Is warrior truly the worst class in the game?

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

2 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

 

Philosophical arguments are tough since, depending on what you feel like saying at the moment, you can flip arguments on a whim.

 

The question is, why are you only playing warrior for so long? Why did it take you so long to branch out? IMO, that's particularly ludicrous to me. I'd get bored playing something similar for years.

 

On the point that there are professions that are easier and more effective so why bother with something that's not? This is a very true argument. And better yet, why play such a stressful game? Those idle rpg mobile games are all the rage and their graphics are getting better and better. Why not just make GW2 an idle game that plays itself (*cough*afkfarmers*cough*)? These games make way more money than mmos too.  Then it'd be simple to balance by just making the numbers and animation times the same and static. So why aren't you playing an idle game right now?

 

On the reverse, why do people play games like Sekiro or Dark Souls? Or impose limits or challenge themselves? Maybe people enjoy being seen as the underdog or something or enjoy the challenge. Am I saying Warrior is an underdog? Well *I'm* not... Ultimately, someone is going to be at the bottom. I think one could argue how much of a gap there should be but I feel that's not what you're going to encounter here. Or maybe the question should be, if you know a profession is the worst, would you still play it?

 

You spent so long writing all these words and in effect asked nothing. It doesn't matter what OPs motive for playing warrior is. He cares enough to make a post here, so on some level he values the notion  of warrior fulfilling some sort of purpose that it currently does not, and that is enough. 

 

Quote

If I were playing warrior (or insert whatever profession) exclusively for years, my answer would likely be that I found it fun and entertaining. To them look at the OP's question (is warrior the worst) I'd probably have to reflect on if that even mattered since I had fun.

This is an MMO. other people can affect your fun, and that is more likely to happen if the way you choose to play makes you happy, but tanks the team in group content. 

Warrior -is- fun to a good portion of people. It's pretty to look at, and feels nice to use in an environment where it can just focus on damage dealing. Whether or not that is Op's view remains to be seen but is not relevant to the discussion he is trying to foster. People want to play warrior because of a myriad of reasons, but they can't do so freely because it is less effective in group content (of which an MMO has plenty) than most other classes. There's nothing to dissect, and doing so wastes time.

Quote

Ultimately, someone is going to be at the bottom. I think one could argue how much of a gap there should be but I feel that's not what you're going to encounter here.

This comes off as "warrior should be bad so someone else doesn't have to be". And I think making the gesture toward arguing how much of a gap there should be between an underdog class and the rest if the other classes, then bailing on that gesture immediately just perpetuates the above. If you don't feel itll be encountered, introduce it. This is a discussion. 

Edited October 29, 2022 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Leo G.4501]

32 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

 

You spent so long writing all these words and in effect asked nothing. It doesn't matter what OPs motive for playing warrior is. He cares enough to make a post here, so on some level he values the notion  of warrior fulfilling some sort of purpose that it currently does not, and that is enough. 

 

 

That's partly what I'm trying to highlight tho. He cares enough to make a post. Is that considered more valuable than the person who never posts and just enjoys the game playing their Warrior? Or do those that just go about their game care less? Or did you just say something that is going to end up getting misinterpreted because you're making a more emotional plea here?

 

Quote

This comes off as "warrior should be bad so someone else doesn't have to be". And I think making the gesture toward arguing how much of a gap there should be between an underdog class and the rest if the other classes, then bailing on that gesture immediately just perpetuates the above. If you don't feel itll be encountered, introduce it. This is a discussion. 

 

I made a vow not to quibble about people misinterpreting/misrepresenting words so take that as you will with which parts of your post I respond to.  But I *didn't* call Warrior an underdog class, that was in reference of wanting to play games (or in this context, professions) that could be seen as challenging (i.e. skill floor) and that wasn't even referencing me but just gameplay in general. At the end of the day, these posts are asking for quality buffs to a profession. Trying to consider where the result would end up isn't a non-relevant point. Which has me restating my point so hopefully it's comprehensible: if quality changes were made to Warrior and it still was the worst, would that be adequate? Or is the quality of worst the problem?

 

Because equality is an illusion. You can't have played GW2 for years and only just figuring out that something will be at the bottom and the pursuit of superiority in a game is probably actively harming any enjoyment you could have once you finally get it (and then get subsequently nerfed down again).

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

3 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

if quality changes were made to Warrior and it still was the worst, would that be adequate? Or is the quality of worst the problem?

