Are Elementalists supposed to be "Mages"?

[Infusion.7149]

18 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

~300 range is basically melee. Sure, it's just out of reach of most 'I swing my sword' attacks, but PBAOES on melee weapons often extend out that far. Elementalist dagger is a case in point. This goes double when an effect is centered on the player, like overloads - hitting multiple targets with a 360 radius air overload, let alone a 180 radius fire overload, usually means you have at least one enemy within sword's length.

 

Personally, I don't think anything can realistically be called 'ranged' until it's at least 400.

 

Any tempest that uses overloads offensively is effectively going into melee. The difference between a dagger tempest and a scepter/staff tempest is whether they stay there or it's an in-and-out routine.

Well I guess we'll agree to disagree then.

For example on Cold War strike mission if you are in 200 range it's a real large difference than 300+ range when there is Icy Echoes or Frigid Footfalls especially, which I determined to be ~200 range from testing: Photon Forge hits for example as it is 240 range. Frigid Footfalls pulses 10% of your max HP in damage if you are in the radius along with applying chill.

[Kain Francois.4328]

17 hours ago, Infusion.7149 said:

Well I guess we'll agree to disagree then.

For example on Cold War strike mission if you are in 200 range it's a real large difference than 300+ range when there is Icy Echoes or Frigid Footfalls especially, which I determined to be ~200 range from testing: Photon Forge hits for example as it is 240 range. Frigid Footfalls pulses 10% of your max HP in damage if you are in the radius along with applying chill.

I think this argument once held a lot of water. However, 2019 nerfed Lightning Whip from 300 range down to 240 range.

 

Essentially, that nerf turned Dagger from a mid-range weapon to a melee weapon. Which I think was bad for Elementalist in longterm.

 

Look at all the users complaining about Ele being melee. I think that comes down to the fact Dagger no longer functions as a mid-range weapon.

[Infusion.7149]

2 hours ago, Kain Francois.4328 said:

I think this argument once held a lot of water. However, 2019 nerfed Lightning Whip from 300 range down to 240 range.

 

Essentially, that nerf turned Dagger from a mid-range weapon to a melee weapon. Which I think was bad for Elementalist in longterm.

 

Look at all the users complaining about Ele being melee. I think that comes down to the fact Dagger no longer functions as a mid-range weapon.

They were talking about scepter warhorn tempest.

[Jski.6180]

7 hours ago, Kain Francois.4328 said:

I think this argument once held a lot of water. However, 2019 nerfed Lightning Whip from 300 range down to 240 range.

 

Essentially, that nerf turned Dagger from a mid-range weapon to a melee weapon. Which I think was bad for Elementalist in longterm.

 

Look at all the users complaining about Ele being melee. I think that comes down to the fact Dagger no longer functions as a mid-range weapon.

It is odd that a lot of ele "high effects skills" are in that 240 to 300 ranged but you often see other effects such as aura shier getting a bump from 360 to 600. Its kind of all over the place for the aoe ranges on ele self.

I still think mid range is 600 in anets eyes.

[draxynnic.3719]

On 12/27/2021 at 1:26 PM, Infusion.7149 said:

Well I guess we'll agree to disagree then.

For example on Cold War strike mission if you are in 200 range it's a real large difference than 300+ range when there is Icy Echoes or Frigid Footfalls especially, which I determined to be ~200 range from testing: Photon Forge hits for example as it is 240 range. Frigid Footfalls pulses 10% of your max HP in damage if you are in the radius along with applying chill.

If ArenaNet had implemented polearms, it would be polearm range. Sure, you're out of reach of a regular sword swing, and that can keep you out of some threats... but it's only one or two steps out of sword's length, and still likely within range of a lot of effects people would definitely regard as being part of melee playstyles, including bomb kit, photon forge, and the ends of a couple of melee autoattack chains. Animations such as Lightning Whip are also pretty clearly 'this is a melee-style attack with a bit more reach than most'.

 

You could say it's melee with reach to distinguish it from close-quarters melee, but I think calling a playstyle 'ranged' when you need to be within about ten feet of your enemy for most of your damage rotation is a bit of a stretch.

 

Especially since if you're looking to hit multiple moving opponents with an overload rather than one mostly stationary boss, you can't just sit with one target on the edge of your overload - you're probably going to end up in melee range of an enemy or two.

[Infusion.7149]

1 hour ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

If ArenaNet had implemented polearms, it would be polearm range. Sure, you're out of reach of a regular sword swing, and that can keep you out of some threats... but it's only one or two steps out of sword's length, and still likely within range of a lot of effects people would definitely regard as being part of melee playstyles, including bomb kit, photon forge, and the ends of a couple of melee autoattack chains. Animations such as Lightning Whip are also pretty clearly 'this is a melee-style attack with a bit more reach than most'.

 

You could say it's melee with reach to distinguish it from close-quarters melee, but I think calling a playstyle 'ranged' when you need to be within about ten feet of your enemy for most of your damage rotation is a bit of a stretch.

 

Especially since if you're looking to hit multiple moving opponents with an overload rather than one mostly stationary boss, you can't just sit with one target on the edge of your overload - you're probably going to end up in melee range of an enemy or two.

