Xaylin.1860

> @"Dirame.8521" said:

> > @"Xaylin.1860" said:

> > That's true for sure. I just don't like how unreliable it is in a prolonged fight. It might be on CD when I need it because it can be triggered by so many sources. Fair point on the CC around you. Even though this could be an advantage against some classes.

>

> You just made me realise that cool down. I will use Liberators Vow, letting go of the daze. It will make the quickness more on-call.

>

How dare you get rid of your Daze-Symbol?! But that makes Weighty Terms even more attractive. :p

> @"Dirame.8521" said:

> Because the soft CC from Weighty happens right around you, I am not a fan of it. And since I have to waste two activations in order to make it work on command, I don't feel it is a good choice. Stalwart on the other hand allows for quicker attacks with the hammer which is what hammer needs to be truly painful.

>

That's true for sure. I just don't like how unreliable it is in a prolonged fight. It might be on CD when I need it because it can be triggered by so many sources. Fair point on the CC around you. Even though this could be an advantage against some classes.

> @"Dirame.8521" said:

> I thought of that. I would say it's an option worth considering but Merciful is technically a heal skill that doesn't take up a heal slot. It supplements the mantra heal keeping you alive and works great in team fights. More allies, more heals.

>

MA certainly is a better heal. Sanctury still heals though plus negates projectiles.

I also find it amusing how many people overlook it because the animation is quite subtle or mistake it for something else.

> @"Dirame.8521" said:

> Oh that rotation was dream-state rotation ?. I wasn't thinking straight. That being said though I would be willing to sacrifice F1 if it would give my team the edge in a [...

> [...]

> If I was to hit multiple targets with that rotation then the proccs from the F1 would be great.

Even if **all** those hits connected, what's an realistic assumption for PvP? Unless you're fighting a Mesmer, you're most likely only facing two enemies at a time. I love Permeating Wrath for PvE and WvW but I never found it too appealing for PvP due to this reason. Weighty Terms would always trigger Stoic Demeanor in close combat. There is no point to it, though, in case you don't intend to ever use up your charges, of course.

> @"Dirame.8521" said:

> I was also thinking of using Rune of the sunless since it has a shorter cooldown but the fact that shocking aura lasts for 4s and stuns for 1s is too good to pass up.

That's true. I also like Rune of the Revenant. :3

> @"Dirame.8521" said:

>The idea of the way to play this PVP build has got me tingling all over. I am so excited at how difficult and fun it's going to be to pull off.

>

The best time I ever had in PvP was back when Interrupt Mesmer was playable. I really can feel the vibe. I've actually been toying around with more CC-heavy builds on my Guardian in open world PvE. Not that it mattered there... but it is a relaxed way of getting a feeling for it. I really love the CC component of Glacial Heard even without Hammer (e.g. Longbow). So don't let yourself be demotivated just because it's probably not going to become meta. =) People are right, though. Stability is a huge issue. It's part of why I stopped playing Interrupt Mesmer.

Some thoughts on your build:

* Do you really need Quickness from Stalwart Defender? If you had one more Mantra instead of Purging Flames you could go for Weighty Terms for even more soft CC. This would also let you pick a different trait on the Virtues Adept tier.

* Do you really need Merciful Ambush? If you stick with Purging Flames and Consecrations, Sanctury could be more interesting because it's another Ward.

* Does Permeating Wrath pay off? Since F1 is part of your rotation, it's probably on cooldown most of the time. It might offer some flexibility when facing an opponent with a lot of Stability, but it doesn't really fit your build.

* In case you're playing without Valor, maybe Rune of the Flock is an option to get some heals/health back? Not sure wether the proc is the same in PvP as it is in PvE. The wiki doesn't tell.

> @"draxynnic.3719" said:

> > @"Xaylin.1860" said:

> > The reason we still see baseline Guardians is mostly due to baseline traitline interactions, not due to e-spec trade-offs.

>

> Which is one of the things I've been facepalming about with the whole 'tradeoff' thing for years now. The core traitline you _could_ have otherwise had is the biggest tradeoff of all.

>

Well, I partly agree/disagree. Designing Elites to have trade-offs is as valid has having the loss off classic traitlines as trade-offs. However, this requires consistent design (philosophie) and implementation across all classes. And that's what ANet isn't good at, it seems. Still, I think we can agree, that Elite traitlines offer more than just traits (weapons, new skills/mechanics). So from a pure balance standpoint, overall traits would have to be worse or at least have worse interaction with the baseline class if you didn't want to implement any obvious trade-offs. Meaning, true sidegrades, not upgrades. I guess the issue with this approach is, that it's less fun when releasing add ons.

Amusingly, with the exception of former Elusive Mind all Mirage traits are and always have been pretty bad. So you would think it could work without a specific trade-off. Joke's on baseline Mesmer. While I still love the theme of Mirage, it's probably the messiest Elite implementation we've got. Not the most boring, mind you. But certainly the worst.

> @"draxynnic.3719" said:

> Saying that you're giving up 3 skills for 15 is an overly simplistic analysis because it doesn't take into account how much more of an action economy investment the tomes represent. Sure, there's more options, but there's limits on how well you can USE those options. Dragonhunter virtues are pretty fire-and-forget: you use them like you would a normal skill and then go back to your regular rotation. Core guardian virtues can be activated _while_ performing other actions, which can lead to sneaky tricks like activating F1 as you deliver the killing blow on a mob to get effectively free boons, using F1 or F3 to cover a stomp mid-animation (with appropriate traits), or being able to simply faceroll the virtues before activating Renewed Focus in a pinch. A firebrand using their virtues, on the other hand, is more of a mode shift. They give you more options, to be sure, but they represent a significant interruption of what you'd be doing otherwise. >

>

While it potentially complicates trait interactions, ANet probably would have done themselves a big favour by designing FB more like DD, meaning 1 GM per Tome, resulting in FB solely having 1 Tome depending on the GM picked. This way, each trait triplet (upper, middle, lower) could focus on more defined roles (F1 = burning and debuffing/soft CC, F2 = healing and cleanse, F3 = defense and boons) with a sprinkle of Quickness through different applications/intensity on each of them. At the same time, base Guardian could have gained a buff to passive effects to distinguish itself from DH (more active) and FB (more specialised). Even though you might be right that not every build can harness their full potential and that there is a cost of opportunity for using Tomes (time, skill access), they're still way more powerful than baseline Virtues. And even though I do believe ANet thought that it would work just as you described, numbers on skills told a different story. Resulting in several nerfes which left each Tome very watered down. However, to pick up an argument for/against Tempest not having a trade-off I agree with: In most situations FB still plays just like Guardian+. To some extent I feel the same way about DH. The reason we still see baseline Guardians is mostly due to baseline traitline interactions, not due to e-spec trade-offs. In contrast to, for example, Necromancer, where you can actually see a trade-off within the class mechanic/gameplay itself.

I don't want to make another list with my opinion on wether each e-spec has or has no sufficient trade-off. Some specs certainly don't have proper trade-offs yet while other trade-offs simply don't matter numberswise or are uninspired (e.g. Druid) or simply don't or hardly matter overall (e.g. Tempest). While I'd like proper trade-offs for every spec to be implemented before EoD launches, I feel like balance and gameplaywise we got bigger fish to fry than simply looking for a trade-off like Firebrand mentioned above. Mirage is and always has been a mess mechanically/gameplaywise. Poor Engineer intra class balance overall. And even though I do like Berserker, managing Berserker mode is rocky (no exit, only Utilities to extent duration) because the rework didn't go the whole way - just like it didn't for Chronomancer. And, of course, as always, Pet AI/functionality.

That being said, just to clarify: 1 Doge on Mirage is no trade-off. It's game mode specific and simply a bandaid nerf for PvP.

