ThrakathNar.4537

> @"Infusion.7149" said: > Regardless the reason people don't run heal core engineer or heal holo (there's prot holo but not heal holo) is because of Purge Gyro, Defense Field on Bulwark Gyro , and function gyro in general combined with superspeed. The snowcrows build for heal scrapper actually recommends running tools over scrapper on a lot of bosses, because of the gadgeteer-traited personal battering ram CC. If Scrapper were a support, the traitline would be non-negotiable, which it isn't. They even replace it with holosmith for trio because of the pull on hard light arena. That's not to say skills like purge gyro and function gyro don't have supportive value in a group setting - they do. But they're not the characteristic defining attribute of a support in this game - that aspect is boons. > _Purity of Purpose_ could be further gutted and the condition clear would remain the same. The convert would remain the same, but the cover-boon potential wouldn't, which is part of what makes the trait so valuable in WvW, protecting from stab being corrupted. If it were nerfed, scrapper might see replacement with tempest, which can already offer the same (if not more) cleanses. > It used to be that stealth gyro also had reveal on the toolbelt skill Incidentally, this is now on the core skill utility goggles. > It's also an ideal support build to give new WVW players because you don't need to worry as much about vital cooldowns (kits don't have the long cooldowns of firebrand tomes) ; Kits are a core utility, tomes are locked behind an elite spec, this doesn't show that scrapper's a good support. > even a scrapper spamming med kit autos and purge gyro/bulwark gyro/stealth gyro as needed does respectable support while not being extremely susceptible to well bombs due to barriers and superspeed. Take that med-kit away though, and would scrapper see any use as a support? It may still take utilities such as bulwark and sneak gyro, but it certainly wouldn't use minstrel stats, because almost all of your healing comes from core. It would probably end up as a DPS build, that just happens to offer a lot of group utility (although not as much group utility as a class like scourge or herald). > Also I'm not sure what offensive buffs you mean since if you look at the meta heal scrapper for PVE it specifically states a lack of offensive boons. https://snowcrows.com/raids/builds/engineer/scrapper/heal/ > * Might comes mainly from HGH. > * In order to output fury you need to run Experimental turrets in conjunction with Rifle Turret. > * No quickness or alacrity but defensively it has heavy condi removal along with some regen and protection output (along with superspeed) which isn't going to replace druids. Yes, I said that "core engi can't put out those offensive boons", which is the same as what SnowCrows say, effectively. A dedicated support spec would change that. Such a spec might not change the firebrigade meta, but it would be a far safer option for less skilled groups, because engineer is a better healer than guardian already. > I don't know how long you've been using engineer but it used to be that gyros were borderline unplayable because they were minions. Gyroscopic Acceleration, Object in Motion, Kinetic Stabilizers, and Speed of Synergy only existed since 2019. Even function gyro was changed. Most of the changes were oriented toward PVE and regardless so long as it is less power damage (even if it's something akin to 33K versus 37K) people will continue to run holo over scrapper as a DPS despite scrapper being less intensive (it's only 1 kit with no Photon Forge) and innately more robust. Almost all scrapper utilities have effects not concentrating on damage, including shredder gyro (spare capacitor is more for the lightning field and daze) and blast gyro (the damage isn't the main feature, you would want it for the launch CC and superspeed from bypass coating ; indeed the LN [suggested build](https://lucky-noobs.com/builds/scrapper-power) runs rifle turret over blast gyro). I'm an engi main, and yes, I remember just how painful gyros were to use before the rework (even trying to stealth people when you were standing completely still was beyond the minions), it's part of the reason why I so desperately don't want another minion-based spec. While it's true that scrapper will never reach the DPS numbers of holo, scrapper is built to be much more durable, hence why [Rune of the Scrapper](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Superior_Rune_of_the_Scrapper) Has stat boosts to power and toughness (as well as damage reduction). Because it's a durable Power DPS. If it were a support, like druid or firebrand, then the rune stats would improve either healing power or boon duration (which both druid and firebrand's respective runes do).

