Core Tyria elite specs concepts

[Duke Blackrose.4981]

I think it would be cool if Core Tyria eventually got its own set of elite specs, aimed at introducing f2p and returning players to the feature. Core Tyria elite specs would be aimed at playing more similarly to the base classes - adding to the profession mechanic rather than changing it. They would also receive an additional underwater weapon rather than an additional terrestrial weapon.

 

Warrior - Weapon Master

Unlocks Trident.

Adds an extra burst slot that allows the Warrior to use their other weapon's burst skill without weapon swapping.

 

Guardian - Paragon

Unlocks Speargun

Virtues now have 2 charges.

 

Revenant - Channeler

Unlocks Speargun

Reduces cooldown of legend swapping.

 

Ranger - Beastmaster

Unlocks Trident.

Greatly increases all of pet's stats.

 

Engineer - Improviser

Unlocks Trident

Adds an additional tool belt skill based on equipped weapon.

 

Thief - Kleptomaniac

Unlocks Trident

Steal gains 2 charges and you gain 3 stolen item slots. 

 

Necromancer - Specter

Unlocks Speargun

Increase Life Force cap and Life Force fills faster.

 

Mesmer - Trickster

Unlocks Speargun

Increases the clone cap to 4.

 

Elementalist - Sorceror

Unlocks Spear

When you swap attunements, you have a 3 second opportunity to swap back to the previous attunement (and reduces the displayed cooldown by 3 seconds afterwards accordingly).

 

[Dadnir.5038]

If they do that, I'd hope that those e-spec are related to the PvP titles and that it no longer become possible to slot 3 core specs, only 2 specs and an e-spec. (No need for an extra weapon, really!)

 

- Engineer: Genius

This e-spec could unlock the current core F5 skill and give bonus when using F5.

 

- Ranger:  Hunter

This e-spec could focus on improving weapon skills that allow the pet to proc an effect on hit. Maybe they could remove those procs from the core weapons and have the spec add procs for all weaponset through the e-spec. This would weaken the 2 other e-specs (especially soulbeast), thought.

 

- Mesmer: Illusionist

Move most of the core shatter stuff onto this e-spec traitline and fill the holes with new traits non focused on shatter. It might even do some good to the other e-specs to do that. (well there would be need for quite a bit of balance)

 

- Warrior: Legionnaire

Change the default burst skill to be a neutral burst skill that isn't affected by the weapon wielded. The e-spec would give access to the weapon specific burst. This would impact Spellbreaker which would lose some power since he would no longer have access to the weapon specific burst skill but instead have access to the default burst skill.

 

- Elementalist: Magus

The spec would allow weapon swap in combat. I think it would be the best option for a "core e-spec".

 

- Guardian: Paragon

Reduce base virtue area of effect radius to 180, make the e-spec increase this area of effect radius to the current 600. It would nerf firebrand support and they could bring back some support to it's mantra to balance things out.

 

- Necromancer: Phantom

Remove Lich form and replace it by whatever. When equiping this e-spec, shroud's skill 2 to 5 are replaced by the current lich's skills.

 

- Revenant: Ritualist

Make the traitline focus heavily on Ancient echo.

 

- Thief: Shadow

Make a traitline that focus on the use of "bundles/stolen skills" and move traits that do that to this traitline (Improvisation, I'm talking about you!).

[Panda.1967]

intriguing idea... but the suggested changes might not be enough for some core classes... Ranger & Revenant spring to mind immediately... a stat bump to pets is largely meaningless, as it stands pets may be the main feature of core Ranger, but they really don't do much. They would need an absolutely massive stat bump for it to be meaningful, and a stat bump on that level would no doubt result in a massive backlash about "free DPS, ranger pets OP"... as for Revenant... legend swap has a fairly short CD as is, and making it any shorter than it already is really won't do anything.

 

If the idea is to enhance the core specs then perhaps consider the following...

 

Warrior: You actually have a good idea for warrior with the second burst... however... I would suggest the 2nd burst to be a weakened version thus encouraging players to still utilize weapon swap...

 

Guardian: Enhanced versions of the core Virtues... something like keeping their passive effects active at all times, increasing strength of their actives, or adding additional boons/conditions to their actives.

 

Revenant: This is a tricky one... quite frankly the core class was poorly designed and simply isn't in a finished state without one of it's elite specs... so as it stands right now, the only way to enhance the core class is to add a new mechanic on top of it...

 

Ranger: As I said already, it will take more than just a stat bump to pets to make something meaningful out of this... I'd suggest improving the pet skills as well. (Also, core ranger should have their pet's active skill button increased in size a little bit... as it stands it disappears into the clutter of the pets basic commands to the point that most forget that they even have an active skill)

 

Engineer: Barring a complete overhaul of Engineer to adsress some serious design flaws... your suggesting of a 6th toolbelt skill based on your weapon poses an interesting option... however... given core engineers weapon limits, I would suggest it be based on your off-hand weapon specifically... that way all 3 core engineer weapons have a related toolbelt skill, otherwise it would only be Rifle & Pistol...

