Tempest.8479

> @"Pifil.5193" said:

> Hmm, cynically, I wonder if this means no new maps for the rest of the saga and some wave defense missions scattered throughout core Tyria, with some sign fixing style content added every week or two.

>

> Time will tell, of course, but I'm a little wary of this apparent change of direction.

>

> I just hope that the new rewards and weapon sets they mention aren't just there as hard gold and material sinks.

I don't think this signals the kind of functional change in direction you're suggesting so much as creating a clearer delineation between narrative arcs. With the last episode serving almost as a "mid-season finale" (complete with an epilogue and additional dialogue to transition to the next episode), I would view the changes to the episode naming and numbering as a way to distinguish between season 5a and 5b. You could also see it like how ATLA ended its final season with a 4-part finale. Each of those episodes stands on its own, but tell a connected story that could almost be seen as one extended, concluding arc. I could be wrong, but it just strikes me more as a way to get players to understand that these episodes are more connected, tell a different story, and offer their own types of new content.

That being said, I still expect these releases to include new maps, whether in parts or all at once like Bound by Blood gave us.

> @"Wolfb.7025" said:

> > The existence of consumables that equip players with high control skills creates an unintended play pattern involving combat with the inventory panel open. It's our goal that encounters with substantial defiance bars be addressed by build changes rather than reliance on consumables, and for this reason we are disabling several items in dungeon and fractal content. The following consumable items are no longer usable in dungeons or fractals:

> "_The existence of a Challenge Mote Fractal Boss with 1.5x times the Defiance Bar Damage required for an average Raid Boss in a 5 player mode creates an unintended **need** for players to involve combat with the inventory panel open. So we have decided to disable said consumables so you all can struggle even more by taking the possibly only way of getting through these phases without having to change your build and your rotation AKA the way you desire to play._"

I'm going to have to disagree with you. The problem with consumables is exactly what you suggest is a desired way to play. Combat shouldn't be about memorizing a rotation and expecting that to work in every situation. Rather, it should be about preparing for and adapting to the new challenges any additional content presents. Consumables allowed players to circumvent the need to change their builds to fit the needs of the situation at hand. That only helped to stagnate what would be considered meta and limited the ability to open up new roles and patterns of play that keeps content feeling fresh. With a build system offering as much flexibility as it does, changing what works best should should be encouraged whenever possible.

Count me as someone who wholeheartedly supports this change. I'm not saying that every new encounter needs to be built to force players to rethink how they build and use cc, but I can only see it as a net positive for build diversity and the creation of new ways to play. Maybe this opens up room for some lesser-used weapons, traits and builds to see play at high levels. Some builds like LR weaver, which are not really seen as optimal in pve, could see consideration for some instances of high-level endgame (this coming from the selfish perspective of a player who spends a majority of the time running LR weaver in pve). And if after a while the devs feel that the change creates too much of a burden on players, they can always adjust the scaling of breakbars as needed.

> @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> Raids have always been comparably small and will forever continue to be so. If your idea was solo all the way, and some 5 player max group if you are so inclined, then sure. If it forces grouping (forcing "team work" just doesn't work), then it will be in the exact same position as raids.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. While raids have always been comparably small, my concept would expand what it means to participate in a "raid" by essentially adding a solo raid and 5-player raid that would build on each other and allow for the possibility to be completed sequentially or individually once the subsequent phases have been unlocked. This could allow players normally averse to the concept an opportunity to familiarize themselves with mechanics and ease into a raid. Even if they don't end up feeling up for participating in 10-player content, though, there would still be solo and 5-player content scaled to the difficulty of a raid that players could participate in to test their abilities.

> @"Incar.7358" said:

>These delves, while reading well, don't sound like a method of remedying those issues (that I have) but rather highlighting them, which doesn't sound appealing. Especially the length of time required to complete something like that end-to-end.

I also wanted to address this post again, just in case there was any miscommunication. I updated the OP to better reflect the fact that the 3 phases would only need to be completed sequentially the first time in order for a character to permanently unlock access that would allow them to repeat each phase individually.

> @"Tyncale.1629" said:

> I dislike modern Raiding. You need very specific specs, you have to be on the ball with all kinds of tactics, timing and jumping through hoops, which you can easily screw up and then ruin it for the rest.

>

> For me, raiding in Everquest with my Guild was a social endeavour where I simply had to bring just more DPS to make the Raid possible/easier plus a few easy to understand pointers for certain events during the raid(no pets, watch adds, that sort of thing). The Raid relied on a few excellent players who were more then happy to carry the Raid that way (Tank, Off tanks/back up tank and Clerics) while the rest (me) just added their DPS. What was expected from you was, show up on time, do not go afk and deliver your dps and play out the raid till the end to collect your DKP. Do not do something really stupid. People couldn't care less about your skill set(or rather class) or gear-score. Basically you put in a time commitment, deliver dps and do not do anything really stupid, and you could be part of it.

>

> This was social and relaxed fun for me and I still got to see all those cool Bosses, without the fear of screwing up the Raid, and have a chance on some of the Raid loot. I was also perfectly fine with the concept of the Tanks and Clerics getting first dibs on loot. Maybe this type of raid relied much on the Holy Trinity, though I think dps is still a big thing in any modern Raid too.

>

> I remember the anticipation while gathering in Plane of Tranquility for some cool PoP raid. :) Now it's all work. :/ The original post (which I appreciate) sort off puts the finger on the sore spot here. "Let's train people to do Raids".

>

> **TLDR: design Raids for slackers again.**

> @"Incar.7358" said:

> Fantastic read, but I agree with Tyncale.

>

> 8 years in and I've only dipped my toes into raiding, deciding that was enough of that. I would love to be able to go in and complete raids - I want that legendary armour and to see all those bosses - but the overly specific build requirements and practice needed (or at least demanded by many other raiders) is a massive no-no for me. I'm a decent enough player, but such rigidity isn't fun. These delves, while reading well, don't sound like a method of remedying those issues (that I have) but rather highlighting them, which doesn't sound appealing. Especially the length of time required to complete something like that end-to-end.

>

> Fully appreciate that people want hardcore content that requires a lot of patience and practice, even at the expense of alienating much of the rest of the playerbase, but that's not why I or many others play at all. It's nice that people are still trying to find a way to 'ease' people like me into it, and the gradually increasing scale and difficulty is sound in theory, but it's always appeared to me that the majority of players in GW2 are more or less casual. Those who want to raid will, and those who don't, won't. Not really a matter of easing them into it.

So I can definitely appreciate the sentiment here. As someone who considers themselves to be a reasonably good yet casual player who doesn't participate in raids at all, I understand where this is coming from. By the same token, though, I do appreciate that there's other people who really enjoy the way raids work. I actually designed this concept in a way that I thought, selfishly, could help me get to a place where I didn't find them stressful or work anymore. I feel that the amount of mechanics thrown at someone like me all at once is what causes the sensory overload that could ruin a raid for me. But, if I had been dealing with those mechanics slowly over the course of a solo mission and then a 5-player dungeon, most of the work in understanding what I'm looking for and what to avoid would already be taken care of. Barring a few mechanics people would have to learn from the raid bosses themselves, raids would actually become a lot more accessible because most of the stress from essentially being thrown off the deep end would be gone. And if you or you're group is stuck on a particular mechanic? You can likely go back and practice on a smaller-scale encounter where that singular mechanic might be more emphasized.

And if worst comes to worst and you feel the raid still isn't for you, you'd still have a challenging new solo mission and/or a new dungeon experience to group up with a few friends and push yourselves that way. That way new hardcore content could be added without invalidating its difficulty, but without locking people out from experiencing at least part of the story and challenging boss fights, as well as leaving room for everyone to get the rewards. Everybody wins. The way I see it, this concept would be the closest thing to introducing difficulty levels for raids without actually explicitly doing it. Don't feel like playing on the hardest difficulty? No problem. Don't want to gather 10 people? No problem. Don't feel like playing with anyone at the moment? There's still room for you to enjoy new instanced content.

I agree that the rigidity in specific builds tends to be a turn-off for me as well, but I think that could be addressed by the encounters themselves to some extent. I think boss encounters themselves should be designed for more flexibility in what builds and weapons would be best suited to beat them. For example, just the idea of a boss reworking the phase-shifted mechanic from bounties where it would be completely immune to melee damage at certain points would automatically make a bunch of the ranged weapons players are discouraged from using because they aren't good for maintaining group buffs much more viable, and would actually push players to build with more flexibility in mind

Before I begin, I’d like to preface this concept by saying that I’m by no means a person with any game development experience, or someone who would have any clue how difficult a concept like this would be to implement. This is purely a thought exercise that I wanted to share and gather any feedback on. With a new expansion on the horizon, I thought I would try to conceptualize what endgame, instanced content could look like going forward.

# The Need for Truly Transitional Endgame

As it stands, it appears that raids are not in active development. The amount of players that actively raid is comparably small, and even without the promise of a new raid coming any time soon, I feel like there are several challenges preventing more of the player base from participating. The concept of strike missions, while an interesting system, is not quite living up to its billing as content designed to transition players into raids.

Even with strikes, I still think that it’s difficult to bridge the gap between players who play the game more casually and those willing to invest the time and effort into a raid. Raids themselves were never really designed with this transition in mind, which has led to an increasing split and animosity between players with different sets of expectations and perceptions of how the game should be played.

Even as strikes try to introduce new players to 10-man content, it can be argued that there is not enough carry-over in the mechanics of a strike boss and a raid boss. It also still does little to address the paradoxical system where players need to already understand how to be good at using their classes in an instanced, raid-difficulty environment without being able to understand what that environment is like until they are already in a raid or strike. With no real in-game way to gradually introduce players to things like enrage timers, tanking in GW2, and actual bosses to test a raid rotation on while familiarizing themselves with different mechanics outside of raid wings themselves, raids will remain inaccessible to a significant amount of the player base. To that end, I sought to create a new method of delivering instanced endgame content that builds mechanics gradually and gives new and veteran players alike, even those who feel that they don’t have the ability to participate in endgame, a way to “graduate” into raiding.

