Rework coming June 28th!

[Lily.1935]

We know warrior and ranger are both getting major reworks. I think warrior more so than ranger but I could be wrong on that.

As for reworking anything else its up in the air. I think it needs to happen! However my opinion is just one in a long list of opinions. I'm always wanting reworks to my two favorite professions, engineer and necromancer.

Although I think both engineer and necromancer's elite specs are extremely solid and worth their weight in gold, their core professions suffer pretty heavily due to outdated utility skills and weapons.

 

Turrets, minions, Necro daggers, Necro Axe, necro warhorn, necro staff, necro focus, engineer rifle, gadgets, spectral skills, all of this needs some serious tlc.

But, I wouldn't exclude other classes either as Warrior's hammer, Guardian's hammer, warrior's mace and guardian's mace probably could be looked at too. As could warrior shield.

[Zaret.1450]

On 5/24/2022 at 2:49 AM, 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.

but my question is, can in really be called a tradeoff?

 i mean a tradeoff is something that makes you sacrifice something to get something else, but fb tomes... theyre too strong to be a tradeoff, the 1 one gives huge dps while 2 is one of the best heal skill combos of all classes and 3 one has tons of utility, in fact you could argue that the fb tradeoff would be not being able to use tomes 24/7, a tradeoff would be something like rev leyends or holoforge or the new necro shroud, with those you habe to play in a way you get most benefit with the less loss, and also you are at risk of doing things wrong, fb tomes are more of a, oh we need heal... tome 2 and everyone up, i need to burst the boss, tome 1 and brrrr.

yes you could argue that in pvp and wvw, with tomes cd, you have a tradeoff of using a tome in a bad moment or to miss click but i dont know if its that much of a tradeoff.

[JunkJunk.8971]

Can’t wait for the Willy and harbinger nerfs that are coming.    Their tears will fuel my happy dreams.    👍

[draxynnic.3719]

On 5/26/2022 at 10:32 PM, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

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

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

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.

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.

I know you do. But when you point the finger at another profession, ArenaNet might decide to focus their attention there rather than fixing the profession you want to be fixed. When some professions have excessively punitive tradeoffs, you should focus on them rather than laying sights on a profession that has a tradeoff, just because you underestimate the action economy benefit of instant-action skills over a tome that takes about five seconds to use up.

So I repeat the question: Apply more tradeoffs to Firebrand or fix Warrior. Pick one.

[draxynnic.3719]

(Silly phone.)

Edited May 29, 2022 by draxynnic.3719

[draxynnic.3719]

13 hours ago, zaswer.5246 said:

but my question is, can in really be called a tradeoff?

 i mean a tradeoff is something that makes you sacrifice something to get something else, but fb tomes... theyre too strong to be a tradeoff, the 1 one gives huge dps while 2 is one of the best heal skill combos of all classes and 3 one has tons of utility, in fact you could argue that the fb tradeoff would be not being able to use tomes 24/7, a tradeoff would be something like rev leyends or holoforge or the new necro shroud, with those you habe to play in a way you get most benefit with the less loss, and also you are at risk of doing things wrong, fb tomes are more of a, oh we need heal... tome 2 and everyone up, i need to burst the boss, tome 1 and brrrr.

yes you could argue that in pvp and wvw, with tomes cd, you have a tradeoff of using a tome in a bad moment or to miss click but i dont know if its that much of a tradeoff.

Again, action economy.

F1 tome isn't actually that big of a DPS boost from the weapon skills that it replaces. The Hardstuck low-intensity build competition, for instance, produced a condi firebrand build that does ~33k DPS just with axe/torch (no weaponswapping...), the burning consecration, and Shelter of all things. If you weren't limited to 20APM, you could probably do more without popping F1 at all. It helps, to be sure, but against a single target at least, you need to subtract the damage you could otherwise be doing simply from autoattacking from its performance. 

