Should Scrapper provid team Quickness?

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

We have 9 classes and 12 boons. I think it is entirely acceptable that only 1 class be able to provide one main boon and to a lesser extent a secondary boon and even lesser extent other boons.

I.E. Guardian gets Aegis as it's main boonWarrior gets MightMesmer gets Quicknessand so forth.

We need to get back to re-establishing what each class's boon niche is like it was at launch.

[draxynnic.3719]

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:We have 9 classes and 12 boons. I think it is entirely acceptable that only 1 class be able to provide one main boon and to a lesser extent a secondary boon and even lesser extent other boons.

I.E. Guardian gets Aegis as it's main boonWarrior gets MightMesmer gets Quicknessand so forth.

We need to get back to re-establishing what each class's boon niche is like it was at launch.

I disagree. Monopolies aren't healthy for the game - if a group of people get together and there's one profession that nobody in the group likes, they should be able to work around that (even if it's not optimal), rather than someone being forced to play it. You can get away without a bannerslave or a ranger because the stat bonuses from those are relatively small, but things like quickness and alacrity are must haves.

I think you're also imagining a time that didn't exist. Group Might was always available to several professions. Group Quickness was split between mesmer and guardian from the beginning, guardian just originally had to get it through the Tome of Wrath. Aegis might have originally been just a guardian thing, but aegis doesn't really have that heavy of an impact unless you either spam it or get the timing just right, and nowadays it's still mostly just on guardian and mesmer (and in a lot of cases on mesmer, changing a skill or trait to grant aegis was done to nerf it).

[Noah Salazar.5430]

deleted z z

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@draxynnic.3719 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:We have 9 classes and 12 boons. I think it is entirely acceptable that only 1 class be able to provide one main boon and to a lesser extent a secondary boon and even lesser extent other boons.

I.E. Guardian gets Aegis as it's main boonWarrior gets MightMesmer gets Quicknessand so forth.

We need to get back to re-establishing what each class's boon niche is like it was at launch.

I disagree. Monopolies aren't healthy for the game - if a group of people get together and there's one profession that nobody in the group likes, they should be able to work around that (even if it's not optimal), rather than someone being

forced

to play it. You can get away without a bannerslave or a ranger because the stat bonuses from those are relatively small, but things like quickness and alacrity are must haves.

I think you're also imagining a time that didn't exist. Group Might was always available to several professions. Group Quickness was split between mesmer and guardian from the beginning, guardian just originally had to get it through the Tome of Wrath. Aegis might have originally been just a guardian thing, but aegis doesn't really have that heavy of an impact unless you either spam it or get the timing just right, and nowadays it's still mostly just on guardian and mesmer (and in a lot of cases on mesmer, changing a skill or trait to grant aegis was done to nerf it).

That is why I mentioned lesser access to a second aoe boon and even lesser access to a third aoe boon, I just didn't enumerate what those would be in my example.

[Noah Salazar.5430]

@draxynnic.3719@Vagrant.7206@Kodama.6453@Taril.8619@Wolfb.7025@"Blood Red Arachnid.2493"

After your opinion it's how my desing will work with hammer and lighting fields

What you think about that change?

overall you need take 3 traits for quickness Spam

Technically speaking, quickness-on-CC would achieve this, but that rolls into my ancillary concern: this relies on having a CC-able target. Many bosses can't be CC'd, can only be CC'd at certain intervals, or can only be CC'd at specific times. This would make the benefit of the trait inaccessible during these periods.

By cc i mean hit (dmg) as inaf to proc QucknessAnd yes if you can't hit boss with cc you still will have this as back up

[Vagrant.7206]

@Kodama.6453 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:To put it simply -- very few people play scrapper in PvE. Even fewer play it in high-end PvE, and almost nobody seeks out a scrapper healer, even though it's a solid choice. It simply doesn't have a place in PvE, and could use one.

Scrapper isn't played for one simple reason: it is a tank spec in a game that doesn't need tanks.Hence why people are using the spec for support builds instead, even if the big majority of traits in scrapper's trait line doesn't provide anything for that playstyle.

Spellbreaker shares the same problem, but worse since warrior/spellbreaker can't support realistically. Meaning that the only role available for spellbreaker would be dps and it gets outperformed by berserker in that role.

What we need to fix scrapper in PvE is an actual reason to bring tank specs instead of forcing these specs into playstyles they were not intended for.

Tanks aren't necessary in most PvE except raids, where chronotank was still the superior option over scrapper because it provided team support in addition to tank. Scrapper literally only offers "tank."

So I do agree with you -- there's not much reason for tanks in the first place, but when there are, scrapper still gets outperformed because it's only good at one thing.

If full pover dps decicde to use it it will be 2s+1s so you need 3-5dps Scrappers to keep it up perm (asumming thay hit all stunes) (hammer stun is 20s)or 2 Scrappers but only to both of them, and ratcher dificulity and cd will not allow to perm stack it

@Vagrant.7206@draxynnic.3719@Kodama.6453@Taril.8619@Blood Red Arachnid.2493

what you think?

I learn more towards using Damage Dampener and the F-Gyro because they don't really have a purpose right now. The traits you're referring to could use some numbers changes, but are otherwise useful for selfish DPS/CC-oriented builds. I don't want any particular set of traits to be too useful because it leads to balancing situations that chronomancer and mirage ended up in -- where there was no alternative for ANet to take but to hobble the builds.

The other factor is that if you're using rocket leap and stuns to access party quickness, you're inherently reducing the ability of healing builds to provide party quickness. I still think alacrity is the better choice, and to open it up to healing builds. That said, I don't fundamentally disagree with the idea.

