Dadnir.5038

> @"Kuma.1503" said: > ##Elementalist > > **Staff** > > Lava Font - Damage too low and avoidable. Fix: Deals one tick of damage when summmoned. If it's not already the case I do agree. > Meteor Shower - Damage is too low to justify building for power. Fix: Remove damage fall off per target MS is, objectively, strong enough. Ragnar is right, more than fire, ele staff need love in air and water attunment. - Air AA is seriously lacking, the bounce hardly justify the long cast time, slow projectile speed and relatively low damage. At least reduce cast time to 1/4. - Lightning surge is and have always been a joke due to it's cast time. Reduce this cast time (1/4 or 1/2 at the very least) even if it's at the cost of some damage and it might be worth using. - Gust... This skill just don't feel good to use. - Water attunment main offender is _Ice spike_'s cast time/animation. - Water AA could afford an increase in damage for it's horrendous 3/4 cast time. > ## Engineer > > **Rifle** > > Overcharged Shot - Too many trade-offs for so little reward. Self knock-back has anti-synergy with the rest of the weapon. Fix: Self knockback removed. Agree. > **Pistol** > > Poison Dart Volley - Low damage for such a long cast time. Projectiles fly slowly and don't lock-on, so they often "miss" even when not blinded. > Fix: Fire rate increased. Projectile velocity increased. Projectile finisher added for combo field play. The skill have always been "weak", especially at range. Main issue is probably the animation. I'd prefer homing missile personally as a fix. > **Kits** > > **Grenade Barrage** - Should, *at the very least*, hit harder than shrapnel grenade on a zerker build. Fix: *Slight* increase in damage per grenade (0.1 or less will suffice) With how you put it, ANet's devs would probably just reduce further shrapnel grenade damage... Grenade barrage have problematic exploits which work well in sPvP and justify it's current self. > **Med Blaster** - Was indirectly nerfed with game-wide boon nerf, and directly nerfed when heal coeff was cut in half. Fix: Heal coefficent nerf reverted (0.1 >> 0.2) Well... I doubt it would be game breaking so... > ## Mesmer > > **Staff** > > **Phantasmal Warlock** - Literal canon fodder. Fix: Listed Below > > **Chaotic Dampening** - [Rework] - ~~Chaos Aura grants protection~~ >> Phantasmal Warlock summons an additional Warlock and inflicts confusion per pulse. I'd rather it not be confusion. Bleed might be fine thought. Keep it at 1 summon in sPvP/WvW. > **Chaos Aura** - Transmute added. Gain regen, protection, and vigor. Inflict poison, torment, and confusion. Radius: 180 Yeah, No, Just no. > **Scepter** > > **Illusionary Counter** - Hitting the block should be more rewarding than simply pressing counterspell. Fix: Clones summoned on block 1 >> 2 Pretty strong as it is already. > **Sword** > > **Illusionary Leap** - [QoL Fix] Will no longer cast when out of range of target Agree.

> @"Lily.1935" said: > Except the health sacrifice builds in GW1 didn't frequently drop their health below the 500 average. 55 didn't take health sacrifice either, at least not any build I've seen. The top build that used it would frequently sacrifice enough to offset the damage with one or 2 heals. The orders necromancer being an old and now unviable one. The current most potent build being the Blood is power Restoration necromancer. I'm sorry, but: "What a joke!" 55HP (22HP) bip necromancer was (and, outside special gimmicky group comp, probably still is) a corner stone of Urgoz's run (along with _edge of extinction_ rangers). If you've never seen one, I can garantie you that it take sacrificing it's health way better than anything with 500 health point. For the healer who have the back of a low health necromancer it's both a breeze (because you don't need much to keep it alive) and a boon (because it does it's job at a crazy rate). Too much HP for health sacrifice build just wasn't viable in GW. I don't even know why you'd think otherwise, I mean you're basicaly suggesting that to play sacrifice build that wouldn't use gear/runes to increase it's potency. Along with the increased need for heal due to high health that's just piling handicaps over handicaps. N/Rt builds might be potent for AIs but that's all. It's merely useful to have on a hero when you play alone with a balanced team of heroes. For a player, playing with other players, that can afford to use runes and min-max there is no way you'd play at an average of 500 health point.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > Ele not realty a mages though there no magic dmg in this game condis are about as close as you can get but other then that every thing that is power dmg is physical dmg. At best ele has the animation of an mage but that it the ele class is more of an ranger class. > > Maybe if they gave ele self quickness and alacrity for an "mages" dps boon but it mostly just has the stander boons that every class has. What is a mage for you exactly? Do the damage have to be categorized as "magic" damage for a skill to be "magic"? I personally would say that all professions in this game are "mages" in a way or another and that it's easier to doubt that a profession isn't using "magic". (I mean, even warriors create banners out of nothing, if it's not magic, what is it?)