The other tomes pretty much kill your DPS entirely, and Resolve doesn't give you a huge amount of healing if you're not built for it (it's better than a poke in the eye with a pointy stick, to be sure, but it's more "take a little pressure off the healers" than "save the group single-handedly", it just feels like the latter when it pushes the heal/damage ratio from just below 1 to just above 1 long enough for things to stabilise). F3 is... honestly, in a lot of situations core F3 is possibly better as long as you have Virtues (and a condi firebrand will). In a PvE environment, most of the situations where F3 really shines are better handled by something else. (In WvW it's a bit of a "be careful what you wish for" scenario, since if stability firebrand gets nerfed, commanders will just want more of whatever is the next best at providing stability.)

Ultimately, the real proof that people tend to ignore when they try to theorycraft tomes versus core virtues is that of the core professions, guardian is one of the ones that is most competitive against its various elite specialisations (necromancer is the other). Until EoD, there was even a core guardian build on Snowcrows, and it was Willbender that knocked that off, not Firebrand.

Edited May 29, 2022 by draxynnic.3719

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Action economy isn't enough in the face of what other specs give up.

[draxynnic.3719]

11 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Action economy isn't enough in the face of what other specs give up.

That's a problem with the other specs being hit too hard. Two wrongs don't make a right.

At the bottom line, the primary goal of tradeoffs is to make core more competitive in comparison. Guardian core is one of the most competitive core professions right now, and that in itself is evidence that more tradeoffs aren't needed. Other balancing actions? Sure. But guardian core is still in a better place than most compared to its elite specs.

Your thread about improving warrior core and then improving warrior elite specs to match the new baseline? That's the appropriate route to take. 

Tearing Firebrand down is not going to help warrior, except maybe in reducing competition when banners change to being a Quickness applier, and warrior would still be competing with catalyst, harbinger, scrapper, and chronomancer. (If anything, it might actually result in legendary heavy being less useful in general. Alacrigade is currently being outcompeted by mech, banner warrior as we know it is going away... if firebrand dies (and you know the calls to nerf it will NEVER stop until it's dead, that's how balance perception inertia works once the idea that something is OP is sufficiently ingrained, it gets to the point where just still being viable becomes held up through confirmation bias as evidence that it's still OP), that won't leave much that heavy is still desirable for in "optimised" comps except damage.) 

So, again, I repeat: do you really want ArenaNet to spend time reworking firebrand and dealing with all the balance chaos that would likely create when they could be spending time reworking Warrior?

Remember, the scream to nerf will always be stronger than the call to buff, since when something is weak, only the people who play it or want to play it care.

[Angesombre.4630]

I don't know too much about the warrior but from what they say, the class has had a lot of nerfs, and the class that has also taken for a while is "the revenant" in general terms with big nerfs and a class break with random changes....

[anbujackson.9564]

6 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

That's a problem with the other specs being hit too hard. Two wrongs don't make a right.

At the bottom line, the primary goal of tradeoffs is to make core more competitive in comparison. Guardian core is one of the most competitive core professions right now, and that in itself is evidence that more tradeoffs aren't needed. Other balancing actions? Sure. But guardian core is still in a better place than most compared to its elite specs.

Your thread about improving warrior core and then improving warrior elite specs to match the new baseline? That's the appropriate route to take. 

Tearing Firebrand down is not going to help warrior, except maybe in reducing competition when banners change to being a Quickness applier, and warrior would still be competing with catalyst, harbinger, scrapper, and chronomancer. (If anything, it might actually result in legendary heavy being less useful in general. Alacrigade is currently being outcompeted by mech, banner warrior as we know it is going away... if firebrand dies (and you know the calls to nerf it will NEVER stop until it's dead, that's how balance perception inertia works once the idea that something is OP is sufficiently ingrained, it gets to the point where just still being viable becomes held up through confirmation bias as evidence that it's still OP), that won't leave much that heavy is still desirable for in "optimised" comps except damage.) 