[Noah Salazar.5430]

@"Vagrant.7206"

I learn more towards using Damage Dampener and the F-Gyro because they don't really have a purpose right now. The traits you're referring to could use some numbers changes, but are otherwise useful for selfish DPS/CC-oriented builds. I don't want any particular set of traits to be too useful because it leads to balancing situations that chronomancer and mirage ended up

You have alternative with Mass Momentum to keep up more might when you stab, or more Super Speed to team (same for dps role for +5% dmg)

Damage Dampener is if you decide to come as healer tank in cost of Quckness, maybe some changes culd be make here but prob after Quckness we can think of it

Object in Montion is for dps role (15%dps)

So i think i desinged it well

The other factor is that if you're using rocket leap and stuns to access party quickness, you're inherently reducing the ability of healing builds to provide party quickness. I still think alacrity is the better choice, and to open it up to healing builds. That said, I don't fundamentally disagree with the idea.

Yep, it's mean to be that way, so your more flexable to use it more as heal, or more as boon or both despend from situation or just to stack up Quckness in begining of fight, to just after some time switch only to Water fields

you have core 40% Quickness that you need keep up with 15 might (with 100% boon duration stats)than you have 6s frame of time, thats meen you need put 3cc/3daze in that 6s evry 10s

Hammer is only 1 of egzemples how to apply more Quickness, same as a main theme of that elit spec, thats why i showed how to use new desinged traits to make use of Hammer and how Hammer is good desinged with it

Other combo can be https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Personal_Battering_Ramwhat is 12s cd 1s daze, and 2 lauch with 5s cd, with 25s recharge

hard cc combo is Hammer 5, Blast gyrro Lauch, big oil bomb

You can combine any cc combo as you want but you need put mini 3 of it in 6s frame of time, evry 10s

The more more cc you have, the less boon duration you can take, prob it culd work well with 50% boon duration if you got inaf cc/daze to pull it off so you will use similar gear to qfb

[draxynnic.3719]

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@draxynnic.3719 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:We have 9 classes and 12 boons. I think it is entirely acceptable that only 1 class be able to provide one main boon and to a lesser extent a secondary boon and even lesser extent other boons.

I.E. Guardian gets Aegis as it's main boonWarrior gets MightMesmer gets Quicknessand so forth.

We need to get back to re-establishing what each class's boon niche is like it was at launch.

I disagree. Monopolies aren't healthy for the game - if a group of people get together and there's one profession that nobody in the group likes, they should be able to work around that (even if it's not optimal), rather than someone being

forced

to play it. You can get away without a bannerslave or a ranger because the stat bonuses from those are relatively small, but things like quickness and alacrity are must haves.

I think you're also imagining a time that didn't exist. Group Might was always available to several professions. Group Quickness was split between mesmer and guardian from the beginning, guardian just originally had to get it through the Tome of Wrath. Aegis might have originally been just a guardian thing, but aegis doesn't really have that heavy of an impact unless you either spam it or get the timing just right, and nowadays it's still mostly just on guardian and mesmer (and in a lot of cases on mesmer, changing a skill or trait to grant aegis was done to nerf it).

That is why I mentioned lesser access to a second aoe boon and even lesser access to a third aoe boon, I just didn't enumerate what those would be in my example.

Well, if you don't want to come across as advocating a return to the pre-PoF "chrono or no-go" days, you're going to have to be more specific as to what you ARE advocating for. Are you, or are you not, one of the people who have been claiming that quickness and alacrity should be chrono exclusive, or are you okay with quickbrands and alacrigades? If you're okay with quickbrands and alacrigades, why not have more options so that mesmer, guardian, and revenant aren't quite so dominant in high-end PvE?

While giving each profession a unique thing that only it can do might sound good on paper, it goes against the manifesto of being able to perform all roles with any profession. Granted, ArenaNet is currently well short of that aim as it is, and may in fact have abandoned it, but that is what the design goal was, at least at some point.

More specifically, let's imagine a game where each profession had its own thing that was highly desirable and that only it could provide. We have nine professions, but the basic unit of the game is a party of five - even squads are typically organised into subsquads of five each to make sure everyone gets proper boon support since most party buffs are five allies. This means that, in practice, what you're likely to see is that people are going to decide which set of things is most valuable, and those are the professions that will actually see play. It might be a little looser for ten-player content, as long as the special thing is something that can go to ten players (otherwise you'd just need to bring two of them in order to be covered), but that doesn't help for five-player content like fractals.

Certain content might make certain things more desirable than in other content - for instance, content that has a lot of hard CC coming at the players might make people want to bring the designated stability profession when they might not otherwise, while content that has a lot of conditions might draw out the designated resistance profession. But the end result is still exclusionary, it just means that different professions are being excluded depending on the content.

Presently, there are four roles that I see which are regarded as being essential: DPS, healing, quickness, and alacrity. Profession exclusive special buffs like warrior banners are something that is generally seen as nice to have, but not essential. DPS is something that anyone can do, although some are better than others (necromancer could probably use some help here). Healing is also pretty widespread - basically anyone except warrior, thief, and mesmer can make for a decent healer. Quickness, however, is limited to chrono and firebrand (well, and thief, but only when Detonate Plasma is available as a stolen skill) while alacrity is limited to chrono and revenant.

Now, the professions that provide quickness or alacrity can either provide the other or have the capacity to act as a healer in the same build, so in practice you can usually get the three desired support roles in two characters and have three slots open for DPS (which can theoretically be anything, although in practice, you'll often want at least one warrior for banners and, if you don't have a druid healer, at least one ranger... but they're not AS important as healing, quickness, or alacrity). But this still means that you're pretty much stuck with either chrono or a firebrigade team.

Personally, rather than digging a moat around my preferred professions, I'd rather see quickness and alacrity made available to more professions (and less people winding up to swing a nerfbat at my preferred professions because "they're too prevalent in high-end PvE").

@Noah Salazar.5430 said:By cc i mean hit (dmg) as inaf to proc QucknessAnd yes if you can't hit boss with cc you still will have this as back up

Problem is that the backup will be basically all you have in the majority of high-end PvE content. Of the top of my head, I can't think of any boss that isn't immune to CCs most of the time.

@Vagrant.7206 said:The other factor is that if you're using rocket leap and stuns to access party quickness, you're inherently reducing the ability of healing builds to provide party quickness. I still think alacrity is the better choice, and to open it up to healing builds. That said, I don't fundamentally disagree with the idea.

