Shaogin.2679

The problem is Solo Queue. People think this toxicity exists only in sPvP, but it is actually present in Fractals, Raids, and other instanced PvE content as well. The big difference is, in the PvE game modes we have more control over who we group with. If someone is being a toxic jerk, we can kick him. We can also just block that player and **choose** to never play in a group with them again. We can also specify **exactly** what kind of group we are and what we are looking for in the LFG. This is why toxicity is less rampant in PvE game modes, because the environment doesn't support it. In sPvP however, you are **forced** to play with whatever teammates Anet assigns you, even if they are known trolls that you have blocked. This is the type of environment that these toxic players flourish in. In PvE, these toxic players find it harder and harder to get into groups as more players avoid grouping with them. In sPvP though, there are no consequences for their actions. They can be as toxic as possible, and they know that no matter what they do, they can just queue up for another match and be forced onto someone else's team. Now of course some people will say that it is just unfair for players to team up in PvP, they can't find a team, there aren't enough players, whatever. Solo Queue is not the solution to any of these problems though. As for fairness, this is a multiplayer game, that is the main selling point of MMO games. I find it absolutely insane that I cannot play with a team of my friends in an MMO. Also, you **can** find a group, you **choose** not to. Anet finds a group for you no problem every time you queue. We have a great LFG tool just for finding groups. Even with the most difficult content to find groups for, such as raids, players take it a step further and form Discord communities. As for the lack of players currently in sPvP (geez I wonder why), the solution still isn't Solo Queue. If you do not have enough players for everyone to make their own teams and play against other teams of equal skill, then how does allowing Anet to make the teams solve anything? If there are a lack of players, then there needs to be different game modes with smaller teams or better incentives/improvements to the game mode to build the player base. But just saying "Screw it, swap to Solo/Duo Queue and put everyone in these crazy messed up toxic teams" is the wrong answer. And I just know there is going to be that one person that comes in here talking about how we have Tournaments, yes, we do. And you know what? Tournaments are some of the most fun I have had in sPvP. Hell I remember one night we went in just to get the gold, and actually won the entire Tournament. Shit was exciting as hell. Unfortunately, those Tournaments are only every 6 hours and, depending on your team's skill level, you may only play a couple of matches. Tournaments also don't award Ascended Shards of Glory. So go ahead and get out of here with that weak argument.

But that doesn't really explain why Regeneration is applied every pulse at reduced durations. Also, the wiki says Protection will stack in duration up to a multiple of 5 times. With Hard Light Arena, Protection is applied on the first 7 pulses, pauses for a couple pulses, and then is applied on the 10th pulse. This seems inconsistent with how Protection is supposed to stack according to the wiki.

> @"MrForz.1953" said: > > @"Shaogin.2679" said: > > Was Firebrand a direct copy of Chronomancer? > Nope. > > >Was Renegade a direct copy of Chronomancer? > Nope. > > >Then why just jump to the conclusion that a support focused Engineer elite spec would just be a copy? > It's written right here, in the poll: "Support that buff alac/quickness to team (+might ofc)" > > It was a shift in meta building when it was figured out that classes with some e-specs could provide a gratuitous amount of quickness and/or alacrity. And from that distance it just looks like you want a part of that cake on an e-spec while not moving from engineer. > > >That is hating on something for the sake of wanting to hate it. We can have a support focused elite spec that applies valuable boons without being a carbon copy of an already existing spec. > There's no hating anywhere. If it's boon support it's already done and overdone, it will either be better or worse than what's actually built and likely not any more interesting than the current builds, your best bet for a support that isn't just a one-up would be unique buffs or team mechanics akin to banners. > > And by the way, I fail to see how this is derailing. > > My point that you seemed to miss, is that just because people want a support spec that provides useful buffs, it doesn't mean they want a clone of an existing profession. We already have proof that is possible with the existing specs that can fill the same role in a different way. You say we have too many specs providing boon support, but yet only 3 out of 21 specs are currently doing so. I honestly have no idea why you are so worried that it will perform exactly the same as Chrono, Firebrand, or Renegade. Perhaps I can clarify better. Just because I would like an Engineer spec that can provide quickness and/or alacrity or whatever, doesn't mean that I or anyone else here is suggesting that it should be the spec's one and only focus. Firebrand is a great healer and can provide 100% uptime on quickness, however, it can also be used as a top tier condi damage spec. As for your request for it to be a spec that provides unique buffs or team mechanics such as warrior banners, that honestly doesn't feel any different. We already have classes that do this, Ranger and Warrior. This means a few possibilities for your proposed idea. The first is that this new spec out performs and replaces either banner warriors or spirit rangers. The second is that the new spec is worse than the banner warrior or spirit rangers, and therefore sees little to no use. The third is the most problematic. In the third scenario, your new spec performs equally as well as a banner warrior or spirit ranger, which means it is now necessary to bring yet another support class in your squad. This further increases the overall possible power of a squad and further trivializes older content that wasn't balanced with this increase in power in mind. It also means less slots for DPS, which can make it even more difficult for lower DPS or useful classes to make it into a squad. Personally for me, I wouldn't mind either one being a thing. I love the Engineer class, and I love playing support builds. Whether the new elite spec is able to help with boons or provides new unique buffs, it would still have the makings for a decent support spec. Saying a new spec shouldn't exist simply because it "has been done and overdone" just seems silly considering we already have specs that cover the available roles in this game. By that logic, we don't need new elite specs at all, and everyone should just live with what we have already. That isn't the point of Elite Specs though. Elite Specs give us a new way to play a class that we already enjoy playing. It is honestly very refreshing and keeps the game interesting for some of us. Also, no idea what the derailing thing is about, I didn't say anything about that.

