Rework coming June 28th!

[AlexndrTheGreat.8310]

Personally hoping for Anet seeing how well the Mechanist is doing (I’m mostly looking at a PvE perspective) and do some type of pet rework / rebalance for Ranger. A common complaint is how useless pets feel for many players, while Mechanist pet can single handedly carry Engineers at time.

[Puck.3697]

7 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

Unfortunately if they do that, you'll have players concerned by the fact that the devs don't touch Necro and Guard, saying they are favored and need to be hit badly... Bla bla bla... Blue and green child Bla bla bla...

While other professions getting rework and polish would go like: "They made us worse! It unfair! We didn't deserve those nerfs... Bla bla bla... Why don't they blow the green and blue child out of the game... Bla bla bla..."

Well, I guess you see what I mean. After all, that the forum in a nutshell on a daily basis.

All professions need some work, as "work" don't necessarily mean "buffs" (and in fact, when ANet rework something, it seldom end up in an overall buff of this thing. And if you're not convinced, you can look at the rework of necromancer's focus and warhorn results or simply the rework of thief's traps into preparations).

- Necromancer's minions (traits and skills) need to focus less on using them passively than actively. Minions need a limited life span, Death nova's damage should probably affect only sacrificed minions, Death magic traits should focus on pushing the active skills of the minions instead of giving them passive ability that promote a lazy gameplay... etc. All this is worth a rework and would lead to a shift of gameplay for minionmancer that would probably be seen as a nerf for the people that like to laze around with minions or a buff by people suddenly getting caught off-guard by some long forgotten minion active skills.

- Guardian is still waiting for an actual trade-off on firebrand. It might not be on the scale of a "rework" but it would still be better than scaling down it's skills and stripping them from essential component to the point that they become unplayable in any gamemode.

- Elementalist need a rework of fonctionality (and sometime even on the skillkits) to it's conjure skills. It's time the devs realize that sharing them is a boat that they, themself, sunk a long time ago. Nowaday, the fact that they can be shared is more of an hindrance than anything else.

- ... etc.

People just want to focus on what's immediately under their noses and prefer to complain about the things they have an issue right now instead of the long underlying issues that plague the game. A rework is meant for long underlying issues in the game not for day to day sPvP salt.

I've never understood people who say necro and guard don't need touching tbh. 

They don't need buffs or anything to push their power upwards no. But firebrand needs reworking and so does scourge. These specs are so broken on a mechanical level the only way to balance em is completely removing em from spvp game modes. 

Reaper and core necro has fallen dramatically behind and the nerfs to shroud have hit them incredibly hard. They both need modernising and not sitting on shroud life bars like harbinger and scourge have directed away from. 

People seem to associate reworks with buffing, and they dont need to be, they can be used to remove things that are bad for the game entirely without leaving the entire specc dead. 

[Dadnir.5038]

40 minutes ago, Daddy.8125 said:

I've never understood people who say necro and guard don't need touching tbh. 

They don't need buffs or anything to push their power upwards no. But firebrand needs reworking and so does scourge. These specs are so broken on a mechanical level the only way to balance em is completely removing em from spvp game modes. 

Reaper and core necro has fallen dramatically behind and the nerfs to shroud have hit them incredibly hard. They both need modernising and not sitting on shroud life bars like harbinger and scourge have directed away from. 

People seem to associate reworks with buffing, and they dont need to be, they can be used to remove things that are bad for the game entirely without leaving the entire specc dead. 

True

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

FB isn't the only one without a true tradeoff. 

[draxynnic.3719]

51 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

FB isn't the only one without a true tradeoff. 

FB has a tradeoff. It gave up core virtues to get tomes. How much of a tradeoff that is is open to debate (although the fact that guardian is one of the professions most likely to be used with core builds suggest that the combination of core virtues and a third core traitline is competitive enough) but it has definitely lost something that's present on core.

Tempest and catalyst lack formal tradeoffs, but addressing that should be done rev-style by adding to core rather than taking anything away.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

2 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

FB has a tradeoff. It gave up core virtues to get tomes. How much of a tradeoff that is is open to debate (although the fact that guardian is one of the professions most likely to be used with core builds suggest that the combination of core virtues and a third core traitline is competitive enough) but it has definitely lost something that's present on core.

Tempest and catalyst lack formal tradeoffs, but addressing that should be done rev-style by adding to core rather than taking anything away.

