Support Classes and Utility Skills

[Malus.2184]

Well-designed support can do everything they need to do within their role simply by using their Class mechanics. This frees them up to be able to use their Utility Skill slots for skills to use for their utility in relation to the encounter. This in turn also allows the encounter to be more complex and requires people to adapt to them.

This is hampered by the support classes who have to take Skill X in order to use their support. For example, if the encounter required a load of CC and none of the required skills for the Support have any or they have to use it as a part of their rotation or else they'll suffer then they'll be less desirable to include. As a result of this, the encounter has to adapt to what the players are expected to do. All basic support mechanics should happen as a result of using the Class Skills, Mechanist already does this. A Mechanist can give full Alacrity uptime simply by using F2 and F3 and the mech pulsing. This leaves them free to use whatever weapon they want and have what Skills they desire that are relevant to the encounter design. They equip themselves to counter a given mechanic. Far from every support can do this though. R

The ones who can are

Mechanist

Tempest

Chronomancer

Mirage

Renegade

Herald

All of the above can give complete uptime on Alacrity or Quickness simply by using their Class mechanics. Herald is included in this category since it has tools that allow it to maintain Quickness even if it goes out of Legendary Dragon.

Then there are those who require X type of skill

Firebrand

Scrapper

Druid

While they do seem good they only seem good due to the encounters being designed in a way that favors them being able to only have the required skills. This can be seen in how every time ANet changes them the Support role of these two Classes gets more difficult. Because they're tied to the Skills unique to that Class then the variation allowed is incredibly small and as such, the encounter design is similarly limited in what it can be.

And finally, the special needs support who are so badly designed I seldom see them as support

Specter

Warrior

The design on those two is so spectacularly bad. In order to give Alacrity or Quickness respectively they essentially have to sacrifice Utility Slots completely. Anything that Utility Skill gives is entirely useful only by coincidence due to these skills having to be used on CD instead of for their utility.

What can be done?

The design philosophy of Firebrand, Scrapper, Druid, Specter, and Warrior needs to change, completely.

Firebrand, now only gives Quickness when using a Page instead of when they use a Mantra. since that limits them to having to use Mantras and by context, limit encounters to only include things that can be solved by Mantras.

Scrapper only gives Quickness when using a Tool Belt Skill instead of when using a Gyro.

Druid only gives Alacrity when using a Pet Skill and going into Celestial Avatar.

Specter only gives Alacrity when using the Class Mechanics of Specter instead of by using Wells. Give them an additional F-X Skill that costs some Shadow Force and let them invoke Alac around them.

Warrior Banners need a complete rework. When dropped they give their initial pulse of Quickness and whatever is appropriate. When used they flip over to a new Skill called Rally and when using Rally the other boons from the Banner then bursts out. The Rally effect can only be used once while the Banner lasts.

Being limited to X<Type of Skill> also limits what the encounter can be designed as. The X type of skill might have no CC or they have to be used constantly so any CC from them is only coincidentally useful and in most cases just gets wasted. The fight is unable to require the party/squad to have a truckload of CC since some players by the nature of how their Utility Skills work are already excluded from being able to do this. As I said earlier, this means that the encounter design had to adapt to what's possible to expect from the players instead of the players adapting to the encounter's requirements. That is both sad and makes the encounter design a bit gamey where some Classes would just be excluded right away as they are intrinsically unable to provide what's required if the encounter design went as hard as it could.

With older encounters, I see little issue in this since they're already designed with this approach in mind. With the EoD Strikes, I'm beginning to see a trend of the encounter design going harder and requiring more situational use of skills in order to make it through, which limits the usefulness of the support unable to use their skills situationally as a utility.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Malus.2184

[the krytan assassin.9235]

A well designed class isn't a perfect picture. Its actually quite the opposite. Classes need to have some weaknesses, some struggles etc. Some require high boon duration/ attacking enemies/generating life force/Dodge rolling/ complete channeling skills and some use up some of your utility slots. 

If anything some classes should get more restrictions/challenges to properly fulfill their roll (mainly looking at mech). 

 

FB currently is the most powerful qdps support ingame, alac on druid is also very strong since it doesn't require the druid to stay on the stack all the time. Warrior Qdps is also quite strong and one of the more reliable quick supports out there. 

 

Sure i can understand that forcing a couple specific utilities doesn't necessarily promote fun gameplay, but it says nothing about the actual effectiveness of the build. 

