So What Elite Spec you want next?

[Tseison.4659]

Who says they’ll be releasing anymore after EoD? If anything, they’ll expand on current elite specs but I definitely think after EoD, that’s it. 🤷‍♀️

[draxynnic.3719]

10 hours ago, Tseison.4659 said:

Who says they’ll be releasing anymore after EoD? If anything, they’ll expand on current elite specs but I definitely think after EoD, that’s it. 🤷‍♀️

It's all supposition, but you're probably marginally more likely to get what you want if you let people know what you want.

 

For what it's worth, though, the switch to a new DX version does look like a commitment to keep going. I don't think they'd do that if they were still thinking of moving on after a year or so. (It's worth keeping in mind that the period between PoF and EoD is comparable to the period between Nightfall and EotN, except that this time they chose to keep going. Season 4 was written with the possibility of going into maintenance mode afterwards in mind.)

[Kodama.6453]

17 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

It's all supposition, but you're probably marginally more likely to get what you want if you let people know what you want.

We tried, didn't work....

Engineer mains were asking for a simpler condition damage rotation for years, since condi builds on engineer are always full kit setups. What did we get? Mechanist, a spec which actually makes the problem WORSE by removing some condi toolbelt skills, while just adding one new condi utility skill with superconducting signer.

And then this signet ends up dealing less condition damage than concussion bomb on bomb kit. Absolutely nothing got done about the overly complicated condition rotations, we still have to juggle 4 kits, now we just also have an auto attacking bot to accompany us while doing so.

[draxynnic.3719]

16 hours ago, Kodama.6453 said:

We tried, didn't work....

Engineer mains were asking for a simpler condition damage rotation for years, since condi builds on engineer are always full kit setups. What did we get? Mechanist, a spec which actually makes the problem WORSE by removing some condi toolbelt skills, while just adding one new condi utility skill with superconducting signer.

And then this signet ends up dealing less condition damage than concussion bomb on bomb kit. Absolutely nothing got done about the overly complicated condition rotations, we still have to juggle 4 kits, now we just also have an auto attacking bot to accompany us while doing so.

Hence why I said 'MARGINALLY more likely'.

 

To be fair to the devs, though, golemancer was something people were asking for (even if many more experienced engineer players had identified the need for something else), and technically mechanist did avoid being just another power melee spec. So it's less that they weren't listening at all and more that they listened to different voices. Hopefully, now that golems are out of everyone's collective systems, there'll be room for something more targeted in the future.

[MrForz.1953]

42 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Hence why I said 'MARGINALLY more likely'.

 

To be fair to the devs, though, golemancer was something people were asking for (even if many more experienced engineer players had identified the need for something else), and technically mechanist did avoid being just another power melee spec. So it's less that they weren't listening at all and more that they listened to different voices. Hopefully, now that golems are out of everyone's collective systems, there'll be room for something more targeted in the future.

 Tsssk, there are complaints directed to the fact it's not golemancy still. It will never die. 😛

[Matoro.9708]

I'd like to see an elite spec that makes these stationary machines you can put down that attack things for you, maybe you can also use handheld tools to repair them as they take damage, I don't know, maybe that would be cool. Do you guys think Anet could pull it off?

[draxynnic.3719]

6 hours ago, MrForz.1953 said:

 Tsssk, there are complaints directed to the fact it's not golemancy still. It will never die. 😛

Dear Lyssa, it's going to be the next "revenants should get a ritualist specialisation", isn't it?

 

Still worthwhile at least trying to let ArenaNet know there are people who want something different, though.

[Kodama.6453]

1 hour ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Dear Lyssa, it's going to be the next "revenants should get a ritualist specialisation", isn't it?

Since they used the urn mechanic for vindicator now, all that's left from the ritualist is lightning magic and weapon spells.

Next revenant elite spec using the venom skill system for weapon spells?

Jk, Cantha is done with this expansion and they at least acknowledged the ritualistic links with the urn. There is no point in chasing after a ritualist elite spec after this anymore.

Same applies to golemancer. They gave us the jade mech, doing another take on the golemancer theme is pointless. The jade tech represents what people were looking for in golemancer. I just hope we can explore some other thematics in the future then, I personally hope for more aggressive usage of alchemy (bring back all my acids, Anet!).

