The reasons Berserker fails

[cryorion.9532]

@"Sobx.1758"Pathetic attempts to discredit someone.And guess what, nope, my FH baseline opinion didn't change and you (and few others) were ones who avoided answering my question.Also, I am not saying to remove trade-offs (add back core bursts and remove -300 toughness penalty), but instead improve berserk management. That is a bit different, don't you think?I guess you are convinced about current Berserker spec being "fine" and there is nothing to change your mind. Fine.

[Sobx.1758]

@cryorion.9532 said:@"Sobx.1758"Pathetic attempts to discredit someone.

Also known as facts you don't like.

And guess what, nope, my FH baseline opinion didn't change and you (and few others) were ones who avoided answering my question.

No, I weren't -until you started answering to single lines cut out of the whole posts but then in return "demanded answers" (actually you're still avoiding acknowledging anything that's not comfortable for you, so not much changed). In other words, you're complaining about something that you introduced to that thread. Not that it's relevant, it's just still hilarious anyone can consider that request reasonable.

Also, I am not saying to remove trade-offs (add back core bursts and remove -300 toughness penalty), but instead improve berserk management. That is a bit different, don't you think?I guess you are convinced about current Berserker spec being "fine" and there is nothing to change your mind. Fine.

You're not saying to "remove trade-offs (add back core bursts)", sure. You just want to add a way to reset the berk mode cooldown, so why exactly would you need to "add back core bursts" in that situation? That totally doesn't remove that trade-off, totally "different", ok :+1:

[cryorion.9532]

@"Sobx.1758""Demanded answers", you won't find a post where I demand answer, I always asked :) (unless asking is demanding for you). You are just being a hypocrite because you were the one who was unable to answer and still doesn't want to admit it ;)

Anyway, if you start to think a bit more about what I propose, you would realize that "a better way to manage berserk" doesn't mean "reset the berk mode cooldown". Why do you exaggerate, when it can be just reducing beserk cd by few seconds only? I also wrote that this better berserk management would be achievable by smart/effortful gameplay. Does using single skill to reset berserk cd sound like smart/effortful gameplay to you?

[Sobx.1758]

@cryorion.9532 said:@"Sobx.1758""Demanded answers", you won't find a post where I demand answer, I always asked :) (unless asking is demanding for you). You are just being a hypocrite because you were the one who was unable to answer and still doesn't want to admit it ;)

Anyway, if you start to think a bit more about what I propose, you would realize that "a better way to manage berserk" doesn't mean "reset the berk mode cooldown". Why do you exaggerate, when it can be just reducing beserk cd by few seconds only? I also wrote that this better berserk management would be achievable by smart/effortful gameplay. Does using single skill to reset berserk cd sound like smart/effortful gameplay to you?

Yup, when you refuse to answer to posts, but in turn keep repeating how you don't get any answers, it's what I call "demanding answers". You can call it how you want, I am describing to you the situation, whether you'll call it asking, nagging or demending is really irrelevant, my point really should be clear to you no matter how you want to call it.If anyone's a hypocryte here, it's not me, buddy, but whatever makes you feel better. :) I "don't want to admit to it"? I literally wrote that I stopped answering after you kept answerring to single sentences from entire posts throughout the thread, how's that "still not wanting to admit to it"? Do you really have such terrible problems with understanding what you read? Honestly your great accusations blow my mind.

Now -as in two (nope, didn't count) last posts- you're writing about "better managing berserk", but pretty much all you're suggesting for the past month are ways to remove berserker downtime. Talk about being a hypocrite. You keep saying you don't really want to remove it, but all you come up with are ways to make it so berserker is up every time you want it to be. At this point it's literally removing the downtime, so... yeah, "start thinking about what you propose" is a good suggestion. Start now. And I don't exaggerate, that's what you're writing.Nope, it doesn't sound smart, but neither does making FH a "baseline warrior passive", so... How am I supposed to know when you're joking, lmao. Both are equally ridiculous and you have hard time accepting that. At least you're consistent with your ridiculous "fixes".

[Xaylin.1860]

@Obtena.7952 said:It is NOT unreasonable to expect that at the very least, the non-berserker mode functions with the same level of 'actions' as any other warrior spec, EVEN with Anet having >tradeoffs for it. I don't mind having tradeoffs. That's not the complaint.

You yourself have been arguing on plenty occasions how ones expectations aren't always the same as the vision ANet might have for something - being it a class, a skill or whatever. It is kind of amusing how you neglect your own argument you ususally persistently preach like a mantra.

