Observations playing Condi in PvP

[Chaith.8256]

@Ghos.1326 said:

@"Ardid.7203" said:So the proper balance would be to have high sustain + slow condi dmg v/s low sustain + fast power burst. In an ideal GW2, Condis are slow killers but tanky, Powers do more damage but are squishier. Sounds good to me, but Anet kinda destroyed this...I think the ideal balance would be to have condition damage counter its respectful build types. Bunkers. Bunkers should be able to tank physical damage like a boss, but should lack condition removal, thus being countered by heavy condition pressures. Supports should be able to trump condition damage pressure through heals and clears, but should also be vulnerable to physical damage. Burst damagers should be glass cannons, being able to output heavy physical damage at the expense of survivability/sustainability. Spikers should have great sustained damage, borderline burst damage, and AT MOST decent tanking capabilities (nothing better than decent, else it's broken). Bruisers should have great defensive capabilities, decent damage, and SOME condi clear, but not enough to trump a sustained condi build. Glassy condi builds should be able to "burst" ramp up many conditions, but not to a point that it's not able to be outplayed. Also, burst condition applicators should be teamfight orientated (much like scourge), and should be heavily punished for trying to act as a solo tanky condition user. Sustained condition applicators should be able take 1v1s as a condition style bruiser, but not be able to apply as many conditions as its burst counterpart, and much more able to survive physical damage. (i think glass condi applicators, as well, should be able to clear conditions a bit better than sustained condition applicators.)

The issue right now, is that roles are blurred. Too many builds can perform extremely well in more than one role, sometimes even more than two roles. This is why we're not seeing proper balance.

EDIT: Also, physical spikers should be able to clear condis better than bruisers, but unable to take as much damage as a full on bruiser.

As you say, the roles are blurred. The game can't and won't conform to a bunker- spiker-condi trifecta.

Every profession has highly unique combinations of condition removal, condition damage, tankiness, and spike potential. Spike-Power Rev will always be weak to conditions. I don't see that changing, it's a fundamental truth for the Rev profession for example.

[Vagrant.7206]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"coro.3176" said:Again, see Anet thread from the last balance patch:

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/29690/pvp-wvw-skill-split-release/p1

Increased build diversity is one of their goals.I think the big step here isn't just to identify condi engi isn't good at PVP. That's the easy part. It's not even really important why. Frankly, I'm doubtful that if Anet does target something, it's core engi. Seems that their efforts are aligned to making Scrapper the go-to PVP/WVW spec, just by it's very design and by the recent changes towards barriers.

Yeah, but their behavior towards other classes suggests they want to make core classes viable, if not meta. You can see it in their treatment of spellbreaker to make it viable in PvE, or core thief and core guardian's continued persistence in PvP.

That's a very subjective assessment ... I've never seen Anet use terms like 'viable' and 'meta', yet people throw them around like they are agreed upon levels of performance by everyone. That's not the case.

Yes, Anet does things to class balance that change how desirable a class might be in a given game element, but I see nothing that convinces me that we are going all the sudden have all these 'viable' (whatever that means) builds for every spec in every class in every game mode. That's a monumental amount of work ... Anet can't even do one spec on one class for one game mode in a single patch ... think reality here.

if condi engi is SO bad ... how much work woudl it need to make it 'viable', compared to other engi builds that are much better than it is that are already almost there? It doesn't make sense to nominate the WORST spec as the one that needs to become 'viable'.

Why doesn't that make sense? Core engineer is the basis for all other engineer e-specs, so it would make sense to bring up its viability. Same with Revenant -- the core class is woefully underwhelming, and building on top of a crappy foundation isn't going to make a good house.

[Obtena.7952]

It doesn't make sense because you don't need a strong core Engi spec to have other viable or even highly performing specs for the class in PVP, WVW or PVE. Scourge is a great example of that. So is Holosmith ... and Firebrand and DH and Spellbreaker and Mirage and on and on. I don't think I would be far off in claiming that game modes where the core class spec has maintained the advantage over the especs are actually exceptional or even nonexistent. So clearly ... the performance of the core spec isn't as big a deciding factor in the performance of the especs as you claim it is.