If all weapon skills are ranged for the most part it means you are ranged as utilities can be exchanged or swapped.

If overloads are used then you can stay briefly in slightly over melee range. It doesn't mean you are in melee range , if you were a sword weaver you would be constantly in melee range. There's a huge difference there especially if you are dealing with reapers , DH, any melee thief (d/p, s/d, staff), power heralds, power shatter mesmers, and spellbreakers for example. Engineers are sort of an exception to this since ranged grenades are usually run even on melee builds and traited shredder gyro/blast gyro have an expanded radius of 360.

If you watch people play sword weaver and compare to any dagger elementalist the gameplay is far more of "deal damage and get out" or doing damage through the area while evading as opposed to reliance on dual attacks for barriers and some damage mitigation (power weaver is rather poor with this).

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by Infusion.7149

[draxynnic.3719]

Seriously, the tempest build you posted is spending half its time in air overload (max 360 radius, and you're probably only that far away if you're happy only hitting one target), and that's not including the lightning storm on hammer. Sure, it might not technically be in sword's length, and there may be some effects that you're just outside of as a result, but it's still so different from what people are asking for when it comes to the classic ranged mage archetype that posting it as a response to such requests is simply misrepresentation. You can nitpick over what people regard as 'melee' all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not what people are looking for.

 

In D&D, it'd be the equivalent of a wizard who mostly memorises spells with a range of 15' or so. Sure, you can do it, but it's not exactly what most people have in mind.

 

Tempest was presented by ArenaNet as a close combat specialisation from the beginning. Problem is they're now three elite specialisations in and they've all been close combat specialisations.

Edited December 29, 2021 by draxynnic.3719

[Alcatraznc.3869]

What is your definition of a Mage ?

 

To me a Mage is someone casting magic spell. Some game makes a difference in the kind of magic they cast (for instance Fire Emblem consider Mages to be unit casting "elemental" magic like fireball, wind blade. Then you have Monks and Priest casting light magic....).

 

By my definition, Elementalist is a mage, so are Necromancers and Mesmers. Whether they are long range caster - mid range caster or close range caster is another topic. 

[Nephalem.8921]

On 12/25/2021 at 9:31 PM, Infusion.7149 said:

Example in action:

 

Please.... You know exactly how bad that build is. Only somewhat decent vs big hitbox and it was only played for the mightshare in druidless comps. The bs was top dps in that last video.

Ranged can not exist in pve with current boon system. The only place where range works is wvw and people hated pirate ship. 

[Jski.6180]

5 hours ago, Alcatraznc.3869 said:

What is your definition of a Mage ?

 

To me a Mage is someone casting magic spell. Some game makes a difference in the kind of magic they cast (for instance Fire Emblem consider Mages to be unit casting "elemental" magic like fireball, wind blade. Then you have Monks and Priest casting light magic....).

 

By my definition, Elementalist is a mage, so are Necromancers and Mesmers. Whether they are long range caster - mid range caster or close range caster is another topic. 

Well a mage often is a low hp / low armor class who use energy or limited restores to use "magic" that is different from say a physical attk.

Ele is different from a mage in that its "magic" are the very elements that should have the effects of that element.

Its just odd to see a skill on ele that dose nothing but dmg and that it. It feels like a lack of imagination on anet part IF they are not going to have "magic" dmg of any type but have a lot of skills that are nothing more then dmg and the animations of the element.

For what ever reason ppl see only high numbers as what makes a mages a mages and they keep using that as the excuse that ele is a mages because of "top" dps in some pve fights. That why i keep saying ele to that point is a "stander dps" class not a mages. Why there a real lack of magic in gw2.

We need to sit down and ask what would the element do to a person if they are hit by it or supported by it or even used on the environment during combat. If say your fire skill dose not cause adding heat effects then there is something wrong. If you water/ice skill dose not cause H-O bound effects and lose of heat there is something wrong. If your lighting/air effects dont cause energy effects and presser changes there is something wrong. If your earth skills dont cause bashing/cutting or the changes of the shape of the ground there is something wrong. (my in the moment views of what these elements should be doing)

Edited December 29, 2021 by Jski.6180
Added thoughs.

[Artemis.8034]

Is it too much to ask for an ele elite that isnt melee/short ranged?  I mean my god all the elites are melee, and that dont cut it, then they go and make cata in close range too. Can we have one ranged caster elite that is viable?

[Sigmoid.7082]

On 12/29/2021 at 5:03 PM, Jski.6180 said:

We need to sit down and ask what would the element do to a person if they are hit by it or supported by it or even used on the environment during combat.

Does this also mean there is something wrong with  bladed/piercing weapon attacks in the game because they don't cause bleed & cripple?

[frareanselm.1925]

On 12/27/2021 at 4:22 AM, fuzzyp.6295 said:

This is such a ridiculous argument to be having, yes of course Elementalist is a mage. Mage does not mean they stand in the back, shoot fireballs and do nothing else. Honestly though, why are we even still trying to apply the definition of other games and universes to GW2? If they said Warrior was a mage because adrenaline was a magical resource, then its a mage.