So, again, I repeat: do you really want ArenaNet to spend time reworking firebrand and dealing with all the balance chaos that would likely create when they could be spending time reworking Warrior?

Remember, the scream to nerf will always be stronger than the call to buff, since when something is weak, only the people who play it or want to play it care.

You got a point there but we shouldnt forget:

Firebrand may loose damage in F2/F3 but those are powerful effects on 5 people even. I mean who cares about damage if you need to handle mechanics and cant dps anyway? 

Firebrand after all is still a guardian. So it has all its tools, too.

I mean just look at the new strikes... They are literally everywhere. You think it matters if they loose a bit damage if they can use their projectile bubble for Scarlett? Hell no. Loose damage for providing stability in Kaineng? Better than loosing players.

Even with small constant nerfs it would take years to kill firebrand.

[Angesombre.4630]

Why do you always try to pull down, rather than pull up?

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

8 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

That's a problem with the other specs being hit too hard. Two wrongs don't make a right.

At the bottom line, the primary goal of tradeoffs is to make core more competitive in comparison. Guardian core is one of the most competitive core professions right now, and that in itself is evidence that more tradeoffs aren't needed. Other balancing actions? Sure. But guardian core is still in a better place than most compared to its elite specs.

Your thread about improving warrior core and then improving warrior elite specs to match the new baseline? That's the appropriate route to take. 

Tearing Firebrand down is not going to help warrior, except maybe in reducing competition when banners change to being a Quickness applier, and warrior would still be competing with catalyst, harbinger, scrapper, and chronomancer. (If anything, it might actually result in legendary heavy being less useful in general. Alacrigade is currently being outcompeted by mech, banner warrior as we know it is going away... if firebrand dies (and you know the calls to nerf it will NEVER stop until it's dead, that's how balance perception inertia works once the idea that something is OP is sufficiently ingrained, it gets to the point where just still being viable becomes held up through confirmation bias as evidence that it's still OP), that won't leave much that heavy is still desirable for in "optimised" comps except damage.) 

So, again, I repeat: do you really want ArenaNet to spend time reworking firebrand and dealing with all the balance chaos that would likely create when they could be spending time reworking Warrior?

Remember, the scream to nerf will always be stronger than the call to buff, since when something is weak, only the people who play it or want to play it care.

What I want is a remotely fair balance team. The tradeoffs have not been fairly handled. For that to happen certain specs that are routinely over performing need tuning down with more fair tradeoffs while underperforming specs need tuning up with their overly harsh tradeoffs scaled back until a medium is reached.

 

That thread of mine still holds that purpose, but it is only half of the process.

[Angesombre.4630]

What I meant was that it's better to buff the classes to the same level than to nerf them too much

[Obtena.7952]

Unless there is some massive global issue (like OP'ed sustain traits which got hit right before EoD release), I doubt it's going to be a blockbuster gamechanging 'rework'. I predict:

1. the obvious spirit/banner rework

2. Hot spots and pain points from EOD specs

Edited May 30, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

41 minutes ago, Angesombre.4630 said:

What I meant was that it's better to buff the classes to the same level than to nerf them too much

I agree tbh. I'd rather the underperforming specs get buffed to the same level, but Anet has proven incapable of  doing that in the past 2 years. Perhaps they will surprise us on June 28th and warrior will be the next beloved child of Anet.

[Burial.1958]

They should just delete all other classes than Nerco & Guardian. 🙃 Because that are the only 2 classes who get love from Anet. Thief has bugs since rls and got only nerfs in the past 9 years. Riddled now with complete destroyed traitlines, idiotic nerfs on Ini or Stealth or 300s CD on Traits no one will use. They also nerfed stealth in range for daredevil and yet we have now a new elite spec who can port more than twice even without a target on low CD,  all with passiv blocks, good heal and other b00ns + heavy armor -> hello Willy Fotm. Where is Ricochet? Ahh got patched out too.