I'm all for more 'viable' specs, but that term is fraught with subjective opinion. I would argue there aren't so few 'viable' specs on Engi as people make it sound. Besides, this thread isn't about having more viable specs, it's about making one particular spec viable ... and that's not really much to do with the class in the first place ... it has way more to do with generally, what kinds of tools the classes have to mitigate the partcular strengths of the spec being presented.

The bottomline is that what is 'good' or 'bad' is just a function of what other people are playing and how the mechanics of the game work and chasing that to make ONE particular spec work better is a waste of time because it's changes so much

[Chaith.8256]

@Obtena.7952 said:Besides, this thread isn't about having more viable specs, it's about making one particular spec viable ... and that's not really much to do with the class in the first place ... it has way more to do with generally, what kinds of tools the classes have to mitigate the partcular strengths of the spec being presented.

The bottomline is that what is 'good' or 'bad' is just a function of what other people are playing and how the mechanics of the game work and chasing that to make ONE particular spec work better is a waste of time because it's changes so much

I agree that Core Engi doesn't necessarily have to be good for elite specs to be good. That was a bit of a contrived reasoning to buff core.

Better reasons to buff core include:-Introducing more build options which are dynamic, flavorful, nostalgic, and most importantly fun.-Bringing extinct specs back to life is the balance team's job. Elite specs are not supposed to make core specs obsolete, full stop.

Your reasoned that balancing Core Engi is a waste of time due to changing so much else, presumably over-buffing Holosmith. This is wrong too because you're not considering option C: Buff core Engi in a way that has 0 to low interaction with Elite specs.

The solution here is kits. Kits are effectively for core Engi use only. Flamethrower, Grenades, Bombs, buff these kits offense and defense utility, and change traits to better support these 3 kits, done.

[Vagrant.7206]

@"Chaith.8256" said:Your reasoned that balancing Core Engi is a waste of time due to changing so much else, presumably over-buffing Holosmith. This is wrong too because you're not considering option C: Buff core Engi in a way that has 0 to low interaction with Elite specs.

The solution here is kits. Kits are effectively for core Engi use only. Flamethrower, Grenades, Bombs, buff these kits offense and defense utility, and change traits to better support these 3 kits, done.

There's a few more things that could be done that would have only a relatively small impact on holo/scrapper:

• QoL the "throw elixir" skills to be easier to use
• Make pistol skills more worthwhile overall
• QoL some of the traits surrounding kits to extend their functionality to all kits or improve them (IE health insurance, juggernaut)
• Any improvement to elite skills' toolbelts, by definition, cannot impact Holosmith.

[Chaith.8256]

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@"Chaith.8256" said:Your reasoned that balancing Core Engi is a waste of time due to changing so much else, presumably over-buffing Holosmith. This is wrong too because you're not considering option C:

Buff core Engi in a way that has 0 to low interaction with Elite specs.

The solution here is kits. Kits are effectively for core Engi use only. Flamethrower, Grenades, Bombs, buff these kits offense and defense utility, and change traits to better support these 3 kits, done.

There's a few more things that could be done that would have only a relatively small impact on holo/scrapper:

• QoL the "throw elixir" skills to be easier to use
• Make pistol skills more worthwhile overall
• QoL some of the traits surrounding kits to extend their functionality to all kits or improve them (IE health insurance, juggernaut)

Extended kit trait functionality like Health Insurance and Juggernaut is precisely what I meant by buffing kit support traits.

Elixir tossing, that has nothing to do with affecting Core Engi exclusively, that would be a profession wide QoL increase.

Condi is pretty much exclusively Core Engi though. Really strong pistols and Condi traits would very much buff core Engi exclusively.

[Obtena.7952]

@Chaith.8256 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:Besides, this thread isn't about having more viable specs, it's about making one particular spec viable ... and that's not really much to do with the class in the first place ... it has way more to do with generally, what kinds of tools the classes have to mitigate the partcular strengths of the spec being presented.

The bottomline is that what is 'good' or 'bad' is just a function of what other people are playing and how the mechanics of the game work and chasing that to make ONE particular spec work better is a waste of time because it's changes so much

I agree that Core Engi doesn't necessarily have to be good for elite specs to be good. That was a bit of a contrived reasoning to buff core.