There are quite a few traits I don't really care about. If I had to pick one - excluding 300s CD traits and stat converting ones - I'd probably go for Protected Phantasms. Sure, it does work. But its use is so limited and in the end just covers up design flaws of pet gameplay. Regarding Escape Artist: It could actually be quite fun if we had Prismatic Understanding on the Illusions GM tier. This way we could build for a sturdier stealther build without having to pick Chaos.

That being said, Mesmer really needs an overall rework/facelift to its traitlines like pre HoT patch. So many traits have been shuffeled around or nerfed/put on hold that many traitline compositions don't make sense anymore or simply underperform. Maybe we'll get one before EoD... I hope so. Otherwise, if I had to pick one single traitline, I'd probably say Inspiration. Solely due to the reason of it being overcrowded with Utility related traits. Partly reworking and moving those to other traitlines could give Inspiration a better purpose for supportive group play and at the same time open up new builds for other set ups.

If I had to pick an overall thing, I'd probably say elite class 'mechanics'. Chronomancer still isn't there but at least somewhat playable after IP got reinstated. However, Mirage is a sad nerfed mess and imho never saw proper gameplay design after leaving the concept board. Shatters have to be incorporated into its mechanic. And Mirage Cloak should never have happened. We already got Distortion. Unique effects make balancing slightly easier but negate any possible synergies with the baseline class. Which makes it just lazy design.

> @"Kodama.6453" said:

> Is there really no difference for you between being unappealing and being completely shut out? Because for me there is a heavy difference between these 2.

> Even if something is unappealing, I am still able to chose it if the situation requires it. If something is locked out for me, then I don't have that choice. And we are talking about **alot** of choices getting forbidden for holosmith here.

>

I argue the issue isn't has big as you feel it to be if there are reasonable alternatives. In the end there is no effective difference in not having access to an option and having an option which has almost no value to you. The only difference is that you might feel cut in your freedom. That's true. But it doesn't impact the balance of the game.

IMHO, the lack of those traits you've listed won't kill Holo. Even though it might indeed alienate people. Again: If you don't want change, sure. But then the situation of core Engineer won't change. So far all balance attempts for Engineer (with regard to Holo and Scrapper) have been really half-assed.

> As I have already proven, tho, kits are used for holosmith.

I never argued against that? However, something being meta simply means it's the most efficient build for the respective mode. It is easy to assume that this means that Kits are important to Holosmith. In reality it is just a mirror of current balance. Nothing else.

I can only speak for myself what I enjoy and what I don't. And I don't believe Holosmiths need Kits to work because of PF.

However, I think we can agree that the current set up for Engineer when it comes to in-class balancing is not in a good spot? And just tuning F5 won't do the class any good?

> Scrapper as an elite spec is already required to get played as a power spec, because of the barrier generation. Now you want to tell me that it is a good thing to make our second out of 2 elite specs being required to run power also. I heavily disagree with that.

>

No, that's not what I said. I said Holo could be made playable as Condi through altering existing traits - meaning without a major rework. However, that there could be reasons not to do so. For example, a third Elite spec. Or core becoming the major go to for Condition on Engineer. We have seen a comporable shift like this happen with core Necromancer. And please don't tell me about us not knowing what is to come. Of course, we don't. We are talking only hypotheticals after all. It's not like Holo is going to lose Kits next patch.

> > I said Dagger because this way Daredevil would only have *melee* weapons.

>

> Aha, so here you make a distinction that daredevil should just have "melee" weapons, but this is not possible for kits in your opinion? You want to take away all kits from holo, why didn't even the thought cross your mind to also be selective with the kits you are taking away? Honestly, sounds a bit biased here.

>

First, I've been talking about what makes sense concpetually. If the concept is that Holosmith focussed their studies on Photonforge (meaning: additional weapon skills) instead of classic weapon Kits, it makes sense for them to lose access to weapon skills somewhere else so it's not just an upgrade. An even more extreme (unbalanced) example is Firebrand. Of course, this not the only way of implementing a trade off for PF but a very straightforward one and it could be justified conceptually. On the contrary, to me, the CD on Toolbelts don't feel right/sufficient. If one said that a Daredevil has focussed on close quarter combat as a Brawler, it could be justified for them to not use ranged weapons (similar as in other games or fantasy universes where, for example, Clerics sometimes only use blunt weapons). However, why would they forgo all weapons aside from one weapon set? At this point, you're just trying to make your case. If anything and all concepts aside, the proper parallel would be Staff + one second weapon set of your choice , wouldn't it? Or is the next arguement that Engineers could potentially run 5 Kits? In the end, Daredevil doesn't gain an additional weapon Kit but an addtional Dodge. So we should have a totally different discussion to begin with. Even though I do enjoy the idea of a melee only DD.

Second, there is a difference between weapons and Utility skills mechanically/programming wise. Utility skills are unlocked by using Hero Points. However, we do know that baseline weapons are not connected to any existing Hero Point unlocks. It is probably easier to alter or completely remove existing weapons from Elite specs than it is to exlcude just specific Utility skills. Granted, we don't know for sure, but it is reasonable to assume so. Now, if this was all a non-issue I'd like to ask: How would you determine which Kits to include and which not? Or won't you entertain this because you're against the idea in general? ;)

I get it. You don't like a non-Kit scenario. However, me seeing it as valid doesn't make me biased. To me, it it does feel like a reasonable approach to further develope classes. Now, those two things might not matter when looking at how it plays out ingame. A proper concept won't always make a class successful or enjoyable. Maybe you're right and Holo without Kits will inevitabily be a disaster. Personally, I just don't believe this to be true.

> You really don't seem to get what I am talking about. Yes, you have 2 weapon sets available. But you are also kinda hard locked into these. Kits are a weapon replacement and allow us to chose between an arsenal of different weapons for different playstyles and that's what you want to take away from holosmith, hard locking them into their weapon choices.

>

I don't need a lecture on the bad state Engineer is in weapon-wise, I'm well aware. ;) We both participated in several discussions about for example improving Pistol or introducing another MH weapon to core Engineer. I surely do get your point. I still don't agree.

It would be **my** choice to forgo Kits when I pick Holo. And it is my choice to pick weapons and traits that complement that kind of playstyle. Again, to me, this is a choice between a more straight forward playstyle of brute forse like Warrior (PF) vs. adaptability (Kits). If PF offers enough power, this is fine to me. While I can understand your point of view, it mainly feels like you value what you've got right now more than what you could potentially gain for losing it. Yet again: fair point, comes down to personal preference.

> @"Kodama.6453" said:

> Grandmaster trait investment to get 20% might duration. Yeah, that is literally a troll pick at that point. And that there are alternatives in the trait tree doesn't matter, I am talking about having the options here.

>

No reason to get upset. I said it was just nitpicking.

However, how are the other two alternatives on that tier not valid options if Holosmith was locked out of it? They are. There is absolutely no reason for every trait being appealing to every spec or build. That just doesn't make any sense.

> It also doesn't matter if not many people are not running flamethrower on holosmith currently. Taking away the option to do that would be just wrong in my opinion, as long as we don't also take away all core weapons from all the other elite specs except 2 sets (like in my example for daredevil).

>

It does matter. Because if we're arguing about something people might not care about, implementing such a change would go easier with the community. You argued yourself that many people might not like the idea. Regardless, just because something is pleasant or one is used to it, doesn't mean it is good for the overall game in the long run.

And no, it wouldn't be the same for all other classes. Because each class is different. So is each Elite spec. I wouldn't approve of such a suggestion for Scrapper. I do for Holo because of PF. The context matters.

> And asking about if grenades are actually the star of a holo build or not... do you play PvP? You know about the grenade holo build? You know, that one many people complain about that grenade kit is doing too much for them?