My Charr Engineer, Doc Von Doom.  

Or, they could have Turrets changed to where they are deployed, do their job, and then automatically detonate. If it was set up this way, then the actions they perform while deployed good be greatly buffed to actually be useful. They could also add in the knockback on detonation. The reflect bubbles from the Experimental Turrets would still function as normal, and the buffs applied from the trait could be changed to apply for longer durations at more frequent intervals or something of the sort. This way, Turrets could actually be useful, wouldn't require significant changes to traits, wouldn't be AI that is despised by Anet and the PvP community, and wouldn't be just like Gyros currently are.

> @"MrForz.1953" said: > > @"Shaogin.2679" said: > > That disorganized rant is kinda hard to piece together. Like, why are we talking about wells and chronomancer runes, when people are asking for a dedicated support spec? You're trying to make Scrapper into the worst quickness provider possible? Yeesh, no thanks. Also, why are you assuming if we got a new support elite spec, that it wouldn't have utility or be able to maintain 100% quickness? And why do you keep bringing up Scrapper when we're all talking about a new elite spec here? And alacrity doesn't fit Engineers? Says who? I mean, I'm sorry you hate the idea so much, but it is a perfectly viable concept, regardless of your opinions. > > It just feels like it's your typical support bot with the name "Engineer" stamped right over "Chronomancer" or so. What kind of gameplay feat will it accomplish and is it worth wasting an elite spec slot on it? Unless you want to one-up the meta boon support builds at their EXACT own game? > > An engineer could provide a decent boon support base if Elixir toolbelt skills were more potent, the same way a minion spec would be made moot if turrets were worth using. Many roles may stem from one spec and I'd be disappointed if it was only based on one role and even more so if it was the carbon copy of another e-spec's role. Was Firebrand a direct copy of Chronomancer? Was Renegade a direct copy of Chronomancer? No? Then why just jump to the conclusion that a support focused Engineer elite spec would just be a copy? That makes no sense. That is hating on something for the sake of wanting to hate it. We can have a support focused elite spec that applies valuable boons without being a carbon copy of an already existing spec.