> @"Infusion.7149" said: > Engineer is essentially the least utilized and played class per GW2Efficiency. It's in Arenanet's best interest to make the most played classes the predominant sources of "must have boons" which is why the suggestion of a banner warrior like spec is the best option for the poll. The chrono nerfs and subsequent buffs to firebrand to make it the number one choice for quickness reflect that design philosophy. > > Right now the order of most common classes are: > * Guardian --- #1 playtime > * Warrior --- --- #3 in playtime > * Necromancer > * Ranger --- #2 playtime > * Mesmer > * Elementalist ---- #4 in playtime > * Thief > * Revenant > * Engineer > > What is scrapper? A support. One that happens to be dominant in WVW and semi-unwanted in PVE due to lack of DPS or "must have" offensive boons (quickness/alac/might) if run as healing. > What is the poll option: "Support that buff alac/quickness to team". So essentially if wells (what used to be gyros as a skill type) added quickness then you would already have that option ingame. It would also achieve role compression similar to HB or druid in that it also heals. > > Given that engineer already has viable condi options (unlike thief) , that leave the question of what a new spec would bring if it is condi focused. The two main things would be a better weapon than pistol mainhand and an easier skill rotation if it doesn't have a profession specific bonus similar to banners or ranger spirits. According to GW2 efficiency, that data isn't correct. Elementalist is #5 in playtime, Mesmer #6, and Revenant is #9 in playtime. But setting that aside, Anet definitely doesn't use that methodology to decide which class gets the boons, otherwise herald, renegade, and tempest would all have gone to higher bidders. Scrapper is not a support, and it never was intended to be a support. If you look at the scrapper traitline, the top row one focuses on increasing personal damage mitigation and superspeed, the middle row on CC, and the bottom row on damage. Impact Savant, Scrapper's minor grandmaster and probably the most build defining trait, is a completely dead trait if you run scrapper as a support. It's a power DPS trait. This is in the same position as Druid's [Natural Mender](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Natural_Mender), or Firebrand's [imbued Haste](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Imbued_Haste), both of which buff your healing output, clarifying the roles of those elite specs. The main reasons why Scrapper is used as a support in WvW is because of Purity of Purpose (a core trait), Medkit (a core heal "skill"), Superspeed (A scrapper mechanic that both DPS and support can output) and Stealth (a scrapper elite). Core engineer is just such a strong healer that it doesn't matter your third traitline isn't dedicated to healing. However, core engi can't put out those offensive boons. A condi focused elite for engineer would hopefully bring the option to not run triple kit (hopefully only one or two) by giving engineer a strong autoattack and a strong condi utility.

> @"Oxstar.7643" said: > But having a skill on low CD that does so good burn damge lends itself extremely well to condition builds, wouldn't you say? It helps a condition build yes (although it's not on nearly as small a cooldown as Corona Burst, a pure power skill), but there is just no getting away from the fact that holo is designed as a power spec for engineer , not a condi one. If anet wanted holo to be condi, the stat bonuses for [Rune of the Holosmith](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Superior_Rune_of_the_Holosmith) wouldn't be power and vitality.

> @"Oxstar.7643" said: > I think the argument for the lock load & burn build is that you're not losing enough condition damage for it not being worth the extra defense and raw power. > Also, if it wasn't mean to be good at condition damage then I don't think holo forge's 4 would deal so much burning. You're referring to the Lord hizen build? That's not optimised for DPS, it's also meant to be survivable, otherwise it wouldn't have 1.7k toughness and 40% boon duration, perfect for soloing champions, but poor in group PvE (worse than that even, because your toughness is so high you might take over tanking). And forge skill 4 is the only 1 in the 5 that applies conditions, the rest are pure power. Auto-attack? Power. Holo leap? Power. Corona Burst? Power. Even the photon blitz itself has a decently high power coefficient. It's pretty hard to say holo is a condition spec when almost none of the holo attacks apply conditions. The build itself is heavily reliant on the condition potential of firearms.