> Photon forge mostly is used their to get the high damage modifiers that it offers.

>

100nades has been a meme for ages. It's silly and nothing I'd like to see a class being balanced around. It's actually pretty similar to how Power Mesmer is basically stuck with the same bursty set up for PvP since release - with some minor variations, that is. And this shouldn't be the case when picking Elite specs, shouldn't it? Despite all this, Meta builds are very bad benchmarks for designing or balancing a class around. On the contrary, it should be concerning how important Grenades have yet again become for damage. Mostly because of 1 skill and its lesser version.

Photon Forge clearly is the main feature of Holo. If it is just used for modifiers... well... might be true after all the nerfs... Because Holo has been an Engineer+ when it was introduced and probably still is. But wouldn't it be more fun if it was more potent again for the trade off of being less flexible than core or Scrapper? To me it would. Again, just my opinion. I just feel that the current iteration of Holo doesn't make sense and ANet didn't have the courage to commit to anything severe when opting for the CD-thing on Toolbelt skills. At least that's my opinion and I'd rather discuss the topic openly than having another Chrono desaster.

> Oh, and another side effect you didn't consider: you entirely kill condition holo with that change. Because guess what? Almost all our condition damage from utility skills is located on kits!

Wrong. Condition Holo could easily work with some tweaks to Solar Focussing Lense, Incendiary Ammunition and a proper rework for Pistols (which would also benefit core Engineer). And ANet really needs to add Heat-Levels to Pistol and Rifle. Sure, if you just stripped Kits it would be a mess. But that's not what I've said.

> Condition holo currently runs: bomb kit, grenade kit, flamethrower. Holosmith itself offers not alot of condition damage, the photon forge is mostly focused on power. Just pf4 and pbm are offering some burn, but not enough to make a condition build work.

>

> So we are also hard locked into the power damage type when using holo....

>

See above. And even if there weren't any: There might be a good reason to focus Holo on Power/Hybrid rather than pure Condi.

> Nope, it definitely shouldn't have mainhand dagger. Mainhand dagger is a dps and burst weapon, something that daredevil is not supposed to be. It is a bruiser spec, something that is supposed to give survivability in the middle of the enemy. The only mainhand weapon that thief has that is from a bruiser type is sword, so they get to use mainhand sword, mainhand dagger needs to get deleted.

>

I said Dagger because this way Daredevil would only have *melee* weapons. This would make sense for a Brawler type spec and differs from core Thief. Dagger is important for DA since it offers additional access to Weakness which is a major part of Daredevil. Of course, you could get rid of Condi on DD... but I don't want to open up yet another topic. However, Mirroring Kits = Weapons being stripped to Thief without context does not make sense. Because guess what: Thief isn't defined by Toolbelts and Kits but by Steal and Initiative. You know better than that.

Still, I do sincerely like your Daredevil idea. I'm not mocking you. I like it because it makes sense conceptually.

I get that you don't like the idea for Holo. I guess we simply disagree on this specific topic. I just believe Elite specs need a more distinct and consistent design and purpose. And we won't get there when trying to uphold the status quo on everything. Trade offs hurt. But they might be worth it in the end.

> And no, I don't think that classes should be restricted to just 2 different weapons sets on elite spec. That just makes the game terrible to play, since I am hard locked into my weapons just because I want to play a specific elite spec. It takes a huge portion of the fun out of the game.

>

Personally, I never felt like I was lacking weapons when playing Holo even without any Kits. Because I got 2 weapon sets anytime. My normal weapon and PF. It actually was the first time I really enjoyed playing Engineer without any Kit at all. Maybe that is just me. But again: You could still run core Engineer or Scrapper. That's the point exactly.

Many Elite specs don't offer any significant changes to gameplay within a class. It is boring and it doesn't really meet what ANet has set out to do here. As it stands, most are just a premium traitline which also leads to significant balance issues since they were introduced. If people want this to change, they have to embrace proper trade offs and differences in playstyle when picking a certain Elite spec. Otherwise it will stay as it is. If you're fine with that, fair point. But core will most likely remain just an economy version of the Elite specs.

Of course, this should apply to **all classes**. Not just Engineer. I'm not here to get Holo nerfed...

> @"Kodama.6453" said:

> @"Xaylin.1860"

>

> No, you are downplaying the consequences here. A trait like juggernaut is not "less attractive" without flamethrower, it is straight up not functioning as long as you don't want holosmith to have perma stability while in photon forge.

>

That's just nit picking... but, for example, you'd still gain the increase on Might duration. However, how relevant is this actually? How many FT or HK Holos are there? Are Grenades/Bombs the star of any Holo build or is it PF anyway? And it still remains true that all the traits you've mentioned got alternatives that are valuable or even meta for Holo anyway.

> Mirage is a clone spec, but that doesn't take away phantasms, does it? It has **synergy** with clones, which make them more desired than phantasms, but it is not completely disabling you from using phantasms if you desire to. It would be a proper analogy if mirage would just delete phantasms from their skills, which it doesn't. (And btw, phantasms create clones after dying, so they also have some synergy with mirage....).

>

As I said, it is a 'soft' version. Still, you won't want to pick Phantasm traits. And maybe some Mirages would gladly get rid of Phantasms (e.g. creating Clone and performing the Phantasm-skill yourself instead). Design-wise, this would be the more consistent choice, yes. Also, Shatters should not be that unattractive. But that's more due to the overall shotty class design of Mirage rather than wether those traits work or not. They do work. It just doesn't make sense to invest into them too much even though it's your class mechanic.

> And that many skills are not taken is a sign that gadgets and turrets need to get buffed, not hard forced onto a spec by disabling the other options.

> No other spec is locked out of **7** weapons for picking their elite spec either. What you are describing here is absolute madness. It is fine that you prefer the photon forge over actual kits, but this suggestion is just killing the spec for most players in my opinion. Imagine if picking an elite spec like daredevil would have a text that reads "you get access to the staff and can use sword/dagger alongside it. All other weapons are disabled now! No shortbow, no mainhand dagger, no pistols in any hand! You **have** to play staff and sword/dagger, you're welcome!".

>

> How many people do you think would enjoy such a drastic cut in their build options? I think there won't be many.

I'd argue it is more so a sign of Kits being too dominant/powerful on Engineer. And Holo gets yet another Kit ontop.

Maybe many people wouldn't like it. I wouldn't know. I'm just voicing my opinion on how Elite specs **could** look like while offering a real trade off. If Elite specs were implemented to alter how a class plays and to change the class mechanic (something I assume to be the case), then in case of Engineer it would have to be connected to Toolbelts and Kits. It's just an objective observation. Nothing more. Along those lines, to me, balancing Scrapper through Toolbelts and Holo through Kits would make sense theoretically. Again, I'm just theorycrafting. I mean... how likely is this going to happen? :p

[Edit]: Regarding Daredevil... it would probably still include MH Dagger :p But wouldn't you agree that this would be a significant trade off for melee durability? Instead of Steal vs. Swipe?

> @"Kodama.6453" said:

> I think locking us out of kits for holosmith is reducing build diversity way too much.

>

Not necessarily. It would destroy Holo builds with Kits but they would just use different Utilities. In the end it could actually lead to more diversity. Not for Holos per se, but for Engineers overall. There are many Utility skills that are used for basically all subtypes of Engineer while others are neglected. How is that diversity?