# Introducing Delves

Uncover ancient secrets and ruins once thought lost to time, push your way into hostile enemy territory, reconnect with civilizations long isolated, and much more in a new narrative-driven content package that combines and reimagines the best of solo, 5-player, and 10-player instanced content, known as delves.

Mechanically, delves would be split into 3 phases of escalating difficulty. The first would be a solo mission where a player would be pushed to their limits seeking an initial victory as they push into the unknown. The second would be a new take on long-form, 5-player endgame content that repurposes and redefines dungeons in Guild Wars 2. This would culminate in the last phase, a 10-player raid that builds on every experience that came before it.

All three phases would take advantage of modern endgame innovations like the checkpoint mechanic developed for raids. **All three would need to be progressed in order for the first time to unlock permanent access to each subsequent phase, even if the story does not progress linearly. Mechanics established in one would carry over and be expanded in the next.**

1

# Phase 1: Solo

This would be players’ initial foray into the delve. Story justifications could include establishing a foothold into hostile territory, discovering ancient ruins and establishing a base camp for further exploration, reestablishing contact with a town/military instillation isolated by a particular conflict, etc. This initial instance would help set a tone for the other 2 phases, while introducing some of the basic mechanics players will need to contend with throughout the delve. Solo instances would be designed to take more experienced players between 15-20 min, and offer a variety of puzzles and combat encounters that make players rethink their builds to overcome a particular obstacle. This could be completed by 1-5 players, but would not really scale up past the initial solo difficulty. A good place to draw inspiration from would be the Darkrime Delves instance in the Visions of the Past: Steel and Fire release imo, just more difficult. Completing this instance for the first time would unlock access to a phase 1 challenge mote, phase 2, permanent access to enter phase 2 from the initial entrance portal, and a waypoint that serves as a staging area for one or both of the next phases.

**Normal progression/bonus chests reset daily**

**Challenge Mote progression/bonus chests reset daily**

# Phase 2: 5-Player

This would essentially become the revival and repurposing of 5-player dungeons, only reimagined to take advantage of contemporary mechanics and encounter design. This could serve as a continuation of the phase 1 story, an expansion as a result of the events in the previous phase, or even an unrelated story that only becomes available because the area has been secured. The initial mechanics introduced in phase 1 would be carried over and expanded. This phase would also begin to introduce specific combat mechanics that would be used in phase 3. Examples of this could include enrage timers, different split mechanics on boss phases, and specific attacks that could be seen in phase 3. This new dungeon path would be designed to take experienced players between 30-45 min, and would ideally be virtually impossible to complete with less than 5 players. Completing this instance for the first time would unlock access to a phase 2 challenge mote, phase 3, permanent access to enter phase 3 from the initial entrance portal, and a waypoint that would serve as a staging area for phase 3 if the story progresses more linearly.

**Normal progression/bonus chests reset every 3 days**

**Challenge Mote progression/bonus chests reset every 2 days**

# Phase 3: 10-Player

This would function as a fully-fledged raid wing, complete with integrated raid currency and access from the Lion’s Arch Aerodrome once it’s unlocked. This could serve as a continuation of the phase 1 or 2 story, an expansion as a result of the events in the previous phase, or even an unrelated story branching out from the same phase 1 staging area that only becomes available because the area has been secured. The mechanics introduced in phase 1 and 2 would be carried over and expanded. Examples of this could include two or more different mechanics introduced in separate phase 2 encounters that need to be completed at the same time, an enhanced variation of specific attacks that were introduced in previous phases, and a combination of different puzzle/special action mechanics introduced previously interacting with boss mechanics. The length and difficulty of these encounters would be on par with previous raid wings, usually containing 3-4 bosses, and would ideally be virtually impossible to complete without 10 players. Completing each boss encounter for the first time would unlock a challenge mote.

**Normal progression/bonus chests reset weekly**

**Challenge Mote progression/bonus chests reset every 3 days**

# Rewards

**Note any specific numbers, amounts, or items would be subject to change.**

Normal rewards for each phase would include a set amount of standard chests that include 25 silver, item rewards that would scale to the specific phase that was completed, as well as a small chance of obtaining delve-exclusive items.

Each delve would also come with its own currency only obtainable in a bonus chest awarded after the completion of phase 1, and after defeating each boss in phases 2/3. Each bonus chest would contain 50 s - 1 g, item and currency rewards that would scale to the specific phase that was completed, and an enhanced chance to obtain delve-specific items. Bonus rewards would go on cooldown after the first completion, and reset as specified in each phase’s outline. The number of chests would be distributed as follows:

• **Phase 1:** 1 chest/1 bonus chest upon completion

• **Phase 2:** Phase 1 rewards + 1 chest/1 bonus chest per boss (4-5 normal chests, 4-5 bonus chests total)

• **Phase 3:** Phase 1 rewards + 2 chests/1 bonus chest per boss (7-9 normal chests, 4-5 bonus chests total)

Challenge mode would add 1 standard/bonus chest upon completion of each phase, as well as an additional standard chest per boss in phases 2/3. Challenge mode rewards would not share a cooldown with standard rewards, so it would be possible to obtain both sets of rewards in one day if neither is on cooldown.

Delve and raid-specific currency could be spent at a vendor located at the staging area following phase 1. Earning enough would allow the purchase of:

• **A set of stat-selectable, exotic/ascended armor and/or weapons**

• **A set of stat-selectable, exotic/ascended trinkets**

• **A variant of the armor/weapons/trinkets with a delve-exclusive stat combination for gear**

• **A delve-exclusive rune set, sigil, minis, and more**

Each of these rewards could be purchased with gold and a specific amount of delve currency, or obtained at a heavy discount by exchanging raid currency as well.

# Difficulty/Profitability

As content designed to be completed in sequence with mechanics that gets built upon and expanded as the difficulty increases, the later phases could be seen as being more “accessible” or “less difficult” than a traditional raid because players would be given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with a significant portion of the mechanics as they progress through the delve. I can already see a small group of the best, most coordinated 10-player groups, 5- player groups, and even solo players feeling that there is a lack of challenge in this new version of long-form, instanced endgame content.

This is where challenge motes kicks in. Once unlocked, a challenge mote will redefine most encounters by adding and replacing mechanics that would not only increase the difficulty, but would also be unique to each encounter. That way, players seeking the ultimate challenge can still have the experience of discovering new mechanics and strategies as they engage a boss for the first time.

Challenge motes would also be more restrictive than previous iterations. By opting to use a challenge mote, players would not only be triggering a harder fight, but they would be locked into the specific group size requirements of the phase. **This means that a challenge mote could only be completed solo in phase 1, with 5 players in phase 2, and with 10 in phase 3. Additionally, in a move inspired by the final instance of HoT, players would have their downed state disabled.** If all party members wipe the encounter would reset. This would make challenge mote delve encounters the new measure for the best players to test their strengths in the highest-stakes environment possible.

With this significantly increased difficulty comes a significant boost to profitability. With lower reset cooldowns on the rewards for challenge mote progression and bonus rewards when compared to the normal versions, those who master them would be able to turn a significant profit. The reward structure incentivizes players to push themselves to the max, but offers a more reliable, albeit slower, path to earn gold, currency, and delve-exclusive items for those who can’t reach the upper echelons of performance.

# What About Other Instanced Content?

I think it’s important to note that I would not want this concept to be developed at the expense of the other instanced content in the game currently in active development, namely fractals and strike missions. I think that each serve a purpose in providing players with a more condensed, repeatable version of long-form, instanced content that can be developed much faster. What fractals are to dungeons, strikes are to raids. Therefore, I would see this development as an expansion of a dedicated raid team that could release delves in addition to new fractals and strikes. If that isn’t feasible, then I would want devs to prioritize refining and delivering content within the systems already present in game.

# Conclusion

Congrats! Another essay you’ve made it through. Hopefully you’ve given my idea some thought, so I want to know how you feel. Liked my idea? Didn’t like it? Feel like you can salvage parts of it into something that works? Let me know!

**TL;DR: In order to bridge the gap between active raiders and the rest of the community, I’m introducing a new concept for instanced endgame content that combines the best of solo, 5-player, and 10-player instances into a single experience called delves. Increasing difficulty and mechanics that would build from one phase to the next would allow all players to gradually familiarize themselves with raiding mechanics and hopefully be more willing to participate in the fully-fledged raid that comprises phase 3.**

While I think that changing stealth to refresh duration wouldn't be a bad solution, I'd actually like to see stealth addressed from a mobility and evasion perspective first. As it stands, I feel it makes no sense that a player who shrouds themselves with invisibility can move as fast (or faster in some cases) than regular movement speed. As a concept defined by this game's mechanics, stealth isn't intangibility. There's still a person occupying physical space that still functions just like everyone else. Someone who's invisible running around like normal or even at 150% speed, often dodging around in a full set of armor would be a pretty loud, easy to spot target even without the ability to see them. Therefore, I think players taking advantage of stealth should be forced to be less mobile to maintain the guise of invisibility.

**I think it makes sense to adjust stealth in one or both of the following ways:**

* **Stealth now reduces movement speed by anywhere from 15-25%. This is always 25% in pvp/wvw (Bonus movement speed granted by Meld in Shadows is reduced to 25%)**

* **Entering stealth now applies exhaustion for its duration**

Applying the first change would apply a slight nerf to stealth mobility in pve, hopefully with the intention of reducing the ability for players to skip certain mechanics. The 25% nerf in pvp seems like a reasonable reduction in movement speed without becoming so restrictive that it would make it impossible to disengage imo. In addition, thieves would now have a unique advantage in stealth while taking shadow arts because they would be the only profession to be able to move at 100% speed while invisible. Nobody should ever be able to move faster than 100% speed in stealth.

The second change would introduce an interesting limit to a player's ability to use stealth defensively, placing more of an emphasis on positioning and using stealth proactively to avoid attacks rather than dodging away in stealth reactively. Interesting strategies and counterplay opportunities would be opened by baiting dodges out of stealth to cripple an enemy's ability to use them while invisible.

I'd also like to add that the application of these changes wouldn't be in a vacuum. If one or both of them proved to be too little, then I feel that stealth durations should be addressed like OP suggested. If certain professions, namely thief, feel like they're underperforming after these changes, then some buffs to trait and skills could help compensate, as well as reductions to skills that apply revealed.