Warrior is even more in a sad state. Anet really pushes only Necro & Guardian. 2 Classes which dominates now all modes across the game. But for sure we need moooooree! nerf to thief, warrior, ele or mesmer.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Grebcol.5984

[Bastrii.3047]

As a Ranger who mains druid, by the kitten Astral stars I turn into when I pop CA, druid - and Ranger as a whole - could use some serious love. The healing output just isn't great in most scenarios, charging Astral form is a pain and the mechanic of doing so feels seriously outdated, not to mention that most of the minor and major traits in most Ranger trees are a mess. The Pets are old and their AI is braindead, hell - the Gazelle will miss every single one of its attacks unless if you manage to lockdown someone with enough roots to let them nail a headbutt. Oh, and when they miss their F2, it still goes on cooldown. And that came out in PoF, the last expac.

 

Oh, but longbows. People love to claim that ranged weapons don't deserve good sustained high damage, but I'm inclined to disagree. With how easy it is to find cover, to break line of sight, and how often you're bumrushed down for twanging a bowstring - bows should be a bit more of a threat than they are now. The burst can be evaded, the projectiles can be reflected, you can round one corner and force the ranger to approach - which nullifies longbows entirely unless if the Ranger takes a very huge and stupid risk. It makes very little sense to me why people think they're in a good state right now. Even though it's described by most of the community as a hard pressure, or a low risk damage source, more often than not it's a mild annoyance and a free bumrush. A hard pressure is a rev breathing down your neck with his orbital drop and massive pvp burst, a hard pressure is a thief deciding your health pool shouldn't exist, a hard pressure is a necro popping shroud and slamming your face into the dirt, or a guardian voting that you uninstall your game. A volley of arrows and a small 3k-6k damage burst isn't "hard pressure" when you can react dodge all of it. The cooldowns are stupid high, as well. Oh! But you get a 3 second stealth - they'll never see it coming, bruv.

 

I just wish the only option for a good ranged dps wasn't deadeye thief. Ranger should be the premiere class for Ranged longbow dps. But... it barely has a place as it is. Sorry if I'm ranting, and I don't care if you disagree. It's just from personal experience.

[Senqu.8054]

Considering what was done when they promised to “rework” chrono I could bet this patch will be as disappointing as the last ones. In the end chrono got IP back and other shatter icons. That’s it.
 

Most likely they will add some boons to banner and spirits, make it more like glint and add a trait with something that effects quickness or alacrity directly or indirectly. Much rework. Such wow.

 

As if this time ANet would deliver lmao. To hold this game alive their strategy is to make false promises and plead that the players hope something will change. Same story as with the promised “frequent” balance updates and what not else. Seriously, what a kitten company.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Senqu.8054

[Angesombre.4630]

What I fear is that the so-called balancing that consists of more nerfs and loss of identity of classes like revenant for the past 2 years and warrior long before that, will end up losing everything. Maybe that's the point in the end....

[draxynnic.3719]

On 5/29/2022 at 7:30 PM, anbujackson.9564 said:

You got a point there but we shouldnt forget:

Firebrand may loose damage in F2/F3 but those are powerful effects on 5 people even. I mean who cares about damage if you need to handle mechanics and cant dps anyway? 

Firebrand after all is still a guardian. So it has all its tools, too.

I mean just look at the new strikes... They are literally everywhere. You think it matters if they loose a bit damage if they can use their projectile bubble for Scarlett? Hell no. Loose damage for providing stability in Kaineng? Better than loosing players.

Even with small constant nerfs it would take years to kill firebrand.

Doesn't have instant-activation virtues, which is something that people really underestimate.

Tomes overperforming is something that can be addressed by reducing the power of the tome skills. Which is the approach they've taken. 