Read fantastic literature and games... a melee elementalist will never be a mage. Mages are casters with a staff. Melee eles are kind of monk/battlemages

[Ace.1784]

3 hours ago, frareanselm.1925 said:

Read fantastic literature and games... a melee elementalist will never be a mage. Mages are casters with a staff. Melee eles are kind of monk/battlemages

And elementalist has a staff.

As well as a scepter.

And a focus.

 

All standard magical weapons that are ranged.

[Jski.6180]

12 hours ago, Sigmoid.7082 said:

Does this also mean there is something wrong with  bladed/piercing weapon attacks in the game because they don't cause bleed & cripple?

That is the stander slashing and piercing effects so sure these things should be true. For what ever reasion we have piercing and slashing that dose torment so there are problems all around in this game but as long as at the very least ele wepon skills are not giving the element effect then there is something very wrong with the game.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Jski.6180

[fuzzyp.6295]

6 hours ago, frareanselm.1925 said:

Read fantastic literature and games... a melee elementalist will never be a mage. Mages are casters with a staff. Melee eles are kind of monk/battlemages

A Mage is a character that can use magic. All of the weapons, ranged and melee, use magic. Therefore, Elementalist is and always will be a mage regardless of them using a staff or using a sword. And lets not forget that, if weapons really are the deciding factor, all of the Elementalist specs can use the traditional 'mage' weapons, regardless of what you play as. So if that is really what you're defining the word by (which is wrong), then it would still be that Weaver is a Mage. Tempest is a Mage. And Catalyst is a Mage.

It doesn't matter what the lore of D&D,  Final Fantasy or any other fantasy series have to say on the matter because this is not their universe. The Elementalist is listed as a spellcaster, therefor uses magic and is a mage. Bottom line, end of discussion. This is the weirdest attempt at gate keeping I've seen on these forums.

Edited January 2, 2022 by fuzzyp.6295

[draxynnic.3719]

8 hours ago, fuzzyp.6295 said:

A Mage is a character that can use magic. All of the weapons, ranged and melee, use magic. Therefore, Elementalist is and always will be a mage regardless of them using a staff or using a sword. And lets not forget that, if weapons really are the deciding factor, all of the Elementalist specs can use the traditional 'mage' weapons, regardless of what you play as. So if that is really what you're defining the word by (which is wrong), then it would still be that Weaver is a Mage. Tempest is a Mage. And Catalyst is a Mage.

It doesn't matter what the lore of D&D,  Final Fantasy or any other fantasy series have to say on the matter because this is not their universe. The Elementalist is listed as a spellcaster, therefor uses magic and is a mage. Bottom line, end of discussion. This is the weirdest attempt at gate keeping I've seen on these forums.

Which is why I've used terms like 'typical mage' or 'traditional mage' or 'classic mage'. I've seen people use the term 'battlemage' for what the elementalist has become, and that term, while accurate, still has the term 'mage' in it.

 

But that's semantics. Literally. Not the colloquial sense of 'semantics' to refer to an argument that sounds impressive but is just smoke and mirrors, it explicitly falls under the definition of lexical semantics, or the analysis of word meanings.

 

But it's still an attempt to smokescreen over the underlying complaint by arguing a minor point in how the complaint is presented.

 

People want a ranged elementalist. The character selection screen still describes elementalist as preferring range - something which is basically lying to new players at this point. Core elementalist with scepter or staff just isn't viable these days, and while full ranged weaver builds technically exist, weaver is still a melee-oriented specialisation overall, and ranged weaver is basically making something out of a bone that was thrown to a concept that is still limited to the same heavily-nerfed weapons it's had since 2012.

 

People are asking for that playstyle, which is, again, still being advertised in the character creation screen, to be catered for. Engaging in semantics over whether a 15' radius area of effect centered on the caster counts as melee or whether the term 'mage' is being used accurately does nothing to address or refute this criticism.

 

And I don't think asking for something that is still being advertised in character creation to actually be supported is gatekeeping. Telling people that Arenanet has decided the profession should be a certain way and people should just accept that rather than offering feedback when they're disappointed by that direction is gatekeeping. Telling people that a particular playstyle shouldn't be catered for because it isn't well suited to your preferred mode of play while ignoring that the game has multiple environments that reward different styles is gatekeeping. Having had your style of play catered for 3/3 times and telling people who want something different that they have no right to complain is gatekeeping.

 

Heck, I would even go so far as to say that responding to people raising a complaint by shooting them down on the basis that they didn't use the most technically precise vocabulary to express themselves is, you guessed it, gatekeeping.

[fuzzyp.6295]

50 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Which is why I've used terms like 'typical mage' or 'traditional mage' or 'classic mage'. I've seen people use the term 'battlemage' for what the elementalist has become, and that term, while accurate, still has the term 'mage' in it.

 

But that's semantics. Literally. Not the colloquial sense of 'semantics' to refer to an argument that sounds impressive but is just smoke and mirrors, it explicitly falls under the definition of lexical semantics, or the analysis of word meanings.

 

But it's still an attempt to smokescreen over the underlying complaint by arguing a minor point in how the complaint is presented.

 

People want a ranged elementalist. The character selection screen still describes elementalist as preferring range - something which is basically lying to new players at this point. Core elementalist with scepter or staff just isn't viable these days, and while full ranged weaver builds technically exist, weaver is still a melee-oriented specialisation overall, and ranged weaver is basically making something out of a bone that was thrown to a concept that is still limited to the same heavily-nerfed weapons it's had since 2012.