Yes, this issue could also be adressed differently. ;)

> You have to consider that our kits are a replacement for weapons. Photon forge would be required to get an extreme buff to make up for that severe loss in adaptability. Not to mention that a huge amount of traits from engineer are also completely disabled for holosmith, something that is not the case for any other class. All other elite specs can still use all traits available for them, but locking holosmith out of kits disables:

> * grenadier

> * juggernaut

> * health insurance

> * backpack regenerator

> * power wrench

> * streamlined kits

>

> The only way to make these traits work with holosmith, if you really consider the photon forge to be some kind of "super kit", would be to make all these traits interact with photon forge as the replacement instead. Not sure how people would like if holosmith starts perma pulsing stability while in photon forge on top of might.

I'm aware of the weapon thing. But at least to me, PF does the job pretty well. It is so sexy I don't even want to touch my nice Lightsabre. Maybe it would need a buff. But I'm not even sure about that. Brute offensive power vs. Adaptability. Sounds fair to me. As you said yourself: Backpack Regenerator could easily work with PF and adding another effect to Streamlined Kits isn't hard either. The others are basically weapon traits. Yes, you'd be left with less choices than before. But I'd like to question how many of those are actually currently frequently used by Holosmiths. Overall, the loss of he Kits is probably the way bigger loss anyway.

Bit Off-Topic: To be honest, I'm not a big fan of weapon traits to begin with. I love 'inofficial' weapon traits like Comeback Cure, though.

> But something would need to be done, you can't just take away 1/4th of our core utility skills **and** 6 core traits from holosmith.

I can't. I would. ANet could. :p

Yes, it is would be a significant number of traits that would become inefficient - not ineffective, mind you! Most would still do something. But you got alternatives on each tier to pick from. And while it is a 'softer' version of this, just look at Mirage: It is a Clone spec. How many Phantasm traits are there? Many. They still work. But they're less attractive. What do you do? You just don't pick them. Easy.

I'm not saying that Mirage is perfect in any way. It is far from it. But not due to less attractive traits. Creating new ways to play a class should not be limited by the fear of making specific traits or skills unattractive to pick as long as there is a sufficient amount of alternatives. Instead, it should encourage picking other traits.

Now, weapons/kits are a different story, sure. Engineers are pretty unique because they don't have a very distinct 'class mechanic'. However, try not to solely think of Kits as Utility skills rather than your class mechanic. Then, it is kind of comparable to Berserker who loses baseline Bursts. I'm aware that the re-design of the spec wasn't solely perceived in a positive manner, but instead of just being a bonus slapped ontop as it was before it now actually changes how you play. Or look at Weaver. It might have been a rocky road but many people were very sceptical because of how the game flow changed due to Attunement swapping. However, many people find it fun. And it most certainly changes how the Elementalist plays and uses its skills. In this regard, it is probably one of the best Elite specs ANet introduced.

> @"ArielRebel.3426" said:

>It could be as simple as number tweaking like Scrapper's lowered vitality and give holo a passive that makes it so "while using an engineering kit OTHER THAN HOLOFORGE, you lose XYZ amount of power/condi damage" or something to make it **so the kits are usable but arent as strong as they would be when used with core only traitlines**.

That's just my opinion, but the -Vit on Scrapper is one of the most ridiculous things ANet has ever implemented. It's clearly a bandaid (number-balance) and has nothing to do with the concept or design of Scrapper. It is on the same level of lazy as Druid, although I find the reaction of some players a bit extreme, or the game mode based 1 Dodge of Mirage. And I'm sure ANet isn't very proud of it either.

Making Kits usable but nerfed is inconsequential. You can't always cater everyone. The bigger issue I see here is the cost of opportunity. Players are used to how it is now. If you take stuff away, it will cause a huge drama. Which probably wouldn't have happened if Elite specs where properly implemented from he start.

> @"Dirame.8521" said:

> If you buff anything in core Engie other than the Elite skill’s F5 then you inadvertently buff the Elite specs. So first, you lot have figure out how to buff Core without killing or buffing the Elites.

> Is it impossible? Not really. The reason why I sometimes use core is because it’s the only one that can combine certain traits together and the F5 elite skills so that makes it unique in a way.

>

This. It's not reasonable to expect proper balance just around F5. Unless F5 is overbuffed - which could work but would probably turn core Engineer into a silly one-trick-pony - the core class will remain less powerful unless Elite specs are nerfed into the ground or reworked.

I'm aware that the Kit-idea is a bit more extreme. But design-wise I'm just not satisified with the status quo of many classes.

> @"Kodama.6453" said:

> Being locked out of an entire utility skill category also would feel really unfair as long as other classes don't have to give up a utility skill type as well....

Being locked out of a full Utility group might not make sense for just any class. However, I do feel that it might make sense for Holo and Kits considering that PF basically is an overpowered holographic Kit. At least more sense than disabling Toolbelt skills... But yes... other classes should get real trade offs as well. If this means it is easier to balance the Elite specs with core I'm fine with meaningful and purposeful limitations for them. For example, I'd really enjoy an Elementalist spec that sacrifices one or two Attunements for gaining in-fight weapon swap. Right now, I do somewhat enjoy Scrapper. But let's be honest here... Function Gyro is not a proper (class) mechanic. And other specs face similar issues.

I sincerely believe that the implementation of proper trade offs is something ANet has to deliver on for **every class/spec** before the expansion launches - or at last when it launches. Like they did the big trait rework before HoT released. If trade offs are still a thing ANet is actually pursuing design-wise...

> @"Ghos.1326" said:

> One of my ideas (for scrapper) is to make the toolbelt skills become the gyro well skills (besides the heal), making them unchangeable but providing the utility from the wells, and making the gyro toolbelt skills (example bubble from bulwark toolbelt) slottable utility skills that you can choose to take if you want, as a tradeoff for taking scrapper. Trading in your toolbelt skills (besides heal) for gyros since the theme of scrapper revolves around being a tank and gyros.

> For Holo, i think the forge mode disabling kits for a period of time is fine, so I wouldn't change anything on Holo.

Actually, I really like that Scrapper idea. It makes sense design-wise and would feel more like an actual class mechanic. The 'field' skills could still be reworked into proper Well-skills. However, might require too much work for ANet.

Regarding Holo: The disadvantage for Kits is kinda laughable imho and the negative effect on Toolbelt skills is also counterintuitive. Holo comes with Toolbelt skills after all. It would be way more interesting if Holos couldn't use Kits at all. Yes, that's a huge draw back for an Engineer. But that's how I feel Elite specs should impact gameplay and it wouldn't break any traits since PF can trigger them. This set up would make Kit-Toolbelts exclusive to base Engineer, Kits to base Engineer and Scrapper, Toolbelts to base Engineer and Holosmith.

Of course, this shake up would have the potential to destroy plenty of existing builds. :s

> @"Anchoku.8142" said:

> Necro has a serious problem playing as a functional tank in PvE. Its only major source of stability to counter boss control effects was removed last year; Foot in the Grave. Tanking requires only two things: High aggro (toughness) and reliable control of boss positioning (counters to knock-backs and other control effects.) Necro easily has the first requirement but is weak to hard CC.

> I do not see Arenanet giving FitG back.

Necromancers could have an easier time with tanking if we got another Shroud comparable to Scourge. Simply because Necromancers could be healed and treated just as any other class in a group set up. It shouldn't be that hard to build Stability and some damage mitigation into a new e-spec. However, personally I'm fine with how tanky Reapers can be. I'd rather have something more mobile or CC-focussed with damage as secondary strength and either a long ranged 2H weapon or a close ranged condition 1H weapon. I got no preference for Utilities, although Glyphs could be interesting because of Shroud. As an alternative to Signets.

> @"Bast.7253" said:

> I would love somekind of demonic assassin type melee/single target oriented power spec. With shroud being more than just a black shroud and an actual demonic form.

> Something vampiric.

