draxynnic.3719

> @"Hannelore.8153" said: > > @"The Greyhawk.9107" said: > > Not likely. The All effectively restricts the possible number of EDs that would have existed during the Rite to only Six, and none of those six have a corresponding Power Set that would match the Great Dwarf's power over Stone. The closest we could get would be Primordus, which is not only a stretch power set wise but also completely counter to the Rite's purpose, and Kralk, which still doesn't line up. Branded don't just change into crystal they get reshaped into abominations. Dwarves just turned to stone, their shapes didn't change. > > ***SPOILERS FOR ICEBROOD SAGA*** > The Stone Summit tried to resist the ritual using Primordus' power and ended up transformed anyway, and corrupted on top of that. So while Dwarves may not be dragon minions, Primordus might have their knowledge, including how the ritual works. > > Its been shown that corrupted beings reveal all to their new masters, so he likely knows everything the dwarves knew. Assuming, of course, that Primordus' relationship with minions is the same as Zhaitan's. A few things that have been considered to be true for all Elder Dragons have proven to not necessarily be the case. Primordus getting less out of corrupting the living might partially explain Primordus being less interested in doing so.

> @"ugrakarma.9416" said: > perhaps is just a random blabling from one these "DRM"s. Based on the[ release page](https://www.guildwars2.com/en-gb/the-game/releases/march-09-2021/), there's going to be a Scrying Pool vision mission where Braham goes looking to find the meaning of Owl's prophecy. This is _probably_ what the scene from 1:08 to 1:20 is teasing.

> @"Randulf.7614" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > Does Primordus corrupt living things? I thought it didn’t. > > Not that we know of, but the Destroyer Queen appeared to lay something skin to eggs, thus implying the possibility of living corruption, but nothing has been confirmed Something like eggs seems to be the way that Destroyers reproduce in general, so I tend to regard the "maybe a creature got corrupted while pregnant?" thing as being the NPCs speculating based on minions they know (Risen, Icebrood, and Branded being the types they'd be more familiar with) while the behaviour of Destroyers is less well known. After all, back in GW1, we had the Bringers of Destruction spawning what were effectively Destroyer eggs. Which could even be a reflection of Primordus' conflagration domain. Unlike most minions, which need to be corrupted from existing beings or created directly by the dragon, Primordus's destroyers can reproduce on their own, allowing them to spread like, well, a conflagration. Which would explain why Primordus seems to be largely uncaring of mortals - because Primordus is able to get as many minions as Primordus can sustain through the reproduction capabilities of the champions. > @"Stephen.6312" said: > > @"EdwinLi.1284" said: > > Well it is almost time and looks like Braham will be meeting with Primordius. > > > > > > > > Take your bet to where this may lead and of course we will discuss this matter in depth once the chapter is released. > > > > For me there is may two outcomes.... > > > > 1) Braham becomes Primordius Champion which may force us to kill him later in the storyline or he becomes Primordius Champion just so he can trick Primordius later and dies doing so. > > > > 2) We learn something we never knew before about Primordius and Braham remains loyal to our side instead of becoming Primordius Champion. > > > > or > > > > 3) Braham dies because that is the most common method for the story writers to remove a character from the storyline since they can't allow most characters to retire from the storyline alive and healthy. > > It's a long shot but...given that Braham's approaching Primordus accompanies the fomer's questioning of the Elder Draconic Cycle, musing that something has to change, I think that Braham is going to commune with the mind of the Elder Dragon Primordus and reach an epiphany. Primordus may surprise Braham, telling the norn that Jormag's protection is the right choice for the norn. This makes the most sense to me from a narrative progression standpoint. The dragon preparing to defend Tyria isn't Primordus, it's Jormag. The latter's decision to chill mortals is probably an attempt to preserve them from the DSD's incoming assault. > > So, my money is on the idea that Primordus will appeal to Braham to join Jormag and will allow itself to be sacrificed in order to help ready the mortal, terrestrial races to confront, and ultimately reconcile with, the Deep Sea Dragon's magics. Given how determined Jormag is to destroy Primordus, I doubt Primordus is just going to go "sure, you should go with Jormag". It could be interesting, though, if Braham is taking the attitude that he should take advantage of his apparent connection to Destroyers to see if he can get Primordus' side of the story. Which could have two possible results: 1) Primordus is exactly what he/she/they appears to be, and once Braham reveals he's not a regular Destroyer, he has to try to fight his way out. 2) There's a curveball as it turns out that this is the first time a mortal has actually tried to communicate with Primordus, and Primordus proves to be more open to negotiation than we might think. A while back, I did ponder the possibility that this isn't the first time that Jormag has used mortals as cats-paws in their desire to destroy Primordus, and Primordus has therefore been acting out of a justified paranoia and the assumption that mortals _are_ a threat because they have been before. It was a wildspec then, and I'd say it probably still is now, but it would be an interesting turnaround if, after the initial truce with Jormag, it turns out to be the persuasive charmer of the two who's the aggressor while the prickly loner really just wants to be left alone but has been attacked so many times that they've learned to push threats as far away as possible. A mortal getting close to Primordus and then using the opportunity to talk instead of attacks might be what's needed to shock Primordus out of their current assumptions. Or Primordus might simply take the opportunity to claim Braham for their own, alive or dead, willing or otherwise. Either way, it should be an interesting chapter.