All I have to say to that is that they gained effectively 12 new skills. BSW trades weapon swap, altered adrenaline acquisition, altered adrenaline cap, and core bursts just to gain 5 new skills. Any one of those alone would have been equivalent to what FB is considered to have as a tradeoff.

That sound about right to you? Because to me it sounds more like some specs get "tradeoffs" and others get multiple tradeoffs. And no, losing access to a core traitline does not count as a tradeoff.

[draxynnic.3719]

5 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

All I have to say to that is that they gained effectively 12 new skills. BSW trades weapon swap, altered adrenaline acquisition, altered adrenaline cap, and core bursts just to gain 5 new skills. Any one of those alone would have been equivalent to what FB is considered to have as a tradeoff.

That sound about right to you? Because to me it sounds more like some specs get "tradeoffs" and others get multiple tradeoffs. And no, losing access to a core traitline does not count as a tradeoff.

This is a well-worn path.

 

Claim: FB has no tradeoff.

Response: FB has the same tradeoff that DH does.

 

Claim: Oh, but FB is giving up three skills to get fifteen, how could that be considered a tradeoff?

Response: You're ignoring that those 'extra' skills still take time to use, time that the firebrand isn't able to use other skills. This is exactly the tradeoff that engineer has been making with its utility skills since it was introduced: gain five skills through a kit or one skill through another utility skill (and kit use isn't gated through pages or having a cooldown before returning to the kit). By this logic, every engineer should be going full kits. This doesn't happen, and even when an engineer does go with three (or more) kits, they usually only use one or two skills from most of them because that's what actually fits in their rotation. More skills is not automatically better than less skills, especially when the latter is instant activation and therefore can be done during other skills, stomping/reviving, and so on.

 

Claim: But FB's tradeoff isn't as harsh as my specialisation's tradeoff!

Response: Still has one, though, and some specialisations have no formal tradeoff outside of a third core traitline (tempest, weaver, untamed as long as you can keep up with activating pet skills), and most others have tradeoffs at a similar level. Ultimately, this isn't a FB problem. It's a 'some elite specs were hit too hard' problem.

 

When you get down to it, the 'FB has no tradeoff' argument is really just a 'FB is too strong!' argument that tries to use theorycraft in lieu of actual performance. FB clearly isn't too strong in sPvP. In WvW, the real problem is that there aren't enough alternative sources of group stability (I was quite disappointed that this was ignored in EoD). In instanced PvE, there is an argument that FB has more utility than other quickness providers. Something is always going to be the best, though, the question is whether it's just a little bit better or a lot better.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

1 hour ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

This is a well-worn path.

 

Claim: FB has no tradeoff.

Response: FB has the same tradeoff that DH does.

 

Claim: Oh, but FB is giving up three skills to get fifteen, how could that be considered a tradeoff?

Response: You're ignoring that those 'extra' skills still take time to use, time that the firebrand isn't able to use other skills. This is exactly the tradeoff that engineer has been making with its utility skills since it was introduced: gain five skills through a kit or one skill through another utility skill (and kit use isn't gated through pages or having a cooldown before returning to the kit). By this logic, every engineer should be going full kits. This doesn't happen, and even when an engineer does go with three (or more) kits, they usually only use one or two skills from most of them because that's what actually fits in their rotation. More skills is not automatically better than less skills, especially when the latter is instant activation and therefore can be done during other skills, stomping/reviving, and so on.

 

Claim: But FB's tradeoff isn't as harsh as my specialisation's tradeoff!

Response: Still has one, though, and some specialisations have no formal tradeoff outside of a third core traitline (tempest, weaver, untamed as long as you can keep up with activating pet skills), and most others have tradeoffs at a similar level. Ultimately, this isn't a FB problem. It's a 'some elite specs were hit too hard' problem.

 

When you get down to it, the 'FB has no tradeoff' argument is really just a 'FB is too strong!' argument that tries to use theorycraft in lieu of actual performance. FB clearly isn't too strong in sPvP. In WvW, the real problem is that there aren't enough alternative sources of group stability (I was quite disappointed that this was ignored in EoD). In instanced PvE, there is an argument that FB has more utility than other quickness providers. Something is always going to be the best, though, the question is whether it's just a little bit better or a lot better.

Okay then can Berserker get rid of the -300 toughness and BSW get weapon swap, normal adrenaline gain, and normal adrenaline cap back?