 

[Acanthus.8120]

1 hour ago, Malus.2184 said:

Firebrand

variation allowed is incredibly small

Really? I have 3 non-mantra utilities here. I didn't even take stalwart speed to get quickness from other sources and I still only needed 2 mantras. Here is an Honor build that plays completely differently. And this is one with shouts and only Mantra of Potence. All 3 builds assume there is an alacrity provider.

Now, to be clear, I don't disagree with the premise of your argument that alacrity and quickness should be at least mostly tied to a class mechanic (although in Firebrand's case, they did a relatively decent job of the alternative), but the way you laid out your argument is full of holes that anyone against it would easily use to tear the premise apart.

[Cuks.8241]

I generally agree with the notion. But Firebrand, especially healing? Yeah ok you need to take 2 utility skills, but rest are open with lots of strong options. But not only that, the base kit is already loaded with everything else but ress skill. 

Also what makes Firebrand great is that it rarely gets locked in animations or worse in the wrong attunment, legend, without celestial avatar... Many instant casts. Its really easy to react on FB. 

[Malus.2184]

2 hours ago, the krytan assassin.9235 said:

A well designed class isn't a perfect picture. Its actually quite the opposite. Classes need to have some weaknesses, some struggles etc. Some require high boon duration/ attacking enemies/generating life force/Dodge rolling/ complete channeling skills and some use up some of your utility slots. 

If anything some classes should get more restrictions/challenges to properly fulfill their roll (mainly looking at mech). 

 

FB currently is the most powerful qdps support ingame, alac on druid is also very strong since it doesn't require the druid to stay on the stack all the time. Warrior Qdps is also quite strong and one of the more reliable quick supports out there. 

 

Sure i can understand that forcing a couple specific utilities doesn't necessarily promote fun gameplay, but it says nothing about the actual effectiveness of the build. 

 

In this case, it results less in good design by having weaknesses and more in fatal design flaws that keep the content to the same types since ANet is unable to make interesting encounter mechanics that challenge the player.

Just spitballing here. An encounter is unable to have a mechanic where the mob gets a Defiance Bar that has to be broken in 1-second or something really bad happens. ANet is unable to make it meaty since there can be as many as four people without any Utility CC at all because they need to use their Utility skills on rotation.  You can make it with a weak Defiance Bar and then you end up with that a few players who have the really meaty Defiance Breaks and can break it easily, at which point the mechanic is moot.

The current design also results in two entire supports being unviable. I think it has been over six months since I last saw a heal Specter, I do see Alac specters from time to time, though it's rare. 

Banner support is something I see even less of now since the situational abilities on the banners, the utility, is unreliable. The same issue as the other similar support who relies on <Type> skill to work at least usually has some Class mechanic that can mitigate it.

 I'll compare it with a Firebrand. Even if a FB provides Quickness it can still provide Stability on demand. A Warrior can plop down a banner to provide Quickness and that also uses their Stability. This means that the former is such a good choice for Quickness support that people wait for one to pop up rather than rolling with the Warrior.

[Malus.2184]

1 hour ago, Cuks.8241 said:

I generally agree with the notion. But Firebrand, especially healing? Yeah ok you need to take 2 utility skills, but rest are open with lots of strong options. But not only that, the base kit is already loaded with everything else but ress skill. 

Also what makes Firebrand great is that it rarely gets locked in animations or worse in the wrong attunment, legend, without celestial avatar... Many instant casts. Its really easy to react on FB. 

Nothing wrong with healers having to take utility skills to be a better healer and they still have some basic utility in it.

All of the ones I mentioned have some basic utility with weapons or class mechanics that they can at least do the bare minimum with. My issue is with additional support for many being tied to <Type> skill instead of their Class mechanics since it essentially makes the game decide what skills they should have rather than the mechanics of the encounter determining them.

[Malus.2184]

13 hours ago, Acanthus.8120 said:

Really? I have 3 non-mantra utilities here. I didn't even take stalwart speed to get quickness from other sources and I still only needed 2 mantras. Here is an Honor build that plays completely differently. And this is one with shouts and only Mantra of Potence. All 3 builds assume there is an alacrity provider.

Now, to be clear, I don't disagree with the premise of your argument that alacrity and quickness should be at least mostly tied to a class mechanic (although in Firebrand's case, they did a relatively decent job of the alternative), but the way you laid out your argument is full of holes that anyone against it would easily use to tear the premise apart.