That depends entirely on the nature of the changes., and what "worst" means. There's all kinds of combinations where the answer to that would be "yes", and a bunch of configurations where it would be unacceptable. A good chunk of the warrior playerbase has voiced sentiment that they don't mind trying harder or playing riskier than other classes, as long as that risk is rewarded in some way. Playing a class that is hard, because it is hard, because y̸̤̋ó̷̝ü̸̦ ̶̾͜ḷ̵͆i̴͕͗k̸͌͜e̸̡̅ ̶̺̊p̷̱̊a̵͎̍i̵̧͗n̴͙͋  is also a valid sentiment, but not one that should dictate the balance of a class in an MMO. 

Quote

 the pursuit of superiority in a game is probably actively harming any enjoyment you could have once you finally get it (and then get subsequently nerfed down again).

You're still putting out those weird vibes.

Nobody in this thread is pursuing superiority. Look at them. Most of the comments have some variant of "warrior is punishing and restrictive for no good reason."

It's really strange and oppressive when people try to make the assertion that warrior could stand to be less punishing and get comments like "just shut up and stop worrying about numbers", or the above, when their assertion is something adjacent to "warrior can do only one thing, but it can't do that thing well.". Are you concerned that the moment you remove one of warrior's handicaps they will proceed to eat the rest of the playerbase alive like an accidentally released pack of bears?

Quote

Because equality is an illusion. 

 

Equality and balance are not the same thing. 

 

Quote

That's partly what I'm trying to highlight tho. He cares enough to make a post. Is that considered more valuable than the person who never posts and just enjoys the game playing their Warrior? Or do those that just go about their game care less? 

 

These questions are not only impossible to prove, but irrelevant. It's equally as likely that people share the same sentiment as OP, but don't post anything on the forums. Why do you assume because they aren't here talking about it, that they're satisfied? I don't leave a 1 star review every time I have bad service, sometimes I just stop using the product and do something else. 

 

We have Op's assertion of warrior being bad at content roles, and there's data to corroborate that assertion of warrior having a drop off in popularity over time.

Instead of trying to judge whether or not the opinion is worthy based on how many people are silently playing warrior, we can focus on giving the class some more reward for all the risk. Most of the warriors that took the time to comment here agree with him.  

 

 

Edited October 29, 2022 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Leo G.4501]

44 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

That depends entirely on the nature of the changes., and what "worst" means. There's all kinds of combinations where the answer to that would be "yes", and a bunch of configurations where it would be unacceptable. A good chunk of the warrior playerbase has voiced sentiment that they don't mind trying harder or playing riskier than other classes, as long as that risk is rewarded in some way. Playing a class that is hard, because it is hard, because y̸̤̋ó̷̝ü̸̦ ̶̾͜ḷ̵͆i̴͕͗k̸͌͜e̸̡̅ ̶̺̊p̷̱̊a̵͎̍i̵̧͗n̴͙͋  is also a valid sentiment, but not one that should dictate the balance of a class in an MMO. 

 

Eh, I've not really felt that sentiment. It's mostly the same sentiment with any class/profession/job that is being discussed by the avid followers of their ideologies. It's not aided when I see people attacking other posters by their chosen profession (the ones that aren't Warrior, in this context). Not that any of that matters, it just really makes the discussions seem more and more insular and jaded.

Quote

 

You're still putting out those weird vibes.

 

Nobody in this thread is pursuing superiority. Look at them. Most of the comments have some variant of "warrior is punishing and restrictive for no good reason."

 

It's really strange and oppressive when people try to make the assertion that warrior could stand to be less punishing and get comments like "just shut up and stop worrying about numbers", or the above, when their assertion is something adjacent to "warrior can do only one thing, but it can't do that thing well.". Are you concerned that the moment you remove one of warrior's handicaps they will proceed to eat the rest of the playerbase alive like an accidentally released pack of bears?

 

 

If that's your take, then take my opinion as being conservative.

 

My perspective is partially a view of what this profession forum is putting out and that's partially a subjective view. I can take into account varied posts and viewpoints on how bad the profession is vs how it's portrayed here.

 

My main concern is, when I decide to take a break and go play something else (or do something else), when I come back, I'll have to relearn everything from scratch because they fundamentally altered everything since I was gone. And not because they absolutely buffed the profession, but because they buffed it, let it sit and then nerfed it again. It's why I don't like playing Mesmer anymore and Guardian is, while still good, mostly a distraction.