 

Thief: I think in this case... your suggestion might be a bit too much... either more skills stolen or multiple charges of the stolen skill... doing both is.. rather excessive...

 

Necromancer: The biggest problem here is that technically Reaper is nothing more than an enhancement on Core Necromancer... that said... they could still enhance core necromancer's shroud abilities... however, they should probably add something to Reaper to avoid the feeling of sameness...

 

Mesmer: Just like with Necromancer, the Cronomancer, as is, is nothing more than an enhancement on Core Mesmer... I do however think you've got a good suggestion with increasing the clone cap...

 

Elementalist: Your suggestion for elementalist might actually be one of the only things that can be done to enhance core elementalist without reworking the basic mechanics of how attunements work.

 

7 minutes ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

If they do that, I'd hope that those e-spec are related to the PvP titles and that it no longer become possible to slot 3 core specs, only 2 specs and an e-spec. (No need for an extra weapon, really!)

While it might seem like a good idea to restrict everyone to 2 core specs + 1 elite spec... I'm not so sure about that... There are several core specs that never see any use outside of core builds as the 3rd spec slot...

 

Also, you're suggested changes are nothing but nerfs... I can see exactly what you're goal is with that... NO.

[Duke Blackrose.4981]

1 hour ago, Panda.1967 said:

intriguing idea... but the suggested changes might not be enough for some core classes... Ranger & Revenant spring to mind immediately... a stat bump to pets is largely meaningless, as it stands pets may be the main feature of core Ranger, but they really don't do much. They would need an absolutely massive stat bump for it to be meaningful, and a stat bump on that level would no doubt result in a massive backlash about "free DPS, ranger pets OP"... as for Revenant... legend swap has a fairly short CD as is, and making it any shorter than it already is really won't do anything.

 

If the idea is to enhance the core specs then perhaps consider the following...

 

Warrior: You actually have a good idea for warrior with the second burst... however... I would suggest the 2nd burst to be a weakened version thus encouraging players to still utilize weapon swap...

 

Guardian: Enhanced versions of the core Virtues... something like keeping their passive effects active at all times, increasing strength of their actives, or adding additional boons/conditions to their actives.

 

Revenant: This is a tricky one... quite frankly the core class was poorly designed and simply isn't in a finished state without one of it's elite specs... so as it stands right now, the only way to enhance the core class is to add a new mechanic on top of it...

 

Ranger: As I said already, it will take more than just a stat bump to pets to make something meaningful out of this... I'd suggest improving the pet skills as well. (Also, core ranger should have their pet's active skill button increased in size a little bit... as it stands it disappears into the clutter of the pets basic commands to the point that most forget that they even have an active skill)

 

Engineer: Barring a complete overhaul of Engineer to adsress some serious design flaws... your suggesting of a 6th toolbelt skill based on your weapon poses an interesting option... however... given core engineers weapon limits, I would suggest it be based on your off-hand weapon specifically... that way all 3 core engineer weapons have a related toolbelt skill, otherwise it would only be Rifle & Pistol...

 

Thief: I think in this case... your suggestion might be a bit too much... either more skills stolen or multiple charges of the stolen skill... doing both is.. rather excessive...

 

Necromancer: The biggest problem here is that technically Reaper is nothing more than an enhancement on Core Necromancer... that said... they could still enhance core necromancer's shroud abilities... however, they should probably add something to Reaper to avoid the feeling of sameness...

 

Mesmer: Just like with Necromancer, the Cronomancer, as is, is nothing more than an enhancement on Core Mesmer... I do however think you've got a good suggestion with increasing the clone cap...

 

Elementalist: Your suggestion for elementalist might actually be one of the only things that can be done to enhance core elementalist without reworking the basic mechanics of how attunements work.

 

While it might seem like a good idea to restrict everyone to 2 core specs + 1 elite spec... I'm not so sure about that... There are several core specs that never see any use outside of core builds as the 3rd spec slot...

 

Also, you're suggested changes are nothing but nerfs... I can see exactly what you're goal is with that... NO.

I think you're misunderstanding the Thief change a bit. It doesn't give stolen skills multiple charges (there is already a trait that does that). It gives Steal itself multiple charges, and gives you a bank of up to 3 stolen items, allowing you to hold on to each of them until you want to use them.

[draxynnic.3719]

Pretty sure the HoT elite specs are essentially the "Core Tyria" elite specs. Some of them are reactions to what happened in the jungle, but they're still ways that Core Tyrians reacted to what happened in the jungle rather than coming from Elonian or Canthan teachings.

[FranzM.1298]

I would much rather them do a balance patch to core so that everyone is on the same level with their respective elite specs (like core ele/mes/war/engi/rev/etc) instead of some of the lazy "trade-off" changes like one dodge-mirage (still waiting on that guardian firebrand trade off too).

I am sort of glad they now have experience with two rounds of elite specs to deliver something more balanced in EoD's package but the current core trait lines could really use attention like the 300cd traits for example.