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> > @"Tempest.8479" said:

> > So coming from the perspective of an ele main I might have a biased opinion, but lightning rod is actually my favorite trait in the game. In any game I play, nothing is more satisfying than disabling an opponent and doing a bunch of damage in the process.

>

> That's fine, but it's too powerful for how passive it is.

>

> And upon that, this large amount of random passive CC that's going on, makes the game feel bad to play man.

>

> Imagine the popular dynamic and feel that a game like Street Fighter has, which is why the franchise has survived for two decades now. Now imagine if they made a new edition where every time a player struck another player, the player who landed the strike would be stunned and punished for it. It would dumb down the original speed and dynamic of play that made the game fun to begin with. It may be interesting to add ACTIVE stuns into the game which were difficult to use and land, but random passive stuns that just happen when a person touches that player, is simply a mechanic that dumbs the speed & dynamic of the game, as well as that feeling of satisfaction that a gamer gets when they are offensively outplaying someone. Random passive stuns actually completely remove that feel.

>

> It makes the game feel bad man. Like it's in an alpha state and hasn't received feedback yet on what to fix.

>

> **This shocking aura share & flashbang trend of passive CC play needs to go away and not come back ever again.** I'd really like to point out that I am not saying anything is OP. I'm saying that it just makes the game feel like garbage to play. It's bad mechanical design from the very bottom to very top.

But lightning rod isn't a passive trait. By its very design, it requires the **active** use of a disabling effect to trigger damage and weakness. The problems you're describing, which I addressed in the rest of my post, are actually the same ones I want to see addressed.

The passive procs of cc are only applicable to a skill like shocking aura, which I agree is a problem. All of the active cc chaining that's available to a d/f LR weaver is what I'd also like to see toned down, rather than nerfing or deleting LR. Mechanically, LR isn't flawed because it's just adding an additional effect to certain skills. It's effectively Terror for cc's in that just like that trait requires a necro to successfully fear a target to trigger a damage component, an ele needs to successfully land a skill that applies a certain effect (ideally one that is easy to read and more difficult to chain), to be rewarded with a bonus effect(s). In order to use LR effectively, an ele still needs to know how to land their skills in all but one instance.

When you talk about passive cc and random stuns, you're talking about a design flaw with skills that can trigger those particular effects rather than the bonus effects themselves. After all, LR doesn't add any new cc's to an ele's arsenal. It only enhances the ones it does have. If access to quick, chainable cc was reduced on d/f weaver, then LR would be less annoying and un-fun to play against.

So coming from the perspective of an ele main I might have a biased opinion, but lightning rod is actually my favorite trait in the game. In any game I play, nothing is more satisfying than disabling an opponent and doing a bunch of damage in the process. For some perspective, I've been trying to make a LR ele work since its icd was removed around the launch of HoT in both pve and pvp. Tried it with tempest at the time, but I didn't find it as effective or engaging as I wanted it to. When weaver was added, however, I finally found a build that suited my playstyle and has kept me engaged with the game in both pve and pvp ever since.

That being said, I understand that being cc-locked can be an unengaging playstyle to fight against. Being a grandmaster trait, however, I feel that lightning rod should remain as powerful as it is because the choice should help define a build. I don't think the problem people have with the trait actually comes from lightning rod itself, but from the way certain skills are designed on mh dagger (including weaver dual skills) and focus that allow for too many ccs to be chained so quickly.

As an example, let's compare lightning rod variants using d/f and sw/d. Using d/f gives a weaver access to:

* **Shocking Aura (20 s cd):** passive 1 s stun on enemy hit

* **Transmute Lightning (8 s cd):** aoe 1 s stun on 1/2 s cast

* **Gale (32 s cd):** 900 range, unblockable, 4 s stun on 3/4 s cast

* **Mud Slide (20 s cd):** 450 range, 2 s knockdown on 1 s cast

* **Katabatic Wind (18 s cd):** aoe 1 1/2 s daze on 1/2 s cast

* **Comet (25 s cd):** 900 range, aoe, 2 s daze on 3/4 s cast

Meanwhile, a sw/d weaver has access to:

* **Polaric Leap (12 s cd):** 600 range, 1/4 s daze on 1/2 s cast

* **Updraft (32 s cd):** aoe 200 launch w/ 1 s delay on cc

* **Earthquake (30 s cd):** aoe 2 s knockdown on 3/4 s cast

* **Gale Strike (20 s cd):** 3-target, 1 1/4 s float on 3/4 s cast

Just looking at these effects alone, it's clear that d/f weaver has access to 2 more disables, as well as multiple powerful ccs with quicker animations, longer range, shorter cooldowns, and even an unblockable effect. Skills like shocking aura/transmute lightning, gale, and katabatic wind can be difficult to avoid and/or are easy to chain together repeatedly with their lower cast times, cooldowns, and by using a skill like unravel to burst another player with these effects.

Using sw/d, which happens to be my preferred variant, I actually feel that lightning rod is well-tuned. Even though polaric leap is difficult to avoid, the other 3 ccs have longer cast times, cooldowns, and very easy to read animations. Gale strike's wind up is very easy to avoid, the delay on updraft arguably makes the skill too weak, and earthquake is easy to spot. The nature of these animations also makes it very difficult to land multiple in a quick burst. And because there are only 4 ccs on an average cd of 23.5 s, it allows for more counterplay by dodging key animations. A LR weaver using sw/d will find themselves out of options quickly if they do not manage to land those 4 key skills, but will be rewarded greatly if all of them hit.

**If anet wants to rein in the effects of lightning rod, I actually think they should be looking at limiting access to ccs on dagger and focus (or removing a weaver's access to one of those weapons altogether), or at the very least making them easier to read and harder to chain. I think the addition of 2 addtional ccs to mh dagger with dual skills has only served to tip a build that can be extemely satisfying but very punishing to play into a build that can promote un-fun gameplay.**

As a separate note, tornado also needs to be reexamined because as it stands, it's too powerful when combined with LR.

> @"ASP.8093" said:

> Something to seriously keep in mind — since an elite spec is accessed by selecting a trait line, it's only competing for *third best* trait line for any build. E.g. Firebrand doesn't have to be strictly better for support healers than Honor, since they're not actually competing for the same slot: it just has to be better than Dragonhunter and 3/5 of the core traits.

>

> One of the reasons elite specs are so common isn't that they give you more stuff (they do! but sometimes you don't even want most of the extra stuff), it's that a lot of classes have only 1-2 core trait lines that really focus on a particular role.

>

> To the extent that "tradeoffs" represent interesting *changes* to the class mechanics, they're pretty cool. Keeps the classes from getting too bloaty with extra additions. And, more importantly, it means your elite spec can transform what your other trait lines do (altering the value of all your Beast-focused traits is, for example, the entire basis of Soulbeast). Stuff like "why don't we take away some of the Scrapper's hp, for balance!" seems silly and dull, though.

I agree with you with regards to specializations, and I think creating new trait synergies is one of the primary reasons why I wouldn't advocate for specializations to be locked out of certain elite specs. I just feel that they should be more limited in the practical means by which they apply these traits (skills and weapons) in exchange for more powerful elite-specific options.

> @"FrownyClown.8402" said:

> Elite specs should be designed to change how the class plays. Tempest gave ele better support and weaver gave better damage options. The problem i feel is that if you go weaver you can still have a viable tank build and if you go tempest you can still have a viable dps build. Elite specs should only have 1 identity, hence why people choose them. Soulbeast was made in part for better boon sharing and team support. The option to not have a pet out was made with wvw zerging in mind. It should have traits that support that concept and nothing else, otherwise its just an alternative dps option.

I think we're pretty much on the same track here. Weaver is my favorite class to play, and I think it has too many defensive tools at its disposal. Because of this, all the best focus skills, as well as sword's defensive skills, have been nerfed. If you were to remove a weaver's access to focus and something like conjured weapons, for example, you could limit the amount of defense available at any given moment in exchange for better quality in what's left. That's not to say that I don't think weaver shouldn't have a viable tank build or tempest shouldn't have a viable dps build, it's just that they shouldn't be optimal. The way I see it, a tanky weaver or a dps tempest shouldn't be that much better than core, but a dps weaver and support tempest should be the optimal variants of each respective playstyle.

> @"Mini Crinny.6190" said:

> > @"LaFurion.3167" said:

> > What about tempest, what's the trade off from core ele? Its better than core in every way, you can to overload attunements. And dont just band aid another -300 trait to the elite spec. Penalty traits like scrapper, berserker, mirage are all terrible ways to "solve" (if it can even be called that) the problem.

>

> Any elite spec for Ele is instantly better because Core ele is absolute trash since being nerfed into the ground all the time, Core ele needs to be given something that Neither Tempest or Weaver can get

>

> TLDR: the tradeoffs anet are doing are pretty trashy, Scrapper and Chrono are good examples of this since Anet have either removed what they did (Chrono) or reduced the tradeoff given to it at first (Scrapper) If we're going to talk about Tempest not having a tradeoff, then we can always talk about how Holo tradeoff is literally nothing imo, Firebrand and Dh tradeoffs are nothing too

You're hitting the same points I agree with. The reason core keeps getting nerfed is because all elite specs have access to the same tools core does and more. By limiting what elites have access to + giving core an exclusive weapon and slot skills, it could create room to actually buff core without it making a particular elite spec op. I don't think that trade-offs have been trashy per se, just more of a work-in-progress. There just isn't a standard for what a trade-off looks like, so they've been implemented pretty inconsistently imo.

> @"ASP.8093" said:

> I think many of these discussions are too tunnel-visioned on class icons. I encountered at least three distinct Tempest builds last night in WvW. If you pigeonholed that spec harder so two of those three became slightly weaker core ele builds instead — or just stopped being viable entirely — what positive difference would it make for the metagame?

>

> Ultimately, the reason that a lot of elite specs get played is that, like a lot of expansion content in video games, they address real gaps in the starting lineup. The risk with the "tradeoffs" project is that it's mostly about artificially introducing new, jankier gaps to try to appeal to some kind of sense of symmetry on paper. That doesn't mean *all* the "tradeoffs" were terrible, but it does mean that ultimately I think trying to use "tradeoffs" as some kind of design philosophy for elite specs is a dead end, which is why attempts to impose the "tradeoffs" have produced *very* mixed results.