> @"Infusion.7149" said: > After nearly 2 months of this poll I'm not sure why there's so many votes on quickness/alacrity. If you want quickness then basically you can just ask for a slightly lower cooldown on the blast gyro well skill and/or just adjust chronomancer rune (2s quickness on wells) to 3s with sharing such that 50-80% boon duration can attain 100% subgroup coverage without needing to run full wells. 4 wells with 100% boon duration in the current state would put you at 100% coverage with alacrity if blast gyro was slightly lower cooldown. Currently you would need to run defensive gyros (medic, bulwark, purge, shredder). > > Unless there's utility nobody is going to take it over StM chrono / cQB / pQB / HB. This is extremely unlikely to happen since while firebrand and chrono can have 100% self quickness (and to subgroup) with 25 to 100% boon duration, scrapper can't even attain 100% self quickness with Applied Force since it has 10s cooldown and 3s base duration. > > Alacrity doesn't fit engineers as well and I believe renegade revenant will remain a dominant pick for alacrity due to ease of use , group coverage (10 players) and the large radius as well as the condi RR option which is much less clunky than a chrono for alacrity. That disorganized rant is kinda hard to piece together. Like, why are we talking about wells and chronomancer runes, when people are asking for a dedicated support spec? You're trying to make Scrapper into the worst quickness provider possible? Yeesh, no thanks. Also, why are you assuming if we got a new support elite spec, that it wouldn't have utility or be able to maintain 100% quickness? And why do you keep bringing up Scrapper when we're all talking about a new elite spec here? And alacrity doesn't fit Engineers? Says who? I mean, I'm sorry you hate the idea so much, but it is a perfectly viable concept, regardless of your opinions. > @"Jski.6180" said: > Sadly as long as eng has kits and its elite spec can use though kits every elite spec on eng is what the kits make of it. Like having atuments for ele on utility. More of a question what do you want added to eng. > > I like to see an automaton pet class with swap-able parts to changes the pets roll making the eng not the center of the game play but its pet. > > Like puppet master from ff11 (i was kind of hopping scraper would be that class but gyros never worked well as pets and now they are no longer pets). I think the biggest issue with kits is that they don't have a designated purpose. Each kit has at least two or three skills that make it worth taking for a variety of builds, which is why those kits constantly take up our utility slots when we're trying to max our dps. Holosmith helped out a lot with power builds though, by introducing a strong weapon and utilities. You can do amazing dps on a Holosmith now with only a single kit. Condi damage builds are still an issue though due to the best condi damage skills being spread over multiple kits, making it mandatory to bring them. As for the puppet master idea, I'm not fond of it. Personally, I would prefer our turrets to actually be worth using. The reason our turrets suck is the same reason I don't want an elite spec based on AI. Anet never lets AI builds perform well for long, especially when it causes issues in PvP. So if we did get an AI based elite spec, it would most likely be nerfed to hot garbage real quick and we'd just be stuck with Holosmith again.

What I really want is a support focused spec that allows us to fill the role of supplying quickness and/or alacrity. We don't really need any help at all with our healing, since core Engineer is already perfectly capable of that. If this new spec gave us better condi damage options as well, that would be cool too. But in PvE, I feel what we are really needing is a good dedicated support spec.

Judging by the clearly biased poll options, I take it PvP has made you extremely salty and you just want to talk to all the other salt infested players? Just my educated opinion, solo queue is one of the biggest issues in ranked PvP.

Omg, it is a waste of time discussing this with Guardians. Anyways, I've provided the facts, they are there. The issue exists. I will not continue attempting to educate Guardians on the trade off issues of other classes. Lol.

> @"ThrakathNar.4537" said: > > @"Shaogin.2679" said: > > > @"draxynnic.3719" said: > > > > @"Shaogin.2679" said: > > > > > @"Trianox.3486" said: > > > > > People seem stuck with the whole "trade-off" part, but you can also see it as a change in terms of game play. > > > > > Necro, reaper and scourge are great examples of that. They quite differently from one another. > > > > > > > > > > Bottom line, all those three play very differently. You could play them similarly, more or less, but they have inherent differences. Here is your trade-off, or change. > > > > > Unfortunately, the term "trade-off" misleads into thinking about balance... while that is a whole different issue. > > > > > Of course, we could argue about power level, but that's a different story. One might argue Repear shroud or Scourge shades or whatever to be better or worse... but it depends on circumstances... and individual skills and trait lines then, and their synergies with core trait lines...! > > > > > > > > > > The balance discussion isn't about whether those trade-off are sufficiant in terms of change of mechanics. It should be, in my opinion, about the disporportionate strength between "3 core trait lines" VS "1 elite + 2 core trait lines". Is it outof tune completely or not? (Then of course, we have to account that not every single combination of traits is optimal for DPS or survivability. "Everything" more or less work for open world, but not everything is enjoyable or effective, regardless of trait lines, e-specs, and individual traits you took or not.) > > > > > > > > The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs. > > > > > > > > Also, lets stop pretending things like Guardian virtue changes between the specs are a trade off. That is extremely laughable. DH and FB virtues/tomes are in no way weaker than Guardian virtues, they are simply different. > > > > > > > > What would be nice is if Anet was consistent across the board with this. Either all Elite Specs get a legit trade off, or they don't. This business of handing out heavy nerfs to some classes in the name of E-Spec Trade Offs without doing the same for others is really kitten. > > > > > > I think the problem in the case of druid is that with other supports, you had a choice of speccing for DPS or support. Ranger pets, however, always have the same stats, so you could go full support or survivability with a druid while still having good DPS out of the pet. > > > > > > With regard to Guardians, for all people point at the virtues, Guardians are still the profession where you see core builds most often, so clearly it _does_ have enough of a tradeoff, even if it's coming more from having to give up on a core traitline than the virtues. Which, IMO, is a better way to do tradeoffs in general - make the core traitlines good enough that they _do_ represent a real tradeoff. > > > > LMAO. Um, no, people playing Core Guardian doesn't indicate sufficient trade-offs. What it does indicate, is that both DH and FB have been nerfed to hell over and over and over again in PvP due to dominating the meta and player complaints. When it comes to PvE, if you want top heals and support, you take FB, not core. If you want top condi damage, you take FB, not core. You want top power dps, you take Dh, not core. All these Guardian players have 0 idea of what a "trade-off" even means. > > Yes, core guardian is so bad in PvE that [snow Crows totally didn't get an Adina record with it]( ). > > But setting that aside, how does viability in competetive gamemodes not indicate appropriate tradeoffs? Tradeoffs are not about having the same power level of profession mechanic, but are about making sure that that the core traitlines are just as viable as elite traitlines. In PvE, it makes sense that the majority of DPS builds will not use core, since very few classes have 3 core DPS traitlines and an elite that focuses on DPS is pretty important. However, for competetive gamemodes you need a mix of damage and support traitlines to be a sustainable, non-glassy build, in which case just making unused core traitlines stronger increases the tradeoff of taking an elite spec. Not once did I say Core Guard was bad, but way to completely miss the point there. This here is exactly what I mean when I say Guardians have no clue what an actual trade-off is. In the mind of a Guardian, you think the fact that you can't take all 3 core trait lines plus an elite spec trait line is some huge trade off. Like wow, it must suck so bad that you can't make your amazing elite spec even stronger, but you are completely missing the point here. You see, some classes have to make legit sacrifices just for choosing an elite spec, and this is in addition to what you already consider to be a trade off for your Guardian. To use as an example again, the Druid has heavily nerfed pets just for being a druid. The Soulbeast can only use one pet in combat. Mirages only get a single bar of endurance. Scrappers have nerfed vitality. Reapers lose ranged damage in shroud and their shroud degenerates faster. Scourges lose the ability to remain in shroud. Stuff like this is what I am talking about. These are not simply changing out one skill for another, they are deliberate weaknesses placed on the class to put them more on par with their core counterparts. And again, the issue isn't necessarily that Guardian has no trade offs. The issue here is that some classes have these trade offs being forced on them, while other classes are not receiving the same treatment. It was some project Anet started on and then just abandoned. I really don't think I can explain it any simpler than that man.