[draxynnic.3719]

4 hours ago, FranzM.1298 said:

I would much rather them do a balance patch to core so that everyone is on the same level with their respective elite specs (like core ele/mes/war/engi/rev/etc) instead of some of the lazy "trade-off" changes like one dodge-mirage (still waiting on that guardian firebrand trade off too).

 

Because you see sooooooo many firebrands in sPvP these days. 

 

Guardian is already one of the few professions where core is genuinely viable in most if not all game modes. They also do trade away the core virtues when taking an elite specialisation. I know a lot of people claim that's not enough, but the real tradeoff is that unlike many other professions, guardian core traitlines are good enough that taking a third core traitline is a genuine alternative to taking an elite specialisation unless you specifically want something that the elite specialisation provides.

[Emberheart.8426]

8 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Because you see sooooooo many firebrands in sPvP these days. 

 

Guardian is already one of the few professions where core is genuinely viable in most if not all game modes. They also do trade away the core virtues when taking an elite specialisation. I know a lot of people claim that's not enough, but the real tradeoff is that unlike many other professions, guardian core traitlines are good enough that taking a third core traitline is a genuine alternative to taking an elite specialisation unless you specifically want something that the elite specialisation provides.

The reason you don't see them in PvP is because the numbers were nerfed to the ground in the February 2020 PvP patch. It really doesn't have to do with mechanics. They just forced it to be bad.

[HotDelirium.7984]

I think they should update the trait system and have every trait be an elite spec.

For example, you COULD choose 3 traits like we do right now OR you could pick one trait line and be given

ALL the traits from it only.

That way you could specialize if you wish and synergize with your weapon and utility skills.

[draxynnic.3719]

1 minute ago, Ganathar.4956 said:

The reason you don't see them in PvP is because the numbers were nerfed to the ground in the February 2020 PvP patch. It really doesn't have to do with mechanics. They just forced it to be bad.

Correct. They addressed the imbalance by directly nerfing the Firebrand's abilities. Because Guardian elite specs always had a tradeoff, it was just a question of whether the thing you were giving up is competitive against the thing that you get.

 

The claim that guardian elite specialisations have no tradeoff is factually incorrect. They trade out their core virtues for the elite specialisation virtues. People tend to undersell the core virtues in order to claim that this isn't enough of a tradeoff, but it's really no different to revenant giving up its energy topup F2 or necromancer giving up regular death shroud. If there's a problem, it's not that there's no tradeoff, it's that what the specialisation brings is too good compared to what is traded off - and that can be addressed either by buffing the core feature that was traded off, or nerfing the elite specialisation.

 

And when guardian is one of the few professions where core builds are genuinely viable... I'd say that the existing tradeoffs are at least close to being appropriate.

 

(It's also particularly ironic that the person I was responding to was referencing Mirage. Yes, the one dodge thing hurts - but that only applies in competitive modes. Technically speaking, PvE mirages still have no tradeoff. Maybe some day Mirage can get its shatters reworked (maybe its F4 could be made to only be 1s of Distortion regardless of clones shattered, but Desert Distortion is made baseline?) and get its second dodge back in return.) 

[Kodama.6453]

19 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Correct. They addressed the imbalance by directly nerfing the Firebrand's abilities. Because Guardian elite specs always had a tradeoff, it was just a question of whether the thing you were giving up is competitive against the thing that you get.

 

The claim that guardian elite specialisations have no tradeoff is factually incorrect. They trade out their core virtues for the elite specialisation virtues. People tend to undersell the core virtues in order to claim that this isn't enough of a tradeoff, but it's really no different to revenant giving up its energy topup F2 or necromancer giving up regular death shroud. If there's a problem, it's not that there's no tradeoff, it's that what the specialisation brings is too good compared to what is traded off - and that can be addressed either by buffing the core feature that was traded off, or nerfing the elite specialisation.

 

And when guardian is one of the few professions where core builds are genuinely viable... I'd say that the existing tradeoffs are at least close to being appropriate.

 

(It's also particularly ironic that the person I was responding to was referencing Mirage. Yes, the one dodge thing hurts - but that only applies in competitive modes. Technically speaking, PvE mirages still have no tradeoff. Maybe some day Mirage can get its shatters reworked (maybe its F4 could be made to only be 1s of Distortion regardless of clones shattered, but Desert Distortion is made baseline?) and get its second dodge back in return.) 

It is a trade off in Anet's sense, but I think most people won't consider it a fair one.

 

You give up three instant cast abilities, but in exchange you get 15 abilities with cast times.

Additionally, among these 15 skills are also skills which do the same thing the core virtues do, just with a cast time.

 

So basically, all you are giving up is the instant cast on the virtues, but all other features of them are still there and you get 12 more skills additionally.

I can see why people might call this out as not being a fair trade off.

 

About the mirage thing: technically, in Anet's sense, they also have a trade off. They are giving up the standard dodge roll for mirage cloak. If you consider firebrand giving up their core virtues, besides tomes doing the same thing they do and more, then you should consider this aspect of PvE mirage to also be a trade off....