Like Methuselas said, the necromancer is in a way better place than it used to be. Reaper actually reach "decent" damage while scourge is taken advantage for spreading condition and carrying less experienced groups with barrier. The only sore point is that while it's a solid option for unexperienced group, it does not have tools geared toward clearing raid efficiently. This, and the large amount of player using the profession, make the necromancer a profession that tend to not be in high demand for raids.

> @"Kodama.6453" said: > How does removing the health barrier from the spec mechanic affect traits like Unholy Sanctuary? This is the actual problem in my opinion, necromancer traits are designed around the idea of having a class mechanic which grants temporary health, either through the shroud (necro + reaper) or through a barrier (scourge). > > They will most likely keep this kind of mechanic to make sure these traits can function with the next elite spec. That is the reason why he said that necromancer most likely won't ever be a full glass cannon. True, however, _Unholy sanctuary_ have a secondary effect (the health regen while "in shroud") which make the trait viable even if a part of it become seemingly useless. Beside, nothing prevent the spec from having a major trait (whether it's adept, master or grandmaster) giving some barrier when entering shroud (something like: when entering shroud proc lesser [utility skill name]. I mean that's common design at this point).

> @"KrHome.1920" said: > The GW1 necro design could be interesting for the new elite spec. A spec that sacrifices health for big impacts. It could work, because such a mechanic would weaken the natural tankiness of necro (shroud and high health pool) to end up as a real glass canon as it is always at low health after big hits. Imagine a spec that uses skills that work like signet of undeath: can kill you when used in the wrong moment, but have extremely game changing effects. I can imagine it and I doubt it would have any kind of viability in GW2. A GW1's necromancer sacrificing health mainly worked because of 3 things: - You sacrificed a %age of health - You could reduce your base health to absurdly low level (55hp through gear and up to 22 HP throught -60% death penalty) - Regen skills could bring back low HP base character to full almost instantly. Without taking advantage of the synergy of those 3 points health sacrifice was just barely usable, very far from being "viable". In a game like GW2 with comparatively very large health pool, a core necromancer toolkit totally inadapted and an absolute hate of the community for any skill effect that would be "game changing", it's pretty much impossible to have actual health sacrifice being viable.

> @"Fueki.4753" said: > Unless Arenanet introduces a terrible -700 Vitality "trade off", a glass cannon builds aren't really possible with Necromancer's design. > There is no need to have a vitality trade-off to be a glass canon. Just remove the in-built defensive tools from the main mechanism and you got one. I mean, if there is no "2nd health bar" from shroud/shade to shelter the character, you pretty much depend on what defense your utility and weapon skills grant you. Thus you can choose to not take any defensive mean and be an infamous glass canon. This is where it's funny, ANet's devs could very well remove the "defense" from the next e-spec main mechanism and grant a defensive weapon to this e-spec (like a shield but it could really be anything since "defense" for the necromancer is basically either barrier or an healing source). They could even push it and grant only defensive utility skills to this e-spec. The player would just have to not take those defensive skills or weapon in their build and it would end up being a "glass canon" build. (That's how it work)

> @"Hannelore.8153" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > If the performance is bad after shortbow#5 nerf, then reverting this change would be a mistake. The level of performance of a profession shouldn't depend on a single weapon skill. > > > > I'm not saying that thief don't need some nice buffs, but thief certainly don't need to depend on a single skill either. Reverting the shortbow nerf will only lead thiefs to return to it's initial state where player couldn't fathom a thief build without a shortbow. > > The problem is, this is all Thief builds in general, not just Shortbow. Due to poor class design they have a low diversity for skill use, even if you try to do something completely different you still end up taking mostly the same skills. That doesn't invalidate what I say, in fact I'd even say that it support what I say. Being over reliant on a minority of skills isn't good for the thief. Nerfing shortbow#5 ini cost might have been an attempt to make thief break away from their reliance on this skill. > Compare this to classes which can take *radically* different builds into battle and still succeed. Does the thief truly *need* SB#5 mobility to succeed or is it a specific gameplay that thief players have grown used to? The fact is that SB#5 is a very useful tool to run around but is running around the only thing that can make a thief successful? No, I don't believe it's the case. Thiefs players believe that their "raison d'être" is to be a quick +1 or fast stealthy decap. It's true that the profession excel at these roles but nothing prevent thiefs players to build toward different directions and, in my opinion, if somehow those different directions are lacking, that's where ANet need to apply the buff. That said, thief players might actually need to be willing to explore different gameplay for those hypothetic buffs to be relevant.