> @"draxynnic.3719" said: > > @"Shaogin.2679" said: > > > @"Trianox.3486" said: > > > People seem stuck with the whole "trade-off" part, but you can also see it as a change in terms of game play. > > > Necro, reaper and scourge are great examples of that. They quite differently from one another. > > > > > > Bottom line, all those three play very differently. You could play them similarly, more or less, but they have inherent differences. Here is your trade-off, or change. > > > Unfortunately, the term "trade-off" misleads into thinking about balance... while that is a whole different issue. > > > Of course, we could argue about power level, but that's a different story. One might argue Repear shroud or Scourge shades or whatever to be better or worse... but it depends on circumstances... and individual skills and trait lines then, and their synergies with core trait lines...! > > > > > > The balance discussion isn't about whether those trade-off are sufficiant in terms of change of mechanics. It should be, in my opinion, about the disporportionate strength between "3 core trait lines" VS "1 elite + 2 core trait lines". Is it outof tune completely or not? (Then of course, we have to account that not every single combination of traits is optimal for DPS or survivability. "Everything" more or less work for open world, but not everything is enjoyable or effective, regardless of trait lines, e-specs, and individual traits you took or not.) > > > > The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs. > > > > Also, lets stop pretending things like Guardian virtue changes between the specs are a trade off. That is extremely laughable. DH and FB virtues/tomes are in no way weaker than Guardian virtues, they are simply different. > > > > What would be nice is if Anet was consistent across the board with this. Either all Elite Specs get a legit trade off, or they don't. This business of handing out heavy nerfs to some classes in the name of E-Spec Trade Offs without doing the same for others is really kitten. > > I think the problem in the case of druid is that with other supports, you had a choice of speccing for DPS or support. Ranger pets, however, always have the same stats, so you could go full support or survivability with a druid while still having good DPS out of the pet. > > With regard to Guardians, for all people point at the virtues, Guardians are still the profession where you see core builds most often, so clearly it _does_ have enough of a tradeoff, even if it's coming more from having to give up on a core traitline than the virtues. Which, IMO, is a better way to do tradeoffs in general - make the core traitlines good enough that they _do_ represent a real tradeoff. LMAO. Um, no, people playing Core Guardian doesn't indicate sufficient trade-offs. What it does indicate, is that both DH and FB have been nerfed to hell over and over and over again in PvP due to dominating the meta and player complaints. When it comes to PvE, if you want top heals and support, you take FB, not core. If you want top condi damage, you take FB, not core. You want top power dps, you take Dh, not core. All these Guardian players have 0 idea of what a "trade-off" even means.

