Now that I have a few more hours of experience I am putting the Mechanist down. Having only two traitlines, no internal synergy between Mechanist and the rest of Core Engi, Utilities being broken due to no toolbelt skills, wonky AI and uninspired new weapon means this spec is DoA.

Look forward to three years from now ANet giving it a complete overhaul I guess. For now I will go back to Scrapper/Holo.

Edited October 27, 2021 by displacedTitan.6897

[Obtena.7952]

6 minutes ago, displacedTitan.6897 said:

 

Derailing threads with tautologies and then bowing out when people question why you engage in feedback when you dont actually have feedback. Nice!

It's is nice because it's what is real. The academic aspect here is meaningless without considering the practical side of implementing an espec. OP appears to believe that there is compelling reason for Anet to reconsider the design because of the discrepancies and contradictions listed in his original post. It's hard to see the relevance there if the spec accomplishes what it's set to do despite those things. 

That's just not fair to say I don't have feedback ... my feedback is that it's irrelevant to push for change because of academic correctness. In the end, it's a weak play. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[Bomboed.5697]

5 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

It's hard to see the relevance there if the spec accomplishes what it's set to do despite those things.

If players do not enjoy it - spec does not accomplish what it's set to do. Unless it is set to make players not enjoy it.
If players have reasons to complain about it - spec does not accomplish what it's set to do. Unless it is set to make players to complain about it.

Your point is that every feedback is irrelevant, unless it is in a form of submissive consent, because every other form of feedback implies changes and improvements, therefore implies discussion not only about real stuff, but also about other possibilities.

[Obtena.7952]

9 minutes ago, Bomboed.5697 said:

If players do not enjoy it - spec does not accomplish what it's set to do. 

I know that ... it's pointless to tell me these things. They don't change what I'm saying to you. My point is NOT that every feedback is irrelevant. If that's what you conclude, then you need to take more time to consider the quality of the different feedback you see being given. Your rhetorical questioning of the design isn't compelling reason to change it. 

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Obtena.7952

[displacedTitan.6897]

7 minutes ago, Bomboed.5697 said:

Your point is that every feedback is irrelevant, unless it is in a form of submissive consent, because every other form of feedback implies changes and improvements, therefore implies discussion not only about real stuff, but also about other possibilities.

 

Really feels like engaging the troll is a bad move after seeing more replies from them. If their opinion is that feedback is pointless because its feedback, not a lot to talk about on a thread about feedback.

[Obtena.7952]

11 minutes ago, displacedTitan.6897 said:

 

Really feels like engaging the troll is a bad move after seeing more replies from them. If their opinion is that feedback is pointless because its feedback, not a lot to talk about on a thread about feedback.

Except that's not my opinion .. that's just bad acting from people that don't understand feedback can be of differing quality. If the OP has a point about design being bad, they should just state it ... in a clear statement. This rhetorical questions is not effective. I mean, for example, OP questions why implementing a pet AI with with it's know problems is welcoming to groups? Here is a hint ... they aren't going to answer that and it's not going to change the concept of mechanist ... so how good do you think that feedback is? I think it's pretty useless ... and the other questions aren't much different. Here let me help you guys out. 

"Anet this design is bad because ... "

There you go. Let me help you take another step ... "Anet is this design is bad because it's deficient when golem is on CD". There you go ... now you guys try it ... because I can assure you that pointing out inconstencies/contradictions in things that were said is NOT relevant. What is relevant here is what is real and ingame. We ARE going to get a Golem AI spec EVEN if things we know about it result in groups not wanting it. How realistic do you think it is that Anet just throws the whole thing out ... JUST because Golem is AI? ZERO. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Obtena.7952