Well, assuming to Taimi's simulation, destroying the two dragons simultaneously would result in Tyria's destruction, so it doesn't seem to be that there's some balancing factor between them that allows the All to remain balanced if both are removed simultaneously. Unless there's some factor that the simulation didn't allow for, of course. How Aurene's ascension might change that, however, is unknown. We _seem_ to be getting an indication that the Spirits of the Wild might be able to absorb or otherwise contain the released energies somehow: "the Wild together can direct the fall". What that actually means, however, seems to be a matter for the upcoming release(s).

I don't think Efram directly replaced Gaheron - I think it's noted somewhere that Efram has only just risen to a position of sufficient influence to be the de facto Flame imperator, and there would have been someone else in charge during the Molten Alliance stuff (since Gaheron died before Zhaitan did). How, precisely, Efram's faction managed to gain control (if not simply attrition of the belligerent faction) is not really clear at this point, but it was far from a direct succession.

> @"Avatar Rage.4369" said: > > @"draxynnic.3719" said: > > Did Verata actually do both? I thought what got him outcast was that he was killing people in order to have bodies to experiment on, not for the experiments themselves. That's why there are so many skills named after him - the magic _itself_ isn't forbidden, just the means he took to discover it. > > I may be misremembering tbh. But he did the necro-no nos. Which involves bringing back souls, doing murder experiments, etc. The quest where it's initially revealed that he's gone rogue was that he was killing Ascalonian refugees to use their bodies for his experiments - no mention of bringing back souls is made. From memory, he also has no true undead in Kessex, although he and his acolytes have skills that relate to minions.

> @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > @"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. > > > Using kits is totally voluntary. Go on the build site, see what you can find in speccs that doesn't use then. Elixir engineer should still work. > > I think the point is that the kits are always going to be there, which means that any engineer specialisation is going to be balanced on the basis that kits are available. Which, from an internal balance perspective, is handled somewhat by giving the engineer particularly strong utilities which can compete with the kits, but that means that less of the overall "power budget" can be spent elsewhere without making it OP.