>

> But realistically? There's the whole "soulbinder" thing with shiro'ken. I could see it being something like that but instead of shroud you get a shiro'ken type pet in its place. Perhaps damage is split with the pet? I don't know. That would be a bit ridiculous with minion mancer. Perhaps it's a new form of life force management that builds faster, degenerates faster, and the shroud is more of a temporary stance/empowerment?

>

> I do going the demonic route could be really neat though. Perhaps dual swords for weapons. I'm not sure what the utilities would be though. We've had shouts and "punishments" and they already had wells, sigils, and pets. So perhaps actual stances, or glyphs.

>

> I guess the only other thing that could be kind of cool would be a long-ranged weapon like longbow and have it be kind of a shadow-ranger esque theme.

If you used LF as pet-fuel it could somewhat work even if it was classified 'Minion'. And shouldn't be that hard to implement.

* Life Force degenerates when F1 is used. F2-4 are disabled until F1 is used.

* F1: Needs a target. Summons a Shade (or whatever theme you'd want...). Flip over = retarget. Active until fight ends or LF runs out. F1 traits are triggered periodically on pet AA (s. Refined Toxins on Ranger) or on 'Retarget' if ready (more like Poison Master).

* F2: Movement based pet attack (gap closer). If it was a shadow/spectral theme, the Necro could swap place instead.

* F3: Pet centered attack

* F4: Pet centered attack

* F5: Another pet centered attack. Or pet release. Or Shrould-button. Or a combination of those.

Shrould could be treated in different ways

* As Bast described, splitting effects between you and your pet (meaning: Less efficiency for the Necromancer)

* Or like on Scourge (s. above)

* Or upon using F1 for x seconds (more like effects upon Steal on Thief)

The pet could be altered in different ways. Some ideas:

* GMs (s. Daredevil)

* Target it is first summoned on (s. Thief)

* Based on your weapon (s. Mesmer)

However: Utilities clearly wouldn't be even more 'Minions'. That would be silly. Maybe 'Commands'. But probably something else.

Still... personally not looking for a pet centered spec on Necromancer.

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"Redpawa.4108" said:

> > [...] The main options for improving minions are to make minion’s a secondary effect on normal skills, dedicate an elite spec to it, or make minions into a secondary proffession mechanic e.g. phantasms/symbols. [...]

> Minions kinda already are a secondary mechanic for necromancer. Both Lich and rise summon them and minions aren't limited to their utility either with Rune of the Lich existing. Going in that direction would be great. Adding more temporary minions to be summoned through weapons could be amazing. And I have some ideas for that as well.

>

>[...]

>

> Minions are kinda treated similarly to engineer elixirs. They both show up on more than just utility skills they're associated with and both have far more potential to be built into by the class.

Oh boy, this again. It's really pushing my buttons, no offense.

Sure, many things are subjective and you might just say others simply disagree with you. Fair point. But adamantly stating Minions were a secondary class mechanic or more important than other Utility groups is not making it more true. It doesn't make sense when looking at how GW2 Necromancers are designed as a whole. Minions might have played a more significant role during developement but this was scrapped. Every decision ANet made since then treated Minions as Utility group no better than any other. This is also heavily emphasized by the last Death Magic rework which basically removed Minions from all Minors. In contrast to the rework of Zeal, where Symbols became even more important.

Actually, your comparison to Elixirs is quite accurate. However, what you're more likely looking for are 'Explosions' which - even before the respective traitline was reworked - were scattered across all Engineer weapons and skills. Even on Elixirs (Toolbelt). By the way, just as for Minions, the importance of Elixirs within Alchemy has been reduced with their last rework. I'm a bit dumbfounded, though. Do you believe Elxirs to be a secondary class mechanic of Engineers? They clearly are not. Why even make this comparison? Regardless, you misinterpret the importance of those skills and their relevance for the class!

You got an argument that Minions show up on other skills. But we are talking about two skills here. How does that prove anything? I've brought this example before. Mesmer got Stealth on Glamours, Signets, Manipulations and Illusions. It's also on a weapon. And we got several traits. Does it make Stealth a secondary class mechanic? No! It's just something this class does and that fits the theme of being trickery. You can find arguments like this for many effects on many classes if you just wanted to. But it doesn't really prove anything.

What about Symbols? Closest to Symbols are probably Explosions. How would this look on Necromancer? Corruption would fit that bill way better than Minions considering every weapon set up has some sort of manipulation. Even though all those Boon corruptions and Condition transfers don't classify as 'Corruption'. If you wanted something to compare to Mesmer Illusions, Spectral skills would be the equivalent on Necromancers. Because their main theme is fueling the class mechanic (Life Force). And they are connected to Soul Reaping after all. You know... the 'class defining' traitline? Then again, this comparison is flawed from the start anyway. Because neither Symbols nor Explosions are Utility groups. Sure, Illusion Utilities fit your desired set up. But those are primarily a resource. So we'd be back at arguing wether Spectrals shouldn't be more important, not Minions.

Don't get me wrong.

* I'm all for making Minions more active by reworking Death Magic and/or the Utility skills.

* I'm all for making them less ugly although this is purely my personal taste.

* I'm open for an e-spec with a pet mechanic although I'd rather have something more 'mobile'.

However, the agenda of pushing Minions to be more important for the class than they currently are or even becoming the class mechanic, I do not agree with. Minions are not a class mechanic outside of Ranger and even for Mesmers they are mainly a resource. Minions are not more important to Necromancers than other Utility skills. The class design in GW2 does not support this assumption. At least that's what I believe.

My personal opinion aside, it's unlikely ANet will invest time to do such a rework. So I'd rather adjust my expectations accordingly than being disappointed in the end. Now, if you just wanted to theorycraft: Sure, whatever floats your boat. Minions could be incorporated into the class. But so could Marks. Corruptions. Spectrals. But aside from theorycrafting this is probably not going to happen. Maybe on an e-spec. But even that can't be confirmed at this point. However, if you wanted to spend energy on this specific topic, I'd probably go for e-specs.

That's quite close to Combustive Shot, isn't it? ;)

While it surely would have some down sides, I'd still love to have Fear instead of a Daze on Warhorn.

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > @"Kodama.6453" said:

> > What I mean by that: symbols are a part of **every** guardian build, minions are not for necromancers. And I think they shouldn't.

>

> Exactly, at best you could compare guardian's _symbols_ to necromancer's _boon convertion_ (thought it's not entirely true since staff and GS don't offer any boon convertion... yet). If necromancer's minions are comparable to something that the guardian owned, it would be the old _spirit weapons_.

This. Minions are neither Symbols nor comparable to Phantasms or Clones besides coincidentally also being AI skills. I'm a bit irritated by the recent trend of making Minions more than they actually are for GW2 Necromancer. They are no more important than any other Utility group Necromancers have.

> @"SLOTH.5231" said:

> Yeah I just feel like minions are wasted utilities giving us less then other classes have in reference to WvW and PvP. I feel like it’s almost a disadvantage to be honest. I like the minions and would like to use them outside of PvE but they get killed instantly so can’t even use there skills.

Well, it's not like Necromancers are at a disadvantage here considering Illusions in general (Mesmer), Turrets (Engi), Spirits (Ranger) and Summons (Renegade). While do agree that Minions could need some work, I'm not sure that making them viable in PvP or WvW is a realistic goal.

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> I used my previous threat as a baseline for what could be done to make them more active. As for permanent minions? Well, I never made the claim that was a requirement for a good minion build. In fact I never spoke of it in this thread at all. I was comparing the MM across games. The MM I personally find most useful to a group is actually the guild wars 1 Minion master. If you haven't played it I'd highly recommend it. Those minions are not permanent. Their life is on a timer. They degenerate over time but they are exceptionally bulky having comparable health and armor to a paragon in that game. And their damage is decent too. Their flaw is the health degen and the fact that they show no fear from aoe which can lead to them being kitten out. Still, fantastic build and would recommend playing it if you get the chance.