And what will you do if ANet makes a strike where you need to have Stability, group Aegis, and a high ability to inflict a Defiance Break?

ANet is unable to make those encounters since Firebrands can never fulfill all of those and still be able to have a 100% uptime on Quickness. The design limitations limit what ANet can design. Just like how the limitations of having no holy trinity limited ANet in what kind of encounters it could design.

Edited March 6, 2023 by Malus.2184

[the krytan assassin.9235]

1 hour ago, Malus.2184 said:

And what will you do if ANet makes a strike where you need to have Stability, group Aegis, and a high ability to inflict a Defiance Break?

Then you ask one of the other party members to bring abit extra.... you don't have to create problems where there are non. 

Slothasor is an excellent example of this. You normally have 2 people with reliable stunbreak and 2 backup/personal backup. Dps tends focus abit more on aoe heavy builds with alot of breakbar damage. People bring pulls, mass condi cleanses, aoe rezzes etc. The whole group is responsible for the encounter, not just the support.

Also Anet has proven that they don't see this 'limitations of support' as a problem at all. They've made numerous encounters that require a specific skillset/classes to work properly. 

[Dadnir.5038]

Curious, I'm pretty sure there are more support options than the one listed... I mean, Druid isn't the only ranger's spec that can provide 100% alacrity, Harbinger can provide quickness and even willbender can provide alacrity if you're motivated enough.

Many points of the analysis are also "arguable". For example, I don't think warrior's way to provide quickness handicap him much as only banner of tactic is needed with 100% boon duration and warrior's other utilities tend to lack "impact" in my opinion.

[Cuks.8241]

3 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

And what will you do if ANet makes a strike where you need to have Stability, group Aegis, and a high ability to inflict a Defiance Break?

ANet is unable to make those encounters since Firebrands can never fulfill all of those and still be able to have a 100% uptime on Quickness. 

You just described one of the standard FB setups. Not only can fb do it, he can do all of that in limited capacity without filling any of the flexible utility slots. You can still take more aegis and stability/stunbreak if you need excessive amount of those. And you still have one free slot. 

[Malus.2184]

3 hours ago, the krytan assassin.9235 said:

Then you ask one of the other party members to bring abit extra.... you don't have to create problems where there are non. 

Slothasor is an excellent example of this. You normally have 2 people with reliable stunbreak and 2 backup/personal backup. Dps tends focus abit more on aoe heavy builds with alot of breakbar damage. People bring pulls, mass condi cleanses, aoe rezzes etc. The whole group is responsible for the encounter, not just the support.

Also Anet has proven that they don't see this 'limitations of support' as a problem at all. They've made numerous encounters that require a specific skillset/classes to work properly. 

I forgot to set that the encounter also has a really stringent DPS requirement and as such, that's never really an option.

AoE Aegis is rare, personal stab is common where AoE stab is okayish rare, and with a second duration on the Defiance Bar, everyone has to chime in.

It has nothing to do with creating problems where there are none. It's about what challenges can be implemented and the more limited something is the more limited what can be brought in as a challenge.

I can mention an example from the game, Xera in W3. The necessity to have Ley-Line Gliding is extremely limiting as it means that the encounter is literally impossible to do unless you have access to it. It's also the only encounter in the game that has such a specific requirement and while it might be fun, design-wise it's extremely bad because of this.

[Malus.2184]

1 hour ago, Cuks.8241 said:

You just described one of the standard FB setups. Not only can fb do it, he can do all of that in limited capacity without filling any of the flexible utility slots. You can still take more aegis and stability/stunbreak if you need excessive amount of those. And you still have one free slot. 

Stand Your Ground: Resolution and Stability.

Advance: Aegis and Swiftness.

Then you need to take Sanc in the free slot to have enough Defiance Break.

This leaves you with one slot to use for Healing to trigger Quickness.

These limits encounter design, especially when it comes to DPS requirements since the best uptime you can hope for is less than 100%, which means that the DPS requirement for the encounter has to be smaller, and when the group can somehow finagle their Quickness uptime to 100% it becomes too easy since the DPS done hypothetically exceeds the requirement.

How would it be bad for the game if Liberator's Wow was changed from AoE Quickness on healing to AoE Quickness on using Pages and activating Virtues? Then change Swift Scholar to give Resolution instead since having basic access to Quickness/Alcrity without any costs goes against the design philosophy that ANet has stated itself.

