I came back after 5 years and they nerfed Engi's ranged options?

[Vagrant.7206]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Unholy Pillager.3791 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:The EXCEPTIONAL ranged options of other classes do not indicate that Engi's ranged options are poor. Again ... what is meta right now? If you want to see bad ranged options, take a trip down memory lane to Guardian Scepter. THAT'S how bad it can be ... Engi's options are not even close to that.

Objectively, we're not in the worst possible position for ranged. But that doesn't mean a whole lot when we haven't seen anything meaningful done about our ranged abilities in years, while others have seen regular improvements/upgrades.

Which profession is worse? Warrior has longbow and rifle, guardian has dragonhunter longbow, revenant has hammer, thief has deadeye, ranger has longbow, mesmer has greatsword, elementalist has staff...the closest there is to 'worse' is the necromancer, and they have better control at that range. There's a reason why they're more in demand in WvW than engineers are.

I was responding to Obtena's point about guardian scepter. That's still pretty bad. But guardian rarely uses it anyway -- they have a large variety of other choices to pick from now. We don't.

I think it's important to remember that one of the features that makes the Eng class unique is exactly the fact that you don't optimally play it by choosing a single weapon set and stick to it, so the whole idea that Eng is hard done by because it doesn't have any particularly good ranged option really doesn't mix well. Put another way, if the INTENTION is to get the best performance from good Eng players by giving them lots of choices, then no single choice can be overwhelmingly good. It seems to me, that's what the class is supposed to be about.

Yeah, but none of the options are great either:

• All engineer ranged weapons are projectiles, meaning reflects damage us (or teammates), and projectile destruction nullifies damage.
• Mortar kit does rather low damage overall (especially for an elite) and has incredibly long flight times at max distance, and you can't autoattack with it.
• Grenade kit has long flight times (without trait), spreads the further they're thrown, and you can't autoattack with it. Of our "ranged" options, it does the most damage, but as people have pointed out, it's most effective at point blank.
• Rifle's autoattack is 1200 range, but virtually all other rifle skills are 900 range or less, and the best damage is done at point blank. Its autoattack is extremely weak when compared to other classes who don't need to be point blank to deal damage.
• MH Pistol's autoattack is 900 range, but is pretty garbage. The #2 skill has a spread making it unreliable. The 3 skill is decent.
• OH Pistol is basically 600 range -- blowtorch is best used point blank, and glue shot isn't a damage dealer.

That's exactly what I was saying ... any options that stands out as better than the rest will be the de facto goto weapon ... and that seems to me that's not really what the concept of the Eng class is about in the first place. I could be wrong but basically it appears that the intention is that you swap to whatever on-demand skills you need, with relatively balanced attack skills peppered between all that. No single weapon is going to stand out there.

In the absence of elite specs, I'd agree with you. Everything I mentioned is core, and is balanced well for core.

In the presence of elite specs though, all our options pale by DPS comparison. We have no truly "good" options, the options are all mediocre at best.

[Obtena.7952]

that's the kicker though ... the espec's are irrelevant. if a build existed in core that made all the other options 'not good', we would be in the same situation you claim is a result of having especs. It's not the especs that cause all the other options to be not truly good. In fact, Scrapper has not meta equivalent ... and we had this situation before Holo was released ... so it's not an espec issue.

I am again going to remind you that Eng is one of the FEW classes that have a recommend MEta build for raids/fractals in their CORE traits ... so running around and pretending the options we have are 'bad' in core just doesn't sit right. It's not very honest. What is more honest is probably to acknowledge that if you don't play Eng in the way it was intended, your not going be performing at a very high level ... which is inline with the apparent concept of having a class where getting access to all the best it has to offer requires swapping and kits and many skills. Engi is a difficult class if you want that performance. It seems that was intentional.

[Vagrant.7206]

@Obtena.7952 said:that's the kicker though ... the espec's are irrelevant. if a build existed in core that made all the other options 'not good', we would be in the same situation you claim is a result of having especs. It's not the especs that cause all the other options to be not truly good. In fact, Scrapper has not meta equivalent ... and we had this situation before Holo was released ... so it's not an espec issue.