I don't think tempest should have any less viable builds, just several playstyles that aren't necessarily better than core. I agree with you on why a lot of elite specs get played, I would just advocate for more of those gaps to be closed within the core professions themselves by adding all the missing skills on certain skill types and giving core an extra weapon and set of new slot skills. That way elite specs have room to be a bit more specialized without needing to be a straight upgrade to core in every aspect. Rather, they would be as good or slightly weaker than core in most aspects, but excel in a few. That way elites would be defied more for their mechanics and optimal playstyles, but not necessarily reducing what's considered viable.

> @"Ganathar.4956" said:

> Elite specs do not actually need trade-offs when compared to core. It really depends on how you want to balance the game. The main reason why you'd want trade-offs is so you can choose to play core builds instead of elite specs, thus creating some build diversity. If you can only choose between 2 elite specs, build diversity is very limited. I think the easier solution is to just make more elite specs and scrap the concept of trade-offs. For example, if there were 5 elite specs per class, there would be no need to balance core at all. Adding more elite specs is probably easier than making core classes good anyway, because core is by its very nature more restricted.

>

> I have seen a few posts suggesting to make one of the core specs exclusive to core builds and add more to it, but that ends up turning core into an elite spec anyway. You are better off adding new elite specs instead of converting a core spec and to an elite.

But elite specs have trade-offs built in by design. If there were no need for trade-offs then scourge wouldn't need to lose death shroud, deadeye wouldn't need to lose steal, chrono wouldn't need its own shatters, etc. The goal with elite specs was to provide a different way to play a profession. If every elite spec was just a more powerful version of their core counterpart then there wouldn't be differences so much as additions. These trade-offs are also what distinguish elite specs from each other, and create new playstyles for a profession.

Even though I don't agree with making certain specializations exclusive to core, those posts all look to address one of the fundamental balance problems that's cropped up since elite specs were added. That being that all elites have access to all of the aspects of core classes and more. This means that any buff to a core weapon, skill, or trait serves as an indirect buff to every elite spec, and any nerf intended to tone down a paticular elite spec hurts core. Regardless of how many elite specs exist, core is always going to need to be balanced because certain elite specs are bound to make different aspects of the base professions overpowered. At the same time, it needs to be acknowledged that core professions have their own playstyles and they should be just as viable as an elite. Therefore, I do think we need to be treating core professions more like an elite spec. I'm just suggesting removing a set of skills rather than a particular specialization from elites to accomplish those goals.

I actually think core should feel less restricted than elites. That way there's actually room to add something like 3 extra elites per profession in the first place. If elite specs aren't a bit more restrictive, than there would quickly become a point where adding a new elite just becomes redundant because there's already one that does the same things as good or better. It would be better for build diversity and the longevity of the elite spec system as a whole.

> @"Anchoku.8142" said:

> I won't comment on other professions, though I do play them, but core Necro seems difficult to bring up to the level of Reaper, for example, because everything available in core specializations is also available in elite specializations except for Death Shroud.

>

> Arenanet might be thinking about core traits and damage or sustain multipliers and how to spread them around so that taking 3 core trait lines has roughly the same value as 2 core + 1 elite. Elite specializations normally add some capability and value to a profession that was poor or missing in the core profession.

>

> Reaper provided power-cleave that core Necro lacked so much that it was often banned from dungeon groups. Scourge and the earlier Blood Magic rework gave a support build option that did not conflict for compete directly against Druid, Chrono, or banner-slave Warrior.

>

> Finding new niches for each profession feels difficult when thinking of 9 new elites but bringing core and elite specializations closer to similar value is worthwhile. Some core professions are in better shape than others when compared to an elite but balancing value between specializations in a profession could require some major changes.

>

> Edit: Arenanet could set up trait lines so the third line can only be one of 2 or 3 of Core's 5 and the elite specializations may have blocks on certain core specializations. Massive rework of traits would result, though.

As it stands right now, I completely agree with you that core seems difficult to bring up to the level of elites. And I'm not sure if we should be looking to improve core through sheer numbers. I think removing access to certain traitlines would also swing too far in the other direction in terms of removing build diversity. Rather, I feel that core professions should become much more versatile in the tools available to them than elites in exchange for specialized output. This is why I suggest removing skills from elite specs and actually adding a core-exclusive weapon(s) and set of utilities. To compensate, the mechanics, skills and traits exclusive to elites themselves should become more powerful (and in some cases overhauled to become more distinct and specialized from core). The way I see it, core should be reasonably good at most things, but elites should be incredible at a few things. I made a thread about it not too long ago:

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/111135/rethinking-elite-specializations

In the case of core necro to reaper, I'd like to preface by saying that it's also one of my favorite professions to play. That being said, I think that reaper should lose access to staff and spectral skills by default. This would immediately create a niche for core necro because it would now be the only way to effectively use lich form, while tuning lich form down without access to as many damage modifiers inherent to reaper. It would also lock reapers into close-to-mid range combat, creating room for core necro in modes like WvW. To compensate, reaper's shroud, shouts, and reaper-specific traits should be buffed and given additional functionality. That way, there's an increased risk without some of the defensive capabilities, but higher reward if a reaper plays to its strengths. Or take the safer, more versatile approach afforded by core necro.

As a crazy example, imagine if being in reaper's shroud also granted a moving, pulsing, 180 radius PBAoE chill field, but it would become a lot easier to kite and cc without the access to staff and spectral skills. This would create a big upside for reapers who could manage to keep their enemies close, but create more opportunities for counterplay with ranged damage. Note that this would also accompany serious numbers tweaks and other improvements that I can't think of right now, but I hope it illustrates my point well enough.

> @"OtakuModeEngage.8679" said:

> > @"Tempest.8479" said:

> > > @"OtakuModeEngage.8679" said:

> > > > @"Tempest.8479" said:

> > > > > @"OtakuModeEngage.8679" said:

> > > > > Im against splitting the meta for 4 reasons:

> > > > > 1. In this map takes place the entire charr civil war from start to end, which would take weeks/months of fighting, and a long meta is a good way of representing that, giving the feel of the long drawn out conflict.

> > > > > 2. In battle logic, it wouldnt make sense to advance in the north half of the map before capturing the south half, as it would cut us off from supplies and reinforcements, and place enemies on both sides, allowing them to route us.

> > > > > 3. Two metas divides the map population, making each event within the meta, and thus the overall meta take longer to complete, and increases the risk of meta failure.

> > > > > 4. This meta is a unique and organic set of events, that shouldnt be replicated in other maps, but definitely deserves its place in the game as it gives this epic feeling of being in a prolonged battle, having to capture, hold, and advance, and fight your way acrost the entire map.

> > > > >

> > > > > That said however, 2.5hrs IS definitely too long. Some people only have that much time to play, and dont want to spend it all in just one map. Other people dont even have that much time and cant finish the meta. And many of the achievements require rng drops, which each time you fail to get, require another 2.5hrs just to try again. This can be extremely irritating, especially on a limited play schedule. So the event DOES NEED to be shortened.

> > > > >

> > > > > Here's a few minor cuts that individually dont seem to effect each event that much, but overall can make a big difference how long it takes to complete the entire meta:

> > > > > *Bosses:

> > > > > 1. Cut the Health Bar by 5~15% depending on how important the boss is.

> > > > > 2. Cut the Break Bar by 5~15% depending on how important the boss is.

> > > > > *Champions:

> > > > > 1. During meta events deactivate champion loot from all random champion spawns that are not nessisary to progress the meta, this will discourage champion farming when players should be attacking the boss.

> > > > > *Moral:

> > > > > 1. Cut down on the amount of moral needed to start the next event.

> > > > > 2. Cut down on the amount of demoralization needed to spawn the boss.

> > > > > *Capture:

> > > > > 1. Cut down on the time you need to stand in the capture circle.

> > > > > *Spawning Tribunes:

> > > > > 1. Instead of 3 events required to spawn the next Tribune, make it only 1, randonly selected of the possible options.

> > > > > 2. Instead of 3 portals or 3 cannons needed to be destroyed to complete an event, make it 1.

> > > > > *Dominion Catch Keepers:

> > > > > 1. Have Kasmeer follow you to each dominion Catch Keeper, and place a portal to the next. Or have a Char Chopper arrive after you defeat a catch keeper, taking you to the next.

> > > > > 2. After all Catch Keepers are destroyed, start the north half of the meta immediately. The timer can still remain giving people a chance to collect loot, but dont keep the meta waiting.

> > > >

> > > > I completely agree with you on keeping the meta together and I agree with you on a lot of mechanical changes, except for certain things like the reduction of boss health and breakbars. I feel that by shortening the length of the event somewhat, the actual encounters should become more meaningful and difficult to compensate. I also think that maybe reducing the events needed to spawn tribunes to 1 might be going too much in the other direction, unless the one event that was left would take as long as at least 1.5 events currently. I'd probably reduce it to 2 events before tribune spawn and see how that affects the meta length before going down to 1. I'm also unclear what you mean by keeping the timer but stating the northern half immediately. Wouldn't the timer serve no purpose if the meta has already progressed?

> > >

> > > Hey, so I was just listing every possible shortening method I could think of. They dont have to do all of this, but any combo of it could help trim things down and the more they trim the shorter it becomes.

> > >

> > > Imo the tribune spawning events were never difficult, they were only time consuming, so trimming them to 1 removes no difficulty, it only speeds things up. If they want to make the events themselves more difficult, by all means, but I in no way believe numbers create difficulty.

> > >

> > > As for the timer bit, currently when it hits zero, all the loot chest dissapear and the next event begins. What I was proposing is that as soon as the last keeper dies, the next event starts immediatly, regardless of how much time is left. But the timer remains, not as an event fail timer, but a hurry up and get your chest while they are still available timer. Because if the chest dissapeared immediately as soon as the last catch keeper died, a lot of people wouldnt get them.