[the krytan assassin.9235]

11 minutes ago, Malus.2184 said:

I forgot to set that the encounter also has a really stringent DPS requirement and as such, that's never really an option.

Pffffffff...  you just continue keep adding problems/changing situations. Its a casual game, there isn't really a serious dps test in the game & probably never will be. Ontop of that gw2 (even the endgame) is designed for mainly casual players. Even HTCM can be cleared with most people running on suboptimal builds. 

What you're describing is a situation where everyone needs to play on a specific character, doing 98%+ parse score dps, everyone doing perfect mechanics, perfect gear& perfect teamwork.... Yea thats not going to happen. Anet even refuses to make raids since to few players actually engage in the content and now you're proposing a new strike/raid boss which is only designed for ~50 players in the whole game? 

 

Like mentioned in my previous post, you're continuing to create problems where there are non which is reflected in the amount of confused emojis you get under your posts. If the whole world disagrees with your POV you might want to reconsider your own beliefs. 

[Malus.2184]

5 minutes ago, the krytan assassin.9235 said:

Pffffffff...  you just continue keep adding problems/changing situations. Its a casual game, there isn't really a serious dps test in the game & probably never will be. Ontop of that gw2 (even the endgame) is designed for mainly casual players. Even HTCM can be cleared with most people running on suboptimal builds. 

What you're describing is a situation where everyone needs to play on a specific character, doing 98%+ parse score dps, everyone doing perfect mechanics, perfect gear& perfect teamwork.... Yea thats not going to happen. Anet even refuses to make raids since to few players actually engage in the content and now you're proposing a new strike/raid boss which is only designed for ~50 players in the whole game? 

 

Like mentioned in my previous post, you're continuing to create problems where there are non which is reflected in the amount of confused emojis you get under your posts. If the whole world disagrees with your POV you might want to reconsider your own beliefs. 

Yes, because that's how encounter design works. You design any encounter around the limitations of what the players can do. The more limitations they have the more limits you have on what you're able to design.

Any encounter can be signed in a way that makes it impossible. This one breaks simply by adding normal stuff to it and tuning it highly, that's the limit of how this encounter can be designed. I should be able to give off three requirements as there are three Utility Skill slots. With two challenges you're fine with and with three you express that it's unfair and that the game should never pressure the players.

And I really need to see a source for a full group with suboptimal builds and performances can clear HTCM. One, no problem since it can objectively be seen that people sell the CM. I really want to see a source that shows that a comp with multiple suboptimal build can do the same as it's pretty unanimous against the high-ranking players that HTCM is so tight that the group has to play well and have optimal builds.

[Cuks.8241]

26 minutes ago, Malus.2184 said:

Stand Your Ground: Resolution and Stability.

Advance: Aegis and Swiftness.

Then you need to take Sanc in the free slot to have enough Defiance Break.

This leaves you with one slot to use for Healing to trigger Quickness.

These limits encounter design, especially when it comes to DPS requirements since the best uptime you can hope for is less than 100%, which means that the DPS requirement for the encounter has to be smaller, and when the group can somehow finagle their Quickness uptime to 100% it becomes too easy since the DPS done hypothetically exceeds the requirement.

How would it be bad for the game if Liberator's Wow was changed from AoE Quickness on healing to AoE Quickness on using Pages and activating Virtues? Then change Swift Scholar to give Resolution instead since having basic access to Quickness/Alcrity without any costs goes against the design philosophy that ANet has stated itself.

Again I agree with your general notion. And I am all for having quick and alac being as passive as possible or at least not require spamming all your utilities like some classes. Many current applications are annoying and spammy. 

But FB is a bad example. Do this analysis for other supports and see where you get. 

Also you have the option of Mantra of Liberation and F3 page 5.

Everyone can CC. FB already has decent CC on weapons. If FB cant take sanc, you have 9 other players to fill in. 