I am again going to remind you that Eng is one of the FEW classes that have a recommend MEta build for raids/fractals in their CORE traits ... so running around and pretending the options we have are 'bad' in core just doesn't sit right. It's not very honest. What is more honest is probably to acknowledge that if you don't play Eng in the way it was intended, your not going be performing at a very high level ... which is inline with the apparent concept of having a class where getting access to all the best it has to offer requires swapping and kits and many skills. Engi is a difficult class if you want that performance. It seems that was intentional.

If you think swapping between 4 kits was their intended design, why do we even have other utility skills?

No seriously, that "meta" build that uses core traits is because our primary weapons were too weak to keep up with the meta in general. Because kits are more powerful than our base, we've had to substitute them in in lieu of decent weapons. And if you looked at QTFY's latest numbers, the kits are falling behind now too.

[Obtena.7952]

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:that's the kicker though ... the espec's are irrelevant. if a build existed in core that made all the other options 'not good', we would be in the same situation you claim is a result of having especs. It's not the especs that cause all the other options to be not truly good. In fact, Scrapper has not meta equivalent ... and we had this situation before Holo was released ... so it's not an espec issue.

I am again going to remind you that Eng is one of the FEW classes that have a recommend MEta build for raids/fractals in their CORE traits ... so running around and pretending the options we have are 'bad' in core just doesn't sit right. It's not very honest. What is more honest is probably to acknowledge that if you don't play Eng in the way it was intended, your not going be performing at a very high level ... which is inline with the apparent concept of having a class where getting access to all the best it has to offer requires swapping and kits and many skills. Engi is a difficult class if you want that performance. It seems that was intentional.

If you think swapping between 4 kits was their intended design, why do we even have other utility skills?

No seriously, that "meta" build that uses core traits is because our primary weapons were too weak to keep up with the meta in general. Because kits are more powerful than our base, we've had to substitute them in in lieu of decent weapons. And if you looked at QTFY's latest numbers, the kits are falling behind now too.

I don't even get that question ... we have other utility skills as choices to make the builds players want to make? If you're going to approach the every build problem from the eyes of a metapusher, then very little of what you see as choices in this game will make sense to you.

Yes, the 35K DPS meta build, comprised of weapons and kits too weak to 'keep up' with the general meta ... That's a rolleyes. Maybe it will sink in the third time ... our weapons/kits/skills/whatever are likely intended to be swapped between to get the most from the class ... AS the general class concept. The nature of this concept requires weapons/kits/skills/whatever that are relatively equally performing; nothing stands out from anything else. This is exactly what Eng has.

You see swapping as the cure for poor performance from any individual weapon ... that's clearly how anyone that thinks so narrowly about the meta and class concepts would view it. I see swapping as the way to optimize your performance in a class that is designed to challenge the player. I believe my view makes the most sense based on how I see Anet changing the weapons and skills of the class, what especs they have provided. I mean, are you going to try to tell me that Anet provided all these kits as insurance for never providing a single good weapon? That makes little sense to me. To me it's more likely they provided all those kits because they INTENDED for you to take some to supplement your weapons, allowing the most adept players to take advantage of all their choices.

Think of it another way ... why DIDN"T Anet just give Engis' weapon swapping, a larger number of weapons and be done with it? It makes no sense for any to deny a class weapon swapping and supply them with all these kits if they didn't INTEND for Eng's to swap between them for optimal performance.

The core of the complaint here isn't about bad weapons, kits or skills, it's about what is necessary to optimize play on Eng ... since day 1.

[Vagrant.7206]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:that's the kicker though ... the espec's are irrelevant. if a build existed in core that made all the other options 'not good', we would be in the same situation you claim is a result of having especs. It's not the especs that cause all the other options to be not truly good. In fact, Scrapper has not meta equivalent ... and we had this situation before Holo was released ... so it's not an espec issue.

I am again going to remind you that Eng is one of the FEW classes that have a recommend MEta build for raids/fractals in their CORE traits ... so running around and pretending the options we have are 'bad' in core just doesn't sit right. It's not very honest. What is more honest is probably to acknowledge that if you don't play Eng in the way it was intended, your not going be performing at a very high level ... which is inline with the apparent concept of having a class where getting access to all the best it has to offer requires swapping and kits and many skills. Engi is a difficult class if you want that performance. It seems that was intentional.