>

Well, since I didn't play it it is hard for me to know how Necromancer Minions worked but then. In the videos I've just skipped through it mainly looks like you're swarming enemies with a horde of Minions with occassional heals. So yeah, probably more active then GW2 MM passively camping for materials. But that's hardly an active build. Also, how would you not consider those Minions not permanent? Sure... degrading health and all. But it does look like you can basically keep them alive with some healing anyway. Personally, I imagine something different when talking about playing an active Minion class. Regardless wether I do like it or not: Couldn't you do anything similar with Scourge already? Not talking meta. But the playstyle is somewhat available if you chose to.

If I am wrong, please just guide me towards some videos. It's hard to know without ever having played GW1.

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> Guild wars 2 would need a different approach due to its systems. I've suggested both the Deathcap and Diabolist in the past which give the player direct control over specific minions that are summoned using life force as well as utility skills which buff minions in some way.

Okay... but then we're talking about Elites. Of course, this is a way to implement more Minions. Maybe the only realistic one when expecting deeper gameplay than we currently have. However, I'm still not sure how realistic it is due to several reasons. Two of the probably more important ones:

* ANet hasn't succeeded in implementing interesting AI Utility skills yet and keeps struggling

* What would happen with baseline Minions if Necromancers got a Minion centered Elite?

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> Oh and Minion Masters used to be Meta in GW2. It wasn't what I prefer because the cleric or bard for the minions wasn't you it was the druid and Chronomancer at the time. You just made them. But that was nerfed into oblivion. It was actually extremely good. It was meta in Fractals and raids. It needed to be nerfed... But anet killed it instead.

Something being meta isn't really a qualifier for anything, is it? And it hardly was very active or intricate to play either. It just was strong numberswise.

> @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> Wont play them because they look stupid, guild wars 2 is all about appearences. If they look stupid ontop of being clunky, and having little use then why bother? I mean really my condi-rev loves minion-mancers because its free bags. Minions both look/are a joke right now. Could be removed, likely wouldn't even effect anyone other than those of us who like the "idea" of a minion-mancer. Which I do. I mained one for a long time in guild wars 1.

That's fine and as I said I don't like them either. But some people do. And yes, cosmetics are important. But you rarely can please everyone. I just don't see ANet investing time and resources in such a change. The benefit for the game and - of course - financial performance just isn't there.

> @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> Alright, bet. Change the class mechanic at core to be around minions, remove death shroud and make the shroud unique to reaper/whatever other E-spec shows up? I mean they clearly aren't afraid to dink with the mechanics of a class as they do it all the time with Rev/Warrior/Ranger (Soulbeast in particular is a good example.)

This is how it could work. But again... why would they do that? They could add a Minion Elite. But then it would still not be their main mechanic. And again: They can't always please everybody. Many people like the Shroud. Some people might want Spirit Minions. Others Skeletons. Yadda yadda. I'm afraid current Necro is what you get and even an Elite spec can't change everything about that.

> @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> In my mind death-magic should be all about minions. It should NOT be about shroud as I feel like Soul-reaping is there for that, I also feel like Carapace should be a baseline thing for necromancer since they lack mobility. If you lack mobility than typically you go for sustain and thats the trade off that is made for the class as a whole, ele's and messmers are faster but we are the tanky casters.

There is absolutely **no** class that has a whole traitline dedicated to one Utility group. Why should Necromancer be any different? Dedicating Death Magic to one Utility group basically kills it for any other set up. That's horrible design when looking at how the traitsystem in GW2 actually works.

I also don't really get why Carapace should be baseline. The defense you're asking for is baseline Shroud...

> @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> People QQ about everything, I honestly think the argument for active/passive gameplay is mute. Passive skill effects/traits exist on EVERY class except a few and even then there are utilities that provided passives.

Of course, people do. And of course, there are some passive effects on other classes. Warrior is the prime example. Still, Minionmancer is probably the main offender of just standing around and not dying anyway. And while it's less successful in PvP because people can outplay Minions, they are still pretty sturdy. Even if you disagreed, playing against passive effects is no fun and I would rather not have more in the game.

> @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> Minions will never be good until they give more to the caster and offer more in terms of combat. Fewer minions to choose from (Two corporeal minions to summon, then two spirits to have do specific tasks) Could be a good way. Make the spirits like Kalla's summons and then make the minions a not so powerful version of rangers pet, perhaps find a way to actually make it more tied into the profession because honestly right now they feel tacked on.

Well... they're 'tacked' on... because they're not the class mechanic?!

Minions could theoretically offer more in combat. But in return they would have to lose passive effects because they'd be too strong otherwise. Sure, it would indeed be nice to have one less organ-donor-Minion in exchange for something shadowy. But again: Cosmetics don't really make Minions more active. And I thought that's the main discussion we're having here?

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> How could this be solved though? Well, there's a few ways. One such method which I've heard from other people is having an existing weapon the necromancer has being converted into the Minion weapon. Staff being a popular choice although I personally feel Warhorn or Focus could also do the trick or have some minor abilities to be granted for minions or perhaps summon them. How I'd personally go about that though is if I was to give it to say staff, Staff wouldn't require minions to be useful but be a support weapon first and aid minions as a part of its kit but not be its primary focus. For Focus I'm not sure, I think it would be interesting if it could damage foes and call them to a location or even spawn an unstable horror or two for a bomber type build. And for Warhorn I might offer up their Locus swarm also give the buff to minions while granting them super speed. But that's just some ideas.

>

All dandy. But while I'm not in ANets head, it is pretty safe to say: This is not going to happen.

Again: Minions are not part of the class mechanic of Necromancers. It's a single Utility group. What you describe holds only mostly for class mechanics.

* Mesmer: At least 1 Clone and 1 Phantasm per weapon set

* Ranger: At least 1 skill that interacts with the pet per weapon set

This is not the case for Necromancer. Yes, what you describe could work. But it doesn't make sense from a design point when looking at the class. It's like saying 'Oh, Mesmer got Prismatic Understanding, I love it. Let's put some Stealth associated skills on every weapon!'. Just because you could theoretically do it, doesn't mean you should. There is absolutely no reason why Minion skills should merit this sort of attention. I mean... I get it... GW2 Necro is different than GW1. But so is Mesmer. That's life!

Now, if you were looking for anything that could be spread across all weapons on Necromancers - right now it's basically Boon corruption/condition transfer - ANet could easily look into something like putting Marks on every weapon considering Marks could theoretically could do anything **but aren't linked to a specific Utility group**. Something like inverse Symbols. But then again: Why would they? This thought hardly has more substance than suddenly wanting Stealth on every Mesmer weapon.

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> [...]

> As for improving engagement from a core necromancer perspective, well I made a whole post about that already which I'll link here. https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/100887/summon-pet-builds-conflicts-and-solutions

>

> But what do you guys think? Do you think Minions are doomed to forever be passive or are you like me and see some interesting potential for some explosive active play?

First of all, I do think your thoughts are valid. However, I feel like you're asking or wishing for two different things. You'd like Minionmancers to be more active. But you'd like to play a pet-zoo style Minion Master in contrast to someone who maybe just utilizes other entities temporarily. To me, those two are quite significantly distinct topics.