> >

> > Yeah I completely understand that the list of changes wasn't necessarily meant as a suggestion to implement everything, and even if only some of those would be added I think it would be an overall positive for the health of the meta. I guess my only objection to your proposed changes was just that reducing the number of events down to 1 wouldn't make those encounters feel as meaningful, especially as these territories should theoretically be more heavily fortified given their proximity to the citadel. I 100% agree with you that numbers don't equal difficulty. I just feel like claiming those territories after 1 event would feel a bit too easy, especially coming from the southern half where capturing objectives was made to be such a big ordeal.

> >

> > Thanks for the clarification on the timer change. Now that you say it like that, I could definitely see its merits. The only problem I could foresee would be some people not realizing the new meta has already started, but I think it could be solved with the proper telegraphing and wording on the timer itself.

>

> I agree those areas should feel fortified, but oddly enough, half of them aren't, there isn't so much as a campsite, much less walls and cannons, which makes me question why we cap them in the first place. I suppose one could argue that the terrain itself holds some kind of strategic value, but honestly it feels like the only reason they put caps there is to give us a reason to fight tribunes. I think they could do without it, and just spawn those tribunes(the ones not actually guarding a camp) in the fortress.

That's actually a really good point. What if there was a lesser version of the storm that helps push people off the northern half present the whole time? It could work similar to the frostbite aura on the Whisper of Jormag strike. That way it could be explained that the Dominion/Frost Legion didn't feel the need to fortify the citadel's immediate surroundings as much because they were using the storm itself as cover.

This could create an added layer of difficulty to the area, making it feel more oppressive to traverse on your own while also creating more of a need for support builds/the medizooka. Then they could reduce the number of events to capture the territories or move the tribunes like you suggested without it feeling like they were making things too easy for players.

I would imagine that it would also dissipate after the final assault finished, giving people time to explore without the need to rush chests only to return with a vengeance to push people off the map.

Edit: now that I think about it, it could also just work like the blizzard in Bjora. Just add a few raven shrines to the northern half and it would work imo.

> @"OtakuModeEngage.8679" said:

> > @"Tempest.8479" said:

> > > @"OtakuModeEngage.8679" said:

> > > Im against splitting the meta for 4 reasons:

> > > 1. In this map takes place the entire charr civil war from start to end, which would take weeks/months of fighting, and a long meta is a good way of representing that, giving the feel of the long drawn out conflict.

> > > 2. In battle logic, it wouldnt make sense to advance in the north half of the map before capturing the south half, as it would cut us off from supplies and reinforcements, and place enemies on both sides, allowing them to route us.

> > > 3. Two metas divides the map population, making each event within the meta, and thus the overall meta take longer to complete, and increases the risk of meta failure.

> > > 4. This meta is a unique and organic set of events, that shouldnt be replicated in other maps, but definitely deserves its place in the game as it gives this epic feeling of being in a prolonged battle, having to capture, hold, and advance, and fight your way acrost the entire map.

> > >

> > > That said however, 2.5hrs IS definitely too long. Some people only have that much time to play, and dont want to spend it all in just one map. Other people dont even have that much time and cant finish the meta. And many of the achievements require rng drops, which each time you fail to get, require another 2.5hrs just to try again. This can be extremely irritating, especially on a limited play schedule. So the event DOES NEED to be shortened.

> > >

> > > Here's a few minor cuts that individually dont seem to effect each event that much, but overall can make a big difference how long it takes to complete the entire meta:

> > > *Bosses:

> > > 1. Cut the Health Bar by 5~15% depending on how important the boss is.

> > > 2. Cut the Break Bar by 5~15% depending on how important the boss is.

> > > *Champions:

> > > 1. During meta events deactivate champion loot from all random champion spawns that are not nessisary to progress the meta, this will discourage champion farming when players should be attacking the boss.

> > > *Moral:

> > > 1. Cut down on the amount of moral needed to start the next event.

> > > 2. Cut down on the amount of demoralization needed to spawn the boss.

> > > *Capture:

> > > 1. Cut down on the time you need to stand in the capture circle.

> > > *Spawning Tribunes:

> > > 1. Instead of 3 events required to spawn the next Tribune, make it only 1, randonly selected of the possible options.

> > > 2. Instead of 3 portals or 3 cannons needed to be destroyed to complete an event, make it 1.

> > > *Dominion Catch Keepers:

> > > 1. Have Kasmeer follow you to each dominion Catch Keeper, and place a portal to the next. Or have a Char Chopper arrive after you defeat a catch keeper, taking you to the next.

> > > 2. After all Catch Keepers are destroyed, start the north half of the meta immediately. The timer can still remain giving people a chance to collect loot, but dont keep the meta waiting.

> >

> > I completely agree with you on keeping the meta together and I agree with you on a lot of mechanical changes, except for certain things like the reduction of boss health and breakbars. I feel that by shortening the length of the event somewhat, the actual encounters should become more meaningful and difficult to compensate. I also think that maybe reducing the events needed to spawn tribunes to 1 might be going too much in the other direction, unless the one event that was left would take as long as at least 1.5 events currently. I'd probably reduce it to 2 events before tribune spawn and see how that affects the meta length before going down to 1. I'm also unclear what you mean by keeping the timer but stating the northern half immediately. Wouldn't the timer serve no purpose if the meta has already progressed?

>

> Hey, so I was just listing every possible shortening method I could think of. They dont have to do all of this, but any combo of it could help trim things down and the more they trim the shorter it becomes.

>

> Imo the tribune spawning events were never difficult, they were only time consuming, so trimming them to 1 removes no difficulty, it only speeds things up. If they want to make the events themselves more difficult, by all means, but I in no way believe numbers create difficulty.

>

> As for the timer bit, currently when it hits zero, all the loot chest dissapear and the next event begins. What I was proposing is that as soon as the last keeper dies, the next event starts immediatly, regardless of how much time is left. But the timer remains, not as an event fail timer, but a hurry up and get your chest while they are still available timer. Because if the chest dissapeared immediately as soon as the last catch keeper died, a lot of people wouldnt get them.

Yeah I completely understand that the list of changes wasn't necessarily meant as a suggestion to implement everything, and even if only some of those would be added I think it would be an overall positive for the health of the meta. I guess my only objection to your proposed changes was just that reducing the number of events down to 1 wouldn't make those encounters feel as meaningful, especially as these territories should theoretically be more heavily fortified given their proximity to the citadel. I 100% agree with you that numbers don't equal difficulty. I just feel like claiming those territories after 1 event would feel a bit too easy, especially coming from the southern half where capturing objectives was made to be such a big ordeal.

Thanks for the clarification on the timer change. Now that you say it like that, I could definitely see its merits. The only problem I could foresee would be some people not realizing the new meta has already started, but I think it could be solved with the proper telegraphing and wording on the timer itself.

> @"OtakuModeEngage.8679" said:

> Im against splitting the meta for 4 reasons:

> 1. In this map takes place the entire charr civil war from start to end, which would take weeks/months of fighting, and a long meta is a good way of representing that, giving the feel of the long drawn out conflict.

> 2. In battle logic, it wouldnt make sense to advance in the north half of the map before capturing the south half, as it would cut us off from supplies and reinforcements, and place enemies on both sides, allowing them to route us.

> 3. Two metas divides the map population, making each event within the meta, and thus the overall meta take longer to complete, and increases the risk of meta failure.

> 4. This meta is a unique and organic set of events, that shouldnt be replicated in other maps, but definitely deserves its place in the game as it gives this epic feeling of being in a prolonged battle, having to capture, hold, and advance, and fight your way acrost the entire map.

>

> That said however, 2.5hrs IS definitely too long. Some people only have that much time to play, and dont want to spend it all in just one map. Other people dont even have that much time and cant finish the meta. And many of the achievements require rng drops, which each time you fail to get, require another 2.5hrs just to try again. This can be extremely irritating, especially on a limited play schedule. So the event DOES NEED to be shortened.

>

> Here's a few minor cuts that individually dont seem to effect each event that much, but overall can make a big difference how long it takes to complete the entire meta:

> *Bosses:

> 1. Cut the Health Bar by 5~15% depending on how important the boss is.

> 2. Cut the Break Bar by 5~15% depending on how important the boss is.

> *Champions:

> 1. During meta events deactivate champion loot from all random champion spawns that are not nessisary to progress the meta, this will discourage champion farming when players should be attacking the boss.

> *Moral:

> 1. Cut down on the amount of moral needed to start the next event.

> 2. Cut down on the amount of demoralization needed to spawn the boss.

> *Capture:

> 1. Cut down on the time you need to stand in the capture circle.

> *Spawning Tribunes:

> 1. Instead of 3 events required to spawn the next Tribune, make it only 1, randonly selected of the possible options.

> 2. Instead of 3 portals or 3 cannons needed to be destroyed to complete an event, make it 1.

> *Dominion Catch Keepers:

> 1. Have Kasmeer follow you to each dominion Catch Keeper, and place a portal to the next. Or have a Char Chopper arrive after you defeat a catch keeper, taking you to the next.

> 2. After all Catch Keepers are destroyed, start the north half of the meta immediately. The timer can still remain giving people a chance to collect loot, but dont keep the meta waiting.

I completely agree with you on keeping the meta together and I agree with you on a lot of mechanical changes, except for certain things like the reduction of boss health and breakbars. I feel that by shortening the length of the event somewhat, the actual encounters should become more meaningful and difficult to compensate. I also think that maybe reducing the events needed to spawn tribunes to 1 might be going too much in the other direction, unless the one event that was left would take as long as at least 1.5 events currently. I'd probably reduce it to 2 events before tribune spawn and see how that affects the meta length before going down to 1. I'm also unclear what you mean by keeping the timer but stating the northern half immediately. Wouldn't the timer serve no purpose if the meta has already progressed?

> @"Kodama.6453" said:

> The problem is that such a trade off would first require a **heavy** rework of the engineer class.

>

> Losing access to a weapon hurts engineer quite alot, considering that core engineer just has 3 core weapons: pistol, shield, rifle. Other classes like warrior or ranger can still do fine and have alot of different build options even after losing 1 weapon from their arsenal, but doing that to the engineer would really hurt their build diversity.

>

> Losing access to a utility skill type is difficult, since engineer isn't like the other professions when it comes to the number of their utility skills. Other classes have 5 different utility skill categories with 4 utility skills each. Engineer on the other hand just has 4 different utility skill types (elixirs, kits, turrets, gadgets) with 5 utility skills each.