 

Quote

Equality and balance are not the same thing.

 

Then I'll reword it: Equality is an illusion and balance is a pipedream.

 

I'd almost say you (or somebody) wouldn't even like balance once you got it.

 

Quote

Why do you assume because they aren't here talking about it, that they're satisfied? I don't leave a 1 star review every time I have bad service, sometimes I just stop using the product and do something else. 

 

What do you think happens when you're satiated? Do you keep going? Try to push to the next frontier? Maybe. But many will just stay where they are. That's not really indicative of the gameplay loop as a whole.

 

As for 1 star reviews, those are the ones that people pay attention to. It's the 3-4 stars that likely aren't focused on. Is a 3 star review bad? Or average? Is average bad? Or just ignored? If you're paying attention to me now, then thank you for joining my TED talk lol

[DeceiverX.8361]

On 10/6/2022 at 8:05 AM, DaniTheHero.6318 said:

The warrior experience can be pretty much be summed with : "Why aren't you playing Guardian already?"

Applicable to virtually all professions except Necromancer and Engineer, honestly.

I just started playing Guardian seriously for the first time since launch after thousands of hours on thief, reaper, ranger, and a decent chunk of hours on warrior, and frankly, it's absolutely insane how anyone can think Guardian is remotely balanced compared to the rest of the professions lol.

It does so much damage and has so much utility it's downright insulting.  I thought Soulbeast was dumb but at least it's one-dimensional for the most part.  Ten hours in and I was performing at a level of my warrior while barely having twitch reflexes on my buttons down.

It was evident Guard was ANet's favored class from their balance stream content from like 2013 wherein they talked about the professions the at-the-time balance team played and all of them said Guardian.  It was proven with the leaks recently.  But actually really playing with the design and traits across its specs and seeing just how disparate it is... it's crazy.

[Leo G.4501]

3 minutes ago, DeceiverX.8361 said:

Applicable to virtually all professions except Necromancer and Engineer, honestly.

I just started playing Guardian seriously for the first time since launch after thousands of hours on thief, reaper, ranger, and a decent chunk of hours on warrior, and frankly, it's absolutely insane how anyone can think Guardian is remotely balanced compared to the rest of the professions lol.

It does so much damage and has so much utility it's downright insulting.  I thought Soulbeast was dumb but at least it's one-dimensional for the most part.  Ten hours in and I was performing at a level of my warrior while barely having twitch reflexes on my buttons down.

It was evident Guard was ANet's favored class from their balance stream content from like 2013 wherein they talked about the professions the at-the-time balance team played and all of them said Guardian.  It was proven with the leaks recently.  But actually really playing with the design and traits across its specs and seeing just how disparate it is... it's crazy.

Granted, I've only ever bothered to play with Guardian specs in PvE, the changes made to it are partially why I keep it to PvE. Even though Ele is my go to for WvW or PvP, it gets it's fair few shake ups but it's still the same. My concern is, if I decide to dip into Guardian, a few months later, it will be even more altered purely because it probably should.

[Infusion.7149]

3 minutes ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Granted, I've only ever bothered to play with Guardian specs in PvE, the changes made to it are partially why I keep it to PvE. Even though Ele is my go to for WvW or PvP, it gets it's fair few shake ups but it's still the same. My concern is, if I decide to dip into Guardian, a few months later, it will be even more altered purely because it probably should.

You have an altered perception of reality if you only play guardian in PvE , much like if you only played chrono when that was the only source of quickness/alac. It's been speculated that Arenanet has a guardian bias but only this year was it proven. The same person whose decisions resulted in the current day firebrand was responsible for the mechanist abomination apparently.
 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Infusion.7149

[Leo G.4501]

4 minutes ago, Infusion.7149 said:

You have an altered perception of reality if you only play guardian in PvE , much like if you only played chrono when that was the only source of quickness/alac. It's been speculated that Arenanet has a guardian bias but only this year was it proven. The same person whose decisions resulted in the current day firebrand was responsible for the mechanist abomination apparently.
 

I suppose if "altered perception of reality" you mean "what I can play in PvP without extensive relearning", then sure.

 

If the only response to a fellow player's experience is "you're crazy", then that kind of supports my point here.