> @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > @"ThrakathNar.4537" said: > > But why would that stop a new elite spec getting a ranged weapon? (Unless of course that's not what you meant by bringing it up) > > That's not what I mean, no. I was only trying to say that if you count grenades as a weapon, which again, it is, in everything but technically speaking, then hammer is not the best ranged weapon. The new elite specc getting a ranged weapon is okay with me. After all, turns out that at least for condition builds, hopping your blowtorch up to 20k burn damage beats the tar out of sword, plus the poison and confusion you also get out of it. Elite speccs working just as well without their poster weapon as with is important. The hammer comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but if you're fighting a zerg in WvW, it genuinely is better at range than grenades, because grenades are projectiles and therefore are countered heavily by firebrands, scrappers, even chronos. Also, as far as engineer condition builds go, the highest benchmark is still triple-kit, but holosmith isn't designed to be a condi spec, so of course you wouldn't be using sword (the weapon only applies one damaging condition, and it's bleeding).

But why would that stop a new elite spec getting a ranged weapon? (Unless of course that's not what you meant by bringing it up)

> @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > @"ThrakathNar.4537" said: > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > > @"ThrakathNar.4537" said: > > > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > > > Grenades would like a word. Or are kits not weapons now? > > > > > > > > Mechanically, they're not. Weapons don't require you to give up a utility slot. > > > > But even if we include them, as others have said they're not particularly good to use. If they're not traited, they move slowly, and they are all projectile based, meaning they're heavily countered in blob fights. Not to mention that they're all ground targeted, with no auto-attack. > > > > > > Traiting for the weapons you want to use. Yes indeed, this is what happens in this game. Also, I'm tired of this give up a utility slot for a weapons "argument". > > > *Engineer is a class that is about combining various weapons skills from both your kits and weapons into chains appropriate for the situation at hand.* > > > Kits are not MEANT to be a replacement for your regular weapons. They are supposed to provide you with additional flexibility and utility, which they do well. > > > If you want to swap to a mode which you can just stay in and use the same skills then play elementalist instead, although weaver actually operates on the same line of thinking. > > > > I'm really not sure what you're trying to say across your comments. Do you think kits and weapons are the same (because you have said they both are and aren't)? Do you think engineer doesn't need any more ranged capabilities? Also, if a kit doesn't take up a utility slot that could be filled with an elixir or gadget, then what is it taking up? > > It would be helpful to know your thoughts on what sort of weapon the next engineer elite spec should get. > > EVERY utility is a choice. You give up something for something else. It's really a moot argument. Kits are a core thing of engineers and they are just as good as the rest of the utilities, depending on what you are building for. You're giving up one utility for another. Every class does this. Also, kits are not technically weapons, even though in function they are. But, like I already explained, they are not meant to be used as primary weapons, but as weapons you swap to to use skills and then swap to something else. I'm honestly unsure what some peoples issue with them are. You don't HAVE to use them. Elixir based specc engies for instance are still strong and good. What? I really think there's been an issue in communication here, because there's literally nothing in there that I disagree with. However, it does seem to contradict your earlier statements. What did you mean when you said this: > Grenades would like a word. Or are kits not weapons now?

> @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > @"ThrakathNar.4537" said: > > > @"Oxstar.7643" said: > > > Grenades would like a word. Or are kits not weapons now? > > > > Mechanically, they're not. Weapons don't require you to give up a utility slot. > > But even if we include them, as others have said they're not particularly good to use. If they're not traited, they move slowly, and they are all projectile based, meaning they're heavily countered in blob fights. Not to mention that they're all ground targeted, with no auto-attack. > > Traiting for the weapons you want to use. Yes indeed, this is what happens in this game. Also, I'm tired of this give up a utility slot for a weapons "argument". > *Engineer is a class that is about combining various weapons skills from both your kits and weapons into chains appropriate for the situation at hand.* > Kits are not MEANT to be a replacement for your regular weapons. They are supposed to provide you with additional flexibility and utility, which they do well. > If you want to swap to a mode which you can just stay in and use the same skills then play elementalist instead, although weaver actually operates on the same line of thinking. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say across your comments. Do you think kits and weapons are the same (because you have said they both are and aren't)? Do you think engineer doesn't need any more ranged capabilities? Also, if a kit doesn't take up a utility slot that could be filled with an elixir or gadget, then what is it taking up? It would be helpful to know your thoughts on what sort of weapon the next engineer elite spec should get.