> Losing one utility type would be unfair for engineer here, since they would lose 1 more utility skill than the other classes.

>

> The only ways to fix this imbalance in utility skills would be to either rework one skill of each utility type they have into a new 5th utility type or giving every new engineer elite spec 5 new utility skills instead of the standard 4.

> Both would require some work.

Hey Kodama!

We actually talked about this in the thread I created a little bit ago. I completely agree with you that it would require a rework of the structure for core engi utility skills. I suggested combining some functionality to reduce the number of utilities per type down to 4 and creating a new skill type for core engi altogether, or taking four of the established utilities and reworking animations to create a new skill type from what's already there. I don't think the limited weapon pool would be as much of a problem because of kits, but if devs felt that it was too oppressive to engineer they could give engi a new weapon to be used across all specs by default or make an exception for the weapon loss if they remove kits.

This was actually what I had suggested for holo, by removing kits and instead giving them enhanced heat interactivity while giving holo in-combat weapon swap, all while not removing a weapon from their arsenal to compensate.

So I wholly disagree that trade-offs are the problem. As a concept, trade-offs are the only reason elite specs work. By losing access to certain mechanics and gaining access to others, an elite spec can actually carve out a playstyle that's different from what the core professions can offer. I just think that because there's no standard for what a trade-off looks like, they've been implemented inconsistently across the board.

I might be in the minority, but I'm actually of the belief that elite specs should be trading access to a weapon and set of utility skills for their own set of exclusive tools and mechanics. That way devs can actually ease some of the mechanical penalties they've added to classes like berserker and mirage, buff elite spec mechanics accross the board to make them feel more distinct, and maybe look to overhaul or rework some elite specs that feel like there isn't enough of a difference in the playstyles they offer from core. I actually think core specs should have the most access to weapons and skills at any given time, while elites should trade some of that versatility for access to powerful, specialized mechanics that make them excel in certain ways that core professions could never do on their own.

I'd like to echo everyone saying that this change is an overall positive change for the meta. That being said, I still think it needs a bit more work to help make some of the encounters more engaging and incentivize zergs to split up a bit more to finish the northern part faster. Some additional changes to the events that I've thought of could include all/some of the following:

* Consider moving the 4 caches that spawn after all tribunes except the Iron Legion one to the Iron Lookout where the assault starts. This way groups would be more encouraged to split up to capture the territories simultaneously without feeling that they're losing out on loot. This might require extending the timer before the assault starts by a minute or two.

* Make the guardian elemental relevant. I've done the meta at least 6 times and it's been deleted within seconds every time. Idk if this would mean making it do more damage or giving it more health, but it's a non-factor right now.

* Make the 3 champs in the final assault need to be defeated simultaneously. That way it'll require more coordination and stop it from feeling like the entire zerg is just beating one and moving on to the next. To compensate, reset the timer on the final fight to at least 15 min once the event succeeds.

* Make the Claw break out of the ice at 10% health. Also consider increasing the strength of the winds it summons by 30-50% and/or making them last longer because I've never really seen a zerg actually forced to interact with the boulders or feel like large groups of people were ever in danger of falling off the cliff.

As for the southern half, I honestly think most problems with timing would be solved if they reduced the intervals between supply drops to 8 min and adjusted the progress bar accordingly so that the amount of supply drops would remain the same.

> @"Taril.8619" said:

>

> It's not really the same. All you're doing is making Core a new E-Spec. With the same annoying restrictions on weapons and skills.

>

> Only now you're abitrarily removing certain things that could be used to make builds within ALL specs.

>

> With from what it sounds like, making E-Specs hyper focused on being the best at a particular type of build, further reducing build diversity...

Actually yeah, I think core should be treated like more like it's own elite spec. I want elite specs to be even more distinguished by their central mechanics, while also acknowledging that core has it's own playstyle and should be able to exist separately for people to enjoy without it messing with other elite specs. I would just be flipping the design paradigm between elites and core so that core has about as many skills as elites do now, and elites have about the same amount of skills that core does now.

Without treating it as such I think core is in an awkward state where buffing it serves as an indirect buff to every other elite spec because they have access to everything core has and more.

> It's not even that E-Specs make a particular weapon OP, it's that the weapon is actually useful for a particular build and is "OP" compared to the trash that is available in Core.

While it's not always the case, there are definitely some weapons that become problematic in the hands of an elite spec. For example, beacuse weaver was designed to play largely in melee range, it's a spec with additional defensive utility built in to help mitigate damage. Unfortunately, because it can also access the defensive utility of focus, we're now in a place where focus cooldowns, as well as all defensive skills on sword, have been nerfed because there's too much quantity. By removing focus, weavers could get improved quality in the defensive skills/traits exclusive to weaver while gaining room to improve their damage output because they have less defense available to them at any given moment. You create higher risks, but give higher rewards.

> @Taril.8619 said:

> Your changes don't affect the class mechanics.

>

> It's still going to be stuff like Reaper is Core Necro, but with a good power weapon and better Shroud.

>

> Changing between actual professions, isn't just trading weapons, it's changing weapon skills for similar weapon sets. A Weaver's Sword has vastly different skills to Warrior's Sword.

>

> The class identity doesn't change just because a of replacing an available weapon and line of utilities. If the spec is still just Core class mechanics + whatever the E-Spec adds on top. For example, Mirage is still just Mesmer with Mirage Cloak.

My ideas weren't intended to affect class mechanics. Rather, they were intended to create a standard for trade-offs so that devs could overhaul certain e-specs without making trade-offs in mechanics feel too oppressive.

For example, I think mirage should get its own set of shatters that revolve more around mirage cloak and they should get back their second dodge. By creating a standard template for trade-offs across professions, devs could make these new shatters feel powerful and distinct without introducing the limitations that initially de-powered chrono on its rework.

> Yes, because they're balanced around simply trading Weapons/Utilities with other E-Specs.

>

> Rather than being about changing the classes playstyle, which would allow people to pick a new E-Spec because they find it fun to play.

>

> As opposed to this "Trade off everything" and "Make E-Specs have 1 playstyle that they're best at" which ends up being no different to what we had before E-Specs when Core classes would simply make builds around different playstyles, only with less flexibility.

I think you're taking what I've suggested to an extreme. I don't want it to be where there's only 1 playstyle an elite spec is effective in. I just don't want it to be more effective than core all the time. That way there's room for people who like core or any of the established elite specs to have room to be viable.

People would still be picking what they like based on which mechanics they enjoy, it's just the mechanics that an elite spec provides would now be allowing someone to excel in a few aspects of a profession rather than being an upgrade in every situation.

> @Taril.8619 said:

> Except when you start putting the balance onto what trade offs you get rather than making more E-Specs like Scourge which reimagine class mechanics.

> Especially if something happens like "Oh, Scourge no longer has access to Scepter or Corruption skills, that's now Core Necro's thing!" which would completely kill Condi Scourge gameplay.

>

> Alternatively, you say "Oh, Scourge no longer has access to Main Hand Dagger or Spectral skills, that's now Core Necro's thing!" which would do literally nothing to Scourge.

I actually think using weapons and skills as a trade-off shifts the balance onto the central mechanics more, because elite specs would have to rely on them more in order to be good. I'm really glad you brought up scourge because I think it's a perfect illustration of a lot of my points.

While I'm not sure what weapon I would remove, it's pretty clear to me that I'd remove wells. To compensate, I'd revert all nerfs and buff all desert shroud skills and shades to be more powerful than ever before. This would:

a) reduce the aoe spam that's made scourge a problem in WvW

b) still keep them relevant in WvW because shades would be significantly stronger

c) allow room to buff wells as the only real source of aoe pressure for core + reaper

d) actually serve a a buff to scourge in pve because of mechanical improvements

This would reward scourges for using their central mechanics well, while eliminating the additional cover they have if they don't at the moment by just painting the field with aoe. It actually shifts the balance more onto desert shroud itself, because it's now more of what defines the flow of combat for a scourge. The only problems I could see would be it overperforming in pvp, but with skill splits I'm sure they could tone it down without affecting other game modes.

> @Taril.8619 said:

> If it creates a balance problem, it's because the weapon is poorly designed. Or a particular spec is poorly designed.

>

> Also, it doesn't necessarily need to effect their range of skill design. No-where is it necessary for weapons to be equally viable across all builds.

>

> For example, Holosmith's Sword is designed with the Heat gauge in mind but it's not horrible on its own and would have some use in other builds by the nature of being a power based MH weapon to allow use of Shield.

>

> If it ended up being underperforming... You could always move some of the power away from the Heat bonuses and into the base weapon. Thus, it still would keep its Holosmith synergy but would still be usable outside of it. There's no rule saying that the heat synergy HAS to be as strong as it is.

I actually think what you'd be advocating for could actually work counter to the way you want elite specs to be unique in mechanics. If the devs were to say that sword is available for ever engineer spec to use but it's only really going to be viable for holo, then there's almost no point in making that change in the first place. Conversely, if they said that sword was now viable for multiple specs but thy're tuning down the heat synergy so that the weapon can stand better on its own, then holo becomes more like core because there's less reward from properly using photon forge.

Whereas I actually want to see holo gain access to heat synergies across all available weapons and utility skills. This would push holo even further away from core mechanically, helping to define holo as a class that can do significantly more as it gains heat, but lives on the edge of death because of it.

>@ Cyninja.2954 said:

I wasn't aiming at you directly, but rather at the repeated argument made by players that core specs should remain viable.

>

> Yes, in an ideal world: build variety, a system where elite specializations which build on core abilities are actual specializations, players who can play all the available builds, etc. would be. Unfortunately, in this reality, we can already see the limits and issues this system has:

> - many players hate or strongly dislike when elite specializations underperform in an area where their core build was good at. Very evident when elite specializations release which were actually balanced. The forums went up in flames

I agree 100% on this one, but I guess I just have a different philosophy than most. I feel like there's a perception that an elite spec should be as good or somewhat better than core in every aspect of the game in every playstyle, which is not a sustainable approach in my opinion. I feel like an elite spec should be significantly better than core in a few aspects and only as good or worse than core at everything else. That way, adding a new spec wouldn't invalidate previous ones or become redundant because there's already something in the game that plays as good or better.