Better reasons to buff core include:-Introducing more build options which are dynamic, flavorful, nostalgic, and most importantly fun.-Bringing extinct specs back to life is the balance team's job. Elite specs are not supposed to make core specs obsolete, full stop.

Your reasoned that balancing Core Engi is a waste of time due to changing so much else, presumably over-buffing Holosmith. This is wrong too because you're not considering option C:

Buff core Engi in a way that has 0 to low interaction with Elite specs.

My concern here is that buffing a specific spec for the sole reason of making THAT spec viable in PVP is an act of folly since it's not necessarily the skills on that spec that makes it 'not good'; there are many factors that determine what are successful in PVP. Personally, I'm not overly concerned that Holosmith gets better ... or worse. I haven't considered this option C, primarily because I don't immediately see what you're meaning is. How would you consider doing such a thing? Unless your idea about kits below is what you mean?

The solution here is kits. Kits are effectively for core Engi use only. Flamethrower, Grenades, Bombs, buff these kits offense and defense utility, and change traits to better support these 3 kits, done.

I agree with this sentiment to a degree; I think general improvements to THE thing that gives Engi its unique feel over other classes is a good idea, though may not directly address the immediate concerns of the OP to make condi engi a viable PVP spec. Still, Kits get my vote if anything should get a love dump.

[Chaith.8256]

@"Obtena.7952" said:My concern here is that buffing a specific spec for the sole reason of making THAT spec viable in PVP is an act of folly since it's not necessarily the skills on that spec that makes it 'not good'; there are many factors that determine what are successful in PVP.

I don't know why you think this is a reason to not balance the core specs as per the intended design, perhaps actually address those "many factors" instead of clouding the problem and saying it's futile.

If core skills were 'good' (Pistol, Flamethrower, Bomb), we can use kit support traits to address the other problems you've vaguely referenced like:

• Addressing Condi removal for Core Kit builds by re-purposing a kit trait like Health Insurance
• Addressing sustain by allowing Backpack Regenerator to provide value for a short(er) window while you're using main hand weapons again.
• Addressing stability by extending Juggernaut to other offensive Kits like Bomb & Grenade
• Addressing over-nerfed mechanics like Incendiary Ammo & Powder, but still keeping it as a slow-ramp.

External factors like the current meta will affect what builds become mega popular but that's not the goal, that WOULD be futile, only a viable option is necessary.

[Josif.2015]

Introducing more build options which are dynamic, flavorful, nostalgic, and most importantly fun.You want to talk about more build options? How about bringing back Alchemical Tinctures? The removal of the trait has killed elixir builds, made every single elixir obsolete and it diminished build options, but it also made condition cleansing for engineer ever worse.

The solution here is kits. Kits are effectively for core Engi use only. Flamethrower, Grenades, Bombs, buff these kits offense and defense utility, and change traits to better > > support these 3 kits, done.I totally agree, I was thinking same thing when it comes to buffing core Engineer only. Here's my list of changes that provides ways on how to improve the kits and certain traits focused around those kits.

[Obtena.7952]

@Chaith.8256 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:My concern here is that buffing a specific spec for the sole reason of making THAT spec viable in PVP is an act of folly since it's not necessarily the skills on that spec that makes it 'not good'; there are many factors that determine what are successful in PVP.

I don't know why you think this is a reason to not balance the core specs as per the intended design, perhaps actually address those "many factors" instead of clouding the problem and saying it's futile.

If core skills were 'good' (Pistol, Flamethrower, Bomb), we can use kit support traits to address the other problems you've vaguely referenced like:

• Addressing Condi removal for Core Kit builds by re-purposing a kit trait like Health Insurance
• Addressing sustain by allowing Backpack Regenerator to provide value for a short(er) window while you're using main hand weapons again.
• Addressing stability by extending Juggernaut to other offensive Kits like Bomb & Grenade
• Addressing over-nerfed mechanics like Incendiary Ammo & Powder, but still keeping it as a slow-ramp.

External factors like the current meta will affect what builds become mega popular but that's not the goal, that WOULD be futile, only a viable option is necessary.