In principle, I think it is reasonable for a quickness supplier build to have to make a few sacrifices to get there. Healbrand would be better at pushing bars up if it didn't care about Quickness. Heal scrapper currently runs pistol/shield, which I'm guessing is for the blast finisher on shield, but a heal scrapper using a hammer would still have medkit, elixir gun, and mortar available.

The bigger problem, as commented above, is that it simply doesn't work against bosses unless they have their defiance bar up.

[Vagrant.7206]

@draxynnic.3719 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:The other factor is that if you're using rocket leap and stuns to access party quickness, you're inherently reducing the ability of healing builds to provide party quickness. I still think alacrity is the better choice, and to open it up to healing builds. That said, I don't fundamentally disagree with the idea.

In principle, I think it is reasonable for a quickness supplier build to have to make a few sacrifices to get there. Healbrand would be better at pushing bars up if it didn't care about Quickness. Heal scrapper currently runs pistol/shield, which I'm guessing is for the blast finisher on shield, but a heal scrapper using a hammer would still have medkit, elixir gun, and mortar available.

The bigger problem, as commented above, is that it simply doesn't work against bosses unless they have their defiance bar up.

It runs shield for three reasons:

• Overshield trait provides AoE protection with shield skills and enhances protection's effectiveness.
• Both shield 4 and 5 have hard CC's.
• Shield 4 double tap can blast fields.

[Noah Salazar.5430]

Problem is that the backup will be basically all you have in the majority of high-end PvE content. Of the top of my head, I can't think of any boss that isn't immune to CCs most of the time.

@draxynnic.3719

Yeh i will reapet the dmg of cc will count to proc Quickness, not a cc effect, so your cc who will do nothink when boss is immune to cc, but still get Quckness to teamThe only rule is to land that hit even if it will not cc a target ( hit not blocked not evaded)

It same like root boon, that boon is gray and not work, but still is applied

Also by hit i mean you will get Quckness only once, not multiple times if you hit multiple targets with cc (read shield 5 block or Hammer 5)

It runs shield for three reasons:

Overshield trait provides AoE protection with shield skills and enhances protection's effectiveness.Both shield 4 and 5 have hard CC's.Shield 4 double tap can blast fields

@Vagrant.7206Yes, that way you can use shield as alternative for condi dps builds, or healers

so if your not using healing gyro, you still providing protection by shield insted of Reconstuction field, that way you can run med kit not losing acess to Quickness

both Hammer and shiled are good synergy with that both trait, what was my purposue

You can use Healing Gyro, or Med kit, that desing not limiting any of it

Diference is that Hammer you will use more to do pover dmg, and shield for healers/condi

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@draxynnic.3719 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@draxynnic.3719 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:We have 9 classes and 12 boons. I think it is entirely acceptable that only 1 class be able to provide one main boon and to a lesser extent a secondary boon and even lesser extent other boons.

I.E. Guardian gets Aegis as it's main boonWarrior gets MightMesmer gets Quicknessand so forth.

We need to get back to re-establishing what each class's boon niche is like it was at launch.

I disagree. Monopolies aren't healthy for the game - if a group of people get together and there's one profession that nobody in the group likes, they should be able to work around that (even if it's not optimal), rather than someone being

forced

to play it. You can get away without a bannerslave or a ranger because the stat bonuses from those are relatively small, but things like quickness and alacrity are must haves.

I think you're also imagining a time that didn't exist. Group Might was always available to several professions. Group Quickness was split between mesmer and guardian from the beginning, guardian just originally had to get it through the Tome of Wrath. Aegis might have originally been just a guardian thing, but aegis doesn't really have that heavy of an impact unless you either spam it or get the timing just right, and nowadays it's still mostly just on guardian and mesmer (and in a lot of cases on mesmer, changing a skill or trait to grant aegis was done to nerf it).

That is why I mentioned lesser access to a second aoe boon and even lesser access to a third aoe boon, I just didn't enumerate what those would be in my example.

Well, if you don't want to come across as advocating a return to the pre-PoF "chrono or no-go" days, you're going to have to be more specific as to what you ARE advocating for. Are you, or are you not, one of the people who have been claiming that quickness and alacrity should be chrono exclusive, or are you okay with quickbrands and alacrigades? If you're okay with quickbrands and alacrigades, why not have more options so that mesmer, guardian, and revenant aren't quite so dominant in high-end PvE?I do believe I was clear, but you appear to need your hand held. Chrono

should be

the main source of Quickness, but that does not mean a Firebrand cannot supplement it. I'd pass Alacrity to the Renegade, with supplementation from the Chrono. Likewise Warrior

should be

the main source of party Might with another class supplementing it. I'd counter to you, why should each of the classes be homogenized? They are different for a reason, and each should bring something to the party that is unique, otherwise we'd have a mono class system.While giving each profession a unique thing that only it can do might sound good on paper, it goes against the manifesto of being able to perform all roles with any profession. Granted, ArenaNet is currently well short of that aim as it is, and may in fact have abandoned it, but that

is

what the design goal was, at least at some point.The roles are Damage, Support, Control in GW2. Just like Damage is split between condi and power control is split between hard and soft CC and support is split between offensive and defensive support. Having all roles open does not mean 100% access to every boon 100% of the time.More specifically, let's imagine a game where each profession had its own thing that was highly desirable and that only it could provide. We have nine professions, but the basic unit of the game is a party of five - even squads are typically organised into subsquads of five each to make sure everyone gets proper boon support since most party buffs are five allies. This means that, in practice, what you're likely to see is that people are going to decide which set of things is most valuable, and those are the professions that will actually see play. It might be a little looser for ten-player content,