 

People are asking for that playstyle, which is, again, still being advertised in the character creation screen, to be catered for. Engaging in semantics over whether a 15' radius area of effect centered on the caster counts as melee or whether the term 'mage' is being used accurately does nothing to address or refute this criticism.

 

And I don't think asking for something that is still being advertised in character creation to actually be supported is gatekeeping. Telling people that Arenanet has decided the profession should be a certain way and people should just accept that rather than offering feedback when they're disappointed by that direction is gatekeeping. Telling people that a particular playstyle shouldn't be catered for because it isn't well suited to your preferred mode of play while ignoring that the game has multiple environments that reward different styles is gatekeeping. Having had your style of play catered for 3/3 times and telling people who want something different that they have no right to complain is gatekeeping.

 

Heck, I would even go so far as to say that responding to people raising a complaint by shooting them down on the basis that they didn't use the most technically precise vocabulary to express themselves is, you guessed it, gatekeeping.

At least someone finally admitted what this thread actually was! Yet another thread complaining about the current state of the ranged weapons on Elementalist. That is why this entire thread and its discussion is ridiculous.

Whatever issue you or anyone has with the current meta problems surrounding those weapons is completely unrelated to whether or not Elementalist is a mage or not.   All of the Elementalist specs still have your traditional 'mage' weapons. All of the weapons (melee or ranged) the Elementalist uses as magically infused. The Elementalist is a Mage.  Just because the 'traditional' ranged mage weapons aren't currently as strong as they have been in the past doesn't somehow invalidate the entire classes identity as a spellcaster.

If you really think I'm out here trying to gatekeep 'mage' when people are in this thread discussing saying Ele isn't a mage because they lack magical damage or suggest that the second a mage puts down their staff they are no longer a mage is laughable. I'm not trying to gate keep anything, but it is a ridiculous arguement to suggest that the Elementalist, the only class actually labeled spellcaster, is not a mage. To have others come in here and tell us that the Elementalist is not a mage because in other fantasy  Wizards only cast from range is equally ridiculous since its completely unrelated to this franchises universe.

Give me a break here... Players have valid criticisms about the current range options for Elementalist, but that has nothing to do with it being a mage or not.
 

Edited January 2, 2022 by fuzzyp.6295
Clarified a point, wasn't specifically referring to you.

[draxynnic.3719]

It's been pretty clear what most people in the thread have been arguing for or against, apart from Jski's weird argument that 'magic' should have a special damage type or more condis. Part of the context of the wider discussion is that a classic archetype is being neglected and people are upset about that. There's nothing wrong with doing something unusual every so often - in fact, it offers valuable spice in a game of this nature - but people have the right to ask for the more conventional interpretations as well.

 

There are few good reasons for elementalist to go 3/3 on melee-focused specialisations, and fewer still to go for 4/4 (given that I don't think there's any realistic chance for Catalyst to be so fundamentally reworked at this point, we're now basically pushing for the next expansion).

[Ace.1784]

4 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Which is why I've used terms like 'typical mage' or 'traditional mage' or 'classic mage'. I've seen people use the term 'battlemage' for what the elementalist has become, and that term, while accurate, still has the term 'mage' in it.

But that's semantics. Literally. Not the colloquial sense of 'semantics' to refer to an argument that sounds impressive but is just smoke and mirrors, it explicitly falls under the definition of lexical semantics, or the analysis of word meanings.

But it's still an attempt to smokescreen over the underlying complaint by arguing a minor point in how the complaint is presented.

Fuzzyp has already responded, so I'll keep this brief, but it's not a semantical discussion. People are straight up lying for whatever reason. We have our suspicions, but it's always veiled in threads like these. 

Quote

People want a ranged elementalist. The character selection screen still describes elementalist as preferring range - something which is basically lying to new players at this point. Core elementalist with scepter or staff just isn't viable these days, and while full ranged weaver builds technically exist, weaver is still a melee-oriented specialisation overall, and ranged weaver is basically making something out of a bone that was thrown to a concept that is still limited to the same heavily-nerfed weapons it's had since 2012.

Once again, we have scepter/staff/focus. Even Dagger, Sword, Warhorn, and Hammer have ranged lite options.

Another issue with these types of dicussions is people saying, "X is not viable". Where? All of our ranged weapons are viable in PvE. I personally run power staff,  power/condi scepter/focus, and power/condi sword/focus for my PvE.

In high end raids, scepter/focus is a viable build for power and condi (Having a 37k/36k benchmark respectively). Now at this point, people will move the goal post and say benchmarks don't matter etc; however, benchmarks tell you the upper limit of a class's damage output. The next goal post move is usually about, "The build takes too much skill to play". Thankfully, you don't need anything beyond 15k-20k for raid bosses.

In WvW Staff is the premier zerg weapon.

In PvP, there are users on this forum who use Staff, Scepter, Focus and share the builds/videos of them playing it.

Elementalist's ranged weapons see play in all game modes across all of our specializations.