If you think swapping between 4 kits was their intended design, why do we even have other utility skills?

No seriously, that "meta" build that uses core traits is because our primary weapons were too weak to keep up with the meta in general. Because kits are more powerful than our base, we've had to substitute them in in lieu of decent weapons. And if you looked at QTFY's latest numbers, the kits are falling behind now too.

I don't even get that question ... we have other utility skills as choices to make the builds players want to make? If you're going to approach the every build problem from the eyes of a metapusher, then very little of what you see as choices in this game will make sense to you.

Man, that was an artful dodge!

You said we have a meta build for raids/fractals, and I pointed out that running 4 kits is probably not ANet's intended design. Then you call me a metapusher!

@Obtena.7952 said:Yes, the 35K DPS meta build, comprised of weapons and kits too weak to 'keep up' with the general meta ... That's a rolleyes. Maybe it will sink in the third time ... our weapons/kits/skills/whatever are likely intended to be swapped between to get the most from the class ... AS the general class concept. The nature of this concept requires weapons/kits/skills/whatever that are relatively equally performing; nothing stands out from anything else. This is exactly what Eng has.

Almost all our kits are virtually unchanged since launch. Same goes for our ranged weapons. When everybody else's ship is rising, and ours isn't, I call that sinking. Not sure what about that doesn't get to you.

@Obtena.7952 said:You see swapping as the cure for poor performance from any individual weapon ... that's clearly how anyone that thinks so narrowly about the meta and class concepts would view it. I see swapping as the way to optimize your performance in a class that is designed to challenge the player. I believe my view makes the most sense based on how I see Anet changing the weapons and skills of the class, what especs they have provided. I mean, are you going to try to tell me that Anet provided all these kits as insurance for never providing a single good weapon? That makes little sense to me. To me it's more likely they provided all those kits because they INTENDED for you to take some to supplement your weapons, allowing the most adept players to take advantage of all their choices.

Optimizing performance = 33k DPS, subpar for most of the new specs, which are a lot less complicated. The problem in this case is that if you DON'T take those kits, your DPS will be even worse than subpar.

In other words, you're telling that I should be happy that a complicated class has subpar damage, while classes that are less complicated do more damage.

@Obtena.7952 said:Think of it another way ... why DIDN"T Anet just give Engis' weapon swapping, a larger number of weapons and be done with it? It makes no sense for any to deny a class weapon swapping and supply them with all these kits if they didn't INTEND for Eng's to swap between them for optimal performance.

The core of the complaint here isn't about bad weapons, kits or skills, it's about what is necessary to optimize play on Eng ... since day 1.

And you know what's barely changed since day 1? Kits. Last meaningful update to the kits themselves was about... 4ish months after launch. Even our weapons get examined more often than that. If you're going to treat a kit like a weapon swap, you should also expect them to balance the kits as though they were weapons too.

[Obtena.7952]

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:that's the kicker though ... the espec's are irrelevant. if a build existed in core that made all the other options 'not good', we would be in the same situation you claim is a result of having especs. It's not the especs that cause all the other options to be not truly good. In fact, Scrapper has not meta equivalent ... and we had this situation before Holo was released ... so it's not an espec issue.

I am again going to remind you that Eng is one of the FEW classes that have a recommend MEta build for raids/fractals in their CORE traits ... so running around and pretending the options we have are 'bad' in core just doesn't sit right. It's not very honest. What is more honest is probably to acknowledge that if you don't play Eng in the way it was intended, your not going be performing at a very high level ... which is inline with the apparent concept of having a class where getting access to all the best it has to offer requires swapping and kits and many skills. Engi is a difficult class if you want that performance. It seems that was intentional.

If you think swapping between 4 kits was their intended design, why do we even have other utility skills?

No seriously, that "meta" build that uses core traits is because our primary weapons were too weak to keep up with the meta in general. Because kits are more powerful than our base, we've had to substitute them in in lieu of decent weapons. And if you looked at QTFY's latest numbers, the kits are falling behind now too.