as long as

the special thing is something that can go to ten players (otherwise you'd just need to bring two of them in order to be covered), but that doesn't help for five-player content like fractals.And this is where secondary and tertiary group boons come into play. That party of five should be able to bring every thing they need unless they all play the same class. I'll take Warrior as an example again. They can provide all the might a party of 5 needs, but they also provide 100% fury uptime albeit via specific skills and weapons, they can also provide almost constant group vigor with a specific weapon, and they can provide extremely limited group resistance with the same weapon. Bringing other classes would cover the other boons that are missing, which is better for diversity than cramming access to every boon on every class through each new Espec.Certain content might make certain things more desirable than in other content - for instance, content that has a lot of hard CC coming at the players might make people want to bring the designated stability profession when they might not otherwise, while content that has a lot of conditions might draw out the designated resistance profession. But the end result is still exclusionary, it just means that different professions are being excluded depending on the content.With a few exceptions most classes/especs have a source of self stability and each class has stunbreaks, but yeah, if they wanted to park that job onto an individual so that they can min/max their comp they should be free to do so.Presently, there are four roles that I see which are regarded as being essential: DPS, healing, quickness, and alacrity. Profession exclusive special buffs like warrior banners are something that is generally seen as nice to have, but

not

essential. DPS is something that anyone can do, although some are better than others (necromancer could probably use some help here). Healing is also pretty widespread - basically anyone except warrior, thief, and mesmer can make for a decent healer. Quickness, however, is limited to chrono and firebrand (well, and thief, but only when Detonate Plasma is available as a stolen skill) while alacrity is limited to chrono and revenant.Those are two roles, DPS and support. Healing itself isn't something that is needed either unless we're talking specific content that is played by a small fraction of the player base, and like stunbreaks and self stab is something each party member is able to cover on their own, or park on another individual for minmaxing.Now, the professions that provide quickness or alacrity can either provide the other or have the capacity to act as a healer in the same build, so in practice you can usually get the three desired support roles in two characters and have three slots open for DPS (which can theoretically be anything, although in practice, you'll often want at least one warrior for banners and, if you don't have a druid healer, at least one ranger... but they're not AS important as healing, quickness, or alacrity). But this still means that you're pretty much stuck with either chrono or a firebrigade team.You'd still be able to do that. Shoot, every warrior in PvE content that is instanced brings a CC set to cover the control job.Personally, rather than digging a moat around my preferred professions, I'd rather see quickness and alacrity made available to more professions (and less people winding up to swing a nerfbat at my preferred professions because "they're too prevalent in high-end PvE").And that is how you kill class diversity. You would see no more Chronos or Renegades. People would just stack the highest DPS class and take a Healbrand or Druid along with them.

[Noah Salazar.5430]

@Lan Deathrider.5910I'm ratcher against it too, in my opinion support schold have acces on basic boons, othervise some class will have stronger boons then others and you will take only 1 class on 1 role

Having multiple boons, make you alternative chosies for same role as you will have similar value what other classwhat make diferent are Unqie boons like enginner got Pinpoint Disctribution, warior got banners, scount got spotter, revenant got Assasins Precence, Guardian got Aegis

And mechanics that thay offer

Problem is even tho Scrapper got unqie boon named Pinpoint Disctribution, that role is not taken cuz it lack Quickness/Alacrity, what other supports can offer

That's why i think giving acess Scrapper to that boon will alow him, to get chosed as alternative choise to support role or healer, insted having only 1 class for role cuz if you pick other class, you will get kicked cuz your squad losing too much value not having that class

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@Noah Salazar.5430 said:@Lan Deathrider.5910I'm ratcher against it too, in my opinion support schold have acces on basic boons, othervise some class will have stronger boons then others and you will take only 1 class on 1 role

Having multiple boons, make you alternative chosies for same role as you will have similar value what other classwhat make diferent are Unqie boons like enginner got Pinpoint Disctribution, warior got banners, scount got spotter, revenant got Assasins Precence, Guardian got Aegis

And mechanics that thay offer

Problem is even tho Scrapper got unqie boon named Pinpoint Disctribution, that role is not taken cuz it lack Quickness/Alacrity, what other supports can offer

That's why i think giving acess Scrapper to that boon will alow him, to get chosed as alternative choise to support role or healer, insted having only 1 class for role cuz if you pick other class, you will get kicked cuz your squad losing too much value not having that class

See my statement on primary, secondary tertiary aoe boon access...

Engineer got Pinpoint not Scrapper. Besides, a Scrapper can provide large amounts of protection, superspeed, condi converstion into boons, regen, and mass stealth for skips. Scrapper is a defensive form of support, just like how Warrior is offensive support. Quickness and Alacrity will not be coming to Scrapper, just like how AoE protection won't be coming to Warrior any time soon. That would overload the class and imbalance it in all the game modes. This is the reason why Anet does not give out boon access to all the boons to all the classes. Although strictly speaking because of Purity of Purpose you do have limited access to all boons, its just content specific.

[Kodama.6453]

@"Lan Deathrider.5910" said:

See my statement on primary, secondary tertiary aoe boon access...

Engineer got Pinpoint not Scrapper. Besides, a Scrapper can provide large amounts of protection, superspeed, condi converstion into boons, regen, and mass stealth for skips. Scrapper is a defensive form of support, just like how Warrior is offensive support. Quickness and Alacrity will not be coming to Scrapper, just like how AoE protection won't be coming to Warrior any time soon. That would overload the class and imbalance it in all the game modes. This is the reason why Anet does not give out boon access to all the boons to all the classes. Although strictly speaking because of Purity of Purpose you do have limited access to all boons, its just content specific.

In my opinion, your model only works under the assumption that all boons are equally powerful and desired, which is obviously not the case.

Quickness, alacrity, might, fury... these 4 boons are usually taken in high end content to maximize your damage output.No one really cares about protection, swiftness, retaliation, regeneration....

With your model, the really useful boons will be given primarily to specific classes. Other classes will get some access to them as secondary, tertiary or whatnot AoE boons. But because of the nature of min/maxing, people will still tend to use the professions which got these boons as their primary share.I think this system would exclude quite alot of classes from the "boon support" playstyle.

I agree that scrapper will not (and shouldn't) get access to AoE quickness, but that doesn't mean that we can't give it to them through another elite spec. Especially since the next elite spec for the engineer should be a primary support class. Scrapper might be played as a support, but their intended playstyle is a bruiser, we are still in need of an elite spec that got designed to be played as a support in the first place instead of scrapper serving as a placeholder because of that lack and since it's actual role (tank) is not needed in the game.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@Kodama.6453 said:

@"Lan Deathrider.5910" said:

See my statement on primary, secondary tertiary aoe boon access...