There is a misunderstanding. I'm not against buffing core engi. I am against targeting buffs for a specific build/spec to make THAT build better. To be fair, buffing core engi is a very broad scope, buffing condi engi is a much more narrow one ... The OP wants to target condi engi. I think that's the wrong approach.

[Ghos.1326]

@Hoodie.1045 said:You want to talk about more build options? How about bringing back Alchemical Tinctures? The removal of the trait has killed elixir builds, made every single elixir obsolete and it diminished build options, but it also made condition cleansing for engineer ever worse.

I personally do not agree with this. Elixirs can still be used, but now moreso as offensive options, rather than supportive. They are far from obosolete. Now the only supportive (and by support I mean something along the lines of condition clear/healing utility) elixir is the Elixir C, and it works well in a spike-orientated build while using the HGH trait. Because it converts all the conditions to boons, which will heal you a little HP, while also prividing might, with a lowered cooldown of 32 seconds. The toolbelt skill's 2 condi conversion to boons is also lowered to 16 seconds, giving you a shorter window to clear less conditions in tight situations. Then there is also the lesser Elixir C proc from the minor trait Transmute. If they ever brought back the functionality of the old Alchemical Tinctures trait, I'd like to see it on some kind of ICD, and maybe clear an extra condition.

[Josif.2015]

If they ever brought back the functionality of the old Alchemical Tinctures trait, I'd like to see it on some kind of ICD, and maybe clear an extra condition.I'd suggest the trait to have a 5 second ICD, and make the Elixir Guns' skill 4 Acid Bomb benefit from it. Before the removal of the trait, the only elixirs from the Elixir Gun that benefited the trait was Healing Mist and Super Elixir. Super Elixir removed 2 condition once you created the light field which I loved the most, but for some reason Acid Bomb, despite being categorized as an elixir didn't remove conditions.

[Chaith.8256]

@Hoodie.1045 Acid Bomb, despite being categorized as an elixir didn't remove conditions.

It was done intentionally because the value of that trait was already adequate. The wording included 'drinking or throwing' (ground targeting) as a prerequisite for condi removal, which kind of gave them a reason to include/disclude certain skills.

Hitting e-gun 5-4 was already 3 AoE condi removal, 4 would be nice but deemed excessive.

[Atmaweapon.7345]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"coro.3176" said:There's a difference between 'not meta' and 'completely and utterly ineffective'. I would say condi engi in pvp is closer to the latter right now than the former. I don't think it needs to be a top tier build. I do think it needs to be playable.

Maybe ... but that's not a problem. I don't see why one particular spec needs to be playable at all and if one does, why this one. Anet hasn't made any attempt EVER of making a whole bunch of highly performing specs for every class, so why condi spec on core Engi?

Mesmer has top tier specs for pretty much everything.

Also, that argument boils down to "I don't think Anet should waste development time on this." You personally don't see why they should bother with an under-performing aspect of a profession and follow up with nonconstructive assumptions whose only point is to discourage people from voicing their opinions.

Why shouldn't Engineer have a decent condition spec? Answer that in a fashion without referring to Anet's priorities.

Finally, saying really things like "Core Engineer should be buffed, but not that way" is also really vague and unhelpful. How exactly do you fix Core Engineer without looking at actually under-performing parts and starting from there?

[Obtena.7952]

@Atmaweapon.7345 said:Why shouldn't Engineer have a decent condition spec? Answer that in a fashion without referring to Anet's priorities.

I don't think you're paying attention to what I've said here. Targeting a specific build for improvement in a specific game mode isn't a solution to what ails the core Engi toolset. I've already given a few reasons why it doesn't make sense to do this and I did it without referring to Anet's priorities so ... ?

Anyways, why would you do that? Just because it's convenient to ignore Anet's priorities to justify any idea you have? That's not very realistic is it? I mean, the whole design of the game and concept of the class IS rooted with Anet's priorities. If we are going to have a reasonable discussion here, you can't ignore it.

Engi deserves developers to apply their time to the class in GOOD ways. Chaith's kit buffing approach does that ... because to be completely honest, core Engi not having a good condi build in PVP really isn't a 'problem' that needs to be addressed to begin with. I would like to think that Anet considers problems before 'nice to have' things.