Quote

And I don't think asking for something that is still being advertised in character creation to actually be supported is gatekeeping. Telling people that Arenanet has decided the profession should be a certain way and people should just accept that rather than offering feedback when they're disappointed by that direction is gatekeeping. Telling people that a particular playstyle shouldn't be catered for because it isn't well suited to your preferred mode of play while ignoring that the game has multiple environments that reward different styles is gatekeeping. Having had your style of play catered for 3/3 times and telling people who want something different that they have no right to complain is gatekeeping.

For me, it's not about the play style doesn't exist. The play style is there. The issue is, the play style that people want is overpowered.

I don't know how long you've played this game or anyone with these complaints on staff/scepter; however, what you all are asking for existed in this game once upon a time and it was not balanced.

Staff Ele 1v5'ing on launch in clocktower, lightning flashing through elevation and permanently kiting

Staff Tempest 70k and then later 56k dps benchmark.

Staff Ele in WvW using Tornado to increase power/ferocity and meteor shower doing 20k-40k damage per meteor. My guild ran with me as 1 Ele and 2 guards, 2 warriors. We would wipe out zergs because there was no AOE cap.

The suggestions want Elementalist to be oppressive, when right now, Elementalist is probably the most balanced class in the game. 

 

3 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

It's been pretty clear what most people in the thread have been arguing for or against, apart from Jski's weird argument that 'magic' should have a special damage type or more condis. Part of the context of the wider discussion is that a classic archetype is being neglected and people are upset about that. There's nothing wrong with doing something unusual every so often - in fact, it offers valuable spice in a game of this nature - but people have the right to ask for the more conventional interpretations as well.

It is not clear because as Fuzzyp already pointed out, this thread is just a veiled "Buff X" using different language to obfuscate the goal; however, the language doesn't even make sense.

The conventional interpretation already exists. Play with Staff or Scepter. "Classic mage" weapons. If anything, if you wanted a "classic mage archetype", then there are no more weapons to give to Elementalist...because we already have them all.

Quote

There are few good reasons for elementalist to go 3/3 on melee-focused specialisations, and fewer still to go for 4/4 (given that I don't think there's any realistic chance for Catalyst to be so fundamentally reworked at this point, we're now basically pushing for the next expansion).

The specializations are not inherently melee. They all can utilize the ranged options for elementalist (and in the case of Weaver, supercharge them). 

Also side note, Staff Catalyst is a lot of fun.

 

EDIT: Rip to keeping it short

Edited January 2, 2022 by Vinteros Asteano.1209

[Jski.6180]

3 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

It's been pretty clear what most people in the thread have been arguing for or against, apart from Jski's weird argument that 'magic' should have a special damage type or more condis. Part of the context of the wider discussion is that a classic archetype is being neglected and people are upset about that. There's nothing wrong with doing something unusual every so often - in fact, it offers valuable spice in a game of this nature - but people have the right to ask for the more conventional interpretations as well.

 

There are few good reasons for elementalist to go 3/3 on melee-focused specialisations, and fewer still to go for 4/4 (given that I don't think there's any realistic chance for Catalyst to be so fundamentally reworked at this point, we're now basically pushing for the next expansion).

Wait are you telling me its weird ideal to think a skill / spell made of fire should burn or take on the proprietors of fire?

If ele skills dont have the effect of there element then they are not of that element and we could call them as non magic.

[draxynnic.3719]

9 hours ago, Vinteros Asteano.1209 said:

Fuzzyp has already responded, so I'll keep this brief, but it's not a semantical discussion. People are straight up lying for whatever reason. We have our suspicions, but it's always veiled in threads like these. 

I think most people have been fairly up-front about what they're saying, the exceptions being people who try to turn it into a discussion over the definitions of terms used (ie, semantics) instead of where people want future development of the elementalist to go.

 

Ultimately, the classic mage archetype is one of a more stand-off role. It doesn't mean that alternative interpretations are invalid, but adding battlemage concept after battlemage concept after battlemage concept while neglecting the core archetype does start to look like putting the cart before the horse.

9 hours ago, Vinteros Asteano.1209 said:

Once again, we have scepter/staff/focus. Even Dagger, Sword, Warhorn, and Hammer have ranged lite options.

Oh, please. Nobody seriously thinks the odd 600-range skill on a weapon that is primarily intended to be used at range 300 or less is a ranged weapon. Warhorn I'll allow (it's on tempest, which means you want to spend half your time within overload range, but hey, with scepter/warhorn you can at least have standoff capability the rest of the time!), but the rest is like claiming that guardian sword is melee because Zealot's Defence exists. It ain't. Dagger, sword, and now hammer are all basically melee weapons that have options to back out briefly to recover before going back in.

9 hours ago, Vinteros Asteano.1209 said:

Another issue with these types of dicussions is people saying, "X is not viable". Where? All of our ranged weapons are viable in PvE. I personally run power staff,  power/condi scepter/focus, and power/condi sword/focus for my PvE.

In high end raids, scepter/focus is a viable build for power and condi (Having a 37k/36k benchmark respectively). Now at this point, people will move the goal post and say benchmarks don't matter etc; however, benchmarks tell you the upper limit of a class's damage output. The next goal post move is usually about, "The build takes too much skill to play". Thankfully, you don't need anything beyond 15k-20k for raid bosses.