As it is now, Berserker seems to do what its name suggests when looking at a plethora of fantasy settings. It is bursty and strong when in Berserk but less efficient when not enraged. Along this line it is not reasonable to expect the same performance outside of Berserk-mode and it is not reasonable to expect a spec with above average damage-per-second. This defies the definition of burst. As a whole - not as one single trait or effect - this is the trade-off when picking Berserker. It doesn't in any way have to play like baseline Warrior. Is how Berserker plays right now in line with ANets vision? I wouldn't know. But it's not per se deficient or poorly thought out. The set up makes sense design-wise. It might just not be what some people want it to be. Regardless, it surely has more flavor than the old Berserker.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Berserker is fine as it is. However, I do believe is it isn't nearly as bad as people make it sound. Power Berserker clearly has more traits that are tied to the active mode itself which can easily be fixed with an effect-split like Blood Reaction. Maybe there needs to be a way to exit Berserk-mode on purpose even though it doesn't feel right theme-wise. CBerserker might need some number tuning. But that's about it. Everyhting else is cherrypicking, personal taste or aiming for something with more potential than it needs to have (meta).

[Obtena.7952]

@Xaylin.1860 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:It is NOT unreasonable to expect that at the very least, the non-berserker mode functions with the same level of 'actions' as any other warrior spec, EVEN with Anet having >tradeoffs for it. I don't mind having tradeoffs. That's not the complaint.

You yourself have been arguing on plenty occasions how ones expectations aren't always the same as the vision ANet might have for something - being it a class, a skill or whatever. It is kind of amusing how you neglect your own argument you ususally persistently preach like a mantra.

That makes no sense. I've given Anet good feedback. We know they take it. If it doesn't align with their vision, they will ignore it. If it does, they will make changes like anything else they do. I've neglected nothing.

I'm not saying Berserker doesn't do what it's name suggests. if you want to understand my problem with it, check the first post of the thread. You don't think it's deficient? You think having almost no trait options in non-serker mode in the Berserker trait line is a good because it's a trade-off? That's an interesting position you have. What do I get for missing all those traits? Where is that trade-off everyone keeps talking about?

[Sobx.1758]

What do I get for missing all those traits? Where is that trade-off everyone keeps talking about?

A berk form stronger than base warrior, obviously. Keep up.Not the first time it's mentioned, somehow you're still stuck asking the same question.

[Obtena.7952]

@Sobx.1758 said:

What do I get for missing all those traits? Where is that trade-off everyone keeps talking about?

A berk form stronger than base warrior, obviously. Keep up.Not the first time it's mentioned, somehow you're still stuck asking the same question.

Because that reasoning makes no sense. Berserker shouldn't be better than base warrior design-wise; it's supposed to just be a different flavour. Indicating that design trade off exists because of performance makes no sense. Better performance is not a reason make berserker deficient in design. Correlating performance to design is a contrived argument. The worst design could have the best performance. That doesn't make it OK.

[TheBravery.9615]

at this point berserker might as well be a hit and run spec.

[Sobx.1758]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:

What do I get for missing all those traits? Where is that trade-off everyone keeps talking about?

A berk form stronger than base warrior, obviously. Keep up.Not the first time it's mentioned, somehow you're still stuck asking the same question.

Because that reasoning makes no sense. Berserker shouldn't be better than base warrior design-wise; it's supposed to just be a different flavour. Indicating that design trade off exists because of performance makes no sense. Better performance is not a reason make berserker deficient in design. Correlating performance to design is a contrived argument. The worst design could have the best performance. That doesn't make it OK.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it "doesn't make sense". So... yeah, it does. Aaaand again, it's not about performance, the kitten are you even talking about? It's like you think repeating 2 sentences all the time regardless of the answer will magically make them true. Somehow it still didn't.

[Obtena.7952]

I don't really know how to through to you, so again, I will just stop. My complaint is about the design, not the performance. If you are incapable of making that distinction, your lack of understanding doesn't mean I'm wrong. Anet has even demonstrated they recognize the problem I'm talking about because they did work in other areas of the game to ensure it was prevented when other especs were released in the game.

[Sobx.1758]

@Obtena.7952 said:I don't really know how to through to you, so again, I will just stop. My complaint is about the design, not the performance. If you can't make that distinction, it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

But the dedign is ok, it needs some numbers tweeked so the performance is fine. The design itself is fine, which is the point here, keep repeating people that disagree with you are talking about performance, good job. The thing here is that I can make that distinction and you are wrong.

Anet has even demonstrated they recognize the problem I'm talking about because they did work in other areas of the game to ensure it was prevented when other especs were released in the game.

Like what exactly?