[coro.3176]

It's really really bad..

and yet, I feel like I'm playing well in those games. I'm landing all my skills. I'm getting lots of kills (often top kills, top damage), rarely die (usually going 15+ kills and 0-2 deaths).... and yet I can't influence the outcome of a game to save my life apparently. I'm pretty sure there are 5 more losses before this screenshot too..

I feel like I'm out-playing my opponents by a ton, but not managing to make any damage stick. I take way more risk getting close to land that tough pry bar, rocket kick, blowtorch, etc compared to holo, but in return I'm not doing more damage. If anything I'm doing less, and more than half the time it just gets cleansed instantly.

Ugh. The alternative is switching back to the same meta holo build everyone else is playing... boring.

[Obtena.7952]

There isn't a question isn't not bad. The question is if being bad warrants Anet to improve the performance of a very specific build.

[coro.3176]

It's hardly a "very specific" build. I'm talking about condi in general.

• condi core engi - not viable
• condi scrapper - not viable

• condi holo - not viable

  Frankly, I'm a bit incredulous here that I have to even argue that. Yes, it should be improved.

This also isn't a matter of the class/build being better suited to different game modes. I play them all, and while this post is about PvP, condi engi is straight-up worse in all modes now.. while being harder to play, higher risk, and less forgiving.

I mean, I could go dig up a game design textbook, but as a rule, things that require high skill (eg. core condi) ought to be at least as good as things that require lower skill (eg. Holo). Otherwise, there's no incentive for players to spend time getting better. They'll just always choose the easiest path.

Condi engi is commonly compared to playing the piano. Well, to carry on the analogy, Holo is like playing the kazoo. I want playing the piano to be as good as playing the kazoo.

[Obtena.7952]

@"coro.3176" said:It's hardly a "very specific" build. I'm talking about condi in general.

• condi core engi - not viable
• condi scrapper - not viable

• condi holo - not viable

  Frankly, I'm a bit incredulous here that I have to even argue that. Yes, it should be improved.

This also isn't a matter of the class/build being better suited to different game modes. I play them all, and while this post is about PvP, condi engi is straight-up worse in all modes now.. while being harder to play, higher risk, and less forgiving.

I mean, I could go dig up a game design textbook, but as a rule, things that require high skill (eg. core condi) ought to be at least as good as things that require lower skill (eg. Holo). Otherwise, there's no incentive for players to spend time getting better. They'll just always choose the easiest path.

Condi engi is commonly compared to playing the piano. Well, to carry on the analogy, Holo is like playing the kazoo. I want playing the piano to be as good as playing the kazoo.

You can label it how you like. There isn't anything incredulous about it ... there are LOTS of builds on lots of classes that don't work well in PVP ... and it's that way because Anet doesn't selectively target specific things to make a wide range of builds 'viable'. There just isn't need to do so. I'm of the firm belief that the reason the Engi elite specs are designed the way they are is as the solution to the problem you are talking about. There isn't a need to pull out any books; in case you haven't noticed, Anet doesn't use those books either. Players that want the easiest path aren't going to be incentived by multiple, other 'good paths' for play; they WANT that easiest path and go out of their way to find and play it, just because they want the wins.

If condi, in general, isn't viable on any engi build, that's not really a reason to buff it; that seems to me to be more of a overall problem with how condis work in PVP, not just on engi. As I've already said, people can choose whatever they want to play; if you just want to 'WIN', you play the win builds. If you play for style, winning is nice, but not your primary reason. The game appeals to everyone in these respects.

[Vagrant.7206]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"coro.3176" said:It's hardly a "very specific" build. I'm talking about condi in general.

• condi core engi - not viable
• condi scrapper - not viable

• condi holo - not viable
  Frankly, I'm a bit incredulous here that I have to even argue that. Yes, it
  should
  be improved.

This also isn't a matter of the class/build being better suited to different game modes. I play them all, and while this post is about PvP, condi engi is straight-up worse in all modes now.. while being harder to play, higher risk, and less forgiving.