Edited August 11, 2021 by Kodama.6453

[Xaylin.1860]

I got to agree with Kodama. Sure, FB got some kind of trade-off. But what they get is so much more ans stronger than base and freakishly versatile. Which got them nerved. It probably would have been more balanced if FB had to choose 1 tome via GM like DrD picks a dodge alteration.

 

Personally, I'd even argue DH not having a reaonsable trade-off. Sure, Virtues are no longer instant. But to me, they are way more powerful.

 

All that said, Guardian most certainly isn't the only class which this imbalance of benefits gained vs. things lost applies to.

[draxynnic.3719]

Except that in both cases, Guardian is still one of the professions, if not THE profession, where playing core is most viable.

 

That's what the whole concept of "tradeoffs" is intended to achieve: giving players a reason to use the core profession. It's occasionally also been used to nerf an overperforming elite specialisation directly, but when firebrand and dragonhunter were underperforming they were brought under control by direct nerfs to their abilities.

 

The point of tradeoffs is that they offer something that can allow core to be buffed without being something that can then just be used to make the elite specialisation better. Guardian's core virtues achieve that - if core guardian is underperforming, that can be addressed by buffing the core virtues. 

 

Guardian is pretty much the only profession where core is viable in every mode. It's the dominant form of guardian in sPvP. It's one of only two professions that has a core build on Snowcrows. The evidence from what's actually being played, as opposed to armchair analysis of core virtues versus elite specialisation virtues, indicates that guardian is the last profession to need tradeoffs, since core guardian is in better shape compared to its elite specialisation than any other profession.

[Xaylin.1860]

33 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

The point of tradeoffs is that they offer something that can allow core to be buffed without being something that can then just be used to make the elite specialisation better. Guardian's core virtues achieve that - if core guardian is underperforming, that can be addressed by buffing the core virtues. 

Core Guardian works because core traitlines have powerful traits with good interactions while e-spec traitlines are actually kinda "meh". Not because the baseline class mechanic - Virtues - is great or properly balanced against it's e-spec counter-parts. It's not. And even if they were, FB clearly had to be nerfed multiple times to make core worthewile again aside from very specific exceptions.

 

Now, if core traitlines always had such great interactions, you might be right. Which means that in return the e-spec traitlines have to be worse or come with penalties as soon as anything was changed - like DH Virtues actives - or added to the base class mechanic - like Tomes. Which, for example, happened to Druid (CA) or Berserker (Berserk mode and bursts). Not the most sophisticated design choices to balance it solely by numbers but that's a different topic. Then there are other classes like Elementalist where base traitlines not necessarily complement each other well. Which makes core worse than an e-spec in almost any scenario without even considering any e-spec exclusive mechanics. Which is also true for Mesmers to a somewhat lesser extent (but still). Even for Engineer although Scrapper added almost nothing to the base class aside from new skills.

 

Imho, the only class were ANet had a proper and designwise balanced (not necessarily numberwise) implementation of an e-spec is Reaper. If you compare this to Firebrand, Guardian basically changed 3 very limited active effects for 3 transformation skills. Unless you nerf those into the ground numberwise, it can't ever be balanced just by the change in class mechanic. Which is were we get back to Guardian core traitlines that happen to be very balanced. But innately have nothing to do with e-spec specific trade offs.

[draxynnic.3719]

10 minutes ago, Xaylin.1860 said:

Core Guardian works because core traitlines have powerful traits with good interactions while e-spec traitlines are actually kinda "meh". Not because the baseline class mechanic - Virtues - is great or properly balanced against it's e-spec counter-parts. It's not. And even if they were, FB clearly had to be nerfed multiple times to make core worthewile again aside from very specific exceptions.

And that's part of the tradeoff. Guardian has well-designed core traitlines such that losing one is itself a significant tradeoff.

 

At the bottom line, all of these discussions come down to Guardian core is still the most used core. Whatever conclusions you might come from direct comparison of one feature to another, the core package as a whole is competitive in a way that the core packages of most other professions are not. You could argue that this is because the strength of elite specialisation virtues being overly strong compared to core is being counterbalanced because the elite spec traitlines themselves are poor... but that's exactly the point! The elite spec traitlines are poor - apart from the elite spec virtues - because those elite spec virtues themselves are part of the power budget of the elite spec traitlines! 

 

You're not just comparing tomes versus core virtues. You're comparing the package of tomes plus the Firebrand traitline, against the package of core virtues plus the third core traitline that you can take if you don't take Firebrand. And it turns out that, unless you specifically want one or more of the things that comes with the Firebrand elite specialisation, that isn't a good trade and you're actually better off with the core traitline. Granted, Firebrand stuff is pretty good, but if that's not what you actually want for your build, you're better off with something else. So, let's say you had your way and firebrand tomes were nerfed in some way because "tradeoffs"... would we then be looking at buffing the firebrand traitline to compensate? Why draw attention away from other professions and potentially cause balance chaos by nerfing one aspect of a specialisation and buffing another to "fix" something that isn't broken in the first place?