[Obtena.7952]

No, the design is deficient and changes Anet has made in the past to other traits prove it ... Soulbeast is the best example. Anet must have changed over a dozen traits so that when players enter beast mode, those traits still work. Anet knows that modes that turn off traits is not a good design (or they knew it before and forgot it here), otherwise they wouldn't be doing so much work to make such changes to ensure moded specs were not lacking those traits. The most egregious deficiency here is that the 'turned off' traits are within the berserker line itself. Performance and number tweaking can not fix this problem, because it is not related to performance. Either you lack the ability to understand this, or your are being obtuse.

This is not a frivolous complaint and it's not performance related; choices must be meaningful or they stop being choices. That is what is happening when traits turn off because of modes, regardless of the class. I've made the same complaint about Necro and I was relieved when I saw how they adjusted Ranger traits with the introduction to Soulbeast. These 'mode-triggered' traits are not trade offs, they are oversights. You already make the trade offs to get those specific traitlines when you choose them from all the ones you have access to. If their is an additional trade off that most those traits don't work in some off-mode, that's being double dipped. That's deficient design.

[Sobx.1758]

@"Obtena.7952" said:No, the design is deficient and changes Anet has made in the past to other traits prove it ... Soulbeast is the best example. Anet must have changed over a dozen traits so that when players enter beast mode, those traits still work. Anet knows that modes that turn off traits is not a good design (or they knew it before and forgot it here), otherwise they wouldn't be doing so much work to make such changes to ensure moded specs were not lacking those traits. The most egregious deficiency here is that the 'turned off' traits are within the berserker line itself. Performance and number tweaking can not fix this problem, because it is not related to performance. Either you lack the ability to understand this, or your are being obtuse.

No, the design is fine and just because you dislike it or can't understand its purpose doesn't make it "deficient" because you keep repeating that word like a mantra. Now you're trying to claim that Anet agrees with you because they made some changes to previous specs, but magically forgot about it in a recent espec changes? Ok then :DOr maybe that's the desired spec design and you just can't deal with that fact so you try to decide what Anet thinks like you so passionately tell people not to do. Not the first and clearly not the last time you'll contradict yourself on this forum.If the "turned-off traits are in the berserker line itself", it's only more of a reason to believe -and understand- that it's not coincidental, not sure how you can think it confirms your claims in any way. Performance and number tweaking can easly fix it, you might still dislike the way the spec plays, you may still cry about the design being "deficient" while it's not, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still only your opinion and not the "design flaw" or "Anet's claims".

This is not a frivolous complaint and it's not performance related; choices must be meaningful or they stop being choices. That is what is happening when traits turn off because of modes, regardless of the class. I've made the same complaint about Necro and I was relieved when I saw how they adjusted Ranger traits with the introduction to Soulbeast. These 'mode-triggered' traits are not trade offs, they are oversights.

Hey, you mean someone that makes a frivolous complaint won't admit it's a frivolous complaint? Color me surprised. But you say so, so it must be true, right?

[Sigmoid.7082]

These 'mode-triggered' traits are not trade offs, they are oversights.

I wouldn't say they are an oversight more so you yourself do not like the design. Every class / spec that has a mode has traits that only function when the mode is active.

Soulbeast is the best example. Anet must have changed over a dozen traits so that when players enter beast mode, those traits still work.

Soulbeast is a bad example since the traits they changes were the pet traits. They made them apply to the player since you and your pet are technically one and the same when merged. It has brought about it's own set of problems though as some abilities were clearly designed for the less controllable and weaker AI. One thing I am anticipating is a similar uproar when Soulbeast idea access to only one pet.

I do agree Sobx here. It's less about he spec being poorly designed, deficient etc etc and more about how you personally do not like it and how it plays because of the clear shift in focus. It was previously warrior+ but now has a clearly different playstyle and focus which can be seen in the changes Anet made and the design of the traits. I hope the remaining classes get more shifted since the purpose of elite specs was never to be a stronger version of your character but to give you new and different ways to play it and I need we are now moving in that direction with the changes , buffs/nerfs we are seeing to core and elite alike.

[cryorion.9532]

@"Sobx.1758"We could say the same about you liking the spec doesn't mean it makes sense and the spec is fine.I like the spec and see its flaws and lacks (additionally to trade-offs).The design is much more limiting compared to other specs. Core warrior and spellbreaker doesn't have time-gated whole mechanics... on one button. But suddenly this is different playstyle, "if you don't like it, play something else", hurr durr...

"But the dedign is ok, it needs some numbers tweeked so the performance is fine. The design itself is fine, which is the point here, keep repeating people that disagree with you are talking about performance, good job. The thing here is that I can make that distinction and you are wrong."