When talking about the Master as an active 'Nurturer' of its Minions I see a systematic issues with GW2 game mechanics. In PvE the aggro system is problematic when designing interesting AI mechanics. Pets would have to able to bind mobs or even environmental objects to them to make this playstyle possible unless you just aim to flood your foes with pets. So a low hanging fruit might be having a Minion with a taunt. It could work for OW/solo. It probably still won't work well for group content, at least pathing and navigtion will still remain problematic. And this is not an GW2 exclusive issue. Personally, I've never experienced a multiplayer game or even MMO that has a pet class with durable or permanent pets where the role as a pet master actually mattered in group content. In group content, the role mostly shifts to party support (e.g. Lore-master in LotR) or tank (e.g. pet-classes in DAoC). I've rarely seen viable offensive builds and considering Death Magic is more about defense, let's not go down that road too far. Unfortunately, looking at Death Magic, Necros as Minionmancers are neither set up for group support nor tanking in a group - at least not in the sense of letting your pets tank. [Enter Jennifer Coolidge: Waiiiit a minute ... the supportive stuff kinda sounds like something Scourge can already do... :# . I wonder why nobody decides to play an active Sourge-Minionmancer... /s] Those issues only get worse when talking PvP. But maybe most importantly: Necormancers are **no** innate pet class. It's not their class mechanic. It is not. I can't stress this point enough. People need to wrap their head around it. It probably won't change! This heavily limits what can be done with this specific playstyle because Necromancers won't have any skills to directly interact with their pets nor to command them in an adanced way. And to be fair: Not even Rangers can get much further than solo pew pew Bowbear.

I do believe current Minionmancers are rather passive due to two quite simple reasons and Dadnir mentioned both of them. Available traits encourage keeping them alive and being passive while the active skills don't measure up to the passive effects. Right now, they basically work like Signets with AI as vehicle for the effect. Of course, skills and traits can and could extensively be reworked to overcome those issues. But when building on what we've got, having a zoo type build will probably never be active due to mechanic reasons and most certainly not efficient enough for group content unless you bloat their numbers. It is more realistic to remove passive traits and buff active effects. Or at least rework Minion centered effects to affect 'allies' so it can be transferred to group content. It could even go as far as we've seen with Spirit Weapons. So yes, I do believe that Minionmasters or Summoners could become more active in GW2. However, I don't believe this would go hand-in-hand with a type of build you seem to enjoy.

I'm not so sure how your link contributes to active gameplay. I mainly see buffs and a bandaid how to counter strong pets in PvP?

> @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

>

>

> 1. A rework to the current minions in both appearance, visuals in general and power.

> 2. Give a weapon (Staff) a rework and have it be the defecto cat-herding weapon. Right now for Ranger is Axe man-hand that gives our animal companion specific ability commands or well "Added" commands. Its one of the few, I feel Pushing staff to be the minion stick would help it have a place while also benefiting necromancers minions. Besides what kind of MM doesn't use a stick? (Could do Dagger/dagger too)

> 3. We would need added bonuses in the trait tree to be more impactful, such as for example perhaps one that makes it when a minion dies it does X. Which you could then build something around~

> 4. Likely they could fold some minions into one another.. (bone-horrors/shambling horrors could be merged with the shade. both being replaced by something more ghastly.)

> 5. Would need defenses for the caster based on minion type/amount.

>

> These are all things it would require, ontop of that I Feel like they need a overhaul to the theme of being a summoner. But who am I kidding... they will just make an E-spec for guardian in which it does minions better than necromancers do~

To 1: Personally, I never liked their appearance. But some people do. So not really an issue, isn't it?

To 2: **All** Ranger weapons have at least 1 such skill, not just Axe. Because pets are their class mechanic. Not the case for Necro.

To 3: No more Minion traits, please. The amount of traits attributed to just one single Utility group is already unparalleled. We don't need more, we need less. Even after the rework of Death magic. We still got Death Nova. And there is a reason why similar traits were removed from Mesmers.

To 4: That's basically just a buff. Not that I'm generally opposed... but what's your specific point here?

To 5: Like... Flesh of the Master? Not a fan... doesn't necessarily require active gameplay and people are already complaining about double shatter clutter...

> @"Abyssisis.3971" said:

> My 5 count for thieves include shadow embrace, pain response, guarded initiation, don’t stop and trickers when traited.

>

> My count for Mesmer was 3, but I did missed one. So auspicious anguish, menders purity, sympathetic visage, blurred inscriptions when traited.

>

Mesmer is definitely missing Restorative Illusions. ;)

Thieves got objectively worse traits when it comes to fending off damaging conditions than Rangers. I won't entertain arguing about that because I believe that it should be obvious regardless of the sole number of condition defense related traits available. Now, when it comes to Mesmer: If a (core) Mesmer wants **competitive** condition defense from **traits** one will **always** have to pick Inspiration no matter what. Due to its ICD and rare access to Distortion Auspicious Anguish will **never** be enough to keep you safe from conditions unless you also pick Blurred Inscriptions. Meaning, you picked Inspiration anyway. You now might argue that you could pick different combinations of Sympathetic Visage and/or Restorative Illusions. But please, explain my how this situation is significantly different from Ranger with WK with/without Shared Anguish vs. SoR?

Not discussing Menders Purity since it is a Minor that won't be powerful enough on it's own.

> And yes, it still comes down to options. Those choices while not being as strong as wilderness knowledge are also not as heavily relied on to get cleanse on your toolbar when you are looking at the whole picture. On paper, Mesmer hands down Looks to have the better choices out of the 3 classes for skill bar condi counters, ranger has 1 more choice over the two, yet quality wise, isn’t as good as Mesmer and well is about as bad as thief choice for skill bar cleanse. But not having kept up with Mesmer or thief since starting on my rangers 4 years ago, I don’t know which choices for them are actually sort after for skill bar choices.

>

To be honest, I'm not 100% sure wether I got your point about skill bar condi counters right... I hope, I did... :s

Just from a mathematic standpoint the condition removal portion per second, assuming a self-use (not group), Signet of Renewal is stronger than both, Arcany Thievery and Nullfield. Mantra of Resolve is a bit tricky and I'm too tired to do the math (recharges/recasts). If you solely look at the count recharge, it's also worse than Signet of Renewal. Of course, this view is a bit skewed because you'd probably never have 13 conditions at once. But you might as well underheal on Mesmers considering that most untraited options heal 3 conditions or less. Additionally, I also believe that having Heal skills like Healing Spring adds significantly more variety too builds than yet another Utility skill to pick from. Core Mesmer got neither untraited Healing skills against conditions nor Elite skills. Those, that should not be named (Chrono/Mirage) do have said options, though.

Not saying that this comparison makes sense ingame considering it neglects all other effects those skills might have. But I fail to see why you believe Mesmer options are better than Rangers? I'm also a bit confused how this aids your point of view that Rangers need more options when it comes to traits.

> So when it comes to options. Playing power ranger, you aren’t going to pick healing spring, you aren’t going to pick spirit of nature unless you are picking for the revive, so you are left with deciding on SoR and/or lightning reflexes, both decent choices. Playing as condi, water spring is a solid option for a trapper build, SoR and LR both decent options and well nature spirit, can’t see it being picked for the condi cleanse but for the revival aspect. Taking WS/WK gives a ranger player 5 more options for skill bar choices for condi cleanse, and untraited WS skills are generally pretty good, quite possibly the best skill set for rangers and added WK on top of them gives you a lot of bang for your buck in both power and condi builds. So in the end you are left with 1 option, deciding on whether to take it and have plenty of on demand cleanse or not to take it and have kitten all cleanse, which again brings us back to being pigeonholed into taking it for condi counters.

Healing Spring is as efficient in power builds as it is in condition builds. You might not like the playstyle, but that's hardly an objective statement.

Basically, you're arguing that Rangers either have to take SoR or WK + some Survival skills. How is this any different from the Mesmer scenario I described above? It is not, really. The outcome is exactly the same even though Mesmers might have a slightly larger variety on the Utility bar, while Rangers got the advantage when it comes to Healing skills.