 

Similar observations can be made for Dragonhunter. But they cannot be made for so many other professions, where an elite specialisation often ends up being taken because, well, you might as well, you're not going to get anything better out of a core traitline.

 

And this is the problem I have every time I see "give tradeoff to firebrand/dragonhunter" posts.  It just comes off as sour grapes - Guardian is the profession where propping up core compared to elite specialisations is least needed (although necromancer is also pretty good in that respect, it's just that what core necromancer offers isn't in high demand for cooperative modes). That's attention that should be going to professions where core builds just don't get seen. Which doesn't need to mean nerfing their elite specialisations, incidentally - it can instead mean buffing their core traitlines or, as was done for revenant, providing them with an ability that is unique to core (even if, like guardian core virtues, that ability on its own might look weaker than the elite specialisation mechanics. Although I do think people underestimate the value of instant-activation guardian core virtues).

[Xaylin.1860]

Just now, draxynnic.3719 said:

And that's part of the tradeoff. Guardian has well-designed core traitlines such that losing one is itself a significant tradeoff.

Imho, clear no to this one. All builds have to pick from 3 traitlines. Due to the added benefits that come with e-specs, the sole trade off of forgoing a base traitline usually - meaning in almost all cases - is not enough and neither is what ANet was talking about when mentioning trade offs.

 

What you describe works only work if baseline traitlines had the same value as e-spec lines which objectively is almost never the case because ANet - while creative - is bad at replacing mechanics but usually adds onto existing ones. Guardians happen to have rather good core traitlines which makes up for some imbalance. Still FB had to be nerfed which directly contradicts your assessment. And yet again: other classes don't have so balanced and good core traitlines and might never get them due to class design (e.g. Elementalist).

 

Unless your opinion is that FB is fine because it is balanced by numbers now? Then sure, I can agree to that sentiment. Although I don't think that there is any balance when comparing Virtues with Tomes. Plus, as already mentioned, balancing down e-specs by numbers is the worst ANet could do designwise (but easiest).

 

Which brings me back to my statement: Reaper is the best example of how to alter a baseline mechanic without totally devaluating core. DH could be next in line if the DH actives weren't so much better overall. Which could be solved by buffing core actives. But then again, those won't ever measure up what Tomes provide. And at this point we've not even talked about access to Quickness.

[draxynnic.3719]

15 minutes ago, Xaylin.1860 said:

Imho, clear no to this one. All builds have to pick from 3 traitlines. Due to the added benefits that come with e-specs, the sole trade off of forgoing a base traitline usually - meaning in almost all cases - is not enough and neither is what ANet was talking about when mentioning trade offs.

 

What you describe works only work if baseline traitlines had the same value as e-spec lines which objectively is almost never the case because ANet - while creative - is bad at replacing mechanics but usually adds onto existing ones. Guardians happen to have rather good core traitlines which makes up for some imbalance. Still FB had to be nerfed which directly contradicts your assessment. And yet again: other classes don't have so balanced and good core traitlines and might never get them due to class design (e.g. Elementalist).

 

Unless your opinion is that FB is fine because it is balanced by numbers now? Then sure, I can agree to that sentiment. Although I don't think that there is any balance when comparing Virtues with Tomes. Plus, as already mentioned, balancing down e-specs by numbers is the worst ANet could do designwise (but easiest).

 

Which brings me back to my statement: Reaper is the best example of how to alter a baseline mechanic without totally devaluating core. DH could be next in line if the DH actives weren't so much better overall. Which could be solved by buffing core actives. But then again, those won't ever measure up what Tomes provide. And at this point we've not even talked about access to Quickness.

Obviously, I'm comparing the current balance states. Because I don't believe in basing current balance decisions on what the balance state was years ago.

 

But yes, that's part of the tradeoff of taking an elite specialisation: you forego a core traitline to do so. Again, I think the armchair warrior brigade underestimates the value of instance activations, but the improved virtues are part of the package of the traitline as a whole. If the rest of the traitline is poor relative to the core traitlines, that's a balancing factor.

 

In the technical terminology that ArenaNet meant when they started talking about "tradeoffs", they simply meant something that the core profession had that the elite specialisations didn't. For guardian, they didn't need to introduce one, because there already WAS one. Namely, core virtues. Necromancer was in a similar situation with giving up core death shroud... but I'll note in that respect that it took a long time for that to be balanced against elite specs such that all three were viable in competitive modes. Since Path of Fire released we've seen a lot of buffs to core Necromancer and nerfs to Reaper and Scourge to get to this position.

 

In balance terms... you could argue that elite specialisation virtues are better than core virtues, but this is balanced by the tradeoff of the rest of the traitline being inferior to the third core traitline you could have taken instead. Those weaker elite specialisation traits are what pays for the improved virtues.