> @"Oxstar.7643" said: > Grenades would like a word. Or are kits not weapons now? Mechanically, they're not. Weapons don't require you to give up a utility slot. But even if we include them, as others have said they're not particularly good to use. If they're not traited, they move slowly, and they are all projectile based, meaning they're heavily countered in blob fights. Not to mention that they're all ground targeted, with no auto-attack.

> @"Lan Deathrider.5910" said: > Some sort of support role for sure. > > Not sure what weapon, but Engi has gotten two melee weapons back to back, so why not a new ranged weapon. Bring up either staff or scepter, and sling some chemicals around. > > That said mechs and machine guns do in fact go brrr If we're aiming for staff, it might make more sense for the elite spec to be sound-themed instead of alchemy-themed, using the staff as some sort of tuning fork, resembling something [like this staff skin already in the game](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Silence). But I'll be happy with anything as long as it's not melee power DPS (although hammer is unironically the best ranged weapon that engineer has, since its one ranged skill is significantly stronger than anything on rifle at that range).

> @"Shroud.2307" said: > Some of you need to stop comparing professions. A Vitality penalty for example would be a lot more significant if placed on Guardian, Thief, or Elemenalist. Trade-offs will differ between each profession and spec but should have similar degrees of significance. Losing access to Toolbelt F5 _(Holosmith)_ isn't the same significance as losing an Endurance bar _(Mirage),_ and losing access to a core Trait line isn't a trade-off. Ok, but what is the end goal of tradeoffs? Ultimately, why do we need them? If the goal with tradeoffs is that the core profession is not invalidated by the elite specs, then why is considering the traitlines not relevant? An indisputable fact is that guardian has meta builds in at least two gamemodes (PvE and PvP). Doesn't that show that there is an implicit tradeoff within the traitlines to mean that core guard is not invalidated? Surely there's something more to tradeoffs than just nerfing profession mechanics? Genuinely curious to hear what you think the goal with tradeoffs should be.

> @"Shaogin.2679" said: > Not once did I say Core Guard was bad, but way to completely miss the point there. True, your exact words were "You want top power dps, you take Dh, not core" which is not true, given the useage of core for record runs. > This here is exactly what I mean when I say Guardians have no clue what an actual trade-off is. In the mind of a Guardian, you think the fact that you can't take all 3 core trait lines plus an elite spec trait line is some huge trade off. You're slightly missing the point here. The fact that 3 core traitlines can give a better DPS build than 2 core + 1 elite traitline indicates that the elite spec is of a comparable power level to the core elite spec across all its aspects. That includes the profession mechanic. Taking the elite spec in this case is a huge tradeoff, because you have to sacrifice the > 30% potential DPS buff from virtues for DPS from your traps and Spear of Justice. Losing one aspect and gaining another in return is pretty much the dictionary definition of a tradeoff. > You see, some classes have to make legit sacrifices just for choosing an elite spec, and this is in addition to what you already consider to be a trade off for your Guardian. To use as an example again, the Druid has heavily nerfed pets just for being a druid. The Soulbeast can only use one pet in combat. Mirages only get a single bar of endurance. Scrappers have nerfed vitality. Reapers lose ranged damage in shroud and their shroud degenerates faster. Scourges lose the ability to remain in shroud. Stuff like this is what I am talking about. These are not simply changing out one skill for another, they are deliberate weaknesses placed on the class to put them more on par with their core counterparts. Even setting aside the whole traitline comparison thing, guardian has this sort of tradeoff as well. Core guard virtues are instant cast, whereas dragonhunter and firebrand virtues both have cast times, as well as significantly increased cooldowns on some of the virtues. While they can arguably do more, that happens on a longer cooldown, and in the case of firebrand, using your f2 and f3 tomes on a DPS build will completely mess up your rotation. Soulbeast's "trade-off" doesn't even matter in PvE, because there's no reason not just to stay merged with the highest DPS pet. Reaper's loss of ranged damage and shorter time in shroud is a good trade-off, but it isn't just a sacrifice, since they gain stronger power coefficients on average from it. Scrapper's nerfed vitality comes with the ability to have permanent barrier for half of your health. Those aspects in isolation may look like deliberate weaknesses, but in the wider context of the elite specs, they don't make them less powerful. > The issue here is that some classes have these trade offs being forced on them, while other classes are not receiving the same treatment. It was some project Anet started on and then just abandoned. I really don't think I can explain it any simpler than that man. That I agree on. Anet's vision for how to balance elite specs with core has changed drastically since they were first introduced with HoT, and a lot of their balance changes have only made it worse, nerfing core utilities and traits when in actual fact it was aspects of the elite specs that made them powerful, but hey.