>@ Cyninja.2954 said:

> - strong core abilities mess with elite specializations in many different ways. It's nearly impossible to actually specialize a class without making it grossly overpowered when it has strong foundations. The trade-off of 1 traitline is just not enough, the mechanical changes are far to difficult to rebalance to get it just right. This will get even worse with a 3rd elite specialization

I feel like your almost making the same point I'm making here. I think its difficult to specialize a profession without making it op when it has as strong of a foundation as core. That's why I'm suggesting that they remove some of the foundational skills and weapons to give room for increased specialization.

>@ Cyninja.2954 said:

> - build variety is nice when it doesn't come at the cost of balance. Balance between elite specialization within a class and between different classes.

I actually think things would be easier to balance because it would be applying the same philosophy they have of exclusive elite spec weapons and utility skills to core. In a world where they applied my suggestions core would almost become a third elite spec in it of itself, while keeping elite specs away from the parts of the base professions most likely to push them over the edge.

>@ Cyninja.2954 said:

> Imo, we should treat core traitlines the same way one builds a house: a foundation to build off of, not be equivalent with the rooms on top. Make the different rooms different, but keep the foundation out of it. That might at least be semi manageable.

I guess my approach would be to start treating core less like a foundation and more like a separate room.

>@ Cyninja.2954 said:

> TL;DR:

> I'd go as far as say NERF core abilities, traits and skills at this point in time. Shift some of the desired effects even more onto elite specializations. The main downside here: we get way more of a class system, which goes against the original concept. The upside: clearer defining roles, easier to balance, easier to expand upon.

I actually think our end goals aren't that far off, I just think that core classes should remain true to the original philosophy: play how you want and be pretty good at everything. I just don't think core should be the best at anything.

>@ Cyninja.2954 said:

> Exactly, you and I just have a different approach here. You'd rather impose limitations on elite specs, so the trade-offs are even bigger. I'd rather just make core weaker so that the strong synergys are kept to a minimum. It's either or, strong core abilities which permeate through every single elite spec, thus requiring constant managing and adjusting with each elite spec while keeping the trade-offs high or weaker core functions with elite specs being strait upgrades into a certain role.

I don't think that the trade-offs have to be bigger, just different. For example, I mentioned that taking away the right weapon and utility skills could actually give devs room to restore mirage's second dodge or reduce the toughness penalty for berserkers without making them too op. You present the options as a binary, when I believe there's a way to do both. You can still have strong core skills, they just can't be used by every elite spec. It's the same way that a sword or stances can be strong on weaver because no other iteration of ele can use it.

>@ Cyninja.2954 said:

> I still think this is marketing speak which by now should just be dropped. It hasn't worked so far, it definitely won't work with a 3rd specialization.

I'm going to have to disagree here. With a 3rd elite spec coming, I think trade-offs are more important because they also help balance and distinguish elite specs with each other. If every elite spec is just flat upgrades all around, then they become too similar to the point of irrelevance. Trade-offs are what makes dd play different from deadeye, scourge from reaper, etc.

>@ Cyninja.2954 said:

> Customizing each and every single elite spec is a ton of work. Even worse: thankless work because players in general do not like losing access to things they had. You are only suggesting a baseline in a sense that you are saying: something should be taken away. The huge difference between classes already means that removing something from one class will have a way different effect than from another. Say warrior loses access to 1 weapon, that is vastly different than losing access to a weapon as elementalist.

Again I agree that players might not appreciate it at first, but if handled right they could learn to adapt and even enjoy professions more. Imagine if anet released a balance patch that told every player that they'd be losing a weapon and set of utilities, but that they're going to be buffing everything that makes their favorite elite spec good to compensate. I feel like at worst It'd be sees as a net neutral, but it would improve build diversity overall and make room for future elite specs to excel in the aspects that the current ones would be losing out on. And my idea wasn't set it stone, so there's plenty of room for iteration. If devs feel like a warrior elite spec would be losing out on too little, they could adjust accordingly by either not buffing the spec as much or removing an additional weapon as a very last resort.

>@ Cyninja.2954 said:

> Your suggested baselines already would require micromanaging.

Not really, or at least not any worse than what we have now. If a skill is removed from a spec, it's removed. There's less to worry about because there's less skills to balance per spec.

>@ Cyninja.2954 said:

> Sure, so why does the medical student suddenly get the same pay as the specialist doctor? They don't. So why should core specs have the same output as elite specializations? Does that specialist doctor suddenly decide to forget 1/3 of what he learned in medical school? He doesn't (I'd hope).

I mean, the difference in median salary is noticeable but all doctors, including family medicine and pediatricians, all average six figures. Plus there's value in versatility that makes a generalist just as important as a specialist. That's kind of what I see things working as for core/elite. You can be viable in a bunch of different playstyles, or you can be the best in a few. And whether a specialist forgets what they learned or not is irrelevant if they don't need to apply it as often. Its not a direct translation, but the point would be that in lore, those who choose to master an elite spec find that they don't really have a need to apply their knowledge of a specific set of abilities anymore.

>@Taril.8619 said:

>I'm not a fan of "Balancing" E-Specs by introducing more limitations to actual builds. Both by way of restricting what can be used from Core, or just nerfing Core into worthlessness.

I agree on the second part, but hear me out on the first part lol. Any build diversity removed from an elite spec would be gained by core improvements through an exclusive weapon and slot skills (along w/ the usual balance stuff that I'm not considering). And the additional limitations would be to make room for new, dedicated playstyles to be added through future specs, while also letting devs buff the mechanics/traits of the current ones. This would create a situation where playing to an elite spec's strengths would be significantly more rewarding, but you would have less to compensate for it's weaknesses. Or, take the safer route and get a little of everything with core.

>@Taril.8619 said:

> Notably, because in the former, unless you specifically target the actually good weapons/utilities from Core and thus acknowledge the real issue of Core builds being that they contain a lot of lackluster weapons/utilities it has 0 effect on E-Spec builds at all.

Unfortunately, we do have several weapons that are underperforming. But we also have a case of weapons and/or skills that would be performing fine, if not for an elite spec making them op. I'd advocate for improving what isn't working, while just keeping what would otherwise be ok in the hands of a core class from power creeping elite specs.

>@Taril.8619 said:

> I still stand by the idea that E-Specs should be more focused on changing the class mechanics so as to "Add a new class" to the game (Which is what they're replacing. Instead of adding any new classes after Revenant, we have E-Specs). Rather than what most of them do which is just Core Class Mechanics + some extra stuff.

That's what I was trying to do by adding these extra limitations. The same way that you trade access to most weapons for attunements going from warrior to ele, you would be trading access to certain abilities for new ones switching from core to elite. It would create a greater "class identity" for elite specs because players would now have a different set of abilities available to them, not just extra. Right now we have a situation where, in order for players to want to take new elite spec skills, they have to be better than what's available already. By using skills as a trade-off, they can introduce new playstyles without having to compete with everything that was already there.

>@Taril.8619 said:

> E-Spec vs Core should be a decision based around how they play rather than performing a particular role better. For example, I should pick to play Scourge because I want to have Shroud as F skills rather than a Transformation that Core Necro utilizes.

While there's definitely truth to that, I think that subtracting a weapon/skills doesn't change that. It just means that now you'd have to decide whether gaining those shades would be worth losing out on a particular weapon the same way you'd be losing out on a trait line.

>@Taril.8619 said:

> But then again, I'm weird and also wish that Weapons/Utilities added by E-Specs weren't locked behind using said E-Specs too.

I feel like this would create a balancing nightmare for the devs, and it gives them less room to create interesting skills that interact with elite spec mechanics because they would now have to be viable for all iterations of a profession.

P.S. Sorry for the long post, I didn't want to double post and I wanted to respond to both of you lol

> @"Kodama.6453" said:

> As an engineer main, I have to say that I don't like this.

>

> Engineer generally creates alot of problems with your proposed changes.

> First, removing a weapon from their pool hurts engineers more than other classes, since core engineer just has 3 weapons available. You would either have to increase the weapon pool for them or make every elite spec an exception that engineers just give up utility skills.

>

> Second, engineer utility skills have a different number count than other classes.

> Other classes have 5 different skill types with 4 skills each.

> Engineer has 4 different skill types with 5 skills each.

> Meaning that removing 1 skill category from them will always remove 1 more skill than for any other class. Which doesn't really seem fair.

>

> Your idea would require a really wide rework for the engineer class in general to really work out well and feel fair for that class.

Yeah being that engineer is probably the profession I'm least familiar with, it's been the one to give me the most problems lol. I think that merging one of each of their uilities, deleting one and spreading its effects across the other four could work. Or even just taking one of each skill type, reworking the animations but largely keeping functionality the same, and just creating a new skill type out of the skills already there. It could work kind of like what happened to thief traps but just turning four skills that were previously seperarate types into one.

I think the lack of weapon pool would only be a problem for holo though, because as it stands it would be the only elite spec I'd consider removing kits for. They could also consider adding an extra weapon for Engineer that could be used across the board if they felt it would be too restrictive. It was more of a thought experiment to see if engi players thought it could work.

> I don't get the obsession people have with core classes. For all I care, core traits, skills and abilities should be made even weaker so that elite specilizations can fully define a build, while curbing the insane power creep over the last few years. Core stats strength, which as mentioned are available to each and every elite specialization, are one of the main reasons such insane mental gymnstics are needed for elite specialization "trade-offs". I say: nerf core, so the trade-off design for elites, which recently has been rather unfun, can be minimized and elites define themselves only over the benefits.

>

> We are 8 years into the game with potentially a 3rd set of elite specializations coming in 1 year. There is no reason to keep core abilities relevant, even less with the massive balance issues present. While at it, let's put a handle on the insane power creep.