I mean, I could go dig up a game design textbook, but as a rule, things that require high skill (eg. core condi) ought to be at least as good as things that require lower skill (eg. Holo). Otherwise, there's no incentive for players to spend time getting better. They'll just always choose the easiest path.

Condi engi is commonly compared to playing the piano. Well, to carry on the analogy, Holo is like playing the kazoo. I want playing the piano to be as good as playing the kazoo.If condi, in general, isn't viable on any engi build, that's not really a reason to buff it; that seems to me to be more of a overall problem with how condis work in PVP, not just on engi. As I've already said, people can choose whatever they want to play; if you just want to 'WIN', you play the win builds. If you play for style, winning is nice, but not your primary reason. The game appeals to everyone in these respects.

Cut the crap. They've steadily chipped away at the viability of condi engineer for no particular reason, when it was already on shaky ground. For example:

• Prior to PoF, PvP condi engi was very situational at best, it wasn't great, but it could be played well if you knew what you were doing. When PoF landed, the build entered utter uselessness, and they followed that up with a nerf chaser -- hitting incendiary ammo with half the stacks. The only other build considered generally viable in PvP prior to PoF was scrapper tank.
• Prior to PoF, PvE condi engi was one of two "meta" builds that engineer had. Scrapper has never been useful in PvE. The PvE condi engi was playing a piano to eke out roughly the same DPS as other condi classes, but it was perfectly viable. The other build was a power bomber, which was... ok. Since PoF dropped, PvE condi engi has gotten hit by several nerfs aimed at other classes (particularly the confusion nerf), steadily chipping away the viability of a very complicated rotation.

In short, they've steadily chipped away at condi engi builds that were considered viable, but not easy or great, while granting other specs (such as scourge) super easy access to condi viability. I don't think they did this intentionally, or out of malice, but their lack of attention has left core engineer in the gutter, and that's almost entirely the result of nerfing multiple different skills or condition types without regards to how it actually affected engineer viability.

[Chaith.8256]

@Obtena.7952 said:If condi, in general, isn't viable on any engi build, that's not really a reason to buff it; that seems to me to be more of a overall problem with how condis work in PVP, not just on engi.

ArenaNet shouldn't buff any amount of underperforming builds that use conditions because conditions have problems in PvP.. hmm.

You're a masterful bullcrapper. Haha, nobody believes that condition builds have an overall problem working in PvP, not even you. You've been deleted by 2+ condi Mirage/condi Scourge/condi Daredevil in a match before, we all have.

I'm all for discussing the intricacies of how to balance, I think your original warning to not buff 'a single build' had merit, if a bit nitpicky, but now you're just arguing for sport.

A couple people have pointed out how the Engineer's PvP/WvW condi mechanics were unjustly and harshly targeted by ArenaNet balance devs in the last condi balance patch, it was objectively a horrible decision with no redeeming game balance ramifications by extending those nerfs to PvP/WvW on purpose. Clearly it's not off limits to target discussion around changes to affect condi builds, these kinds of mechanics are exactly what ArenaNet is targeting.

This thread has largely revolved around convincing you that the Engineer's condi mechanics need positive change in PvP modes, let's stop that. Why don't you tell us what should be done

[Obtena.7952]

@Chaith.8256 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:If condi, in general, isn't viable on any engi build, that's not really a reason to buff it; that seems to me to be more of a overall problem with how condis work in PVP, not just on engi.

ArenaNet shouldn't buff any amount of underperforming builds that use conditions because conditions have problems in PvP.. hmm.

Chasing meta doesn't make sense. Besides, I haven't made an incorrect statement here. 'Not being viable' isn't a reason to buff things, otherwise EVERY single underperforming skill/.trait/effect would be justified for a buff just because there is something better. That's how you get power creep. We can see that's not how this game works. There are reasons to change things, but I'm of the belief that based on observing the game, performance isn't too highly ranking on that list.

This thread has largely revolved around convincing you that the Engineer's condi mechanics need positive change in PvP modes, let's stop that. Why don't you tell us what should be done

For starter's how about we not petition Anet take 'bottom of the barrel' builds and bring them all the way up to builds that people consider viable? That's an unnecessary amount of work to simply give a class more viable PVP builds.