[JTGuevara.9018]

9 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

 

Philosophical arguments are tough since, depending on what you feel like saying at the moment, you can flip arguments on a whim.

 

The question is, why are you only playing warrior for so long? Why did it take you so long to branch out? IMO, that's particularly ludicrous to me. I'd get bored playing something similar for years.

Actually, the real question is: why does warrior get the short end of the stick?

9 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

 

On the point that there are professions that are easier and more effective so why bother with something that's not? This is a very true argument. And better yet, why play such a stressful game? Those idle rpg mobile games are all the rage and their graphics are getting better and better. Why not just make GW2 an idle game that plays itself (*cough*afkfarmers*cough*)? These games make way more money than mmos too.  Then it'd be simple to balance by just making the numbers and animation times the same and static. So why aren't you playing an idle game right now?

Irrelevant to the conversation.

9 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

On the reverse, why do people play games like Sekiro or Dark Souls? Or impose limits or challenge themselves? Maybe people enjoy being seen as the underdog or something or enjoy the challenge. Am I saying Warrior is an underdog? Well *I'm* not... Ultimately, someone is going to be at the bottom. I think one could argue how much of a gap there should be but I feel that's not what you're going to encounter here. Or maybe the question should be, if you know a profession is the worst, would you still play it?

Also irrelevant.

[felix.2386]

simply listing heavies and play styles, disregarding effectiveness

Guardian got ranger, mage, warrior for each elite spec

Rev got warrior/thief/mage as core and got support, ranger/mage, warrior for each elite spec

warrior got warrior, warrior, warrior for each elite spec

 

really quite funny, literally every single class got elite specs that completely alter the play style, except for warrior.

also for how limited warrior is, all elite specs for warrior are limited as well lol

Edited October 30, 2022 by felix.2386

[Leo G.4501]

1 hour ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

Actually, the real question is: why does warrior get the short end of the stick?

Irrelevant to the conversation.

Also irrelevant.

Pro tip: You can just quote the whole post and respond to the whole thing. You don't have to break it up if your opinion is the same throughout.

[draxynnic.3719]

I'd argue that what really matters isn't even the gap between the worst and second worst, but the gap between the worst and the best. Make that gap small enough and you have balance.

 

29 minutes ago, felix.2386 said:

simply listing heavies and play styles, disregarding effectiveness

Guardian got ranger, mage, warrior for each elite spec

Rev got warrior/thief/mage as core and got support, ranger/mage, warrior for each elite spec

warrior got warrior, warrior, warrior for each elite spec

 

really quite funny, literally every single class got elite specs that completely alter the play style, except for warrior.

also for how limited warrior is, all elite specs for warrior are limited as well lol

Spellbreaker manages to be guardian, I think (it's supposed to be mesmer, but guardian already floats in the space between warrior and mesmer so a W/Me is going to feel G-like). It's just guardian with most of the support stripped out.

Broadly speaking, though, warrior elite specs have been more about different ways of doing the same thing rather than opening up new roles.

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

3 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Then I'll reword it: Equality is an illusion and balance is a pipedream.

So don't try to get closer to balance/just accept it being worse than it could be? 

Perfect balance is a pipe dream, so don't make any changes that would improve the state of balance?

Balanced "enough" is fine. We're not there yet. If balance was a curve's asymptote we wouldn't be close enough to the line compared to where we could be. 

Quote

I'd almost say you (or somebody) wouldn't even like balance once you got it.

There's those weird vibes again. The thing I don't like is people going "you wouldn't even like balanced" to a class that has too many shortcomings for what it provides. It's like you're acknowledging there's a problem but are concerned by people suggesting how to fix it. Again, like warrior should just be bad so no other class needs to be. 

Quote

My main concern is, when I decide to take a break and go play something else (or do something else), when I come back, I'll have to relearn everything from scratch because they fundamentally altered everything since I was gone. And not because they absolutely buffed the profession, but because they buffed it, let it sit and then nerfed it again. 

If I am reading this correctly, your argument is "I have reservations about warrior buffs because I may have to relearn it due to playability changes?" 

If so, that's a pretty selfish reason to keep it performing poorly innit? 

Quote

What do you think happens when you're satiated? Do you keep going? Try to push to the next frontier? Maybe. But many will just stay where they are. That's not really indicative of the gameplay loop as a whole.