Engineer got Pinpoint not Scrapper. Besides, a Scrapper can provide large amounts of protection, superspeed, condi converstion into boons, regen, and mass stealth for skips. Scrapper is a defensive form of support, just like how Warrior is offensive support. Quickness and Alacrity will not be coming to Scrapper, just like how AoE protection won't be coming to Warrior any time soon. That would overload the class and imbalance it in all the game modes. This is the reason why Anet does not give out boon access to all the boons to all the classes. Although strictly speaking because of Purity of Purpose you do have limited access to all boons, its just content specific.

In my opinion, your model only works under the assumption that all boons are equally powerful and desired, which is obviously not the case.

Quickness, alacrity, might, fury... these 4 boons are usually taken in high end content to maximize your damage output.No one really cares about protection, swiftness, retaliation, regeneration....

With your model, the really useful traits will be given primarily to specific classes. Other classes will get some access to them as secondary, tertiary or whatnot AoE boons. But because of the nature of min/maxing, people will still tend to use the professions which got these boons as their primary share.I think this system would exclude quite alot of classes from the "boon support" playstyle.

I agree that scrapper will not (and shouldn't) get access to AoE quickness, but that doesn't mean that we can't give it to them through another elite spec. Especially since the next elite spec for the engineer should be a primary support class. Scrapper might be played as a support, but their intended playstyle is a bruiser, we are still in need of an elite spec that got designed to be played as a support in the first place instead of scrapper serving as a placeholder because of that lack and since it's actual role (tank) is not needed in the game.

I'm not disagreeing on sustained personal quickness on an E-Spec, or even a small duration/long CD AoE source of it, but the main job of party quickness is covered. Like I said, if you homogenize the boon access, you'll end up killing class diversity. There was already a problem that had to be fixed with DH's stacking Feel My Wrath and going full ham to clear content. This is what happens when you provide too much availability of group boons, both defensive and offensive, to a class. In that case there was too much quickness, to much fury, to much might, to much aegis, to much aoe passive healing, and if they included it in their rotation to much party protection and regen.

[Kodama.6453]

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

I'm not disagreeing on sustained personal quickness on an E-Spec, or even a small duration/long CD AoE source of it, but the main job of party quickness is covered. Like I said, if you homogenize the boon access, you'll end up killing class diversity. There was already a problem that had to be fixed with DH's stacking Feel My Wrath and going full ham to clear content. This is what happens when you provide too much availability of group boons, both defensive and offensive, to a class. In that case there was too much quickness, to much fury, to much might, to much aegis, to much aoe passive healing, and if they included it in their rotation to much party protection and regen.

Firebrand is a support elite spec (at least it was intended to be) which is providing AoE quickness to the party. Why exactly do you think it kills diversity if we let another support e-spec do the same job, being that it can heal and provide quickness?I think it could also just increase class diversity, because you are no longer hard required to bring specific classes which will have to always be in the party over other classes.

Should we apply the same logic to the other roles, too, in your opinion?Should just 2 classes be allowed to fill the dps role?Should being a group healer get restricted to just 2 classes, like druid and firebrand? So we have to rework scourge to do something else?

This goes against the philosophy of this game, which has been that all classes should be able to fill all roles. Heal support, boon support, damage, tank.... all classes should be able to fill these playstyles, the difference comes from the way they achieve this. Like how daredevil is supposed to be the tank version of the thief, instead of huge health pool and armor they do it by giving them additional dodges to stay alive.

To go back to the other roles in a party: there are several elite specs which can fill the dps role in a raid group. Berserker, holosmith, dragonhunter, soulbeast.... they all can provide more than enough damage to manage any encounter. That these are all able to fill the dps role does not kill diversity, does it? Sure, there will be hardcore players which just want you to run one specific class because it deals 500 more dps in theory... But all these classes are able to get the job done and I think the big majority of people doesn't care which one of these you play as long as you do your job which is dealing damage.

This is how it should be for all roles.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@Kodama.6453 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

I'm not disagreeing on sustained personal quickness on an E-Spec, or even a small duration/long CD AoE source of it, but the main job of party quickness is covered. Like I said, if you homogenize the boon access, you'll end up killing class diversity. There was already a problem that had to be fixed with DH's stacking Feel My Wrath and going full ham to clear content. This is what happens when you provide too much availability of group boons, both defensive and offensive, to a class. In that case there was too much quickness, to much fury, to much might, to much aegis, to much aoe passive healing, and if they included it in their rotation to much party protection and regen.

Firebrand is a support elite spec (at least it was intended to be) which is providing AoE quickness to the party. Why exactly do you think it kills diversity if we let another support e-spec do the same job, being that it can heal and provide quickness?I think it could also just increase class diversity, because you are no longer hard required to bring specific classes which will have to

always

be in the party over other classes.

Should we apply the same logic to the other roles, too, in your opinion?Should just 2 classes be allowed to fill the dps role?Should being a group healer get restricted to just 2 classes, like druid and firebrand? So we have to rework scourge to do something else?

This goes against the philosophy of this game, which has been that all classes should be able to fill all roles. Heal support, boon support, damage, tank.... all classes should be able to fill these playstyles, the difference comes from the way they achieve this. Like how daredevil is supposed to be the tank version of the thief, instead of huge health pool and armor they do it by giving them additional dodges to stay alive.

To go back to the other roles in a party: there are several elite specs which can fill the dps role in a raid group. Berserker, holosmith, dragonhunter, soulbeast.... they all can provide more than enough damage to manage any encounter. That these are all able to fill the dps role does not kill diversity, does it? Sure, there will be hardcore players which just want you to run one specific class because it deals 500 more dps in theory... But all these classes are able to get the job done and I think the big majority of people doesn't care which one of these you play as long as you do your job which is dealing damage.

This is how it should be for all roles.

I disagree. Give all boons to everyone, especially as team boons, then only the top DPS spec would ever be taken since you would never need other classes to fill in the gaps.