> @"Kodama.6453" said: > > @"draxynnic.3719" said: > > I think we've discussed previously, but: > > > > Long-range sniping weapon, and electricity theme, similar to the various tech-based lightning rods and rifles you have floating around in so many hearts and dynamic events. Essentially, something that can really fill the hole in the heart left by GW1 air elementalist. GW2 elementalists don't and really _can't_ - their design is based around attunement-swapping through multiple elements. Beyond that, mesmer has some aesthetics in common, but engineer is probably the most likely to really pull off that lightning-crazy feel. We've got bits of it in core engineer and scrapper, but in core engineer it's basically Static Discharge and Static Shot (and you usually don't want to try to run both due to one being power-based and the other being condition) and if you go to scrapper hammer and utilities, it becomes a close-in brawler with about as much in common with what I have in mind as fresh air dagger tempests do. > > > > But for the time being, a support spec, alchemy-themed or otherwise, is more important. > > Ah yes, I remember that discussion. > > Still think that revenant also is a valid candidate for this "lightning crazy" theme you envision. > This class is thematically already built on the ritualist from guild wars 1, which was the second "lightning heavy" caster in that game alongside the elementalist. > Giving a revenant spec with powers borrowed from a legend who was wielding lightning seems not too farfetched in my opinion. > > And even if we don't go for the "ritualist" theme, there are other legends to draw inspiration from. A legendary Naga stance, for example, was brought up recently in some discussions, mostly about Hanasha Coralfin, who was a Naga priestress with major influence. > Naga in general were using water and air magic in guild wars 1, especially attacks based on lightning were common. Yes and no. As I think has also already discussed before, I don't think ArenaNet's intention with Revenant is to just give it a bucketload of "run this if you really want to play GW1 ritualist again" elites. It has its own theme and design principles. Renegade has pretty much already done that. Revenant should do its own thing from here on. Engineer is, in fact, pretty explicitly the successor to the ritualist playstyle (if anything, it's the other way around: the purpose of ritualist was to give an engineer playstyle in a low-tech setting). And there's plenty of precedent for technological devices producing long-range electric discharges, with a couple of examples even being found among the charr, and some cases already being found in the engineer's kit. But this probably isn't the thread for discussing either in depth.

Did Verata actually do both? I thought what got him outcast was that he was killing people in order to have bodies to experiment on, not for the experiments themselves. That's why there are so many skills named after him - the magic _itself_ isn't forbidden, just the means he took to discover it.

> @"Grand Marshal.4098" said: > > @"Telgum.6071" said: > > At this point support is the class with most sense for the warrior, a well designed spec could give us a **permanent place** on WvW zergs, a meta build in PvP and with enough luck, a guaranteed place on fractals/raids. We don't need a new DPS spec for that, just some improvements for the current one. > > Isn't that Support Spellbreaker for open field zergs? Even for GvG groups. There is also a less popular might-share Berserker with battle standard running around for GvGs mostly. > > Healbreaker in PvP is as meta as it gets, not to mention Burstzerkers always being a glass cannon option which can down in 2 or 3 hits. > > In any case, as long as this new spec has a traitline dedicated to damage, some decent self-defense and minors that work well, I'll be fine. 3 Support traitlines though is a major no. Apart from Druid, that's pretty much what's been happening, so they've probably learned from that and will lay out the traitlines accordingly. > @"Kodama.6453" said: > @""Fueki.4753" > In general, it seems that one big problem with elite specs is that many people are too overly attached to "conventional" roles of classes. > I read repeatedly from people here on the forum that we shouldn't get stuff like support warrior, tank ranger, etc. because "you wouldn't expect them to have that playstyle when you are creating a character of this class". > > Which is a shame, considering that these expectations are exactly what this game tries to make different. Giving you the freedom to do exactly this, picking a character just based off of their themes and then get elite specs which enable you to fill any roles that is desired (damage, tank, support). > It has some appeal to be able to play a character with a rogue thematic like thief, yet being able to have a bruiser playstyle with it thanks to daredevil. > Or picking a mighty warrior who thrives in the thick of battle, but grows into an experienced veteran who is now supporting their allies and rallying them for battle instead of claiming all the glory himself. > > This. A thousand times, this. ArenaNet said pretty much right from the beginning that the intent was that professions wouldn't be locked into roles - you could play Warrior and not be locked into tanking or DPS roles just because that's what people expected of warrior, you could also find ways to support or find alternative (to tanking) ways to control. We've got core warrior and two elite specialisations that already do what is expected of warrior. If a hypothetical "support" elite specialisation is like Firebrand, Chronomancer, Tempest, or Renegade in that it can also tank, control, and/or put out strong DPS, then having that elite specialisation _also_ providing a big boost to support _if built for it_ doesn't stop you from also having another way to play a Warrior in its "expected" roles.