Edited November 2, 2021 by Kodama.6453

[draxynnic.3719]

Not gonna lie, too, I'm extra disappointed that they blew mace on a golemancer spec. That was probably the best opportunity they'd have to introduce scepter for engineer as a golem control rod and provide a 'support your golem from range' playstyle similar to Inquest Golemancers. But no, it had to be a melee weapon, probably because of the lack of a core melee weapon forcing them to keep filling that gap.

 

Just bite that bullet and give core engineer a melee weapon already, ArenaNet! Heck, transfer over that mace from mechanist and give mechanist a scepter!

[Kodama.6453]

41 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Not gonna lie, too, I'm extra disappointed that they blew mace on a golemancer spec. That was probably the best opportunity they'd have to introduce scepter for engineer as a golem control rod and provide a 'support your golem from range' playstyle similar to Inquest Golemancers. But no, it had to be a melee weapon, probably because of the lack of a core melee weapon forcing them to keep filling that gap.

 

Just bite that bullet and give core engineer a melee weapon already, ArenaNet! Heck, transfer over that mace from mechanist and give mechanist a scepter!

Gotta say, I am not really a fan of magical weapons being used for engineer elite specs for thematical reasons. Just like how I don't see ranger getting rifles or pistols because of a thematical disconnect, I just don't see magical weapons fitting engineer all that well.

So I prefer to avoid staff, scepter and focus as weapons on engineer as long as possible, literally every single other weapon makes more sense on engineer for me...

[draxynnic.3719]

 

 

26 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:

Gotta say, I am not really a fan of magical weapons being used for engineer elite specs for thematical reasons. Just like how I don't see ranger getting rifles or pistols because of a thematical disconnect, I just don't see magical weapons fitting engineer all that well.

So I prefer to avoid staff, scepter and focus as weapons on engineer as long as possible, literally every single other weapon makes more sense on engineer for me...

I can see where you're coming from, but once you've got something as obviously magitech as a golem, insisting on a non-magic weapon is pretty much a case of closing the door after the proverbial horse has bolted. We've seen effects on engineer weaponry already that are either magic or Sufficiently Advanced Technology such as the thunderclap on scrapper hammer or the light blade throw on holosmith sword - a staff or scepter for an engineer specialisation could easily be themed as a bundle of magitech built into a rod-shaped control device. There are already some staves and scepters with a technological theme, which could be further enhanced with a specialisation-specific skin, and more traditional staff and scepter designs could be explained as the tech simply being better hidden.

 

Ultimately, if they're going to make something as unambiguously magical as a golem, they might as well go the whole hog - and save the other weapons for specialisations that DO have plausible deniability regarding magic use.

[Kodama.6453]

9 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

 

 

I can see where you're coming from, but once you've got something as obviously magitech as a golem, insisting on a non-magic weapon is pretty much a case of closing the door after the proverbial horse has bolted. We've seen effects on engineer weaponry already that are either magic or Sufficiently Advanced Technology such as the thunderclap on scrapper hammer or the light blade throw on holosmith sword - a staff or scepter for an engineer specialisation could easily be themed as a bundle of magitech built into a rod-shaped control device. There are already some staves and scepters with a technological theme, which could be further enhanced with a specialisation-specific skin, and more traditional staff and scepter designs could be explained as the tech simply being better hidden.

 

Ultimately, if they're going to make something as unambiguously magical as a golem, they might as well go the whole hog - and save the other weapons for specialisations that DO have plausible deniability regarding magic use.

I didn't articulate my opinion very well there. It's not that I would argue that engineer doesn't use magic generally, this is already proven to be wrong multiple times now with mechanist being the newest addition.

But I don't see the classic magical weapons work well for engineer, since these are usually just used as foci points to channel magic.

Many suggestions I have read for staff, scepter and such weapons for engineer were stuff like "use the scepter as a tesla coil to use electricity, use the staff to shoot powerful lasers" and such. Which are examples of stuff engineers already do with their elite specs scrapper and holosmith.

For me, it stands out that while scrapper and holosmith still use these magical aspects (the thunderclap from hammer could be of magical origin and we know already that the hard light produced by the photon forge is magical), they do it with more "practical" weapons.

Engineers don't use weapons so far just as a device to channel powers through them, they also use them in actual combat. Let's take the scepter example: why would an engineer use a scepter for controlling and channeling purposes, if something like a mace could also sufficiently do the same while also being a handy weapon in direct combat?

Engineers are using technology to harness magical powers anyway, we don't need magical weapons to focus these energies, we build devices for that. And these devices can get combined with any weapon we want, as already shown with all 3 elite spec weapons. A scepter specifically would be a pretty inefficient weapon in direct combat, while not giving really that much benefit in harnessing powers if we are doing so by enhancing the weapon with technology anyway.