37k is decent, but nothing to write home about on a selfish build that doesn't really provide much to the team apart from blasting a few fire fields.

 

But let's acknowledge reality here that PvE outside of high-end group PvE not only exists, but is actually what most people play. Power reaper has a pretty poor benchmark, but it's viewed as one of the best professions for solo PvE, why? Because it self-generates a lot of things you'd normally lean on the group for. High might, high vulnerability, reaches crit cap easily, decent quickness uptime particularly when you get the most out of it, high sustain and probably more that I've forgotten. Scepter/focus, on the other hand, benches high when you get all the boons you could want out of a golem, but what does it provide for itself? Barrier on dual attacks, obviously. It can mightstack by blasting fire fields, but that requires either being close to the enemy or placing fire fields that aren't doing damage. A bit of fury, I assume - it's almost hard to make a DPS build that doesn't. But it drops off in damage potential quite a bit when it's forced to play on its own, particularly when you need to employ more defensive stuff to offset its inherent squishiness. Playing ranged elementalist in solo PvE is pretty much playing hard mode without the payoff - you can DO it, but there are easier ways to achieve the same results, including switching to sword or dagger. 

9 hours ago, Vinteros Asteano.1209 said:

In WvW Staff is the premier zerg weapon.

Is it? Dagger aurashare seems to be the top elementalist zerg build, and even that's relative - elementalists just don't seem to be zerg meta these days. Bringing a staff ele to a zerg is probably a case of "if you insist on bringing an ele to a zerg and don't want to be support, it's the best of a bad lot".

9 hours ago, Vinteros Asteano.1209 said:

 

In PvP, there are users on this forum who use Staff, Scepter, Focus and share the builds/videos of them playing it.

...how curated are those?

 

My experience in PvP is that ranged eles are like firebrands nowadays - rarely seen, and usually when I do see them, I end up feeling sorry for them as they get farmed. There are exceptions, and a skill differential can overcome handicaps, but it doesn't mean it isn't a handicap.

9 hours ago, Vinteros Asteano.1209 said:

I don't know how long you've played this game or anyone with these complaints on staff/scepter; however, what you all are asking for existed in this game once upon a time and it was not balanced.

Attempting to pull veterancy is pretty much the definition of gatekeeping, but for the record: At least as long as you, and if we consider the Guild Wars franchise as a whole, probably longer.

 

I know about the domination staff had in raid DPS roles, which mostly boiled down to "staff was built around getting high payoff if the enemy doesn't get out of the way of your skills and bosses don't bother dodging" (especially when combined with tempest overloads that are built on the same principle... mind you, catalyst spheres will also behave in the same way). Scepter's main issue was the strong spike potential of fresh air scepter builds. I don't think it's written in stone that any new elementalist ranged weapon will naturally fall into the same problem, especially now that we DO have things like AoE caps. The game now isn't what it was on launch, and staff has been pretty much a meme pick in sPvP since pre-HoT. 

9 hours ago, Vinteros Asteano.1209 said:

The conventional interpretation already exists. Play with Staff or Scepter. "Classic mage" weapons. If anything, if you wanted a "classic mage archetype", then there are no more weapons to give to Elementalist...because we already have them all.

Oh, because there is totally no option to, say, use an axe or a greatsword or a dagger or the like and present it as a long-range spellcasting item. There is absolutely no precedent to anything like that being done, certainly not on either of the other scholar professions. *cough*

 

Right now, there are basically two ways to play ranged elementalist - largely based around the weapon choice. Guild Wars 1 had a lot more. 

9 hours ago, Vinteros Asteano.1209 said:

The specializations are not inherently melee. They all can utilize the ranged options for elementalist (and in the case of Weaver, supercharge them). 

They're pretty clearly designed for it. Tempest? If you're not spending about half your time within overload range of you're enemy, you're not playing a DPS tempest. Weaver has a few nods to ranged through the dual skills because that's weaver's thing, but with the weapon, skills, and traits all oriented toward fighting and surviving in melee combat, using weaver for ranged is mostly a matter of repurposing stuff intended for melee. Catalyst is essentially in both situations in PvE environments because the spheres are both part of your self-buffing and part of your damage, and therefore if you aren't in your sphere and you don't have enemies in your sphere, you're not using it to full effect. In competitive, I guess you can focus on buffing your allies?

 

Certainly, each one has been marketed as a way to play elementalist in melee. ArenaNet knows what they've done.

 

8 hours ago, Jski.6180 said:

Wait are you telling me its weird ideal to think a skill / spell made of fire should burn or take on the proprietors of fire?

If ele skills dont have the effect of there element then they are not of that element and we could call them as non magic.

I don't know what movies you've been watching, but people don't usually light up like a torch the moment they touch a flame unless there's an accelerant involved.