> @"Kodama.6453" said: > > @"draxynnic.3719" said: > > Went with the party support option. It's not what I personally dream of, but it's probably what's best for the game right now. Break up that Firebrand/Chronomancer/Renegade oligopoly, especially since guardians, mesmers, and revenants might want to get to use their new elite specialisations. > > Just out of interest: what do you personally dream of? > > I think we've discussed previously, but: Long-range sniping weapon, and electricity theme, similar to the various tech-based lightning rods and rifles you have floating around in so many hearts and dynamic events. Essentially, something that can really fill the hole in the heart left by GW1 air elementalist. GW2 elementalists don't and really _can't_ - their design is based around attunement-swapping through multiple elements. Beyond that, mesmer has some aesthetics in common, but engineer is probably the most likely to really pull off that lightning-crazy feel. We've got bits of it in core engineer and scrapper, but in core engineer it's basically Static Discharge and Static Shot (and you usually don't want to try to run both due to one being power-based and the other being condition) and if you go to scrapper hammer and utilities, it becomes a close-in brawler with about as much in common with what I have in mind as fresh air dagger tempests do. But for the time being, a support spec, alchemy-themed or otherwise, is more important.

> @"Kodama.6453" said: > > @"Fueki.4753" said: > > > @"ThrakathNar.4537" said: > > > Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be. > > > > The right thing to do would be buffing core trait lines, so that losing the third core line **becomes** a significant trade off. > > And then they can start to remove the current trade-offs they gave to Berserker, Scrapper etc. > > > > But I can't see Arenanet do that. > > > > It's not that easy, tho. > > Some classes naturally have a trade off built into the elite spec mchanically. Like how the reaper's shroud is replacing the death shroud, holosmith replaces the elite toolbelt skill with photonforge, dragonhunter replaces his virtues with new ones, etc. > > If you really want to make the opportunity cost (not being able to pick a third core trait line) the trade off and remove the other installed trade offs, then you would have to rework this stuff too, to make it fair. Like giving reaper the reaper's shroud as a F2 skill and let them keep the core shroud on F1, holosmith gets the photonforge on F6 and keeps their elite toolbelt, dragonhunter virtues become F4-F6 skills instead, and so on. Which will all come with their own package of balancing problems. > > This is the actual problem here. Some elite specs got designed with their own inherent trade off from the very beginning, while others were designed as flat out upgrades to core (druid, soulbeast, etc.). I kinda agree and disagree. I think a large part of how we've come to where we are is that ArenaNet has largely been pulling balance levers to address immediate problems rather than actually having a holistic strategy to boost up the cores. Where the big "tradeoff" nerfs have come have generally been where a particular elite specialisation was overperforming, but where the overperforming builds are still largely using core skills rather than skills from the elite specialisation. This sort of situation generally means that buffing core will just make the elite stronger, nerfing it will naturally make core weaker as well, and the only thing that's really left to attack is the profession mechanics, either nerfing them directly or introducing a tradeoff (which is essentially just nerfing the elite specialisation mechanics indirectly). Which might well be another part of why guardian balancing has followed a different trajectory. Problem DH and FB builds usually _have_ leaned heavily on skills from those elite specialisations. So when they overperform, ArenaNet can usually attack the overperforming elements directly, whether they're utility skills or virtues, without core guardian being caught in the crossfire. Which, when combined with the general quality of guardian core traitlines, means that there is a point at which the elite specialisation's skills and virtues can be nerfed to the point where core starts to look better, without requiring a stronger explicit tradeoff than the trade of core virtues for elite ones. Which, itself, comes in part because the guardian elite specialisation mechanics _do_ completely replace the base virtues, so they can be nerfed directly, and the virtues represent a not-inconsiderable part of their power budget. Necromancer is in a similar position - reaper and scourge completely replace the base necromancer mechanic, so if either is overperforming, they can be nerfed directly. They've always had that tradeoff baked in. Ranger elites, by contrast, always have their pets. Druid now makes their pets weaker, and soulbeast makes it so they have only one, but the pet is _still present._ Even now, instead of completely replacing the core mechanic, the tradeoffs are only _weakening_ the core mechanic in exchange for getting something else on top. Even so, though, they could probably afford to make the tradeoffs a little less harsh if they improved the core traitlines and rebalanced so that the thrid core traitline _was_ a genuine tradeoff for all professions. For some, they're either there or close to it. For others, there's usually only two traitlines that _really_ add to most builds, and without tradeoffs the third might as well be an elite specialisation because _why not?_