 

You're overlooking the fact that some get tradeoffs that are wrist slaps where others give up too much for the gain. Do you not see why this is a source of discontent and a driver of imbalance?

[Leo Schrodingers Cat.2497]

Warrior and Thief.

 

Warrior because of the whole banner thing.

 

Thief because of the ungodly number of nerfs that relegated the profession to +1 in PvP. Horrendous init costs, and the kittening trickery problem

[draxynnic.3719]

7 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Okay then can Berserker get rid of the -300 toughness and BSW get weapon swap, normal adrenaline gain, and normal adrenaline cap back?

 

You're overlooking the fact that some get tradeoffs that are wrist slaps where others give up too much for the gain. Do you not see why this is a source of discontent and a driver of imbalance?

I do, but "Firebrand doesn't have a tradeoff" isn't the problem. And when it comes to imbalance, firebrand has had a lot of nerfs over the years, they just haven't been in the form of tradeoffs because the core idea behind tradeoffs is to make going core more competitive, and core guardian is already one of the most competitive cores.

It's primarily a problem with warrior. Warrior's core mechanic is, honestly, pretty weak as it currently stands as mechanics go, which means that there isn't much room to add through elite specs while still having a reason to go core. Which is better addressed through reworking warrior than taking shots at others.

(Although I would note that, as much as I think BSW doesn't really fit with GW2's combat mechanics, I think you're overstating the problem there. Gunblade is something you can use as freely as a weapon swap, which really isn't the case for tomes. Regarding adrenaline gain and caps... in my experience, BSW takes about as much time to build as core warrior and berserker does (outside of using Whirling Axe or Hundred Blades for rapid gain through multiple-hit attacks), and once it gets going, it maintains momentum better than either. YMMV, but the higher adrenaline cap seems to be largely offset by a more rapid rate of gain outside of using specific skills with specific weapons, and the ability to keep gaining while charging Dragon Trigger or even when going on the defensive for a bit. I'm not sure that "normal adrenaline gain and normal adrenaline cap" would be a net gain for BSW.)

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

48 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

I do, but "Firebrand doesn't have a tradeoff" isn't the problem. And when it comes to imbalance, firebrand has had a lot of nerfs over the years, they just haven't been in the form of tradeoffs because the core idea behind tradeoffs is to make going core more competitive, and core guardian is already one of the most competitive cores.

See, this is why the lack of a proper tradeoff has ended up hurting FB though, all the nerfs elsewhere. I don't ask for tradeoffs in a vacuum, I fully expect Anet to rebalance a spec as a result (because that is what they should do if they are doing their job right).

Quote

It's primarily a problem with warrior. Warrior's core mechanic is, honestly, pretty weak as it currently stands as mechanics go, which means that there isn't much room to add through elite specs while still having a reason to go core. Which is better addressed through reworking warrior than taking shots at others.

(Although I would note that, as much as I think BSW doesn't really fit with GW2's combat mechanics, I think you're overstating the problem there. Gunblade is something you can use as freely as a weapon swap, which really isn't the case for tomes. Regarding adrenaline gain and caps... in my experience, BSW takes about as much time to build as core warrior and berserker does (outside of using Whirling Axe or Hundred Blades for rapid gain through multiple-hit attacks), and once it gets going, it maintains momentum better than either. YMMV, but the higher adrenaline cap seems to be largely offset by a more rapid rate of gain outside of using specific skills with specific weapons, and the ability to keep gaining while charging Dragon Trigger or even when going on the defensive for a bit. I'm not sure that "normal adrenaline gain and normal adrenaline cap" would be a net gain for BSW.)

I will agree in part. If tradeoffs are supposed to be a thing, then Anet needs to be even handed with them, but time and again they've been heavy handed with certain classes and not at all with others. Alleviating one while pushing for specs that have received very light tradeoffs that come off as in name only is valid.

Is part of the problem that Core Warrior out of the gate started out with the simplest mechanic? At this point I would say yes. Is updating it for the times part of the answer. Yes, and I did indeed make a whole thread on that point.

I do also recall saying something similar for Ele (a F5 Arcane Attunement for core only) and Guardian (a core only F4 virtue).


 

[Jski.6180]

I am just hoping they added in missing utility/elite skills for the core classes at the very least.

[Shao.7236]

Resistance is in need of some changes. Poison is such an annoying condition ever since you cannot counter it's effects.