As for 1 star reviews, those are the ones that people pay attention to. It's the 3-4 stars that likely aren't focused on. Is a 3 star review bad? Or average? Is average bad? Or just ignored? If you're paying attention to me now, then thank you for joining my TED talk lol

Let's not get sidetracked by star rating analogies. I made that comparison to draw attention to the fact that people can be dissatisfied with something and not say anything, but just quietly stop using whatever product or service they are dissatisfied with. People did this in the warrior playerbase, there's metrics proving the number of people actively playing warrior has dropped off following poor balancing direction, some of which are notable. You should never assume that just because there are some warriors playing the game without being on these forums discontent, that there isn't an obvious problem. 

 

3 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Guardian

I get it. It all makes sense now. 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Azure The Heartless.3261
Removing confrontational speech to prevent mods from strangling me

[Shagie.7612]

38 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Spellbreaker manages to be guardian, I think (it's supposed to be mesmer, but guardian already floats in the space between warrior and mesmer so a W/Me is going to feel G-like). It's just guardian with most of the support stripped out.

 

bro WHAT? guardian's literally monk/war in both lore and how it plays

how in the world do you get mesmer lol

[felix.2386]

berserker now is just becoming another spellbreaker in terms of gameplay

you can see they trying to match the amount of hard power mitigation of berserker with full counter.

berserker is just a lesser spellbreaker that can slot for condition at this point, with the new updates.

 

warrior needs more diversity and flexibility like all other classes

[JTGuevara.9018]

1 hour ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Pro tip: You can just quote the whole post and respond to the whole thing. You don't have to break it up if your opinion is the same throughout.

Yes...precisely. That is why I chose to answer as such. I appreciate your tutorial of the basic forum functions. I'm sure the rest of the forums appreciates this joyously and deliciously as well.

[draxynnic.3719]

1 hour ago, Shagie.7612 said:

bro WHAT? guardian's literally monk/war in both lore and how it plays

how in the world do you get mesmer lol

Mechanics and graphics. Both guardian and mesmer have a lot of projectile blocking/reflecting energy fields, parry-and-riposte skills of a magical nature, and skills that involve throwing magical force blades at a target. What does spellbreaker add? Among other things that are genuinely more associated with mesmer (guardian doesn't have boonstrip) it has... a projectile blocking energy field elite, a parry-and-riposte skill of a magical nature on F2, and it throws magical force blades with dagger 5. Oh, and it also has a magical chain on a trait, which gives it a similarity to dragonhunter F1.

Yes, lorewise guardian is closer to monk - but monk is not a playable GW2 profession, and guardian probably shares more with mesmer than any other (GW2-playable) scholar profession. So when you get a heavily armoured soldier profession and give it mesmer-like abilities, the end result tends to feel fairly guardian-like, unless the mesmer-like abilities are pretty much exclusively those that are not shared with guardian. Which is not the case for spellbreaker.

I'm not the first to point out that spellbreaker feels guardian-like even if it's supposed to be drawing more from mesmer.

Edited October 30, 2022 by draxynnic.3719

[eXruina.4956]

6 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

I'd argue that what really matters isn't even the gap between the worst and second worst, but the gap between the worst and the best. Make that gap small enough and you have balance.

this is right on the mark, this is ideal balance between professions.

[Leo G.4501]

17 hours ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

So don't try to get closer to balance/just accept it being worse than it could be? 

 

You have a penchant for responding to parts of posts out of context.

 

That quote was outlining that someone would be on bottom, not to accept the status quo.

 

17 hours ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

There's those weird vibes again. The thing I don't like is people going "you wouldn't even like balanced" to a class that has too many shortcomings for what it provides. It's like you're acknowledging there's a problem but are concerned by people suggesting how to fix it. Again, like warrior should just be bad so no other class needs to be. 

And this is why I was saying commenting about insular dialogue. Because nerfing everything down could be another tactic to achieve balance as would buffing everything to the gills to auto everything in second would be another. 

17 hours ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

 

If I am reading this correctly, your argument is "I have reservations about warrior buffs because I may have to relearn it due to playability changes?" 

If so, that's a pretty selfish reason to keep it performing poorly innit? 

 

Lol what is wrong with you!? You seem dead set on trying to draw lines in the sand when someone is introducing there thoughts to the discussion. Your tribalism is one of the hallmarks of why some of these threads resemble echo chambers.

 

17 hours ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

I get it. It all makes sense now. 

So you're gonna gatekeep too? 