[the krytan assassin.9235]

31 minutes ago, Malus.2184 said:

And I really need to see a source for a full group with suboptimal builds and performances can clear HTCM. One, no problem since it can objectively be seen that people sell the CM. I really want to see a source that shows that a comp with multiple suboptimal build can do the same as it's pretty unanimous against the high-ranking players that HTCM is so tight that the group has to play well and have optimal builds.

https://youtu.be/QFYGcHGK1OM

[draxynnic.3719]

Yeah, Firebrand is a really bad example here. Sure, you need Mantra of Potence, and probably the mantra heal as well. So you're down exactly one regular utility slot from a support that operates purely from class mechanic. You can also get aegis, stability, two CC skills, and more from the tomes, at least one more hard CC from axe, and healbrand gets another from shield (along with another aegis source).

Firebrand has long been considered among the most flexible quickness supports because all but one utility is flexible, and firebrands have some very powerful utilities and elites to choose from.

I get where you're coming from: requiring too many utility slots just to do your basic job is a big problem. But I think firebrand is on the right side of that threshold - and, if anything, switching firebrand quickness to tome skills instead would probably make it less flexible overall. Quickherald probably has it worse since they need to burn through pretty much all of the Glint legend skills to maintain quickness, giving them less ability to use those skills for their original purposes.

[Xaylin.1860]

5 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

Curious, I'm pretty sure there are more support options than the one listed... I mean, Druid isn't the only ranger's spec that can provide 100% alacrity, Harbinger can provide quickness and even willbender can provide alacrity if you're motivated enough.

Many points of the analysis are also "arguable". For example, I don't think warrior's way to provide quickness handicap him much as only banner of tactic is needed with 100% boon duration and warrior's other utilities tend to lack "impact" in my opinion.

Arguable sums it up quite well. Yes, there are outliers and the gap between support builds probably still needs work. But the expectations what a support build should be able to achieve seems a bit of a reach. 

 

Two important aspects for overall class balance that have been pretty much ignored and thererore, at least in my opinion, make the initial assessment skewed: Warrior and Ranger are in a special situation due to Quickness/Alacrity being in core (which Dadnir touched on). And some specs like Chronomancer and Mirage might not be as limited in Utilities but are always stuck with the same weapon.

 

Yes, specific effects being linked to specific Utilities (and therefore roles) limits build diversity for those roles. However, as long as those Utilities aren't mandatory for other roles, I don't believe such a set up to be fundamentally wrong. 

 

[Malus.2184]

5 hours ago, the krytan assassin.9235 said:

https://youtu.be/QFYGcHGK1OM

Thank you, now go the same since it's apparently so easy.

[Malus.2184]

3 hours ago, Xaylin.1860 said:

Yes, specific effects being linked to specific Utilities (and therefore roles) limits build diversity for those roles. However, as long as those Utilities aren't mandatory for other roles, I don't believe such a set up to be fundamentally wrong. 

It has nothing to do with that. It's how Professions get access to those things. My point is that they should et them through traits and Class mechanics only, no separate <Type> is needed as that limits what they can bring of utility and how they can use it.

[the krytan assassin.9235]

3 hours ago, Malus.2184 said:

Thank you, now go the same since it's apparently so easy.

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You claimed it was impossible to run HTCM with multiple suboptimal builds. I present you evidence that refutes that claim and all you do is ignore it. 

You basically have a nonsensical point of view and wasting everyones time with ridiculous claims. I've proven to you that its possible to run HTCM with suboptimal builds, so your argument simply does NOT make sense. 

Nobody agrees with your point of view. Sure you can tunnelvision all you want & live in your own dillusional world, but that doesn't change reality. 

 

Anyways no use in further discussion, i guess you can't fix stupid. 

[Gaiawolf.8261]

9 minutes ago, the krytan assassin.9235 said:

Anyways no use in further discussion, i guess you can't fix stupid. 

True.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Gaiawolf.8261

[Malus.2184]

9 hours ago, the krytan assassin.9235 said:

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You claimed it was impossible to run HTCM with multiple suboptimal builds. I present you evidence that refutes that claim and all you do is ignore it. 

I never claimed it was impossible, I said that I wanted to see a source to the claim you made, you presented one and I'm fine with that. I'm less fine with you inventing claims I say I made so you can look good arguing against them.

And just because something can be done it has no bearing on it being easy, that it took a long time for optimised groups to beat the encounter on CM says more about the skill of the people involved rather than the encounter design itself.

10 hours ago, the krytan assassin.9235 said:

Anyways no use in further discussion, i guess you can't fix stupid. 

Well, you can fix stupid, it's just difficult. It's impossible to fix dishonesty since that has to come from the person themselves realising that their behaviour is dishonest.