Went with the party support option. It's not what I personally dream of, but it's probably what's best for the game right now. Break up that Firebrand/Chronomancer/Renegade oligopoly, especially since guardians, mesmers, and revenants might want to get to use their new elite specialisations. Could easily combine with condi DPS like, well, the existing members of the aforementioned oligopoly. Something bannerlike is... well, I kinda think that the _last_ thing the game needs is another bannerslave. Bannerslaves are locked to every 10-man composition for good reason - making something similar would probably end up being something that is similarly locked into 10-man compositions. Maybe if it was something that gave comparable bonuses _but didn't stack with banners_ - that way it could conceivably serve as a substitute for the bannerslave - but a new set of bannerlike bonuses that stacked with the existing ones would likely quickly turn into one more role that you had to have to be optimised.

Good, because right now, your argument is basically an attempt to paper over your lack of a real argument through an implied ad hominem. There is no balance problem that would be resolved through applying (further) nerfs to firebrand or dragonhunter. Core guardian maintains more use than the core of any other profession, and the areas in which firebrand is dominant are when what people want is something that can pump out a tonne of quickness and/or stability: in other words, the specialisation acting as intended. Yes, this makes it a strong contender for instanced PvE and zerg WvW support, but that's because those boons are highly valued there. The appropriate response if firebrand is too dominant is to introduce new specialisations on other professions that can do the job. Pretty much every argument I've seen for slapping tradeoffs on guardian elite specs basically seems to boil down to "My favourite elite specialisation got hit with a heavy-handed tradeoff, now it's your turn!" But in those cases, ArenaNet didn't drop those tradeoffs just for the sake of having a tradeoff. Mirage in PvP was because Mirages were too hard to land damage on (apparently - I didn't find them that oppressive to fight, but that was the justification). Soulbeast because being able to have both a damage pet and a mobility pet made them just too versatile. Druid because having a pet whose stats didn't depend on the Druid's own meant they could build themselves to be virtually unkillable while relying on a pet to deal damage (that I did run into a few times). Scrappers were basically bunkering gods for a short period in between their reworks. Now, in a lot of those cases I think they _were_ kneejerk reactions when there were probably more elegant ways to solve the problem, but if you ask me the appropriate thing to do is to go back to those professions and find a better long-term solution rather than kicking something that isn't broken.

> @"Lan Deathrider.5910" 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. > > Frankly people over value the instant cast nature of virtues. I say this and I enjoy my charrdian, particularly as a burn DH in WvW. > > Both especs are straight upgrades as far as profession mechanics go, you just see lots of core guards because unlike some classes it has a viable builds still as core. ...yes, that's the point. They still have viable builds as core - because core _can_ compete with the elite specs. Whatever you might say about the core virtues, losing core traitline #3 is itself a significant tradeoff, unlike other professions. > @"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. Core guardian gets used in all mode, so it isn't just a matter of nerfing in PvP. FB has better heals and support than core? Well, duh. This is just like druid, chronomancer, tempest, and scourge being clearly better at support than the core professions. Funnily enough, making a support-oriented elite spec means that that spec is going to be better at support than core, but it doesn't say anything about how well balanced core is compared to the elite spec. Similarly, firebrand being better at condition damage is to be expected due to how little of core guardian is actually intended to be condi-oriented, including the complete lack of an actual condition weapon. That condi guard exists in core at all is testament to the strength of the core traits... and giving up a third core traitline in exchange for an elite specialisation is a real penalty. And that's the real distinction. I play all professions, and for most of them, for any given build there's usually two core traitlines that you really care about and one that's mostly filler, and easily replaced by an elite specialisation. For guardian, _all_ of the core traitlines are good. When it comes to power dragonhunter... well, first, there IS a power core build on Snowcrows, and they don't have "if you only have core available" pity builds. How many other professions have a DPS build at all for high-end PvE that just use core? I'll give you a hint - the only other core build on Snowcrows is boon thief. And boon daredevil does more DPS. What you're bringing up as "evidence" that guardian elite specs don't have enough tradeoffs could be applied to claim that EVERY profession doesn't have enough tradeoffs. If anything, guardian is in the best position in this way, because there are core guardian specs that get used in every mode. No other profession can claim that. ArenaNet's placement of more explicit tradeoffs on other professions has largely come about because they don't have the quality core traitlines that guardian has, so that giving up their least-valuable core traitline wasn't a big tradeoff. Now, if the core traitlines were better, there'd probably be less need for a tradeoff - but considering that most of these tradeoffs were introduced because an elite specialisation was overperforming, ArenaNet was more interested in slapping on a direct nerf rather than buffing core and possibly making the problematic builds even stronger. Which is essentially what they did with firebrand as well - but instead of increasing the tradeoff, they just nerfed firebrand directly over and over again until it was no longer competitive in sPvP.