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said: > Read what I said to Kachros. > > Thieves needed SB5 to stay 5 init for those reasons. That's assuming that thief being a "weak fast guy" is a necessity. Even the necromancer, which is notoriously "slow", can build to be relatively "fast". So maybe the issue of the "weak fast guy" isn't necessarily a loss of speed but a lack of (popular) options to be "strong".

> @"Crystal Paladin.3871" said: > Necro is not my main but I chose to try out scourge coz of its condi spewing... Applies all types of condi within seconds... Except confusion. And epidemic skill was so cool... it feels so satisfying to Look at those green globs of condi splitting and flying towards nearest targets Confusion isn't out of reach, _spectral ring_ is an etheral field. Not sure it's worth uwing it for that, thought.

> @"Lan Deathrider.5910" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > Warriors have always been able to provide banners buffs, 100 power from Empower Allies, large AoE fury, swiftness, and vigor uptimes, and lots of AoE might because PS has been in the game since launch. The core of warrior support has been unchanged for 8 years, which is in part why they are due for a support based e-spec. PS have been introduced in April 2014 along with a few other traits (5 traits per profession that ANet made us unlock throught PvE). Prior to that Warrior was more about blast and shouts for might stacking, to be more accurate, you needed 2 warrior for might stacking in a 5 man group. Which is why elementalist initially rose as he was a lot more convenient when it come to fart fire fields and blast. At a point warrior even took a damage nerf that ended up with it's support totally replaced by the elementalist. PS is the thing revived the warrior in PvE after this damage nerf. At it's peak, the warrior's support was _Empower ally_, 2 banners and _Phalanx strength_ coupled with _forceful greatsword_. I won't deny that, but saying that it was always there? Nope.

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said: > Performance of Thief is bad after 8 init shortbow 5. > > Honestly that change needs to be reverted. If the performance is bad after shortbow#5 nerf, then reverting this change would be a mistake. The level of performance of a profession shouldn't depend on a single weapon skill. I'm not saying that thief don't need some nice buffs, but thief certainly don't need to depend on a single skill either. Reverting the shortbow nerf will only lead thiefs to return to it's initial state where player couldn't fathom a thief build without a shortbow.

> @"Kodama.6453" said: > **Theme**: The entire vines and thorns theme is already used in druid, I kinda doubt that they will repeat that. You realise that vine and thorns aren't a 'theme' but part of the ranger's abilities? Ranger is all about animals and plants. I just push things even more toward plant than druid, that's all. Should I bring down the bunny thumper idea in the same fashion than you? > I am expecting what is requested by alot of people on this forum already: a hommage to the infamous bunny thumper from guild wars 1. > Give ranger a hammer with CC abilities (mostly focused on knockdown), physical skills which also enhance their CC Druid already focus on CC he got a whole 3 major trait dedicated to this idea, 2 inbuilt CCs in the avatar, 1 CC on staff and 3 glyphs with CCs. "I kinda doubt that they will repeat that." > and defensive mechanics like blocks, for example. Staff convert projectiles in healing, close enough. > Playstyle could resolve around the ranger CCing the enemy while their pets are attacking them. Not very different from druid. CC then hit from afar while healing your pet. Close enough. > Maybe could build in features like having both pets out for a set time, while they have a stat malus on themselves to not make it overbearing. Sure, so that you got locked out of pet even more in large scale fight. In small scale fight players simply hate being killed by AI which is why druid got it's pets stat nerfed, If you badly want 2 pet at the same time, hyena is there. So, I got a plant mage that you feel close to druid in the visual effects it use, while you suggest something close to druid in what it effectively does: CC. Are we even? I do think my suggestion is more likely simply because I do not step onto the gameplay of another e-spec. NB.: The argument about "plant" being a druid thematic is like saying elementalist next e-spec shouldn't use fire, water, air and earth as attunment because there is already 2 e-spec that do this.

No stealth nerf. Sometime you're lucky and most time you're not. It's always been like that.

> @"Cynz.9437" said: > Welcome to the club, you may take a seat next to mirage and teef :) Yes, i know, i am bitter. Jokes aside, i think the changes would be less tragic (at least from your view, OP) if necro and DH saw some adjustments (please don't bring up nova lol). There were 2 main complains about the necromancer: - _Lich form_ AA damage (that somehow dodge the nerf once again) - It's mobility tied to _Rune of speed_ which was "nerfed" (if you can call going from 66% to 50% a proper nerf) I must admit that _Death Nova_ and _Putrid Explosion_ nerfs were ANet's devs at their finest. It was the most comical nerf I've seen in years.