That's the thematical disconnect for me. I see no reason for engineers to use these weapons if any other weapon type could fill the same purpose of being a "remote control", while also wielding more powers if we are forced into direct combat with an enemy.

[draxynnic.3719]

The answer to the question you pose, I think, can be summed up as 'why would every engineer elite spec want to be in melee'?

 

Most of those practical weapons you're talking about are practical MELEE weapons. Guns have already been used. There are bows, and axes can be thrown, but I don't think every future range-oriented engineer elite specialisation really needs to be based around trick arrows or the equivalent of trick arrows for axes. And if we get to the point of building so much tech into, say, a greatsword that the engineer is too busy using that tech to actually swing the blade, why couldn't that same tech be built into, say, a staff instead? Is a greatsword really more efficient to build tech into?

 

Sure, the traditional caster weapons are normally associated with magic... but they don't have to be. We've seen staff skins used for environmental bundles that channel energy towards a target as a technological energy weapon... and we've also seen staff used as a melee weapon, so theoretically it has practical use as well. The same logic applies to sceptre, which could contain a variety of magitech (think of all the modules attached to HOPE without the need to fire a physical projectile through a tube) while being at least as useful for holding off a melee attacker as pistol would be. Focus - if another mainhand weapon was introduced - could be themed as a remote control device. Think of all the crazy things tech can be build into in a spy movie.

 

Ultimately, the disconnect for me here is... isn't the whole logic of having a golem in the first place so that it can do the fighting so you can reduce the risk you expose yourself to directly? Sure, fighting in melee alongside your mech should be an option (and they really need to introduce a core melee weapon for engineer so they can be free to make future elite specialisations without always having to ask the 'what if people want to melee' question), but if they're going to introduce a golemancer, it's a thematic disconnect to me to squander the opportunity to have something else do the fighting for you by using a melee weapon anyway. I don't think this is going to be the only case of an engineer theme that would logically want to stay out of melee, and they're not all going to suitable themes for trick arrows.

[MrForz.1953]

2 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Ultimately, the disconnect for me here is... isn't the whole logic of having a golem in the first place so that it can do the fighting so you can reduce the risk you expose yourself to directly? Sure, fighting in melee alongside your mech should be an option (and they really need to introduce a core melee weapon for engineer so they can be free to make future elite specialisations without always having to ask the 'what if people want to melee' question), but if they're going to introduce a golemancer, it's a thematic disconnect to me to squander the opportunity to have something else do the fighting for you by using a melee weapon anyway. I don't think this is going to be the only case of an engineer theme that would logically want to stay out of melee, and they're not all going to suitable themes for trick arrows.

I guess... it's to create compatible uses with other races on a spec that is sort of close to this Golemancer (🙄). Sure, an Asura will twirl their thumbs from a safe spot while the construct does the work, a Charr will still get into the frontlines and treat the construct like a mobile weapons rack that can shoot whenever it's needed from more favorable angles. You don't have to automatically delegate the fighting, and the JM can do that to some extent, thankfully.

Edited November 2, 2021 by MrForz.1953

[Bomboed.5697]

Personally, I think that "gameplay first" is a right way to make games. Yeah, theme is important, but it is secondary to gameplay. I don't really care about spec having a certain theme, like golemancy. I want new specs to be fun to play, highly customizable with synergies with core specs and healthy for the game.
If new spec involves another transformation, but it is enjoyable to play and interesting to tinker with - I am okay with that.
But if new spec pushes hard on certain theme, but functionally feels bad - I am not okay with that.

Mechanist is a result of "theme first" philosophy. A lot of people asked for "golemancy" stuff, because "it would be so cool to be an engineer with a cool looking pet golem". And people got what they asked for. It looks cool, it has a strong theme, but functionally it is clunky as hell, not very customizable and will be a nightmare to properly balance for different gamemodes.

Was it worth it?

[draxynnic.3719]

2 hours ago, MrForz.1953 said:

I guess... it's to create compatible uses with other races on a spec that is sort of close to this Golemancer (🙄). Sure, an Asura will twirl their thumbs from a safe spot while the construct does the work, a Charr will still get into the frontlines and treat the construct like a mobile weapons rack that can shoot whenever it's needed from more favorable angles. You don't have to automatically delegate the fighting, and the JM can do that to some extent, thankfully.