The suggestions for "tradeoffs" I've seen, however, are either impractical or run the risk of seriously destabilising its balance one way or another. I've seen removing the weapon swap mentioned. I can see where that argument is coming from, but for that to be a fair tradeoff, tomes would need to have similar accessibility to attunements, kits, or the gunsabre (y'know, the things that other professions gave up a weaponswap to have), and with tomes having limited charges and long cooldowns, they're really not. So would tomes be made more accessible to compensate? There's strong risk of either killing it outright (again, two wrongs don't make a right) or ending up with something that is actually stronger.

Another popular suggestion is making firebrands choose only one tome. Problem is that the guardian core traits (like mesmer and necromancer) are set up with the assumption that guardians have multiple virtues, including minor traits that cannot be traded out at all if you take that traitline. So what happens to the other two? If they just disappear, do all those traits now apply to the tome, or are they simply disabled? Or do they get replaced by the core virtues? Well, most firebrand builds only have one tome they really care about, and the core virtues are still pretty good if you use them right considering that they don't have an activation time. And for these ideas to be practical, the F2 and F3 tomes would have to be given shorter cooldowns since they're now the only tome if they're being used, which would actually make healbrand a better healer and zergbrand a better stability provider.

Either of these are substantial enough changes that, unless ArenaNet got lucky and hit close to the mark first try (and how often do they do that after a substantial rework), it's probably going to take a lot of time to shake it out afterwards. Mind you, when ArenaNet undershoots, they have a tendency to brush it under the carpet because, like I said previously, something that is perceived as overperforming has everyone else who feels they're competing with it gunning for it, but when something underperforms, only the people who play it or want to play it care. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Currently, firebrand does have a lot more competition than it had a few months ago. You're still going to see a lot of them because, after years of firebrand and chronomancer being the only quickness providers, a lot of people have firebrands geared and are comfortable with using them. Something that can't be said for more recent options (including qrapper, although I do think that could stand some buffs) or the complicated chronomancer rotation. Sure, it may seem to be a little ahead of the competition, but like I was saying, the effort required to rework it to have a "tradeoff" (again, it already has one: yes, tomes are more powerful, but core virtues can't be interrupted, don't interrupt other skills, and don't occupy five seconds or so of your action economy) is effort that could be spent bringing up something else that desperately needs it. Is firebrand really so dominant that it requires drastic measures rather than shaving it down a bit and buffing the competition?

Although one of the things it definitely still has, which is something that I was quite disappointed with in the EoD specialisations, is stability. Currently, if you want practical group stability, your options are basically guardian, revenant, or engineer (and if firebrand is overtuned, mechanist is shaping up to be its alacrity equivalent). That's something I'd like to see change. I was discussing the possibility of a stability banner with someone earlier today. That'd be pretty neat.

One final observation is something you essentially raised yourself:

"Firebrand after all is still a guardian. So it has all its tools, too."

This is another flaw with the "give it a tradeoff" arguments. Core guardian, after the redesign of the trait system in the leadup to Heart of Thorns, is one of the rare examples where ArenaNet pretty much got it right straight off the bat. The only substantial rework guardian has had since then has been the spirit weapons rework, because that's the only one it's needed. Core guardian has a wide range of tools that can fit a wide range of purposes, and a good set of traits with solid synergies with each other, both within a traitline and between different traitlines. This is what keeps core guardian fairly competitive with the elite specialisations - the core traitlines are good enough that giving up a third traitline, if you're not planning to use anything the elite specialisation offers, is paying a real price, which is unfortunately something that is not true with all professions (where there are often only two core traitlines that are really relevant to a given build, so you might as well take an elite specialisation because why not?).

It also means that core guardian provides a solid foundation to build on: as you said yourself, any elite specialisation is going to have access to core guardian weapons, traitlines, and utility skills, and that's a pretty solid set. I've had times with other professions where picking the third or even second utility skill was a matter of picking the best of a bad lot - but never with guardian, because they're pretty much all at least decent. Those that aren't used are less because they're bad, and more because there's something else that does a similar job better.