I don't even get that question ... we have other utility skills as choices to make the builds players want to make? If you're going to approach the every build problem from the eyes of a metapusher, then very little of what you see as choices in this game will make sense to you.

Man, that was an artful dodge!

You said we have a meta build for raids/fractals, and I pointed out that running 4 kits is probably not ANet's intended design. Then you call me a metapusher!

... and your not? I mean, I've provided you reasons why I think it is Anet's intended design; the lack of a swap and the presence of many offensive attacks in kits. You simply presented the idea that current weapons have poor damage ... a statement that most metapushers would present as their main argument for why they need to be improved. What doesn't make sense about that argument is that the current small box meta build IS using the very things you believe need improvement because they are poor in DPS. That doesn't make much sense ... unless you are going to argue that the qT site is wrong. I'm not qualified to challenge the qT data and analysis, I'm going to bet you aren't in an any better position to do so..

Therefore, the question is: How does one claim that the weapons/kits/skills/whatever that are used and tested in the Meta for raids and fractals need DPS improvements? That's a hard question to answer in a reasonable way, even for people that push the meta. I find this most interesting as well:

@Vagrant.7206 said:Optimizing performance = 33k DPS, subpar for most of the new specs, which are a lot less complicated. The problem in this case is that if you DON'T take those kits, your DPS will be even worse than subpar.In other words, you're telling that I should be happy that a complicated class has subpar damage, while classes that are less complicated do more damage.

So #1, I'm going to stick with the 35K+ DPS value from the qT site ... not sure where you get your data from. #2, you're basically saying that if you deviate from the meta build and rotation, your damage goes down ... well DUH!!! That's no reason to push for improvements; that's just the reasonable expectation of how the game worked from the last 5 years it's been running!

You make the argument that if you play a complicated class, you should do more damage. That's a fallacy and furthermore, if you want that association, you simply need to choose the correct class that delivers what you are asking for; Ele DOES reward complexity with DPS. The rewards for various styles of play are the very reasons for the existence of different classes; these rewards are hardcoded in the class concept itself. Those things shouldn't just change on a whim at the deteriment of players who have chosen based on these class differences. This won't be a popular answer but this isn't fixed with buffs, it's fixed by players recognizing classes ARE different and those players need to Choose wisely.

If there is ANY complaint that is to be made here, it's that Anet does a very poor job directing people towards classes that suit their desires for complexity, playstyle and reward; initially, it's very reasonable to believe that Anet positions the classes equally for those things. Upon playing, you see this isn't true.

[Vagrant.7206]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:that's the kicker though ... the espec's are irrelevant. if a build existed in core that made all the other options 'not good', we would be in the same situation you claim is a result of having especs. It's not the especs that cause all the other options to be not truly good. In fact, Scrapper has not meta equivalent ... and we had this situation before Holo was released ... so it's not an espec issue.

I am again going to remind you that Eng is one of the FEW classes that have a recommend MEta build for raids/fractals in their CORE traits ... so running around and pretending the options we have are 'bad' in core just doesn't sit right. It's not very honest. What is more honest is probably to acknowledge that if you don't play Eng in the way it was intended, your not going be performing at a very high level ... which is inline with the apparent concept of having a class where getting access to all the best it has to offer requires swapping and kits and many skills. Engi is a difficult class if you want that performance. It seems that was intentional.

If you think swapping between 4 kits was their intended design, why do we even have other utility skills?

No seriously, that "meta" build that uses core traits is because our primary weapons were too weak to keep up with the meta in general. Because kits are more powerful than our base, we've had to substitute them in in lieu of decent weapons. And if you looked at QTFY's latest numbers, the kits are falling behind now too.

I don't even get that question ... we have other utility skills as choices to make the builds players want to make? If you're going to approach the every build problem from the eyes of a metapusher, then very little of what you see as choices in this game will make sense to you.

Man, that was an artful dodge!

You said we have a meta build for raids/fractals, and I pointed out that running 4 kits is probably not ANet's intended design. Then you call me a metapusher!