Which is part of why I've been saying for a while that ArenaNet needs to bite the bullet and make a melee weapon for engineer core.

 

Golem builders who want to fight alongside the golem, rather than from a safer location at some distance (or within the golem) logically should be a minority. Even most charr are probably pragmatic enough to realise if the golem is going to stop functioning if the operator dies, the operator probably shouldn't be fighting alongside a melee golem. A golemancer spec's signature weapon really should, IMO, be ranged.

 

Problem is, engineer is currently in a state where any elite specialisation is going to present the question of 'what if someone playing this wants to go melee', and having to spend a utility slot to get Tool Kit every time while having a ranged weapon you don't actually plan on using isn't exactly a satisfying answer. So every time, the answer becomes 'we'll have to make a melee weapon for the spec, I guess' - and I'm pretty sure this is why engineer is getting a third melee weapon in a row. Make the mace core, though, and they won't have to keep reinventing that wheel.

[Bomboed.5697]

3 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Which is part of why I've been saying for a while that ArenaNet needs to bite the bullet and make a melee weapon for engineer core.

 

Golem builders who want to fight alongside the golem, rather than from a safer location at some distance (or within the golem) logically should be a minority. Even most charr are probably pragmatic enough to realise if the golem is going to stop functioning if the operator dies, the operator probably shouldn't be fighting alongside a melee golem. A golemancer spec's signature weapon really should, IMO, be ranged.

 

Problem is, engineer is currently in a state where any elite specialisation is going to present the question of 'what if someone playing this wants to go melee', and having to spend a utility slot to get Tool Kit every time while having a ranged weapon you don't actually plan on using isn't exactly a satisfying answer. So every time, the answer becomes 'we'll have to make a melee weapon for the spec, I guess' - and I'm pretty sure this is why engineer is getting a third melee weapon in a row. Make the mace core, though, and they won't have to keep reinventing that wheel.

But Rifle is kinda melee weapon.... And half of all kits are melee.... And ranged ones are also usable in melee, sometimes even more successfully than at range.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Bomboed.5697

[EdwinLi.1284]

3 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Which is part of why I've been saying for a while that ArenaNet needs to bite the bullet and make a melee weapon for engineer core.

 

Golem builders who want to fight alongside the golem, rather than from a safer location at some distance (or within the golem) logically should be a minority. Even most charr are probably pragmatic enough to realise if the golem is going to stop functioning if the operator dies, the operator probably shouldn't be fighting alongside a melee golem. A golemancer spec's signature weapon really should, IMO, be ranged.

 

Problem is, engineer is currently in a state where any elite specialisation is going to present the question of 'what if someone playing this wants to go melee', and having to spend a utility slot to get Tool Kit every time while having a ranged weapon you don't actually plan on using isn't exactly a satisfying answer. So every time, the answer becomes 'we'll have to make a melee weapon for the spec, I guess' - and I'm pretty sure this is why engineer is getting a third melee weapon in a row. Make the mace core, though, and they won't have to keep reinventing that wheel.

I honestly do never understood why they never gave Mace as a core melee weapon since GW2 began. It was such a obvious option to provide for a engineer and goes well with the Shield as the off-hand. Not to mention a potential Power weapon option to act as Pistol's Condition weapon option.

Either way I say they did well with the Mace for Machinist since it is designed to be useable for both Power and Condition builds. Hopefully they learn from this and make future Elite Specs more viable for both Power and Condition build options.

[Bomboed.5697]

12 minutes ago, EdwinLi.1284 said:

I honestly do never understood why they never gave Mace as a core melee weapon since GW2 began. It was such a obvious option to provide for a engineer and goes well with the Shield as the off-hand. Not to mention a potential Power weapon option to act as Pistol's Condition weapon option.

Because of engineer's gimmick: we have a very-very limited number of traditional weapons because we have engineer-specific weapon in form of kits. Because of that we have only guns - they fit the engineer theme. Mace itself has nothing to do with engineering, so it is replaced with Tool Kit.

[EdwinLi.1284]

2 hours ago, Bomboed.5697 said:

Because of engineer's gimmick: we have a very-very limited number of traditional weapons because we have engineer-specific weapon in form of kits. Because of that we have only guns - they fit the engineer theme. Mace itself has nothing to do with engineering, so it is replaced with Tool Kit.

I am speaking beyond just kits Kits because Mace was such a ideal melee weapon of choice for Engineer theme weapons since the beginning. Mace weapon is often reflected as a one-handed hammer used to build things in certain games or entertainment which we see some Engineer NPCs do use their building hammers as maces. 