Performance is great when in berserk, but when not in berserk, performance is bad. It seems that you think that these two "extremes" cancels each other out and make the design "fine". That would make sense if there were no other trade-offs (like -300 toughness, trait bonuses only for berserk mode) but unfortunately, overall it all makes berserker a spec limited by trade-offs and its whole mechanics being time-gated behind one button.Now how to improve the design without breaking things and WITHOUT removing major trade-offs which make sense?You keep saying that I want to remove berserk downtime completely (by default - to exaggerate things and make it all look bad). I explained many times that there should be a way to have better control over berserk management and that doesn't necessarily mean to completely remove berserk downtime under normal conditions.Being able to upkeep permanent/near-permanent berserk under perfect conditions (permanent alacrity, other buffs, perfectly executed rotation, ...) in PvE? Why not? It is a great way for rewarding effortful gameplay. Being able to reduce berserk cd in all game modes by hitting enemies with e.g. rage skills... why not? CD reduction doesn't have to be 15 seconds, as you say to make things look worse.Even smallest changes could improve the design quite a lot.

It feels like your arguments are aimed at me and not at what I propose. So please, try to discuss about what I propose to improve the design.

[Obtena.7952]

@Sigmoid.7082 said:

These 'mode-triggered' traits are not trade offs, they are oversights.

I wouldn't say they are an oversight more so you yourself do not like the design. Every class / spec that has a mode has traits that only function when the mode is active.

Of course ... obviously I don't like deficient designs. Warrior is more significantly impacted by mode-triggered traits because of it's design. I've explained why several times in this thread.

@cryorion.9532 said:So please, try to discuss about what I propose to improve the design.

This is unlikely, as the goal so certain people is to maintain the design as it is.

[Sobx.1758]

@cryorion.9532 said:@"Sobx.1758"We could say the same about you liking the spec doesn't mean it makes sense and the spec is fine.I like the spec and see its flaws and lacks (additionally to trade-offs).The design is much more limiting compared to other specs. Core warrior and spellbreaker doesn't have time-gated whole mechanics... on one button. But suddenly this is different playstyle, "if you don't like it, play something else", hurr durr...

Because it is, if you can't understand that then I'm not even sure what you're trying to talk about here. If you want it to play and feel like core warrior then play core warrior, it's just that simple. You can't pick core warrior with free berk beef on top of it, because that's the very definition of powercreep and wouldn't make any sense. I'm looking forward (but not really) to repeating this again in a day or a week until you finally understand that. It really should be easy for you understand that at this point.

"But the dedign is ok, it needs some numbers tweeked so the performance is fine. The design itself is fine, which is the point here, keep repeating people that disagree with you are talking about performance, good job. The thing here is that I can make that distinction and you are wrong."

Performance is great when in berserk, but when not in berserk, performance is bad. It seems that you think that these two "extremes" cancels each other out and make the design "fine". That would make sense if there were no other trade-offs (like -300 toughness, trait bonuses only for berserk mode) but unfortunately, overall it all makes berserker a spec limited by trade-offs and its whole mechanics being time-gated behind one button.

You say that because you clearly don't understand that the trade-offs don't need to be "one-for-one" deal. For example you can literally pick 20% dmg steroid for berserker (on top of a 300power) and you want to tell me that -300 toughness is enough for that as a trade-off? You simple can't state "here's one trade-off, doesn't matter what it does, doesn't matter what I can get in exchange, that's enough because some type of tradeoff already exists. That's some broken-ass logic and it's really so basic that it shouldn't be spelled out for anybody. To put it in your terms: "but some kind of tradeoff already exists hurrdurr" is a non-argument.

Now how to improve the design without breaking things and WITHOUT removing major trade-offs which make sense?You keep saying that I want to remove berserk downtime completely (by default - to exaggerate things and make it all look bad). I explained many times that there should be a way to have better control over berserk management and that doesn't necessarily mean to completely remove berserk downtime under normal conditions.

Cool. You literally said that the cooldown should be reduced or refreshed by hitting x skill, which obviously doesn't remove the downtime, because technically it's still there, but IN REALITY what you want is using a skill or two and having the berserker back up again. Which DOES remove the downtime entirely and isn't "an exaggeration to make you look bad" despite of what you're trying to claim here. That's literally what you were proposing, not only here and now, but also much earlier. If you expect me to keep commenting on your "ideas", then stop pretending what your goal is. And if removing the downtime really isn't your goal, then you actually have no idea what you want to achieve and how you want to achieve it.Yes, you type out that "you want more control over berk mode", but what you proposed up to this point for the past month were ways to remove the downtime. That's what your "improvements" would achieve and that's pretty stupid with literally no place in this game.