> @"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.

> @"Grand Marshal.4098" said: > > @"draxynnic.3719" said: > > > @"Grand Marshal.4098" said: > > > As long as it's fun to play and allows me to solo all PvE maps i'll be fine with it being whatever tbh. The support role hindering with your capabilities is what I believe drives people off. Just because you won't be able to score kills while zerging or PvPing, doesn't mean you won't be able to do almost all PvE (aside from high end stuff). > > > > And I don't think this is necessarily going to be the case. Most of the existing support elite specs can also put out a lot of damage if they build for it, and in some cases they're better off in open world and solo content because they can self-buff. > > It is just that warrior is lacking in roaming right now. Berserker is unviable, or super tight to play with (and that's for 1v1 situations almost strictly), and Core shares the same build as spellbreaker. Not enough buildcraft. So a warrior spec which does well only as a support in wvw would not be seen as a fun option to many warrior mains (I've asked at least 20 warriors in the past 2 weeks and they all replied with a no to a pure support role). It's clearly subjective and won't affect Anet's decision though, so it's pretty pointless to have any arguments about whether people will like it or not. As long as Defence gets buffed to match the compatibility of Strength, Tactics and Discipline and as long as Arms get reworked in a more general damage role with perks for the warrior (not used only in gunflame builds) I won't rly care, cause the existing specs and Core will see new builds coming up. That's a fair observation, I'd have to admit - the support-oriented specs don't seem to be doing well in the roaming meta at the moment (except druid, interestingly) - possibly because they often rely on fields and otherwise have relatively static playstyles. I'd probably attribute that to core/spellbreaker/berserker not doing as well as it should, though - buffs to the core lines, as you say, would probably be a more appropriate response to that problem. (Although I do have to wonder if the way adrenaline works might be part of the problem. I wouldn't call myself an expert roamer, but what experience I do have in roaming battles is that with the wide open spaces available, usually you need to be able to dump a lot of damage on a target at short notice to have any real chance at bringing them down. Since adrenaline requires a buildup and decays quickly out of combat, it can be difficult to use against an opponent who's willing to keep resetting the fight until they get a perfect engage. Maybe there's room for a variant which has weaker adrenaline, but can start combat with at least one bar without blowing a potentially important cooldown to do it?)

> @"Grand Marshal.4098" said: > As long as it's fun to play and allows me to solo all PvE maps i'll be fine with it being whatever tbh. The support role hindering with your capabilities is what I believe drives people off. Just because you won't be able to score kills while zerging or PvPing, doesn't mean you won't be able to do almost all PvE (aside from high end stuff). And I don't think this is necessarily going to be the case. Most of the existing support elite specs can also put out a lot of damage if they build for it, and in some cases they're better off in open world and solo content because they can self-buff.

I'd beware of saying that it's hardly humans. Humans are specifically noted to have had a role in airships, and it has been noted that there _are_ some areas in which humans are still ahead of either, including harnessing the wind for power or propulsion (something that charr and asura kinda just bypassed). It's entirely possible that humans have had some contributions in the areas of aerodynamics and how to set up control surfaces that neither charr nor asura would have considered. That said, I believe it HAS been explicitly stated that part of what the scrappers were scavenging was asura magitech from the crashed Pact fleet, so there is some asura in there. In the form of charr scavenging and repurposing asura technology, to be sure, but it is in there.