[Kodama.6453]

@"Lan Deathrider.5910" said:

I disagree. Give all boons to everyone, especially as team boons, then only the top DPS spec would ever be taken since you would never need other classes to fill in the gaps.

I ask again, why you think that will be the case?

We have multiple classes filling the dps role. Are just the classes take which provide the absolute most dps?In my opinion, that is not the case for the big majority. I see all possible classes taken for the dps slot, like holosmiths, berserkers, dragonhunters, reapers, soulbeasts...

And I actually never said that we should give all boons to everyone. But that everyone should be able to share one of the 3 main boons which matter for the group: alacrity, quickness, might.

If my engineer, for example, can share quickness for a group, then I can still claim a place in a party as a "qpd" (quickplaguedoctor, my own wish for engi elite spec) without our team having to pick a qfb because that and chrono are literally the only options available. I don't need all 3 of these boons to get taken for a group, just one of these 3.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@Kodama.6453 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

I disagree. Give all boons to everyone, especially as team boons, then only the top DPS spec would ever be taken since you would never need other classes to fill in the gaps.

I ask again, why you think that will be the case?Because that is gamer logic and how min maxers work.We have multiple classes filling the dps role. Are just the classes take which provide the absolute most dps?Min maxers will always preference the best. Even now though those DPS classes aren't homogeneous and all bring different boons and buffs to the table. Even DPS is split between condi and power, both of which perform differently based on the content.In my opinion, that is not the case for the big majority. I see all possible classes taken for the dps slot, like holosmiths, berserkers, dragonhunters, reapers, soulbeasts...

And I actually never said that we should give

all boons to everyone

. But that everyone should be able to share one of the 3 main boons which matter for the group: alacrity, quickness, might.And you would push certain classes out entirely if you do so.

[draxynnic.3719]

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@draxynnic.3719 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:The other factor is that if you're using rocket leap and stuns to access party quickness, you're inherently reducing the ability of healing builds to provide party quickness. I still think alacrity is the better choice, and to open it up to healing builds. That said, I don't fundamentally disagree with the idea.

In principle, I think it is reasonable for a quickness supplier build to have to make a few sacrifices to get there. Healbrand would be better at pushing bars up if it didn't care about Quickness. Heal scrapper currently runs pistol/shield, which I'm guessing is for the blast finisher on shield, but a heal scrapper using a hammer would still have medkit, elixir gun, and mortar available.

The bigger problem, as commented above, is that it simply doesn't work against bosses unless they have their defiance bar up.

It runs shield for three reasons:

• Overshield trait provides AoE protection with shield skills and enhances protection's effectiveness.
• Both shield 4 and 5 have hard CC's.
• Shield 4 double tap can blast fields.

Ahhh. Hammer would also have hard CC's, so you're not really losing anything there, although the rocket jump combo relies on the lightning field not being overlaid by another field. Overshield I had forgotten about.

@Noah Salazar.5430 said:

Problem is that the backup will be basically all you have in the majority of high-end PvE content. Of the top of my head, I can't think of any boss that isn't immune to CCs most of the time.

@draxynnic.3719

Yeh i will reapet the dmg of cc will count to proc Quickness, not a cc effect, so your cc who will do nothink when boss is immune to cc, but still get Quckness to teamThe only rule is to land that hit even if it will not cc a target ( hit not blocked not evaded)

It same like root boon, that boon is gray and not work, but still is applied

Also by hit i mean you will get Quckness only once, not multiple times if you hit multiple targets with cc (read shield 5 block or Hammer 5)

Okay, so the trigger is "damage the enemy with a strike with daze or stun attached". I had been wondering if that was what you meant, but it was made unclear when you talked about another trait being a backup.

I'm not sure that's actually how the system works with hard CCs - soft CC conditions appear greyed out as you say, but I think hard CCs just don't register unless the defiance bar is blue. It's generally not something I pay a huge amount of attention to, though, so I might be wrong, but most similar traits only trigger when the CC is successful or there's defiance bar damage being done.

I'm still inclined to think it would be better for engineer to have a new support-oriented elite specialisation, though. I don't feel like there's really a strong link between CCs (especially failed CCs...) and granting party quickness.

@"Lan Deathrider.5910" said:I do believe I was clear, but you appear to need your hand held. Chrono should be the main source of Quickness, but that does not mean a Firebrand cannot supplement it. I'd pass Alacrity to the Renegade, with supplementation from the Chrono. Likewise Warrior should be the main source of party Might with another class supplementing it. I'd counter to you, why should each of the classes be homogenized? They are different for a reason, and each should bring something to the party that is unique, otherwise we'd have a mono class system.

Wow, condescending much? If you want to persuade people, you need to clearly lay out what your position actually is. Your language in your initial post did make you come across as if you were saying that the current situation has already gone too far - to give a specific example, citing quickness as a mesmer thing and talking about "going back" to times when each profession had a "main boon" (which I'm not convinced was something that ever existed - some professions did have a boon or two they were really known for, but it was hardly an 'every profession had one' thing) implies that you're talking about at least significantly reducing firebrand access to quickness.

Even now, it's unclear. Continuing the chrono and firebrand example - what do you mean by a firebrand "supplementing" a chrono? Are they both able to provide permanent Quickness? In which case, I don't think it's really valid to talk about one being the 'main source' and the other as a 'supplement' - each is sufficient, and that's what matters. Or are they not? In which case, if you don't have a chrono, you're needing to assign two people out of a five man party to provide quickness. I don't think it's exactly going to aid in making content accessible to all professions if all content now needs to have either one out of five players be a chrono or two out of five being a firebrand.

Warriors, now, I don't think I've ever heard of Might being specifically a warrior thing. They COULD do it, sure, but mightstacking through blasting fire fields has been known for a long time. The old "three warriors and two mesmers" speedrun build obviously used warriors, but that was more because of banners, base DPS, and the fact that that setup was capable of generating max Might, but I don't think there was ever a time when people thought "we need Might, we should bring a warrior".