... and your not? I mean, I've provided you reasons why I think it is Anet's intended design; the lack of a swap and the presence of many offensive attacks in kits. You simply presented the idea that current weapons have poor damage ... a statement that most metapushers would present as their main argument for why they need to be improved. What doesn't make sense about that argument is that the current small box meta build IS using the very things you believe need improvement because they are poor in DPS. That doesn't make much sense ... unless you are going to argue that the qT site is wrong. I'm not qualified to challenge the qT data and analysis, I'm going to bet you aren't in an any better position to do so..

Therefore, the question is: How does one claim that the weapons/kits/skills/whatever that are used and tested in the Meta for raids and fractals need DPS improvements? That's a hard question to answer in a reasonable way, even for people that push the meta. I find this most interesting as well:

What exactly does calling me a metapusher accomplish besides an ad hominem? I'm not pushing for the meta -- I'm ASKING for something different from our current meta. I pointed out that we have other utility skills. If using 4 kits is indeed our intended design, then there wouldn't need to be other utilities. This is why I say it's not intended design -- we have more than just kits. The problem is, if we taking anything other than kits, we're handicapping ourselves in PvE.

I'm not asking for kits to be improved. I'm asking for our ranged weapons (pistol/rifle) to be improved. There are a multitude of problems in their current incarnation that KITS DO NOT ADDRESS. If kits are the right tool for the right job, why aren't they addressing the problems? Pick one!

And raids and fractals aren't the only game modes. WvW and PvP also exist. If you think I was only talking about PvE, you are pretty sorely mistaken. Because grenades and mortar kit (2 of the ranged kits) are pretty weak in those modes right now due to the aforementioned projectile hate.

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:Optimizing performance = 33k DPS, subpar for most of the new specs, which are a lot less complicated. The problem in this case is that if you DON'T take those kits, your DPS will be even worse than subpar.In other words, you're telling that I should be happy that a complicated class has subpar damage, while classes that are less complicated do more damage.

So #1, I'm going to stick with the 35K+ DPS value from the qT site ... not sure where you get your data from. #2, you're basically saying that if you deviate from the meta build and rotation, your damage goes down ... well DUH!!! That's no reason to push for improvements; that's just the reasonable expectation of how the game worked from the last 5 years it's been running!

To answer your first question, it was based on the old condi engineer build, which it looks like qT changed some traits and equipment for, which I wasn't aware of. 35k is definitely better than where it was, although the new traits are definitely... stranger.

To your second point, I was highlighting the great imbalance between Especs. Scrapper has done nothing to change our meta in PvE, nor has holosmith. Other classes get to experience significantly more variety in their PvE builds (and more damage to boot!), while we're still stuck with the same rotation we've been using for 5 years. Not only is that stale and boring, you seem to be arguing that it's a good thing!

@Obtena.7952 said:You make the argument that if you play a complicated class, you should do more damage. That's a fallacy and furthermore, if you want that association, you simply need to choose the correct class that delivers what you are asking for; Ele DOES reward complexity with DPS. The rewards for various styles of play are the very reasons for the existence of different classes; these rewards are hardcoded in the class concept itself. Those things shouldn't just change on a whim at the deteriment of players who have chosen based on these class differences. This won't be a popular answer but this isn't fixed with buffs, it's fixed by players recognizing classes ARE different and those players need to Choose wisely.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa. You're going to have to explain to me how that's a fallacy, first and foremost. For one, it's not a logical fallacy. For two, it's not a fallacy based on experienced, because in most games I've seen, the more complex classes ARE capable of more damage, it's just much harder to achieve and usually is accompanied by less sustain. In this case, we generally have lower sustain (fewer evades/blocks) and more complex rotations without seeing the DPS boost payoff. The risk/reward is way off.

As for your "choose wisely" argument, it doesn't follow. If that was their design intention, then they should be stating it explicitly in the game. These are characters we spend thousands of hours upon, after all. Letting us "just find out" is very different from "choose wisely," especially given that we can't predict the nature of nerfs and buffs years down the line.

And if Ele gets rewarded with DPS, what do we get reward with? The ugly stick?