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

Looking at the spec as a whole, even if we set aside the fact that it occupies the same "theme" as scrapper, and the fact that it uses minions (which overlap far too much with turrets, both in terms of mechanics and viability) there are still a lot of issues with this idea. For a start, what's the idea behind it? Traits like Regenerating Rod and Shared Salvage imply that the class is designed to be a healer. Galvanised Armaments suggests that it's meant to be a power DPS. Thermal Runaway suggests that it's meant to be a condi DPS. Kernel Sessions gives the idea that this class is supposed to use stealth extensively (although the only stealth skills it has are sceptre 3 and blasting bomb kit 4). Full Reserve implies that it's meant to be tanky, which sort of contradicts the idea of trying to use stealth. Scrimp Supply and Powerful Parts suggest that it's meant to be self-reliant on boons and also selfish (since those boons aren't shared). Sterner Stuff tries to get your minions to stay alive, Thermal Runaway tries to get you to kill your minions faster. It just feels like it's doing too much, and as such fills no niche. Currently, Engineer's two elite specs are a survivable bruiser (scrapper) and a high-damage power DPS (holosmith). Both of these are fairly focused goals, and leave a lot left to be desired in an Engineer spec. Not only this, but it doesn't work well with core engineer at all. For a start, you can just straight up remove the healing traits. Medkit is such a powerful core utility that engineer doesn't need a dedicated spec that can do healing. As well as this, engineer doesn't need a spec that can give itself might and fury. Engineer can already upkeep permanent self-fury through explosives, and decent uptime on self-25 might through holo+alchemy. What engineer really needs in the boon department, as @"Noah Salazar.5430" said, is group quickness or alacrity, as well as several other group boons (group might, group fury, etc). By refocusing the spec on two areas in which the engineer is lacking, for example condi DPS and boon support, you could drastically improve the viability of it (although I still wouldn't like it if thematically it was Scrapper 2.0). Also, the parts mechanic really needs refactoring. It looks to be some sort of hybrid between Kalla's Fervor and Life Force, but it has one of the worst mechanics in the game - you need to walk to it to pick it up. There's a reason why more people don't use Ventari orbs, or why no one used old medkit. How are you going to be able to see parts lying on the ground in an open world encounter, with all those people? Even a raid has too many people to see them properly. Better just have these automatically go into your bar (since we've removed the trait that lets others heal by accidentally walking on them anyway).

> @"draxynnic.3719" said: > And lets not forget that ALL elite specialisations give up a core traitline. This matters more for some professions than others, but in some cases a relatively weak explicit tradeoff is counterbalanced by having core traitlines that are good enough that giving up a core traitline _is_ a considerable tradeoff (guardian is a good example of this - many people say that the explicit tradeoff is weak because the elite virtues are better in most circumstances than the core virtues, but guardian core is probably the core that is most used across a variety of game modes, since the core traitlines are good enough to justify it). This fact is overlooked way too much. The original design for elite specs was that taking the spec was the tradeoff, because it locked you out of 3 of the 5 core traitlines. To take holosmith as an example, while the loss of the f5 skill isn't much of a loss considering how powerful forge is, the loss of your third traitline is very significant. There isn't a single trait in the holosmith traitline that works without forge: all of them change a forge skill, change what happens when you leave/enter it, change your overheat/max heat, etc. If you don't go into forge at all, you're wasting an entire traitline. This means that holo is much less durable out of forge than core engi, because core has the addition of a third traitline (probably tools or inventions) to keep them alive and supplement their damage. The issue with engineer is that those other core traitlines are just so weak that they can't compare to the value that holosmith brings. By reworking the core traitlines of some classes, spreading out synergies that require 3 traitlines to work, elite specs could become much more of a tradeoff than they currently are without the need to give profession mechanics forced changes.