In answer to your counter:

Because ArenaNet wants to avoid the situation where one profession is in much greater demand than all others.

They've learned their lesson from monks. 1/6 of the professions in the game, but in Prophecies, you pretty much needed 1/4 people to be playing them or you'd get long waits as parties try to recruit the requisite number of monks. Factions tried to redress the balance with ritualist (but it was a while before ritualists could really replace monks) and Nightfall just threw in the towel and introduced heroes.

In Guild Wars 2, there are nine professions in the game, but as I explained in my previous post, the five-player party is the basic unit of the game, so any function you want to fill, you generally want to have at least one player out of five filling that function. Mathematically, to achieve that without ending up with one profession being in disproportionate demand (like chronos pre-PoF), you need a minimum of two professions that can fulfill that function.

Chronos and firebrands can do that for quickness. Chronos and renegades for alacrity.

Problem is, even then, there are distinct haves and have nots in high-end PvE. There are the three mentioned above. Warrior brings its banners. Ranger has Spotter and spirits. Pretty much all high-end PvE wants a warrior, a ranger of some description, and either a chrono and a firebrigade. If you're an elementalist, necromancer, engineer, or thief, and there isn't some gimmick that's particularly important to a specific fight, you're basically left competing for healer and DPS slots.

Spreading out the quickness and alacrity roles a bit more would help address this. This isn't to say that every profession should have everything, but I don't think the current "DPS, heal, quickness, alacrity" quad is likely to change, and spreading out the last two pillars of that quad will give people a bit more choice over how they cover the set. I think there's room for a third profession each that can bring quickness and alacrity, maybe even a fourth.

It's also worth noting that playing solo is also a thing. It's probably make the game very hard to balance if basic boons like might, fury, and so on were only available to specific professions.

The roles are Damage, Support, Control in GW2. Just like Damage is split between condi and power control is split between hard and soft CC and support is split between offensive and defensive support. Having all roles open does not mean 100% access to every boon 100% of the time.

That might be what's in the manifesto, but that's not the reality. Nobody plays a 'control' character, except in the crude expedient of some bosses fixating on whoever has the highest Toughness - instead, generally everyone has a bit of control to throw into the mix when needed. Meanwhile, healer, bannerslave, party quickness, and party alacrity might all be called "support", but if you join an LFG with a heal ele when they were asking for alacrity, I don't think the "but they're all support!" argument is going to get you very far.

In practice, there are specific functions that groups are generally looking to fill, and they do not line up with the old idea of the "soft trinity". It's DPS, heal, quickness, alacrity, a couple of profession-specific buffs (banners and ranger spirits), and maybe some profession-specific trick like using thieves on Qadim. That's what people are actually looking for. Generally speaking, might and fury will be covered once you've covered those.

And this is where secondary and tertiary group boons come into play. That party of five should be able to bring every thing they need unless they all play the same class. I'll take Warrior as an example again. They can provide all the might a party of 5 needs, but they also provide 100% fury uptime albeit via specific skills and weapons, they can also provide almost constant group vigor with a specific weapon, and they can provide extremely limited group resistance with the same weapon. Bringing other classes would cover the other boons that are missing, which is better for diversity than cramming access to every boon on every class through each new Espec.

Honestly, that doesn't sound like primary and secondary to me. If that's 100% on 25 might and 100% on fury, they're fulfilling both functions, there's no 'primary' or 'secondary' to it.

And that is how you kill class diversity. You would see no more Chronos or Renegades. People would just stack the highest DPS class and take a Healbrand or Druid along with them.

Obviously, you'd need things to be balanced such that a build that provides healing, quickness, or alacrity isn't also able to simultaneously be top DPS. Quickbrand and alacrigade both give up DPS compared to the pure DPS builds of their elite specialisation, and any future spec with similar capabilities should have to do the same. It's why I've been saying that having these capabilities should require significant investment in skills and traits - that's investment that isn't going into maximising DPS.

But here's the thing: it's already the assumption that people are going to stack DPS once the desired support roles are filled - and given that druid, healbrand, and heal renegade can all, well, heal, that can easily boil down to everyone that isn't one of the five haves competing for the DPS role. If you look at the snowcrows team setups, you'll notice that most raids have an identified "best DPS" build which occupies the majority of the slots in the raid. If you do the numbercrunching, there's always going to be an optimum, although what the optimum is depends on the situation. But all of those builds have quickness (sometimes through stacking FMW and/or TW rather than having a dedicated generator - that's a large part of why so many of them stack guardians or mesmers), alacrity, some healing, a ranger, and a bannerslave.

In practice, though, the difference between the optimal DPS build for a particular instance and a number of alternative choices is slim enough that people can pretty much go in with whatever they like in the DPS roles and not be that far behind the 'optimal' build. There's always going to be one setup that's 'optimal' for a particular piece of content, but if there are several runners-up that are pretty close, it's not a big deal. Similarly, if quickbot and alacribot were granted to more professions, I suspect a similar relationship would develop - people would identify which setup is "optimal", but using a different means of achieving quickness and alacrity wouldn't substantially impact your odds of success. Instead, it'd give people forming a group more of an opportunity to get a viable group together with the professions that people in the group are looking to play.

And that's really what this is all about. There's always going to be some 'optimal' solution, and there's probably nothing that can prevent that. However, this is about expanding the range of viable options. Maybe a hypothetical quickness engineer would kick the chrono or quickbrand out of the optimal quickness generator slot, and maybe it wouldn't, but what it would mean is that if someone rocked up a group looking to play engineer, there's one more possible way they can contribute to the group. Currently, they could only be slotted into DPS or healer, and if someone isn't bringing a mesmer or guardian, the party or subgroup is SOL. With a hypothetical quickness engineer, if there isn't a mesmer or guardian the engineer player can step up and it's all good.

Which comes back around to the original idea of Guild Wars 2: A game where you can choose to play the profession who's playstyle you enjoy, with minimal risk of having to swap profession because the group needs function X and that function can only be fulfilled by profession Y.