[Adamantium.3682]

@Vagrant.7206 said:To answer your first question, it was based on the old condi engineer build, which it looks like qT changed some traits and equipment for, which I wasn't aware of. 35k is definitely better than where it was, although the new traits are definitely... stranger.

To your second point, I was highlighting the great imbalance between Especs. Scrapper has done nothing to change our meta in PvE, nor has holosmith. Other classes get to experience significantly more variety in their PvE builds (and more damage to boot!), while we're still stuck with the same rotation we've been using for 5 years. Not only is that stale and boring, you seem to be arguing that it's a good thing!

How can you say Holosmith has done nothing to change Engi PvE Meta? Have you tried it, seen the rotations, seen how it compares to condi?

EDIT: I removed some things about Holo even being higher than condi, I wasn't aware qT updated condi build. Although I'm pretty sure others have video'd benchmark of a little more than qT for Holo... point being if condi Engi has a place in meta so does Holo.

[Vagrant.7206]

@Adamantium.3682 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:To answer your first question, it was based on the old condi engineer build, which it looks like qT changed some traits and equipment for, which I wasn't aware of. 35k is definitely better than where it was, although the new traits are definitely... stranger.

To your second point, I was highlighting the great imbalance between Especs. Scrapper has done nothing to change our meta in PvE, nor has holosmith. Other classes get to experience significantly more variety in their PvE builds (and more damage to boot!), while we're still stuck with the same rotation we've been using for 5 years. Not only is that stale and boring, you seem to be arguing that it's a good thing!

How can you say Holosmith has done nothing to change Engi PvE Meta? Have you tried it, seen the rotations, seen how it compares to condi?

EDIT: I removed some things about Holo even being higher than condi, I wasn't aware qT updated condi build. Although I'm pretty sure others have video'd benchmark of a little more than qT for Holo... point being if condi Engi has a place in meta so does Holo.

Because it has even less sustain than the core engineer build. You're way more liable to go down. QT's testing is for ideal scenarios, not realistic ones.

[Adamantium.3682]

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Adamantium.3682 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:To answer your first question, it was based on the old condi engineer build, which it looks like qT changed some traits and equipment for, which I wasn't aware of. 35k is definitely better than where it was, although the new traits are definitely... stranger.

To your second point, I was highlighting the great imbalance between Especs. Scrapper has done nothing to change our meta in PvE, nor has holosmith. Other classes get to experience significantly more variety in their PvE builds (and more damage to boot!), while we're still stuck with the same rotation we've been using for 5 years. Not only is that stale and boring, you seem to be arguing that it's a good thing!

How can you say Holosmith has done nothing to change Engi PvE Meta? Have you tried it, seen the rotations, seen how it compares to condi?

EDIT: I removed some things about Holo even being higher than condi, I wasn't aware qT updated condi build. Although I'm pretty sure others have video'd benchmark of a little more than qT for Holo... point being if condi Engi has a place in meta so does Holo.

Because it has even less sustain than the core engineer build. You're way more liable to go down. QT's testing is for ideal scenarios, not realistic ones.

So have you tried it? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I really think you should try it because it sounds like you haven't. I'm basing my opinion completely off real results. I raided with the condi build for years, and have been playing Holo since it came out. The rotation is so much simpler. Seriously don't overlook this, it leads to Holo easily making up that 700 dps gap on the qT benchmarks (once "scaled down" to realistic range the difference is practically negligible), and then some the vast majority of the time for me. When you are in a real situation (have to move around and actually pay attention, evade mechanics, hit breakbars, reviving, don't have an ideal .01% speed clearing group, Chrono isn't perfect/in range) you're just not going to hit a 76 step rotation. I maintain nobody will in real situations and the fact qT even bothers listing it that far is sort of silly to me, but whatever.

[Vagrant.7206]

@Adamantium.3682 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Adamantium.3682 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:To answer your first question, it was based on the old condi engineer build, which it looks like qT changed some traits and equipment for, which I wasn't aware of. 35k is definitely better than where it was, although the new traits are definitely... stranger.