 

Ultimately, the evidence of what people actually play shows that guardian probably has the best internal balance of core versus elite specialisations of any of the professions.

 

The core problem that should be focused on is this:

 

15 minutes ago, Xaylin.1860 said:

What you describe works only work if baseline traitlines had the same value as e-spec lines which objectively is almost never the case because ANet - while creative - is bad at replacing mechanics but usually adds onto existing ones. Guardians happen to have rather good core traitlines which makes up for some imbalance.

What I describe works for guardian because it has good core traitlines that can actually compete with the elite specialisations. Obviously, it doesn't work when professions don't have good core traitlines that can actually compete with the elite specialisations. But that's just saying that guardian is a better-designed profession overall. Shouldn't we be complaining about the other professions having bad traitlines and trying to improve them rather than tall-poppy-syndroming the guardian?

Edited August 11, 2021 by draxynnic.3719

[Xaylin.1860]

17 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Obviously, I'm comparing the current balance states. Because I don't believe in basing current balance decisions on what the balance state was years ago.

Fair point. However, in the end, bad design balance remains bad. Screwing with numbers just covers that up. But yes, I guess it makes introducing additional trade offs less relevant.

Quote

In the technical terminology that ArenaNet meant when they started talking about "tradeoffs", they simply meant something that the core profession had that the elite specialisations didn't. 

I heavily disagree on this one. I don't think that ANet meant it this way. But that's just my opinion. I'm not ANet.

Quote

In balance terms... you could argue that elite specialisation virtues are better than core virtues, but this is balanced by the tradeoff of the rest of the traitline being inferior to the third core traitline you could have taken instead. Those weaker elite specialisation traits are what pays for the improved virtues.

Once again, my opinion: balanced design > balance solely by numbers. First isn't true for FB even when accounting for the above average Guardian core traitlines. It only holds true because Firebrand has been nerfed. If that's sufficient for you, I can understand that. To me, it's still very dissatisfying. Because it also devalues what FB was designed for.

 

And yet again: For most other classes the numbers-approach didn't work because e-specs add so much more than just traits. Even worse, some e-specs got base traitlines nerfed. Like Mirage.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Xaylin.1860
sp.

[draxynnic.3719]

Balance because being stronger in one area is balanced against being weaker in another is still balance. In fact, I'd say it's the very core of balance. Even if tomes are clearly better than core virtues, if you're giving up something of similar value than that IS balanced design.

And that's something which I would contest - core virtues are less impactful than times, but they're also less disruptive in that you just keep doing what you were doing without interruption, while tomes completely change what you do. It's like comparing elixirs to kits - sure, kits bring more on paper and are generally more valuable, but sometimes that quick-cast buff is what your build really needs. F2 and F3 tomes almost completely kill your damage when they're up. F1 tome is a pretty powerful weapon-substitute, but is it really better than maintaining a strong rotation with regular weapons and a third DPS-oriented traitline while throwing an instant-action virtue every so often to trigger Inspiring Virtue? Not if you're running Power, it seems.

 

And really, what's your endgame here? Guardian is fairly stable and balanced at the moment - several viable builds, competitive in all game modes (except firebrand in sPvP) while breaking none (unless you WANT to feel like a bowling ball in zerg versus zerg). Messing with that would put guardian in a fluctuating balance state for months or years as ArenaNet is left trying to get it back to where it was. And any attention that they put towards that is attention that isn't going somewhere else. Maybe they could rework elementalist, make its core traits better, or maybe they could make it so that on core elementalist (only), all those master minor effects that trigger on swapping attunements become baseline and having the actual traitline boosts them, to really reward swapping attunements a lot on core elementalist. 

 

13 minutes ago, Xaylin.1860 said:

Once again, my opinion: balanced design > balance solely by numbers. First isn't true for FB even when accounting for the above average Guardian core traitlines. It only holds true because Firebrand has been nerfed. If that's sufficient for you, I can understand that. To me, it's still very unsatisfying. Because it also devalues what FB was designed for.

Dude, the reaper that you're holding up as good "balanced design" got its numbers nerfed to the underworld and back since it was first seen in beta, and plays quite differently now than it did even when PoF released (having been rebalanced from high durability to high damage both to make room for core Death Shroud, and to make it more practical in PvE). At some point, numbers are always going to be a part of balance, because it's the numbers that ultimately determine just how strong a skill is. If firebrand is balanced because it got its numbers tuned down (if anything, I think it got overnerfed because of balance perception inertia), then it's balanced. Balanced is balanced.

 

Besides, the way things are, which tomes you actually want to be using is still something that's dependent on your build. If you're built for healing, Tome of Justice isn't going to be doing that much damage... but it can still do a little more than your support-oriented weapons when support isn't needed. If you're built for DPS, Resolve isn't going to heal for much - it's still a bit extra you can break out in a pinch, but it's not like you'll be immediately healing your team to full like a dedicated healbrand can. I don't think there's a need to restrict to just one - when playing firebrand, you just naturally gravitate to primarily using the one or two that actually work with your build. Kinda like how DPS Elementalists don't tend to spend a lot of time in water, but can if they would benefit from doing so, while healing Elementalists are likely to spend most of their time in that attunement.