 

The science of combustion is complicated and it's been a while, but it depends on a number of factors like the properties of the material, temperature, time of exposure (a lot of materials considered "flammable" don't actually ignite themselves, it's a matter of baking out volatiles that then ignite - this is the case with most wood fires, for instance), whether air movements move oxygen towards or away from the ignition point, and so on. A fireball, for instance, is a brief burst of flame - it'll sear what it strikes, but between a brief period of exposure and the pressure wave created by the burst, it's probably as likely to put flames out than start new ones unless it strikes something particularly flammable (which is not clothes, hair, or anything someone would try wearing as armour in a setting where fire magic is commonplace). So no, I don't think that from a physical and chemical perspective, it's a given that every single fire spell in existence is going to result in ignition of the target every time.

 

From a game design perspective, every offensive fire spell causing burning would probably need to be balanced out by reducing power coefficients, pushing elementalist into condition builds. I don't think that would be a net improvement.

 

Some fire skills burn. Some water skills chill. Some air skills inflict vulnerability, blind, daze, or otherwise hamper the enemy. Some earth skills bleed, hobble enemies in various ways, and, again, blind. Glyph of Elemental Power exists. The themes are there. They don't need to be on every single skill.

[Jski.6180]

10 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

I think most people have been fairly up-front about what they're saying, the exceptions being people who try to turn it into a discussion over the definitions of terms used (ie, semantics) instead of where people want future development of the elementalist to go.

 

Ultimately, the classic mage archetype is one of a more stand-off role. It doesn't mean that alternative interpretations are invalid, but adding battlemage concept after battlemage concept after battlemage concept while neglecting the core archetype does start to look like putting the cart before the horse.

Oh, please. Nobody seriously thinks the odd 600-range skill on a weapon that is primarily intended to be used at range 300 or less is a ranged weapon. Warhorn I'll allow (it's on tempest, which means you want to spend half your time within overload range, but hey, with scepter/warhorn you can at least have standoff capability the rest of the time!), but the rest is like claiming that guardian sword is melee because Zealot's Defence exists. It ain't. Dagger, sword, and now hammer are all basically melee weapons that have options to back out briefly to recover before going back in.

37k is decent, but nothing to write home about on a selfish build that doesn't really provide much to the team apart from blasting a few fire fields.

 

But let's acknowledge reality here that PvE outside of high-end group PvE not only exists, but is actually what most people play. Power reaper has a pretty poor benchmark, but it's viewed as one of the best professions for solo PvE, why? Because it self-generates a lot of things you'd normally lean on the group for. High might, high vulnerability, reaches crit cap easily, decent quickness uptime particularly when you get the most out of it, high sustain and probably more that I've forgotten. Scepter/focus, on the other hand, benches high when you get all the boons you could want out of a golem, but what does it provide for itself? Barrier on dual attacks, obviously. It can mightstack by blasting fire fields, but that requires either being close to the enemy or placing fire fields that aren't doing damage. A bit of fury, I assume - it's almost hard to make a DPS build that doesn't. But it drops off in damage potential quite a bit when it's forced to play on its own, particularly when you need to employ more defensive stuff to offset its inherent squishiness. Playing ranged elementalist in solo PvE is pretty much playing hard mode without the payoff - you can DO it, but there are easier ways to achieve the same results, including switching to sword or dagger. 

Is it? Dagger aurashare seems to be the top elementalist zerg build, and even that's relative - elementalists just don't seem to be zerg meta these days. Bringing a staff ele to a zerg is probably a case of "if you insist on bringing an ele to a zerg and don't want to be support, it's the best of a bad lot".

...how curated are those?

 

My experience in PvP is that ranged eles are like firebrands nowadays - rarely seen, and usually when I do see them, I end up feeling sorry for them as they get farmed. There are exceptions, and a skill differential can overcome handicaps, but it doesn't mean it isn't a handicap.

Attempting to pull veterancy is pretty much the definition of gatekeeping, but for the record: At least as long as you, and if we consider the Guild Wars franchise as a whole, probably longer.

 

I know about the domination staff had in raid DPS roles, which mostly boiled down to "staff was built around getting high payoff if the enemy doesn't get out of the way of your skills and bosses don't bother dodging" (especially when combined with tempest overloads that are built on the same principle... mind you, catalyst spheres will also behave in the same way). Scepter's main issue was the strong spike potential of fresh air scepter builds. I don't think it's written in stone that any new elementalist ranged weapon will naturally fall into the same problem, especially now that we DO have things like AoE caps. The game now isn't what it was on launch, and staff has been pretty much a meme pick in sPvP since pre-HoT. 

Oh, because there is totally no option to, say, use an axe or a greatsword or a dagger or the like and present it as a long-range spellcasting item. There is absolutely no precedent to anything like that being done, certainly not on either of the other scholar professions. *cough*

 

Right now, there are basically two ways to play ranged elementalist - largely based around the weapon choice. Guild Wars 1 had a lot more. 

They're pretty clearly designed for it. Tempest? If you're not spending about half your time within overload range of you're enemy, you're not playing a DPS tempest. Weaver has a few nods to ranged through the dual skills because that's weaver's thing, but with the weapon, skills, and traits all oriented toward fighting and surviving in melee combat, using weaver for ranged is mostly a matter of repurposing stuff intended for melee. Catalyst is essentially in both situations in PvE environments because the spheres are both part of your self-buffing and part of your damage, and therefore if you aren't in your sphere and you don't have enemies in your sphere, you're not using it to full effect. In competitive, I guess you can focus on buffing your allies?