> @"Aaron.1294" said: > @"draxynnic" controling ur enemyt espec in teamfights is a form of supporting them. Spellbreaker is literally the only class dat has unblockable daze cc on 8 sec cd. CONTROLING UR ENEMY IS A FORM OF SUPPORTING UR TEAMMATES. Espec bcuz CCs don't deal dmg. Jeeez... That's not how ArenaNet defines it. They're hard to find now, but there were blogs before the game released where they talked about their roles. The roles are damage, control, and support. Damage is bringing down the enemy's health bar. Control is anything that inhibits the enemy that isn't actually damage (and ArenaNet considered tanking to be a crude form of control, which is probably part of why control specs also tend to be tanky). Support is healing or buffing your allies. Sure, good control certainly makes things easier for your team, but it is not classified as support. And while in an sPvP environment a good control can alleviate the need for support, that's not true in other modes.

One thing that's probably worth noting is that some of the elite specialisations are probably more aimed towards GW1 professions than GW2 professions. For instance, druid feels to me like a bit of a Ranger/Monk, while reaper is a bit of a Necro/Dervish. My thoughts: Berserker: Warrior/Elementalist Spellbreaker: Warrior/Mesmer Dragonhunter: Guardian/Ranger Firebrand: Guardian/Elementalist Herald: Revenant/Dervish Renegade: Revenant/Ritualist Druid: Ranger/Monk Soulbeast: Ranger/Warrior? Daredevil: Thief/Warrior Deadeye: Thief/Ranger? Scrapper: Engineer/Guardian? Holosmith: Engineer/Dervish Reaper: Necro/Dervish Scourge: Necro/Ritualist? Chronomancer: Mesmer/Guardian Mirage: Mesmer/Thief Tempest: Elementalist/Dervish Weaver: Elementalist/Thief? It is worth noting that not all of the elite specialisations were necessarily conceived as being like secondary professions - some are just expanding the profession.

> @"Aaron.1294" said: > @"draxynnic.3719" U do realize dat a support doesn't need to actually like "heal" allies. He can, for example rippin boons from the enemies so they are easier to kill, interrupt them so they are easier to kill, SLOW them so their skills are slower. Insane right? If u think spellbreaker is not a support ur definition of a support is very limited. That's control, not support. CCing your enemy, both hard and soft, is pretty much the definition of control. Stuff that boosts your allies, whether in the form of healing or boons, is support. Where boonstrip fits isn't so strictly defined, but since it's something you do to the enemy rather than to your friends, I'm inclined to classify it as control. And it's not significant in most of PvE anyway. Sounds like you're trying to define everything that isn't damage as "support", when that's not how they're actually defined.

> @"Lan Deathrider.5910" said: > All that and for a support elite, it needs at minimum a one handed MH to pair with warhorn. > > Pistol could lay down fields and blast them for enhanced effects to grant support to allies while carrying a warhorn. Potentially. Strictly speaking, though, it could have a two-handed weapon and warhorn in the other set. Or it might have good enough support that you can afford not to use warhorn. Pistol (or pistols) could certainly work well, though.

Spellbreaker isn't support. Healbreaker doesn't use a single spellbreaker skill apart from having a dagger as one of its mainhand weapons, and that's 100% offensive (but warrior doesn't have any supportive mainhand weapons, so dagger is as good for a support build as anything else). The only spellbreaker skill that's even vaguely aimed towards helping allies is the elite. Similarly, not one of the spellbreaker traits provides benefits for your allies. Spellbreaker is taken purely because it helps you stay alive so you _can_ use the core warrior shouts, banner, and warhorn to support. You can make the build with berserker (I've done it) and it works... it's just less able to stay alive and berserkers generally are as bad as reapers when it comes to immediately attracting the enemy team's target marker above their head, so you want that extra self-protection. Broadly speaking, most elite specialisations fall into three categories: DPS, tank/control, and support (noting, again, that most support-oriented elites can also be built for DPS). Spellbreaker is tank/control and berserker is DPS. EDIT: Just to clarify, when I said it doesn't use a single spellbreaker skill, I wasn't counting Full Counter. That's obviously an important part of the survivability side, but it's something you get automatically for taking SB, not something you pick up. The point is that the entire utility side of the bar is occupied by support skills that aren't from spellbreaker, and the support offhand isn't from spellbreaker either.