13 minutes ago, Xaylin.1860 said:

 

And yet again: For most other classes the numbers-approach didn't work because e-specs add so much more than just traits. Even worse, some e-specs got base traitlines nerfed. Like Mirage.

Yeah, what happened with core mesmer because of Mirage was something I was considering bringing up myself - an example of ArenaNet nerfing the kitten out of the profession as a whole because they couldn't figure out a proper targeted nerf against the actual problem.

[Xaylin.1860]

1 hour ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Dude, the reaper that you're holding up as good "balanced design" got its numbers nerfed to the underworld and back since it was first seen in beta, and plays quite differently now than it did even when PoF released (having been rebalanced from high durability to high damage both to make room for core Death Shroud, and to make it more practical in PvE). At some point, numbers are always going to be a part of balance, because it's the numbers that ultimately determine just how strong a skill is. If firebrand is balanced because it got its numbers tuned down (if anything, I think it got overnerfed because of balance perception inertia), then it's balanced. Balanced is balanced.

Yes it was, but I'd argue that the design is still way more sound than Guardian vs. Firebrand. I'd also argue that the main difference is the loss of condi/hybrid play while power DPS and sustainability has always been a thing and still remains a thing. Meanwhile, Firebrand got an overall nerf. Because it's implementation is busted when compared to core regardless of your build. Period.

 

We quite obviously disagree on what trade offs are supposed to be and how balance should be achieved. If you just look at meta compisitions I can somewhat understand the pure numbers approach. But then the game design can still be heavily flawed and suck all the fun out of specific specs. That's why to me, numbers should be the last resort. Not the go to because someone didn't think things through, lacked time or didn't do any testing. I'll leave it at that. 😉

[draxynnic.3719]

5 minutes ago, Xaylin.1860 said:

Yes it was, but I'd argue that the design is still way more sound than Guardian vs. Firebrand. I'd also argue that the main difference is the loss of condi/hybrid play while power DPS and sustainability has always been a thing and still remains a thing. Meanwhile, Firebrand got an overall nerf. Because it's implementation is busted when compared to core regardless of your build. Period.

 

We quite obviously disagree on what trade offs are supposed to be and how balance should be achieved. If you just look at meta compisitions I can somewhat understand the pure numbers approach. But then the game design can still be heavily flawed and suck all the fun out of specific specs. That's why to me, numbers should be the last resort. Not the go to because someone didn't think things through, lacked time or didn't do any testing. I'll leave it at that. 😉

Eh. I'd argue that your approach would suck more of the fun out of guardian elite specs than simply toning down the numbers does. The implementation is fine. Yes, you have a lot of skills available through the tomes. But outside of refreshing Justice through kills (and trust me, if you had the reflexes you can do some crazy stuff with core Justice in situations where you're getting a lot of kills too), you pretty much have to use them in bursts or spend periods doing nothing at all in order to conserve pages. As opposed to core virtues, which give you the boons that you need when you need them, even if it's a matter of just rolling through your virtues to blind your enemy, heal and condi cleanse yourself, Aegis to block the attack that comes after the blind, Renewed Focus for another three seconds of invulnerability, then repeat if you need to, while having instant Stability from Courage just in case you need it. Firebrand, or even Dragonhunter, can't do that. Number of times back in the day when I got interrupted or downed while activating the virtue that I was hoping would save me, and wished I had the instant-activation core virtue instead.

 

Also, technically speaking, condi/hybrid reaper still exists, including traits to support it. It's just that the numbers got tweaked down, and the alternatives tuned up, so that it was no longer really competitive.

[Panda.1967]

The trade offs on most elite specs are quite frankly poorly balanced… some give up practically nothing, while others give up far too much…

 

Elementalists have absolutely no trade off… their specializations don’t mech well together to begin with, leaving everyone just taking Arcane and one Element anyways… the elite specs just give elementalists and excuse not to take a second elemental trait line… and as an added bonus they actually gain a new class feature… overloads replace nothing… dual attunement replaces nothing… dual skills replace your third weapon skill but value wise they still just add value… core elementalist is factually worse than either tempest or weaver… and they lost nothing to take one but gain everything…

 

Engineers… if going scrapper they sacrifice their F5 tool belt skill to get an ability that is objectively worse than every possible tool belt skill they could have gotten from their choice of elite skills… and depending on the type of content they do, they may very well never actually use function gyro… and then holosmith goes and takes a complete 180 with a class mechanic that makes the trade off seem like chump change aside from the requirement of having to use sword or not being able to generate heat…

 

Rangers have a trade off that is so minor that it might as well be nonexistent… Druid gives the ranger a transformation ability in exchange for a fraction of their pets power… and given how weak the vast majority of ranger pets are to begin with it is a completely negligible loss… soulbeast trades off the ability to pet swap in combat for the ability to merge with your pet giving you a significant stat boost as well as direct control of enhanced versions of your pets abilities… regardless of which elite spec you take you come out on top… and while ranger does have good trait lines that synergies great allowing for viable 3x core builds, the benefits of the elite spec mechanics alone outweigh any 3rd core spec choice…