I wouldn't say that I'm obsessed with core classes so much as wanting players to play how they want. The more build diversity and playstyles, the better imo. Like I said, I've mained ele since launch but I've exclusively played weaver since it was added. Even if they add a new elite spec with the new expansion, I feel that it would take a lot for me to switch off of weaver because of how much I enjoy playing it. I like it so much largely because I feel it plays so differently from core or tempest. So I actually agree with you that elite specs should define a build. I actually want to see elite specs become more interesting and powerful, just not able to do everything better than core in all circumstances. I feel that many of the core skills each profession has access to have the potential to become a lot more powerful if the devs didn't have to worry about balancing them around a spec that could enhance them to the point of being op.

As for "trade-offs", I think they're pretty integral into the system actually working. Because elite specs weren't designed to be a direct upgrade over core, it's largely what's supposed to keep power creep in check. I just think that because there's no standard for what a trade-off is supposed to look like, they've been applied inconsistently across all the elite specs. If devs knew they could remove a potentially problematic set of skills and a weapon from the berzerker for example, then maybe the penalties for accessing berserk mode wouldn't need to be as severe. Likewise, if Holos didn't have kits, then they could actually buff and enhance all the skills left to take advantage of the heat mechanic. What I'm suggesting is just to create a baseline trade-off across all professions to make things easier to balance without the need for drastic measures like removing self-shatter from chronos or a second dodge for mirage.

The way I see it, elite specs should work kind of like how becoming a doctor works. If a student goes to medical school, they could choose to go the extra mile and specialize in cardiology or podiatry, but it's not a requirement. When a patient gets sick, a doctor without any specialization might be able to diagnose the most people, but if they require special attention to a specific area of the body they might not be the best equipped. That's where I think elite specs come in. As a core ele, ranger, warrior, etc, I should be able to do the most things, but not necessarily be the best at anything in particular. If I choose to take an elite specialization, however, I would be choosing to be really good at a few things at the cost of my versatility. And just like how the base training between a general MD and a cardiologist is very similar but differs in some of the tools of the trade and what knowledge is most applicable, elite specs should trade in a weapon for a new one while not needing to apply a particular set of utilities in their new role.

As this game has introduced elite specs, I’ve found that their implementation in relation to their core counterparts has been inconsistent. While some offer completely different mechanics and tradeoffs to create a different playstyle, some can serve as an outright upgrade to core mechanics without giving up much. With a new expansion on the horizon, I feel like GW2 needs to rethink the role of elite specializations, and create a standard that can be applied to any new ones that are added that can serve as a check to any further power creep. I know that plenty of ideas have been floated by others on the forum, but I figured I might throw my hat into the ring.

As it stands, the role of an elite specialization is to expand the arsenal of a core profession without creating balancing problems that might arise if all skills were available to all iterations of the profession. Unfortunately, this has led to the situation where every elite “specialization” is actually a better generalist than core because they have access to all the same skills and then some. This has created a meta where core builds are often overshadowed by their respective elites because they can flat out do more. I believe that the opposite should be true. In order for core professions to remain relevant and elite specializations to serve a role befitting of the word specialization, elites need to be able to do less more effectively. By the same token, core professions should sacrifice the dedicated roles that an elite can provide in the name of the most versatility and having the widest range of skills to choose from.

# Addition by Subtraction

In order to create a standard mechanical tradeoff across all elite specs, I would propose that equipping one removes access to a weapon and full line of slot skills. This would help to reinforce the idea of a specialization rather than simply an expansion of a profession’s arsenal. By creating this standard tradeoff, it frees devs to create more unique and powerful distinctions between specs, while also buffing elite spec mechanics/traits to compensate. This could rage from a few tune-ups to keep high-performing specs competitive, reducing the potency of established tradeoffs like the toughness penalty on berserker, to full-on mechanical overhauls like they’ve done to chrono.

# Addition by…Addition

Even with the removal of weapons and skills, I still feel like core professions can end up feeling like a lackluster version of each elite spec. In order to really drive home the generalist/specialist nature of how I feel elite specs should work, core professions should have access to a core-exclusive weapon and set of slot skills. These could be added via the training panel, unlocked instantly, or even be tied to newly created profession mastery lines. None of these would have traits associated with them, so they could be balanced to be pretty powerful by default. Additionally, all missing skills from the established skill archetypes in a profession should be added. This would give both core and elite specs a few new tools to play with, while maintaining a wider array of skills reserved for core.

# Putting it all Together

As an example, I’ll be using the class I’ve mained since launch: the elementalist. I feel that it should gain access to a mid-to-long-range weapon that would give it reliable access to all or some of the boons it lacks like quickness, aegis, retaliation, etc. For slot skills, I feel like wells would help to give core eles the additional tools they need to feel more like a traditional caster that damages foes or supports allies from afar. I feel that this would help to carve out a role for core ele in modes like WvW, while giving pve players a more complete arsenal to take into the open world or instanced content.

## Weaver

As for elite specs and their tradeoffs, I’ll be focusing on weaver since I’ve played it almost exclusively since PoF launched. As an elite spec, I feel like weaver is in a good spot mechanically. The addition of dual attunements and a global cooldown on attunement swap means that the flow, rotations, and pace of the spec play completely differently from tempest or core ele. Its biggest problems, however, lie in the defensive uility and damage avoidance it possesses holding back its potential to do damage imo. In order to help push it into a better spot as a damage dealer and differentiate it from what should be a much more defensive tempest, I would be looking to reduce access to its most defensive weapon skills. I’d also remove some staple dps skills that keep weaver as king of ele dps to make core ele more viable.

**Weapon/Skills removed**: Focus and Conjured Weapons

**Lore Explanation**: Eschewing the need to summon conjured weapons, Weavers instead cycle the power of multiple attunements from hand to hand and combine them to powerful effect. Trading their use of a focus for a sword, they prefer to channel the elements through martial weapons to carve a path through their enemies.

**Mechanical Justification**: By removing focus, weavers would lose out on quite a bit of defensive utility that has been deemed such a powerful tool in their arsenal that obsidian flesh now has a 60 sec cooldown in pvp. This would force weavers into a more aggressive, high-risk/high-reward melee playstyle, while creating a more defensive niche for core ele. From an established design perspective, focus is a weapon that creates a significant tradeoff without eliminating any of the dual skills the devs added. Focus skills could now be balanced around the needs of only two elite specs, giving them room to revert some of the nerfs to focus in pvp over the last few patches.

As for conjured weapons, I feel like they run counter to the flow of a weaver’s playstyle. As a class built around juggling and cycling through multiple attunements at once, conjured weapons do the opposite by locking weavers out of dual skill mechanics. They’ve been in an awkward state since the game’s release, and hopefully removing their use from the dps-oriented elite spec frees the devs to streamline their functionality and improve their usefulness. This change would also make core ele more viable in endgame pve, as it would lock weaver out of a staple dps skill in fgs.

In order to compensate for the removal of potential dps and sustain from weaver, I propose the following changes to help keep them competitive. These could be combined with an overhaul to underperforming weapons and trait lines to bolster and refine a weaver's role as an aggressive melee duelist. **(Note that this list is by no means comprehensive and only includes changes that would affect weaver. Not everything would need to be applied if devs deem it too op, and more could be added if it’s not enough. There would obviously have to be plenty of numbers and cooldown changes across the board that I’m not taking into consideration, and no numbers or changes I suggest are fixed)**:

• All minor adept/master traits will now be able to trigger on dual attunement

• Pyro/Aero/Geo/Hydromancer’s training: now grant a 10% cooldown reduction to dual skills that include each respective element in addition to their previous effects.

• Superior Elements: this trait now shares the 15% critical chance in all game modes

• Elemental Refreshment: increase base barrier by 20-30%

• Bolstered elements: increase base barrier by 30-50%

• Aquatic Stance: This skill now cleanses 2 conditions on initial heal

• Primordial Stance: the first pulse of this skill is now a blast finisher

• Unravel: this skill now creates a moving combo field based on primary attunement in addition to its previous effects

• Woven Fire: now applies 15% damage instead of 20% condition damage

• Woven Water: now applies 15% boon duration, 15% outgoing heal effectiveness

• Woven Air: now applies 5% critical damage in addition to its previous effects

• Woven Earth: now applies 15% damage reduction

• Perfect weave: now applies 25% damage, 25% boon duration, 25% outgoing heal effectiveness, 10% critical damage, 50% movement speed, and 25% damage reduction

# The Exception to the Rule

As a whole, I feel that all but one profession can follow the general template I’ve laid out. The only one that breaks this mold is the engineer, and specifically my idea for holosmith. This idea could prove to be more controversial, so I’d want to see feedback from engineer players.

## Holosmith

**Weapons/Skills Removed**: Kits

**Lore Explanation**: As Holosmiths learn to harness the sun and master their volatile Photon Forge, they transcend the need for traditional mechanical weapons. Instead, they project and wield hard-light constructs to provide them with the edge they need in battle.

**Mechanical Justification**: Some kits for holos have become very problematic at times, with grenade kit serving as the most recent example. Others have been stuck in a lackluster state for too long. Unfortunately, buffing or nerfing engi kits ends up either hurting core too much or allowing holo to overperform. Therefore, I suggest removing them from holos altogether. This would allow the devs to balance kits independently, giving them room to revert some or all the recent nerfs while buffing or reworking other kits into a better state. It would also create an opportunity to differentiate holo further from how core engi or scrapper play. Because kits effectively function as both slot skills and weapon swaps for engi, however, this would mean that holo would not lose access to a weapon.

Instead, I’d propose the following changes to compensate:

• Holosmiths can now swap weapons in combat

• All weapon skills and slot skills available to holosmith now have an additional effect(s) that trigger at specific heat thresholds

# Conclusion

Congrats! You’ve made it to the end of my first post on the forums. Hopefully that wasn’t too painful to read. I’ve played the game since launch and frequent this place to see how everyone feels about the game, but I haven’t really been compelled to post before. I have a few other ideas about the game, so I might share them at some point. Any feedback would be welcome. Have an idea for a different profession’s tradeoffs? Liked my idea? Didn’t like it? Feel like you can salvage parts of it into something that works? Let me know!

**TL;DR: In order to create an environment where core professions serve a generalist approach while elite specs are more truly specialized, elite specs should lose access to a core weapon and set of slot skills. Additionally, core professions should gain access to a set of core-exclusive weapons and utility skills. In order to compensate, devs should focus on strengthening and differentiating elite spec mechanics.**