Only guess I have was because they had ideals for Mace to originally be tool kit but decided to move everything to tool kit, they did not want Mace to clash with tool kit, or they were not considering maces during that time. However, these are only guesses since we don't know what was being discussed during the development of Engineer. 

Core Engineer design with their trait tree had signs that the developers expect Engineer to have some possible build without using Kits during Core GW2 days since they have a tree focused on Main Weapons but we all know how they went with everything focused on Kits and rarely use Main Weapon except for certain moments. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by EdwinLi.1284

[Bomboed.5697]

2 hours ago, EdwinLi.1284 said:

Core Engineer design with their trait tree had signs that the developers expect Engineer to have some possible build without using Kits during Core GW2 days since they have a tree focused on Main Weapons but we all know how they went with everything focused on Kits and rarely use Main Weapon except for certain moments. 

I remember only one Static Discharge build without kits, which was viable. I mean, without weapon swap there are always a need to have at least one kit to fill gapes between CDs.
The problem of engi design is that number of kits is not fixed. Because of that Anet is forced to balance them with possibility of builds with different number of kits in mind. Which is a nightmare. How could you properly balance a build with 4 kits and build with one kit or even without kits at the same time?
It led to kits being balanced not like real weapons with all skills being valuable, but something like semi-weapons with niche skills. Which is sad, because kits supposed to be our alternative to weapon swap.
I think Anet just need to completely rework core engineer mechanic, get rid of toolbelt entirely and replace it with 2 slots for kits, while integrating all toolbelt skills into their associated skills. This will open some F keys for E-spec mechanics, like Functional Gyro, Holoforge and Mech commands and future e-specs, and will allow Anet to balance kits with fixed number of them in all builds.

[EdwinLi.1284]

12 minutes ago, Bomboed.5697 said:

I remember only one Static Discharge build without kits, which was viable. I mean, without weapon swap there are always a need to have at least one kit to fill gapes between CDs.
The problem of engi design is that number of kits is not fixed. Because of that Anet is forced to balance them with possibility of builds with different number of kits in mind. Which is a nightmare. How could you properly balance a build with 4 kits and build with one kit or even without kits at the same time?
It led to kits being balanced not like real weapons with all skills being valuable, but something like semi-weapons with niche skills. Which is sad, because kits supposed to be our alternative to weapon swap.
I think Anet just need to completely rework core engineer mechanic, get rid of toolbelt entirely and replace it with 2 slots for kits, while integrating all toolbelt skills into their associated skills. This will open some F keys for E-spec mechanics, like Functional Gyro, Holoforge and Mech commands and future e-specs, and will allow Anet to balance kits with fixed number of them in all builds.

I honestly think Kits should have been our Weapon Swap button skill so players could switch between the kit and Main weapon using weapon swap. Ya it would have removed Kits from Utility skills and limited Engineer to one kit but in return they could have focused on replacing those kits with Utility skills that would have been Utility skills. 

Not to mention it would have provided weapon swapping buff things as a possible option to have on their gear as well.

Edited November 2, 2021 by EdwinLi.1284

[Bomboed.5697]

3 minutes ago, EdwinLi.1284 said:

Not to mention it would have provided weapon swapping buff things as a possible option to have on their gear as well.

Isn`t it already works with kit?

Personally, I am against putting a kit to a weapon swap because it will be just too similar to regular weapon swap. It does not sound like a real class gimmick.
But as F skill, it will be more unique. For example, F1 and F2 for 2 kits. So Engineer's gimmick will be that it is the class with 3 weapon, but 2 of them are unique to the class.
It will also open F3, F4 and F5 for E-spec mechanics. Currently, toolbelt is just too restrictive for future designs. We already see a massive frustration because of Mechanist pet entirely replacing toolbelt. While Scrapper, on the other hand, does not have a real and meaningful e-spec mechanic, because FGyro is just a joke.

[Duke Blackrose.4981]

I would like a longbow spec with trick arrows akin to Hawkeye/Green Arrow.

[SeTect.5918]

45 minutes ago, Duke Blackrose.4981 said:

I would like a longbow spec with trick arrows akin to Hawkeye/Green Arrow.

I think trick arrows are already thieves thing. Even their shortbow auto attack is called "Trick Shot".
They also have explosion on shortbow 2 and so on.
So imo thats somehow already the green arrow/hawkeye thing.