> @"Randulf.7614" said: > https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Baraz_Sharifi > > The zephyrites didn’t make a weapon. Elonian Engineers sought out and traded with them and used the sun crystals to develop the photon forge > > This should work well for you as it is a case of engineers seeking out new materials and using their own research skills to develop new technology. > > One of the early themes in GW2 was the development of new tech by races for combating Dragons and it helped create a unique fantasy Industrial Age. This fits in with that, especially as Asura have used laser style tech and other sci fi styles long before. What we are seeing are the Elonians breaking out into the wider world and embracing new tech with their cultural beliefs Pretty much this. Some additional context is that solid-light hologram technology showed up in the original Zhaitan storyline, and then played a significant role in Season 1 (which is unfortunately still mostly unplayable) and shows up in Season 2, and can now be mostly seen during Dragon Bash events (or possibly the Super Adventure Box). Force fields are a staple in Asuran technology, and while the engineer is _mostly_ based in charr tech, there were examples of force field tech being used by engineers before ([Defence Field](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Defense_Field) is probably the best known, but there are also the barriers created by [Experimental Turrets](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Experimental_Turrets)). The holograms in the earlier content are probably, essentially, force fields in the shape of monsters or soldiers. Holosmith technology is, basically, weaponised, short-term force fields. How it is that the Elonian engineers picked it up - maybe the Order of Whispers brought in some asura tech, or maybe it was developed locally in a parallel path - but if anything, the tech that Scarlet stole from Lion's Arch was more advanced than anything the holosmith does. Holosmiths mostly just used it to create weapons, after all. Possibly that's where the Zephyrite crystals came in - the Elonians didn't have access to asura power sources, so they used a power source that was available. So, the precedent exists for force field technology to exist. Holosmith turns it up from being a simple barrier to shaping it into blades, hammers, and projectiles for offensive use. They still don't take it to the level seen in Dragon Bash of creating holographic monsters capable of replicating all the attacks that monster was capable of. When it comes to the Zephyrites... they're fairly pacifistic when it comes to mortals, but they are fully on board with helping with fighting dragon minions or Elder Dragons themselves when called for by Glint's plan. They helped make the dragonblood spears, including the final one that killed Kralkatorrik, and I think lore-wise they made all of the dragonblood weapons used by NPCs (such as Logan) as well. So they're not above helping in weapons manufacture as long as the weapons are being used in what they consider to be a good cause. As for the anachronicity you observe: Fluffwise, a large part of the explanation might well be availability. Charr generally avoid using magic in their technology (although given how much magic soaks into the environment of Tyria, sometimes it sneaks in to the materials they use, and they seem to be growing more comfortable with it now), but when they find something that works, they run up a full assembly line production and distribute the plans widely unless there's a reason _not_ to. Charr tech also gets tested fairly thoroughly, so by the time it gets mass-produced, it's generally fairly reliable. So, regardless of whether the engineer makes their own tech or acquires it off someone else, charr tech and plans to work from are fairly readily available. Asura tech, on the other hand, is often made by spellcasters, making it impractical to be made by someone who doesn't have that capability. It's also often made as custom jobs by the krewe who invented it, which jealously guard the plans. There are exceptions (particularly in the Inquest and the sub-organisations of the Pact, which disseminate blueprints internally for the good of the organisation), but even then, it's often not practical to mass-produce because their creation requires one or more spellcasters to enchant the item, and those spellcasters might be in short supply (and engineers are generally engineers because they are _not_ experts in wielding magic directly). There's probably also a degree of Stargate-esque "more advanced technology isn't necessarily more _effective_" as well. Out-of-universe, of course, the reason is probably that ArenaNet wanted the engineer to have a particular feel, and a lot of asura magitech might just end up making it feel like just another spellcaster, just one that uses rifles and pistols instead of staves and scepters.