> @"Kodama.6453" said: > > @"Shaogin.2679" said: > > > > The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs. > > I have to point out once again: Scrapper is **NOT** a support spec by design!! > > Scrapper is currently used as a support in environments like WvW, but this is because of other reasons. They are used because their gyros are giving some supportive qualities and engineer in general lacks a third support specialization (we just have inventions + alchemy). > > If you are looking into scrapper's design closely, you see that the spec really doesn't provide that much support. In the trait line, the only supportive qualities found are some super speed share. But the very big majority of scrapper traits are absolutely selfish in nature. > Even all 3 grandmaster traits are just giving benefits to the scrapper themselves and nothing for allies: > * more barrier and reduced condition damage taken by the scrapper > * stuns and dazes grant the scrapper stability and super speed > * gain quickness based on your might and extra power while you have quickness > > Another evidence is that the used support scrapper build has an entirely **dead grandmaster minor trait**. The grandmaster minor is converting 15% of your strike damage into barrier, but this support build doesn't deal any damage at all! It is camping the med kit all day to keep healing and doesn't even invest any stats in power! > > Want more? The weapon. Scrapper's hammer has emphasis on damage, CC and **personal defense**. Support elite specs have supportive weapons which are either granting boons to allies or healing them. Scrapper's hammer does neither. > > Scrapper, as **repeatedly stated by Anet themselves**, is supposed to be a bruiser spec! Which is defined by having some damage, while having a heavy focus on CC and durability. Scrapper is not a support spec like firebrand, scourge, tempest or druid. It is a bruiser, like spellbreaker or daredevil. I listed it because it is widely used as a support spec and performs incredibly well in the role. Also, even if you want to deny it as a support spec, there is no point in delving into an off topic rant about it here, since it neither disproves my point nor does it have anything to do with this thread.

> @"Trianox.3486" said: > People seem stuck with the whole "trade-off" part, but you can also see it as a change in terms of game play. > Necro, reaper and scourge are great examples of that. They quite differently from one another. > > Bottom line, all those three play very differently. You could play them similarly, more or less, but they have inherent differences. Here is your trade-off, or change. > Unfortunately, the term "trade-off" misleads into thinking about balance... while that is a whole different issue. > Of course, we could argue about power level, but that's a different story. One might argue Repear shroud or Scourge shades or whatever to be better or worse... but it depends on circumstances... and individual skills and trait lines then, and their synergies with core trait lines...! > > The balance discussion isn't about whether those trade-off are sufficiant in terms of change of mechanics. It should be, in my opinion, about the disporportionate strength between "3 core trait lines" VS "1 elite + 2 core trait lines". Is it outof tune completely or not? (Then of course, we have to account that not every single combination of traits is optimal for DPS or survivability. "Everything" more or less work for open world, but not everything is enjoyable or effective, regardless of trait lines, e-specs, and individual traits you took or not.) The issue is that some classes were placed into this rule set of "there must be a trade off", while other classes skate on by nearly un-touched by this whole trade-off thing Anet was shooting for at one point. For instance, look at the Druid. For some reason it is the only support in the entire game so far that had its damaged nerfed (the pets) due to being a support spec. Firebrand, Scourge, Tempest, Scrapper, and Renegade are all capable of perfectly viable PvE DPS builds despite also being support specs. Also, lets stop pretending things like Guardian virtue changes between the specs are a trade off. That is extremely laughable. DH and FB virtues/tomes are in no way weaker than Guardian virtues, they are simply different. What would be nice is if Anet was consistent across the board with this. Either all Elite Specs get a legit trade off, or they don't. This business of handing out heavy nerfs to some classes in the name of E-Spec Trade Offs without doing the same for others is really shitty.

Honestly the grouping tools in this game are the best of any mmo I have played so far. Random group finders may be easier to use, but you have no control whatsoever of the group you get placed with. With the LFG tool, you can go to the category you wish to make or join a group for, and specify exactly what you need for your group or find a group that is exactly what you are looking for. Honestly, PvP would be insanely better if it used the same LFG tool instead of the random group finder. Random group finders are what allow trolls, griefers, toxic, and afk players to do what they do. Sure, they still exist with LFG, and will always exist no matter what system you implement, but with the LFG tool, the players have the power to do something about by simply blocking the player's account and choosing to never group with them again. If it was a random group finder, chances are you would wind up getting grouped with that same player over and over, as we see with the current PvP system.