 

Honestly with how short and underwhelming the boon is, it should make players immune to non damaging condition application to punish spamming on soft-cc.

[Ellye.9123]

One simple small micro change that I do hope they make as part of the "banner rework" is to remove the whole "pick up the banner to reduce skill cooldown" thing.

It's just clunky. Reduce the base cooldown of those skills and remove that clunky mechanic.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

4 hours ago, Ellye.9123 said:

One simple small micro change that I do hope they make as part of the "banner rework" is to remove the whole "pick up the banner to reduce skill cooldown" thing.

It's just clunky. Reduce the base cooldown of those skills and remove that clunky mechanic.

We've been asking for them to be mounted to the back for that reason and be mobile with the warrior, that way they have a place in WvW and PvP and not just PvE.

[Zekent.3652]

Warrior is a class that lost its identity a long ago:

-Bruiser? Ranger.

-Master of weapons? Also ranger, good amount of weapons and most of them are just better.

-"Leader" offensive boons and "leader" skills, guardian took this a long ago.

-Since its ranged damage/pressure is so limited, then that means that they're the best melee class right? Right? (XD)

 

 

 

[Zekent.3652]

On 5/23/2022 at 2:10 AM, Dadnir.5038 said:

And in fact, when ANet rework something, it seldom end up in an overall buff of this thing. And if you're not convinced

 

Sure, 1 word:

B E R S E R K E R

XD

[Pixello.3267]

On 5/20/2022 at 2:52 PM, ZDragon.3046 said:

That just means they dont need a redesign and you are over exaggerating.

Warrior could use some help with certain traitlines and something to make weapons other than axes and maces more attractive but other than that the class is fine. To say it needs an entire redesign is a big stretch from what it really needs. 

In pve maybe. In pvp on the other hand... There's a reason you never see warriors during the mat's. 

[draxynnic.3719]

On 5/24/2022 at 9:35 PM, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

See, this is why the lack of a proper tradeoff has ended up hurting FB though, all the nerfs elsewhere. I don't ask for tradeoffs in a vacuum, I fully expect Anet to rebalance a spec as a result (because that is what they should do if they are doing their job right).

I will agree in part. If tradeoffs are supposed to be a thing, then Anet needs to be even handed with them, but time and again they've been heavy handed with certain classes and not at all with others. Alleviating one while pushing for specs that have received very light tradeoffs that come off as in name only is valid.

Is part of the problem that Core Warrior out of the gate started out with the simplest mechanic? At this point I would say yes. Is updating it for the times part of the answer. Yes, and I did indeed make a whole thread on that point.

I do also recall saying something similar for Ele (a F5 Arcane Attunement for core only) and Guardian (a core only F4 virtue).

Most of the suggestions for "tradeoffs" I've seen for firebrand have been downright punitive, and would probably require ArenaNet to pay close attention to the both the performance of the reworked Firebrand and the knock-on effects on the meta in general for a half-dozen balance updates afterwards.

I put it to you this way:

Let's say that after covering all the other tickets on their docket, ArenaNet has the resources left to do ONE of the following:

1) Apply a "tradeoff" to Firebrand (which already has one!) and commit to making the necessary balance refinements over the next year or so that a major change will naturally need to bring it into a suitable balance state.

OR

2) Make a credible effort to fix Warrior's problems through a rework, including, again, committing to making the balance refinements over the next year or so that will inevitably be needed after a major change.

I know which I'd choose.

The risk you take by pointing at someone else rather than advocating for yourself is that you might end up deflecting attention from what you really want. Firebrand could be deleted altogether tomorrow and it wouldn't help warrior.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

1 minute ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Most of the suggestions for "tradeoffs" I've seen for firebrand have been downright punitive, and would probably require ArenaNet to pay close attention to the both the performance of the reworked Firebrand and the knock-on effects on the meta in general for a half-dozen balance updates afterwards.

Yes, because the tradeoffs that other specs were forced to have were punitive, but not for other specs.

1 minute ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

I put it to you this way:

Let's say that after covering all the other tickets on their docket, ArenaNet has the resources left to do ONE of the following:

1) Apply a "tradeoff" to Firebrand (which already has one!) and commit to making the necessary balance refinements over the next year or so that a major change will naturally need to bring it into a suitable balance state.

Tradeoffs can consist of more than one negative. See Berserker, BSW, Scrapper, Mechanist.