 

Revenant is arguably worse than elementalist when it comes to elite specs vs core… elementalist atleast has a complete core profession… revenant has to take an elite spec just to feel like a complete profession… this isn’t a flaw with the elite spec designs for revenant though, it is a flaw with the core profession design… it took them almost 4 years to even give them a core mechanic that wasn’t legend swap… Ancient Echo is so minor that no one ever even notices the loss of it when going into an elite spec… Heralds quite literally get a flat out better version of the ability… and Renegades get three whole abilities that each give more benefit than Ancient Echo gives… and much like elementalist the specs for revenant really don’t compliment each other at all… each one lends itself to one specific legend… and everyone takes invocation for the same reason every elementalist takes arcane…

 

Thief effectively gives up nothing as well… daredevils just sacrifice half the range on their steal to get a third stamina bar and access to a trait that makes their dodge even better…for most thief’s the loss of range on steal is completely meaningless… the trade off gets even more meaningless when you look at deadeye… they trade steal for an even longer range steal that makes their attacks buff their stolen skills… their only real “trade off” is the addition of a half second cast time that is offset by a 5 second shorter CD…

 

mesmer at face value LOOKS like it has a trade off… but in actuality it doesn’t… chronomancer trades core messers shatters for its own… only all of its shatters do the exact same thing as core Mesmer, but with buffs… they literally trade for upgraded versions of the exact same abilities… mirage on the otherhand seems to have made a poor trade by giving up dodge roll for a stationary evade… only it is actually better than dodge roll once you get past the learning curve for its usage…

Edited August 12, 2021 by Panda.1967

[ThrakathNar.4537]

4 hours ago, Panda.1967 said:

The trade offs on most elite specs are quite frankly poorly balanced… some give up practically nothing, while others give up far too much…

 

I'm not quite sure I agree with your assessment of all the tradeoffs, because there's a lot more to it than just that. Tradeoffs aren't just limited to the profession mechanic - it's also inherent to the traitline provided.

 

Elementalists absolutely do have a tradeoff - it's found in the cooldown of attunements. When you overload on Tempest, it increases the cooldown to go back into that attunement. On Weaver, changing attunement locks you out of changing for 4 seconds, whereas core and tempest can change to a different attunement almost instantly. Additionally, weaver makes it harder to cycle through your defensive cooldowns (if you want to use obsidian flesh without being primary-attuned to earth, you need to take time to get to it, which is a window for your opponent to spike that core doesn't have).

 

The tradeoff for Scrapper isn't just in the f5 - it's to do with health. You trade your vitality pool for consistent barrier application due to strike damage. The tradeoff for holo is almost found entirely in the traits. There is not a single trait in the holosmith line that works without using photon forge, so a holosmith trades the consistent damage of core for a more bursty style.

 

And ranger pets being weak? Was I completely imaging people complaining about 6k tail swipes, because pets do a significant portion of your damage, so a reduction in their stats is incredibly significant. It's incredibly obvious that the benefits of an elite spec do not outweigh three core traitlines, otherwise valk ranger would not see use in high level play - soulbeast and druid would.

 

Rev I mostly agree with you (it comes down to the fact that herald was being designed at the same time as the core class), but you should be careful about saying that facet of nature is better than ancient echo, because it's not. Facet costs upkeep, ancient echo restores energy. They do opposite things.

 

The shorter range of daredevil swipe is incredibly relevant as a tradeoff (not sure why they thought it would be a good idea to make it unblockable though), and the "access to a trait" is an opportunity cost, which is extremely relevant when considering tradeoffs, because it means that you're not taking some of the core traits. Also, Deadeye has more than just a tradeoff with steal - it gets a completely different pool of stolen skills to core, which is a tradeoff.

 

And continuum split is not an upgraded version of distort, the two have very distinct effects. You can destroy a chrono's rift, condi-bomb them, and they cannot be healed, whereas a core mesmer gets a lot more freedom from their invulnerability. Chrono trades survivability for the opportunity to use more skills. And while mirage cloak might look better than an evade (although it doesn't let you travel as far, which is relevant for kiting), that's just part of the picture. Mirage's minor grandmaster trait is borderline useless, and of course it has one fewer dodge. Having said that, I do think that Mirage should get some other changes to its core mechanic of shatters to differentiate it from core mes. Perhaps if it was limited to 2 clones only, or if distortion was replaced with a shatter that only granted evasion instead of invuln (and then maybe giving the second dodge back).

 

Point is, there's a lot more to it than just looking at the profession mechanic in isolation. Generally with tradeoffs, the best way to balance core with the elite specs is to make sure that every single core traitline on a class has a good and strong range of traits, not necessarily by imposing arbitrary restrictions on the profession mechanic.