To your second point, I was highlighting the great imbalance between Especs. Scrapper has done nothing to change our meta in PvE, nor has holosmith. Other classes get to experience significantly more variety in their PvE builds (and more damage to boot!), while we're still stuck with the same rotation we've been using for 5 years. Not only is that stale and boring, you seem to be arguing that it's a good thing!

How can you say Holosmith has done nothing to change Engi PvE Meta? Have you tried it, seen the rotations, seen how it compares to condi?

EDIT: I removed some things about Holo even being higher than condi, I wasn't aware qT updated condi build. Although I'm pretty sure others have video'd benchmark of a little more than qT for Holo... point being if condi Engi has a place in meta so does Holo.

Because it has even less sustain than the core engineer build. You're way more liable to go down. QT's testing is for ideal scenarios, not realistic ones.

So have you tried it? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I really think you should try it because it sounds like you haven't. I'm basing my opinion completely off real results. I raided with the condi build for years, and have been playing Holo since it came out. The rotation is

so much simpler

. Seriously don't overlook this, it leads to Holo easily making up that 700 dps gap on the qT benchmarks (once "scaled down" to realistic range the difference is practically negligible), and then some the vast majority of the time for me. When you are in a real situation (have to move around and actually pay attention, evade mechanics, hit breakbars, reviving, don't have an ideal .01% speed clearing group, Chrono isn't perfect/in range) you're just not going to hit a 76 step rotation. I maintain nobody will in real situations and the fact qT even bothers listing it that far is sort of silly to me, but whatever.

I have actually tried it. It's basically a modified power bomber (pre-nerf). The rotation is naturally simpler because the power bomber was one of the simplest builds in the entire game. The problem is that the qT has said explicitly that the power holosmith build is unrealistic -- scholar uptime is dependent on having a healer nearby, modified ammunition having enough conditions to increase damage, etc. If you watch their rotation video, there's some really wonky, unrealistic things going on (on top of all the buffs/debuffs), and that's before you even get to the "real-world" scenarios of movement and dodging. Also take a look at their "effective/meta bosses" list for the two builds. Condi engineer is effective/meta on everything power holo is, and more. It's also more selfish.

[Adamantium.3682]

I disagree about "modified power bomber", it plays completely different, but whatever that's semantics.

It sounds like you're both saying not to judge a build by qT's benchmarks but real world experience, then using qT's site to say why power Holo is bad. What could possibly be more wonky in the Holo benchmark than a 76 step rotation!? Seriously if we're talking realistic the conversation has to start there for me.

I think you're wrong that the Holo build is more selfish. Condi DPS tanks pretty bad if you start swapping out utilities, it always has, so you're more or less stuck with those 3 kits (rocket boots sometimes). Holo has a little more flexibility in that regard, and about the only utility an Engi brings to raids is better with Holo (break bar).

It doesn't matter to me what you do, by all means stick with Condi! It just sounded like you were frustrated there were no other options but there is. And in my experience (every week since PoF came out I have used Holo in my raid, and t4 almost daily) it performs better in practice. It wasn't better right away, it took a couple weeks to really start seeing the benefits and playing with it not against it, and I'm still improving a lot. If you haven't, I do urge you to give it a fair shot for a couple weeks. If you tried it but played it like a power bomber then I could see why you might say it isn't worth anything.

[Obtena.7952]

@Vagrant.7206 said:As for your "choose wisely" argument, it doesn't follow. If that was their design intention, then they should be stating it explicitly in the game. These are characters we spend thousands of hours upon, after all. Letting us "just find out" is very different from "choose wisely," especially given that we can't predict the nature of nerfs and buffs years down the line.

That's the only point I will agree with you on ... only because I said it already in the previous post. Yes, Anet fails horribly at describing the kinds of gameplay you can expect and find rewarding with the various classes. So unfortunately, you do have to play them all to find the one that suits you best ... and that means you have to be willing to abandon things you may have spent time on.

On the other hand, if you haven't figured out you don't like how a class works after thousands of hours of playing ... no amount of up front information Anet can provide will help you with that. Hence 'choosing wisely' is still a very applicable piece of advice. Choosing doesn't mean you do so without some experience ... which is what I think the core problem your describing here. People have wrongly assumed some style of play that is not relevant to Eng so they have come to the wrong conclusion about how it's weapons should be balanced and deliver damage. Again, even if Anet DOES do a bad job at setting the expectations for class styles, that is still no reason to abandon the class styles they have developed and built weapons/skills/traits/whatever for.