[draxynnic.3719]

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@Kodama.6453 said:And I actually never said that we should give

all boons to everyone

. But that everyone should be able to share one of the 3 main boons which matter for the group: alacrity, quickness, might.And you would push certain classes out entirely if you do so.

If all you care about is the absolute optimal team setup, that's unavoidable. Look at the Snowcrows raid guides, for instance. You won't find elementalists or engineers in ANY of their optimised team setups. Not one. There's a necromancer in Soulless Horror, but that's in there purely for Epidemic.

In practice, though, plenty of groups succeed without having the optimal team setup, since usually as long as you have the essential functions covered, your DPS is sufficient, and people know what they're doing, that's good enough.

You're never going to finagle a situation where the optimal 10-man group is one of each profession and one extra. It's just not going to happen. What you can do, though, is make it so that if a bunch of players get together with a random set of professions, there's a good chance that they'll be able to find some way to make it work.

[Vagrant.7206]

@draxynnic.3719 said:

@Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

@"Kodama.6453" said:And I actually never said that we should give

all boons to everyone

. But that everyone should be able to share one of the 3 main boons which matter for the group: alacrity, quickness, might.And you would push certain classes out entirely if you do so.

If all you care about is the absolute optimal team setup, that's unavoidable. Look at the Snowcrows raid guides, for instance. You won't find elementalists or engineers in ANY of their optimised team setups. Not one. There's a necromancer in Soulless Horror, but that's in there purely for Epidemic.

In practice, though, plenty of groups succeed without having the optimal team setup, since usually as long as you have the essential functions covered, your DPS is sufficient, and people know what they're doing, that's good

enough.

You're never going to finagle a situation where the optimal 10-man group is one of each profession and one extra. It's just not going to happen. What you can do, though, is make it so that if a bunch of players get together with a random set of professions, there's a good chance that they'll be able to find some way to make it work.

This is exactly why I think the "flavor" arguments for each spec/class fall flat. Some specs/classes are always "optimal." Guardian has always been in the optimal setups for high-end PvE. Not once has it been considered "bottom tier." Since HoT launched, Mesmer has always been in the optimal setups as well. Conversely, engineer, elementalist, and necromancer consistently fall into the "least optimal" rotations because we simply don't offer the kind of versatility or utility that these other professions do. Need proof? Go here, and check each of the raid bosses' "optimal composition." Two classes are not represented at all: Engineer and elementalist. Two classes are overrepresented: Guardian and Mesmer.

We're not asking to become THE primary source of these boons, but to have a chance to be let in when people aren't completely min-maxing. The trouble is that frequently groups get held up in LFG waiting for a specific build/class which is almost always chrono, healbrand/quickbrand, or alacren. This is a problem because it stymies the diversity @Lan Deathrider.5910 is arguing for. If I could show up in a group looking for a healbrand or alacren and say "I'm not this, but I can give you some quickness and/or alacrity," impatient groups would be willing to give me a shot.

[MrForz.1953]

I wished boons weren't in such abundance. Farting quickness/alacrity all around to be part of the optimal setups seem... hollow to me.

[Noah Salazar.5430]

I'm not sure that's actually how the system works with hard CCs - soft CC conditions appear greyed out as you say, but I think hard CCs just don't register unless the defiance bar is blue.

@"draxynnic.3719"If it was true, evry time you use 5 hammer on immunite to cc target you wuld do 0dmg from that skillSame with prime light beam ult on Holo

Maybe daze,stun is not displayed on cc immune target, but on 100% is registered

I'm still inclined to think it would be better for engineer to have a new support-oriented elite specialisation, though. I don't feel like there's really a strong link between CCs (especially failed CCs...) and granting party quickness.

cc maybe not sound best, but from desing perspective, combo the best with weapon of that elit spec, other traits, and Engineer/Scrapper have alot acess to cc, even some turrets overcharge and hit with cc as first shot

And thats only 2 small edits to make that all work and combo togheter

Until we not get idea for better desing, or change from "small edit" to completly rework how to put Quckness, i think cc mechanic syngergy the best for now

For Alacrity thay can make another Elite for engineer coming with 3 expanshon, (as we no need another dps elit while ther is holo)

Thats why i think more on adding Quickness to Scrapper right now whos wuld work well with his tank, and superspeed mechanic (as the faster you hit the more barier you got on youreself)

For now you can be Healer, or dps, but you have 0 sup role option

And that's really what this is all about. There's always going to be some 'optimal' solution, and there's probably nothing that can prevent that. However, this is about expanding the range of viable options. Maybe a hypothetical quickness engineer would kick the chrono or quickbrand out of the optimal quickness generator slot, and maybe it wouldn't, but what it would mean is that if someone rocked up a group looking to play engineer, there's one more possible way they can contribute to the group. Currently, they could only be slotted into DPS or healer, and if someone isn't bringing a mesmer or guardian, the party or subgroup is SOL. With a hypothetical quickness engineer, if there isn't a mesmer or guardian the engineer player can step up and it's all good.

@"Vagrant.7206"Yes 100% ture, i wuld like to have option to be support as scrapper, if you can't find "primary" roles for that, witchout acces to Quickness or Alacrity i can't do that, as Superspeed aren't inaf strong to comepnaste lack of that boon (until it's wvw)

Maybe Support Elem , Scrapper wuld be fine if Gurardnian,Mesmer,Renegade wulnd not have acces to aoe might, unti than you need give Quckness or Alacrity to Scrapper sup/heal be wanted more

We're not asking to become THE primary source of these boons, but to have a chance to be let in when people aren't completely min-maxing. The trouble is that frequently groups get held up in LFG waiting for a specific build/class which is almost always chrono, healbrand/quickbrand, or alacren. This is a problem because it stymies the diversity @Lan Deathrider.5910 is arguing for. If I could show up in a group looking for a healbrand or alacren and say "I'm not this, but I can give you some quickness and/or alacrity," impatient groups would be willing to give me a shot.

100% true, and that was main reason why i asked "schold Scrapper buff Quckness boon"

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Yeah we're all just talking past one another and this point. Agree to disagree mates. I still think Anet won't full fill this particular wish though, it would create too much imbalance in PvP and WvW.