 

Certainly, each one has been marketed as a way to play elementalist in melee. ArenaNet knows what they've done.

 

I don't know what movies you've been watching, but people don't usually light up like a torch the moment they touch a flame unless there's an accelerant involved.

 

The science of combustion is complicated and it's been a while, but it depends on a number of factors like the properties of the material, temperature, time of exposure (a lot of materials considered "flammable" don't actually ignite themselves, it's a matter of baking out volatiles that then ignite - this is the case with most wood fires, for instance), whether air movements move oxygen towards or away from the ignition point, and so on. A fireball, for instance, is a brief burst of flame - it'll sear what it strikes, but between a brief period of exposure and the pressure wave created by the burst, it's probably as likely to put flames out than start new ones unless it strikes something particularly flammable (which is not clothes, hair, or anything someone would try wearing as armour in a setting where fire magic is commonplace). So no, I don't think that from a physical and chemical perspective, it's a given that every single fire spell in existence is going to result in ignition of the target every time.

 

From a game design perspective, every offensive fire spell causing burning would probably need to be balanced out by reducing power coefficients, pushing elementalist into condition builds. I don't think that would be a net improvement.

 

Some fire skills burn. Some water skills chill. Some air skills inflict vulnerability, blind, daze, or otherwise hamper the enemy. Some earth skills bleed, hobble enemies in various ways, and, again, blind. Glyph of Elemental Power exists. The themes are there. They don't need to be on every single skill.

Most cant make flames from nothing if your only making light that looks like flame then it should not burn which is some of fire skills ele has. This has less to do with balancing and more to do with anet lack of updating skills see new skills vs old skills for ele.

Ele is a hybrid dmg class so yes.

Some skills do nothing but dmg or are just place holder skills. Not every skill need to do the same thing but they need to do something.

[frareanselm.1925]

On 1/2/2022 at 8:50 PM, Vinteros Asteano.1209 said:

Fuzzyp has already responded, so I'll keep this brief, but it's not a semantical discussion. People are straight up lying for whatever reason. We have our suspicions, but it's always veiled in threads like these. 

Once again, we have scepter/staff/focus. Even Dagger, Sword, Warhorn, and Hammer have ranged lite options.

Another issue with these types of dicussions is people saying, "X is not viable". Where? All of our ranged weapons are viable in PvE. I personally run power staff,  power/condi scepter/focus, and power/condi sword/focus for my PvE.

In high end raids, scepter/focus is a viable build for power and condi (Having a 37k/36k benchmark respectively). Now at this point, people will move the goal post and say benchmarks don't matter etc; however, benchmarks tell you the upper limit of a class's damage output. The next goal post move is usually about, "The build takes too much skill to play". Thankfully, you don't need anything beyond 15k-20k for raid bosses.

In WvW Staff is the premier zerg weapon.

In PvP, there are users on this forum who use Staff, Scepter, Focus and share the builds/videos of them playing it.

Elementalist's ranged weapons see play in all game modes across all of our specializations.

For me, it's not about the play style doesn't exist. The play style is there. The issue is, the play style that people want is overpowered.

I don't know how long you've played this game or anyone with these complaints on staff/scepter; however, what you all are asking for existed in this game once upon a time and it was not balanced.

Staff Ele 1v5'ing on launch in clocktower, lightning flashing through elevation and permanently kiting

Staff Tempest 70k and then later 56k dps benchmark.

Staff Ele in WvW using Tornado to increase power/ferocity and meteor shower doing 20k-40k damage per meteor. My guild ran with me as 1 Ele and 2 guards, 2 warriors. We would wipe out zergs because there was no AOE cap.

The suggestions want Elementalist to be oppressive, when right now, Elementalist is probably the most balanced class in the game. 

 

It is not clear because as Fuzzyp already pointed out, this thread is just a veiled "Buff X" using different language to obfuscate the goal; however, the language doesn't even make sense.

The conventional interpretation already exists. Play with Staff or Scepter. "Classic mage" weapons. If anything, if you wanted a "classic mage archetype", then there are no more weapons to give to Elementalist...because we already have them all.

The specializations are not inherently melee. They all can utilize the ranged options for elementalist (and in the case of Weaver, supercharge them). 

Also side note, Staff Catalyst is a lot of fun.

 

EDIT: Rip to keeping it short

In snowcrows and metabatel they always include the annoying conjured weapons ( hammer and greatword) in the rotation to make up the fact that scepter sucks, and thanks to the conjured weapons the overall dps looks decent.

Having to use this resources cuts all the combat fluidity and feels so clunky that I avoid this builds like the plague. It's the same like core engineer and having to pick 2-3 kits to make decent dps, super annoying. I wouldnt call it viable.

[Yasai.3549]

On 12/23/2021 at 4:01 PM, moony.5780 said:

Eles are more like jummping battlemages. It is very much fun, but other classes can have more powerful AOE, because ele need to do 10 skills instead of 2, to do the same dmg.

But on the flip side, because they have a gajilion amount of skills to fall back on, getting one thing nerfed doesn't ruin your entire playstyle. 

It's exceptionally horrid for other classes to have one weapon nerfed and their entire build just falls to shambles (Talking about Rev Sword)