From my perspective, I'd much rather attention be placed towards bringing other professions up to the same standard - not just in power, but in overall quality of design. Buff competition that is close but not quite making it, or if they'd prefer to reduce the overall power level instead, shave firebrand down a bit further. Rework the professions and elite specialisations that are suffering from deep design flaws. The sort of "tradeoff" that people are proposing to slap on firebrand would all involve developer time and resources that I'd much rather see being used to make something else functional rather than breaking something that IS functional.

Edited June 4, 2022 by draxynnic.3719

[Serephen.3420]

15 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Doesn't have instant-activation virtues, which is something that people really underestimate.

Tomes overperforming is something that can be addressed by reducing the power of the tome skills. Which is the approach they've taken. 

The suggestions for "tradeoffs" I've seen, however, are either impractical or run the risk of seriously destabilising its balance one way or another. I've seen removing the weapon swap mentioned. I can see where that argument is coming from, but for that to be a fair tradeoff, tomes would need to have similar accessibility to attunements, kits, or the gunsabre (y'know, the things that other professions gave up a weaponswap to have), and with tomes having limited charges and long cooldowns, they're really not. So would tomes be made more accessible to compensate? There's strong risk of either killing it outright (again, two wrongs don't make a right) or ending up with something that is actually stronger.

Another popular suggestion is making firebrands choose only one tome. Problem is that the guardian core traits (like mesmer and necromancer) are set up with the assumption that guardians have multiple virtues, including minor traits that cannot be traded out at all if you take that traitline. So what happens to the other two? If they just disappear, do all those traits now apply to the tome, or are they simply disabled? Or do they get replaced by the core virtues? Well, most firebrand builds only have one tome they really care about, and the core virtues are still pretty good if you use them right considering that they don't have an activation time. And for these ideas to be practical, the F2 and F3 tomes would have to be given shorter cooldowns since they're now the only tome if they're being used, which would actually make healbrand a better healer and zergbrand a better stability provider.

Either of these are substantial enough changes that, unless ArenaNet got lucky and hit close to the mark first try (and how often do they do that after a substantial rework), it's probably going to take a lot of time to shake it out afterwards. Mind you, when ArenaNet undershoots, they have a tendency to brush it under the carpet because, like I said previously, something that is perceived as overperforming has everyone else who feels they're competing with it gunning for it, but when something underperforms, only the people who play it or want to play it care. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Currently, firebrand does have a lot more competition than it had a few months ago. You're still going to see a lot of them because, after years of firebrand and chronomancer being the only quickness providers, a lot of people have firebrands geared and are comfortable with using them. Something that can't be said for more recent options (including qrapper, although I do think that could stand some buffs) or the complicated chronomancer rotation. Sure, it may seem to be a little ahead of the competition, but like I was saying, the effort required to rework it to have a "tradeoff" (again, it already has one: yes, tomes are more powerful, but core virtues can't be interrupted, don't interrupt other skills, and don't occupy five seconds or so of your action economy) is effort that could be spent bringing up something else that desperately needs it. Is firebrand really so dominant that it requires drastic measures rather than shaving it down a bit and buffing the competition?

Although one of the things it definitely still has, which is something that I was quite disappointed with in the EoD specialisations, is stability. Currently, if you want practical group stability, your options are basically guardian, revenant, or engineer (and if firebrand is overtuned, mechanist is shaping up to be its alacrity equivalent). That's something I'd like to see change. I was discussing the possibility of a stability banner with someone earlier today. That'd be pretty neat.

One final observation is something you essentially raised yourself:

"Firebrand after all is still a guardian. So it has all its tools, too."