I won't pretend that I'm an Engi PVP expert, but I can spot idea that's don't make sense. If condi engi is SO bad at PVP, why would THIS be the thing we ask Anet to improve on a class just to give more viable builds?

I'm more of the camp that specific tools be improved, like your idea to change how Juggernaut works, or improving kits; this kind of idea is a sure way to open up the field without targetting specific builds for improvement. Anet has never targeted specific builds for improvement in PVP for a class, so why does it make sense to just ask for it now? You know that's now how they operate. I can tell based on how you make your suggestions. The Juggernaut idea makes sense because it doesn't have the intention to buff a very specific build ... I'm of the opinion that targeting condi builds ... just because they underperform, ins't a sound strategy ... so if something changes and condi builds aren't good again (or OP'ed?) then anet has to change them AGAIN? You know that's not a good idea.

[Ghos.1326]

I think that each trait choice should significantly impact one's playstyle choice. give benefits while taking away others. There are some elements of this currently, but some areas lack this, other areas completely ignore this and give several benefits while taking little away. Bringing those areas that overperform to the level of taking away a bit more at the cost of choosing said trait, and areas that lack, give a little more benefit to the choice.

[Chaith.8256]

@Obtena.7952 said:Chasing meta doesn't make sense. Besides, I haven't made an incorrect statement here. 'Not being viable' isn't a reason to buff things, otherwise EVERY single underperforming skill/.trait/effect would be justified for a buff just because there is something better. That's how you get power creep. We can see that's not how this game works. There are reasons to change things, but I'm of the belief that based on observing the game, performance isn't too highly ranking on that list.

This thread has largely revolved around convincing you that the Engineer's condi mechanics need positive change in PvP modes, let's stop that. Why don't you tell us what should be done

For starter's how about we not petition Anet take 'bottom of the barrel' builds and bring them all the way up to builds that people consider viable? That's an unnecessary amount of work to simply give a class more viable PVP builds.

I won't pretend that I'm an Engi PVP expert, but I can spot idea that's don't make sense. If condi engi is SO bad at PVP, why would THIS be the thing we ask Anet to improve on a class just to give more viable builds?

I'm more of the camp that specific tools be improved, like your idea to change how Juggernaut works, or improving kits; this kind of idea is a sure way to open up the field without targetting specific builds for improvement. Anet has never targeted specific builds for improvement in PVP for a class, so why does it make sense to just ask for it now? You know that's now how they operate. I can tell based on how you make your suggestions. The Juggernaut idea makes sense because it doesn't have the intention to buff a very

specific

build ... I'm of the opinion that targeting condi builds ... just because they underperform, ins't a sound strategy ... so if something changes and condi builds aren't good again (or OP'ed?) then anet has to change them AGAIN? You know that's not a good idea.

You keep repeating not to buff 'builds' but a big part that people are upset about is Incendiary Ammunition and Incendiary Powder gutting. Lots of builds can use those mechanics, one's a Flamethrower skill, and one's a trait which is accessible to many builds. If somebody says 'buff condi builds' please forgive them for their ignorance, yes, yes, we understand. You are continuing to nitpick on what's 'a build' and what's a 'tool' of a build. You're just 100% arguing semantics here.

If you agree with some of my suggestions to buff widely useful tools of Core Engi, then you can't say that buffing other tools like FT toolbelt or Incendiary Powder is just 'chasing meta'. No suggestions have been made to make anything on Engi 'meta', I think most would agree having our mediocre spot as C tier would be fine for flamethrower builds in PvP, instead of F tier.

[Vagrant.7206]

@Ghos.1326 said:I think that each trait choice should significantly impact one's playstyle choice. give benefits while taking away others. There are some elements of this currently, but some areas lack this, other areas completely ignore this and give several benefits while taking little away. Bringing those areas that overperform to the level of taking away a bit more at the cost of choosing said trait, and areas that lack, give a little more benefit to the choice.

I think part of it too still harkens back to when they first introduced specialization traitlines. I remember engineer traits prior to that patch -- they were a mish-mash, with most builds opting to pick adept or master traits where they would have otherwise had access to a grandmaster. In attempting to streamline the traits process, they ended up screwing over most engineer builds because engineer traits have always been a cluster.