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

Quote

Lol what is wrong with you!? You seem dead set on trying to draw lines in the sand when someone is introducing there thoughts to the discussion. Your tribalism is one of the hallmarks of why some of these threads resemble echo chambers.

So yes, that was your argument?

Quote

And this is why I was saying commenting about insular dialogue. Because nerfing everything down could be another tactic to achieve balance as would buffing everything to the gills to auto everything in second would be another. 

Goodness, you are scared you'll get nerfed.

Nerfing everything down is a no-go. We tried that, it just made everyone unhappy (and affected warrior the most but I won't whine-ception here). I want other people to have fun too. I am focusing on what I can do to suggest fixes for this class specifically, instead of wasting time throwing wrenches at classes that make it hard for warrior mains to play, or classes that outperform them by fulfilling multiple roles at once. For the former, they deserve to be able to do that as much as warrior deserves to be able to answer them. For the latter, doing the one role we have well enough to be considered against multi-role classes would be fine.

My "tribalism" is me being incredulous that you still seem to have a problem with this, for a reason as tangential as "my class might need to be relearned if it gets nerfed to give warrior more access to good performance in group content." You came alll the way over to the warrior forums to a post about them being upset they underperform with that opinion. Nobody is asking for that (meaning, nobody is asking for your class to be nerfed to make room for theirs) here.

 

Quote

So you're gonna gatekeep too? 

 

The irony is if you played warrior at all we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Go make one.

Right now.

We can pretend we didn't argue, and I'll spar with you. Perhaps your opinion will change. You in?

Edited October 30, 2022 by Azure The Heartless.3261

[Infinity.2876]

warrior isn't bad it's just dead boring

core warrior: 1 profession skills after at the very least 5 second ramp up

berserker: +1 profession skill requires more ramp up but can be skipped the 1st time with headbutt

spellbreaker: +1 profession skill after at the very least 5 second ramp up

bladesworn: +kit that is barely ever used and +3 profession skills -1 profession skill

 

core Elementalist: +15 skills per weapon

core ranger: pet (soulbeast: +6 profession skills)

core necro: extra healthbar and 5 profession skills

core guard: 3 signets/profession skills

core thief: 4 profession skills (stealth attacks) (+9 if you count stolen skills)

core engi: 28 profession skills (possible)

core mes: 4 profession skills (1-4 sec ramp up)

core rev: 4 profession skills (ancient echo) -4 utility skills (each elite spec gives +5 skills (10 for vindicator))

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

1 minute ago, Infinity.2876 said:

warrior isn't bad it's just dead boring

core warrior: 1 profession skills after at the very least 5 second ramp up

berserker: +1 profession skill requires more ramp up but can be skipped the 1st time with headbutt

spellbreaker: +1 profession skill after at the very least 5 second ramp up

bladesworn: +kit that is barely ever used and +3 profession skills -1 profession skill

 

core Elementalist: +15 skills per weapon

core ranger: pet (soulbeast: +6 profession skills)

core necro: extra healthbar and 5 profession skills

core guard: 3 signets/profession skills

core thief: 4 profession skills (stealth attacks) (+9 if you count stolen skills)

core engi: 28 profession skills (possible)

core mes: 4 profession skills (1-4 sec ramp up)

core rev: 4 profession skills (ancient echo) -4 utility skills (each elite spec gives +5 skills (10 for vindicator))

 

It's not so simple as skill number comparison. But even if we make it that simple as a little thought experiment. imagine anyone from the first group fighting anyone from the second, and how they'd feel to be constantly out-buttoned. 

[Leo G.4501]

3 hours ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:

So yes, that was your argument?

 

No, that's my observation of you. Don't think I didn't see you couldn't even contain your own fee-fees that you had to edit your posts.

 

Why not just say what you really feel? Get it off your chest? Or you just too emotional of a person to articulate your rebuttals?

[JTGuevara.9018]

4 minutes ago, Leo G.4501 said:

 

No, that's my observation of you. Don't think I didn't see you couldn't even contain your own fee-fees that you had to edit your posts.

 

Why not just say what you really feel? Get it off your chest? Or you just too emotional of a person to articulate your rebuttals?

Ahhh...the "logic bro"...how adorable!

[Leo G.4501]

1 minute ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

Ahhh...the "logic bro"...how adorable!

The Peanut Gallery cheerleader that wants to be involved. How adorable!