This is another flaw with the "give it a tradeoff" arguments. Core guardian, after the redesign of the trait system in the leadup to Heart of Thorns, is one of the rare examples where ArenaNet pretty much got it right straight off the bat. The only substantial rework guardian has had since then has been the spirit weapons rework, because that's the only one it's needed. Core guardian has a wide range of tools that can fit a wide range of purposes, and a good set of traits with solid synergies with each other, both within a traitline and between different traitlines. This is what keeps core guardian fairly competitive with the elite specialisations - the core traitlines are good enough that giving up a third traitline, if you're not planning to use anything the elite specialisation offers, which is, unfortunately, something that is not true with all professions (where there are often only two core traitlines that are really relevant to a given build, so you might as well take an elite specialisation because why not?).

It also means that core guardian provides a solid foundation to build on: as you said yourself, any elite specialisation is going to have access to core guardian weapons, traitlines, and utility skills, and that's a pretty solid set. I've had times with other professions where picking the third or even second utility skill was a matter of picking the best of a bad lot - but never with guardian, because they're pretty much all at least decent. Those that aren't used are less because they're bad, and more because there's something else that does a similar job better.

From my perspective, I'd much rather attention be placed towards bringing other professions up to the same standard - not just in power, but in overall quality of design. Buff competition that is close but not quite making it, or if they'd prefer to reduce the overall power level instead, shave firebrand down a bit further. Rework the professions and elite specialisations that are suffering from deep design flaws. The sort of "tradeoff" that people are proposing to slap on firebrand would all involve developer time and resources that I'd much rather see being used to make something else functional rather than breaking something that IS functional.

Yeah after reading your thoughts on this I feel I agree that would  be a better and more beneficial for all approach. Using core guard as the standard for other core classes and then working from there.

[Nyel.1843]

Sorry, I'm late to the party: what exactly will be reworked? Did they announce or preview this? Are these mostly balance changes or did they state they are reworking major mechanics and skill lines?

[draxynnic.3719]

1 hour ago, Nyel.1843 said:

Sorry, I'm late to the party: what exactly will be reworked? Did they announce or preview this? Are these mostly balance changes or did they state they are reworking major mechanics and skill lines?

There has been mention of reworking banners and spirits. As part of that, warriors will get access to group quickness, and rangers will get access to group alacrity.

Those are the main points, but it's supposed to be a big patch, so there's likely more.

[AliamRationem.5172]

On 5/21/2022 at 3:30 PM, ZDragon.3046 said:

I mean a few of other classes dont have 2 true core sets of condi weapons so im not sure what you are on about with that one. 

Sure some of them have traits that make certain weapons condi viable but many of them really dont have 2 sets. As for the idea that rev changed from what it was originally suppose to be does not mean unfinished. Many of gw2's classes changed from their original concept but that does not mean they are unfinished. If not having another core condi weapon and more condi options at core means the whole class is unfnished from your perspective  nothing they can do to it will make it ever feel finished to you because you are dead set on looking at its initial concept which we know likely wont ever be revisited

I cant think of any way to like realistically make that finished from your point of view with any kind of fix that wont ruin  it in some way for people who like how it currently is aside from adding an elite spec to offer you more options.... and they already did this....

 

Like I get where you are coming from but im not sure i call wanting more option =  being unfinished.

I would like a weapon that lets me block with core necro so i can make legit tanking builds in raids but im not going to say that the class is unfinished because of that for example.

Semantics.  Whatever you want to call it, it's a major oversight that should absolutely be addressed.  Every class with a weapon swap should have at least two mainhand condition and two mainhand power weapons.

[ZDragon.3046]

12 minutes ago, AliamRationem.5172 said:

Semantics.  Whatever you want to call it, it's a major oversight that should absolutely be addressed.  Every class with a weapon swap should have at least two mainhand condition and two mainhand power weapons.

hmmmmm that thats a matter of your opinion which is fine to have. However, a class not having 2 sets of everything does not make it unfinished. I could think of a lot of things classes do not have that they could have but that does not make them unfinished just because I think they should have them. The whole idea that something is unfinished is even technically a matter of perspective. I agree rev has its own set of issues but so does every other class in the game its not exactly unique in the idea that its the only one with strange bugs or not enough viable weapon options at a base core level.