Being able to upkeep permanent/near-permanent berserk under perfect conditions (permanent alacrity, other buffs, perfectly executed rotation, ...) in PvE? Why not? It is a great way for rewarding effortful gameplay. Being able to reduce berserk cd in all game modes by hitting enemies with e.g. rage skills... why not? CD reduction doesn't have to be 15 seconds, as you say to make things look worse.

It's not what "I said to make things look worse", it's what you kept saying. I enjoy all the backpedalling, but stop lying, thanks.

Even smallest changes could improve the design quite a lot.

The design is fine.

It feels like your arguments are aimed at me and not at what I propose. So please, try to discuss about what I propose to improve the design.

No, they're not, you're the one that kept answering to single sentences or half of the posts. Why would I bother answerrring to everything you say in return when you're fine with ignoring what I type out? Seems like a waste of time on my part tbh, I'm just not sure why you're pretending that's not what you're doing. And I did comment on what you were suggesting, what are you even talking about right now?

---

@cryorion.9532 said:So please, try to discuss about what I propose to improve the design.

This is unlikely, as the goal so certain people is to maintain the design as it is.

...said the person that keeps telling others they're talking about "performance" when they're not (and then tries to use performance to claim there's a problem with the design).Also the person that tells people they "don't know what Anet's vision is", but at the same time try to claim he knows how "Anet intended this skill or spec to work". Solid. :+1:

[Xaylin.1860]

@Obtena.7952 said:My complaint is about the design, not the performance.

And your complaint is your personal opinion and not an undeniable fact. At least some people obviously disagree with your assessment.

[Obtena.7952]

@Xaylin.1860 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:My complaint is about the design, not the performance.

And your complaint is your personal opinion and not an undeniable fact. At least some people obviously disagree with your assessment.

Really? It's my opinion that most of the traits in berserker don't work in non-berserker mode and that diminishes my choices? It's my opinion that warriors have the lowest number of actions available to them to act and react to game stimulus? Wow, thanks for letting me know. Here the whole time I though that how traits worked and the number of actions I had acccess to as a warrior had something to do with the coding behind the game ... now I know that how the mechanics of the game are driven simply by my own opinion. I guess I will just change my opinion to open up my actions and make the traits suddenly work. I will let you know how that goes ...

[Sobx.1758]

@Xaylin.1860 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:My complaint is about the design, not the performance.

And your complaint is your personal opinion and not an undeniable fact. At least some people obviously disagree with your assessment.

What do you mean? His opinion is WHAT ANET INTENDED™ and if you disagree, it means you're talking about performance btw.Wanting berserker to just be a core warrior with more dmg and buffed up burst skills is completely reasonable "because otherwise it's deficient" :D

[cryorion.9532]

@Sobx.1758OK.

Can't wait for next balance patch to see where things go.If there is really something that needs change, I am sure ANet is already aware of it.

[Sobx.1758]

@cryorion.9532Cool.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Why not make Berserk Mode a 5s cooldown like all the Primal Bursts? Why not allow entry at each bar of adrenaline with a 5s, 10s, 15s duration depending and bar of adrenaline spent? Would that make things better? It would certainly remove the angst over the traits offering nothing out of berserk mode.

EDIT: There would have to a be a 5s ICD on things like Savage Instinct so that if someone slots Burst Mastery they can't have super high uptime of invulnerability.

[Obtena.7952]

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:Why not make Berserk Mode a 5s cooldown like all the Primal Bursts? Why not allow entry at each bar of adrenaline with a 5s, 10s, 15s duration depending and bar of adrenaline spent? Would that make things better? It would certainly remove the angst over the traits offering nothing out of berserk mode.

EDIT: There would have to a be a 5s ICD on things like Savage Instinct so that if someone slots Burst Mastery they can't have super high uptime of invulnerability.

I was in love with making berserker duration linked to adrenaline spent in Berserker V1 ... it seemed like the obvious thing and it made sense ... lots of adrenaline, lots of berserker rage, gives players options to control mode duration.

I think the idea now would be a step back from how Anet wants us to manage berserker uptime with Rage skills. I still love the idea. I think if the concept of version 2 is to be maintained, the answer is to fill in some non-berserker mode love in the minors (I think you mentioned that before as well). It would be my personal preference that non-berserker mode received more support options (dealing with condi's/CC) because I think more DPS doesn't make sense and more damage mitigation could change the flavour of the berserker too much if it's done wrong.