1 minute ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

OR

2) Make a credible effort to fix Warrior's problems through a rework, including, again, committing to making the balance refinements over the next year or so that will inevitably be needed after a major change.

I know which I'd choose.

Yeah, number 2, but they've proven incapable of that, but then they've proven incapable of giving equivalent tradeoffs to the other specs as well see here we are.

1 minute ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

The risk you take by pointing at someone else rather than advocating for yourself is that you might end up deflecting attention from what you really want. Firebrand could be deleted altogether tomorrow and it wouldn't help warrior.

See, that is your mistake, I do advocate for warrior to an extremely high degree. Pointing out what the equivalent tradeoffs would be for other profession's especs that would be similar to what the warrior especs have to endure itself shines light upon how poorly the tradeoff system was and continues to be implemented.

If it was implemented equally then you'd see things like:
Soulbeast taking a stat penalty when merged based on pet type on top of loosing pet swap
DH taking a toughness penalty to put them on par with a medium armor class
FB losing both weapon swap and having a stat penalty with quickness up
WB whole Virtues line no longer working with the new F skills
Holo taking increased damage based on heat level

and so on...

But that is no fun now isn't it? So why is it that some especs have to deal with that but not others? Either everyone gets their turn receiving heavy handed tradeoffs, or we stop playing the tradeoff game, because otherwise the status quo will continue to drive an imbalanced game state.

[ZDragon.3046]

2 hours ago, Pixello.3267 said:

In pve maybe. In pvp on the other hand... There's a reason you never see warriors during the mat's. 

 

Well core warrior is decent but not good enough at anything to make it to the top which is not exactly a bad thing. 

Berserker is still warrior but with more risk for the reward it plays fair and does not have all the tricks other professions due making it hard to confirm its damage with having landed any cc or being a meme that jumps into a fight with a one shot build. 

Spellbreaker was rather decent in a few ways for a while but all the new toys have put it back into the toy box for now.  

You will always see guardians and necros lets just go ahead and get them out of the mat argument now. Boons and anti boons will always be relevant. so when you look at whats left what else is super strong in mats... you have a few elite specs and outside of that not much. Ive played warrior in pvp and I agree it could use buffs in some areas but not so extremely it needs a rework.

Start with looking at berserker stance... this tool was super relevant back in the day when conditions were not as crazy but its practically useless today when conditions are cranked up to insanity. It might even be fair to say that warrior should get its condition immunity back while its active and it wouldnt be as crazy of an idea today as it was back then.  

Things like balanced stance (the passive one) could stand to be reworked so that they dont have to be a 300s cd. Both the rifle and the long bow could use some love but outside of that i dont see much they can do. I suppose you can ask for baseline fast hands like everyone has been wanting but at that point just make every professions required gemic trait baseline. which might not end up helping warrior much considering how many other classes get a much better deal out of doing such a thing.

Edited May 26, 2022 by ZDragon.3046

[Axl.8924]

12 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

We've been asking for them to be mounted to the back for that reason and be mobile with the warrior, that way they have a place in WvW and PvP and not just PvE.

Question how would you rate rifle on warr? I'm asking cause bladesworn and wondering your thoughts. PVE for instance it has a skill that does good ranged DPS but i'm a warr noob.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

4 hours ago, Axl.8924 said:

Question how would you rate rifle on warr? I'm asking cause bladesworn and wondering your thoughts. PVE for instance it has a skill that does good ranged DPS but i'm a warr noob.

For which mode? Regardless outside of volley and core/Berserker F1's it doesn't have enough damage to be anything other than a last resort. If you run some expertise you can help your teammates give someone a hard time, but Rifle did not need any damage nerfs in Feb2020 even with the ammo they added.

[Axl.8924]

1 hour ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

For which mode? Regardless outside of volley and core/Berserker F1's it doesn't have enough damage to be anything other than a last resort. If you run some expertise you can help your teammates give someone a hard time, but Rifle did not need any damage nerfs in Feb2020 even with the ammo they added.

Um on beta you can start with rifle on bladesworn i think it was rifle. Can't remember which one i used but i saw some bigger numbers on pve not sure how good it was in pvp prob bad.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Axl.8924

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

2 hours ago, Axl.8924 said:

Um on beta you can start with rifle on bladesworn i think it was rifle. Can't remember which one i used but i saw some bigger numbers on pve not sure how good it was in pvp prob bad.

Volley will do good regardless of mode.