Finally, Especs DO significantly change the flavour of what it is to play a class. Basically I think it's not all that much 'loss' on the players part to invest time in various classes to make these discoveries about the classes and choose the ones they like the best, though it would be ideal if Anet could better describe what players could expect for each class.

[Atmaweapon.7345]

This line of discussion went off track for awhile.

Anyways, I've been experiencing the expansions for a while now and seen how core professions don't really get much of anything baseline with the addition of each new elite specialization. It seems the only way for Engineer to get decent ranged options is to wait for the next expansion or actually change some more core mechanics like elites getting toolbelt skills.

Actually, taking the Photon Forge mechanics into account, how about Weapon Modification as an Engineer weapon swap mechanic? I mean giving each weapon an "alt fire" mode like an attunement, but locking you out of kit usage for a period of time like PF. This way, we could have things like Rifle "Shotgun mode" and "Sniper Mode" and you could build your utility around supplementing your weapon or pick a weapon mode to supplement your kits. This would also help clean up each weapon skills so that they don't end up with broken synergy with kits (Rifle is designed as a self contained melee hit and run weapon, but wastes skills if you don't utilize the "run" part)

For example:

Rifle - Shotgun mode1- Blunderbuss2- Scattershot: Fire a shot that dazes enemies3- Shrapnel burst: Explosive cone that inflicts vulnerability.4- Explosive Round: Fires an explosive shot at the ground that launches enemies.5- Leap Shot: Also cures Immobilize, cripple, and chill effects.

Rifle - Sniper mode1- Burst Fire: Fires 3 explosive shots with a longer cast time.2- Net Shot:3- Flak blast: Fire a shot that explodes and blinds enemies hit4- Overcharged Shot: Now evades backwards rather than cause self knockdown5- Gatling burst: Stand still and start rapidly firing explosive bullets.

So now we have the shotgun weapon that people like, a ranged weapon that retains a lot of engineer flavor, and a foundation that allows people to use more utility skills in favor of spamming 4 different kits. The total work required is no more than thinking up one extra attunement for each weapon and explicitly fits in with the fantasy engineer flavor where you'd think they would find out multiple ways to modify their weapon.

[Vagrant.7206]

@Adamantium.3682 said:It sounds like you're both saying not to judge a build by qT's benchmarks but real world experience, then using qT's site to say why power Holo is bad. What could possibly be more wonky in the Holo benchmark than a 76 step rotation!? Seriously if we're talking realistic the conversation has to start there for me.

I'm pointing out that even by their standards the benchmark for holosmith is unrealistic, which is saying a lot, since they already make a lot of unrealistic assumptions.

The reason why I said the condi engi build is more viable is because there are certain skills that are your big damage dealers, and many that are not. If you know which ones are your damage dealers, then it's pretty easy to get relatively close to the benchmark in realistic scenarios. In my guild raid runs, I've consistently run just under elementalists' damage because I know what I'm doing. Condi engi is also less selfish because of pinpoint precision, might stacking, stealth stacking, blinding trash mobs, several fire fields, and soft cc's, all of which the holosmith is generally lacking. Plus, by virtue of naturally being further away from the enemy, condi engi tends to survive longer under the same conditions.

Actually, taking the Photon Forge mechanics into account, how about Weapon Modification as an Engineer weapon swap mechanic? I mean giving each weapon an "alt fire" mode like an attunement, but locking you out of kit usage for a period of time like PF. This way, we could have things like Rifle "Shotgun mode" and "Sniper Mode" and you could build your utility around supplementing your weapon or pick a weapon mode to supplement your kits.

I do like that idea, as it fits into the engineer aesthetic. That said, I wouldn't expect a mechanic like that until the next expansion.

I would like it if the grenade kit was turned into a grenade launcher so we could finally autoattack too, lol.

[Hock.6740]

to idea for weapon swap rifle modes

[DirtyMonk.9240]

support idea for weapon swap rifle modes.