I mean... I can understand why one would like more options when it comes to traits... or Utility skills. Whatever. Maybe discussing this topic would be easier if there were specific suggestions that could be analyzed. However, even if we came to an agreement, that core Ranger had the absolutely worst condition defense ever, when looking at overall game balance it's quite difficult to justify additional traits when there are things like Celestial Avatar and Verdant Etching on Druid and Bear Stance on Soulbeast. And, while clunky, we haven't even talked about condition removal through pets. It's a much harder sell than you make it look like.

> @"Abyssisis.3971" said:

> > @"Kodama.6453" said:

> > > @"Abyssisis.3971" said:

> > >

> > > Reread the original post. Condi counters - cleanse, transfers, conversions and as I stated later on I counted reductions excluding resistance granting traits on war/ rev as I don’t play those classes to know how they work. Also stated I got 1 wrong on engineer, I missed one on Mesmer and kodama pointed out a 4th on ranger which I agreed with.

> > >

> > > And the original point was that rangers are pigeonholed into WS/WK. ?‍♂️

> >

> > But isn't it the same for every other class? If that's how you see it, then engineer is pigeonholed into inventions/alchemy.

> > Tools is meaningless, since the only condi counter in there is reactive lenses and no one is using that.

> >

> >

>

> You can say that, but not to the same degree as ranger is. Engineer’s 6 trait related condi counters plus 7? skill bar condi counters gives it a little more flexibility.

You're right that **core** Engineer has more flexibility than core Ranger - even though your numbers are heavily bloated here. Purity of Purpose is in no way condition defense. It's an after-effect. Plus, two trais are Minors and therefore come by default, not really choice. Still, while there might be more flexibility on Engineer Kodama is also right: It comes down to Alchemy (Elixir) vs. Inventions (Protection). The thing is: This also holds true for Holosmiths and Scrappers unless we're talking PvE endgame DPS builds. In case of Rangers, it doesn't hold true for neither Soulbeast nor Druid. You don't have to pick WK or SoR on those Elites.

Which leads me back to a question I've asked before: What is the point of discussing specific aspects of core classes in a vacuum?

> @"Abyssisis.3971" said:

> @"Xaylin.1860"

> Sorry, don’t really have time to sit down and reply to everything you said, 12.5 hour work days suck. I would list every trait, but it would be along list, I did get one wrong for engineer, I may have gotten some of the others wrong, I won’t know till I actually make a list of which ones, but I also didn’t count those resistance granting ones for wars/revs, as stated.

>

> I agree, quality of the traits does count, and some aren’t as good as others and that’s all well and good. I’m fine with that, it’s all part of the experience with fine tuning your build. What I’m not fine with is being forced to take a trait line to take a specific trait in order to have something to counter condi because the other other option is in NM and unless I’m using that trait line with that trait, then I’ve got to rely on Sigil, runes or skills, which again comes down to build options. Other classes have a bit more flexibility with their options to counter condi regardless of the quality of traits/skills.

No problem. That's why I said I'll not argue about the specific numbers per class. Hope you can get some free time after such a long work day. ?

The thing is: the trade off you're describing is hardly unique to Ranger. Taking your own numbers, it's exactly the same for Mesmer traitwise. And when looking of the quality of respective traits, I'd argue Thieves don't have it much better. So are we arguing about other classes getting more options as well?

Of course, everyone has their preferences how to pick specific capabilities for their class. You obviously prefer to have condition removal from traits rather from skills. Fair enough. So do I. But that's just a preference and not a balance issue. And I'm also not convinced that it is a significant diversity issue since there are options outside from traits. At least personally, I'm having a hard time seeing how condition removal is an issue for Rangers overall.

[Edits]: Sorry. On the phone ?

I probably disagree with almost everything in the OP. :o

> @"Abyssisis.3971" said:

> Ele has 7 traits in 4 lines

> Warrior has 4 traits in 3 lines excluding warhorn trait that grants resistance

> Ranger has 3 in 2 different lines + 3 in Druid/ +2 in soulbeast

> Necro has 6 in 4 lines

> Guard has 4 in 3 lines

> Thief has 5 in 3 lines

> Engineer has 7 in 3 lines

> Mesmer has 3 in 2 lines

> Rev has 4 in 3 lines excluding the traits that grant resistant

>

> I didn’t go through the other elite specs, but I’m sure they have some more as well.

While I do not get to the same numbers on every class, let's just talk about those you've listed.

Yes, there are classes like Elementalist and Necromancers which - due to different reasons - have access to indeed twice the amount of condition removal, transfer or transformation. However, most other classes just got one or two more options than core Rangers. That sounds less drastic than 2 to 3 times less options, doesn't it? So I feel it is reasonable to state that there is a range of numbers of condition removal traits on classes. Ranger is in the bottom although most classes (from your list: Warrior, Guardian, Revenant) aren't far ahead. And even when emphasizing the importance of optional traitlines vs. options in total, Ranger is still on par with Mesmer traitwise.

However, that's a pretty skewed view even when just talking about traits.

* The quality of the condition removal is important. For example, traits in Acrobatics hardly measure up to Wilderness Knowledge.

* Elite specs represent a traitline and therefore **do** matter. There is no point in comparing core classes in a vacuum.

In the end, the whole package should be considered. Including Elites, skills and class mechanic. And when looking at the bigger picture, Ranger actually fares quite well when it comes to conditions. At least that's my personal experience when playing Ranger.

> @"Abyssisis.3971" said:

> Those counts are core traits only, with the exception to druid/soulbeast which I’ve added as +counts besides the ranger count of 3. So Druid would have 6 and soulbeast would have 5. But like I said, I’m sure the other class elite specs would bring some more for their counts as well, I just didn’t have the time to get them this morning. I’m not making false claims, it’s all there for anyone to look at, load up your characters and check them out yourself. Doesn’t change the fact that rangers are pigeonholed into taking WS, specially wilderness knowledge to have condi counters whereas other classes have more options for it.

>

> Except it does when you are talking about overloading a class. Steal can be way more overloaded than anything rangers can have. Haha And honestly do you really think buffing skirmishes line with a single condi cleanse would overload the line? I can’t see it personally.

To get the Steal thing out of the way: Sobx is talking about a class/build overall, not a specific skill. Yes, Steal can be bloated pretty hard. Shatters and Beast skills have the same issue to a lesser extent, to be honest. It is due to design of the class mechanic and it's not very good design. However, while it can cause issues, Steal hardly carries the whole class. Overtraiting Steal mostly makes a build a one trick pony. Regardless, that's not what Sobx has been arguing.

What I do agree with: Having Empathic Bond and Wilderness Knowledge on the same tier isn't great. It could easily be in Beastmastery. I guess the bigger question would be if this made specific builds too strong or not. Looking at Shouts becoming Commands and therefore no longer working with Trooper Runes in the past, this might indeed be a reasonable concern. Therefore, reworking Empathic Bond into something different might be the better solution.

What I don't agree with: Adding universal condition removal to mainly offensive traitlines. This heavily negates the importance of choice and trade-off when picking traitlines and will lead to balancing issues. Maybe you could argue for some removal of movement impairing conditions in Skirmishing. However, I do feel that this isn't what certain people might actually be looking for :#

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> Chrono is by all accounts, Mesmer's "Phantasm Spec". With Mirage having heavy focus on Clones thanks to Infinite Horizon (Also the nature of Condi weapon clones which deal actual damage via Condis) and as such being Mesmer's "Clone Spec". It's possible that the next E-Spec might focus on Shatters to replace Core as the "Shatter Spec"

Well, let's be honest here. While the concepts for both, Chrono and Mirage, are interesting, ANet failed to implement them in a meaningful way when it comes to gameplay. At their respective introduction they might have been good but after balancing - which quite often consisted of nerfs to the baseline class - it is quite obvious that they're not designed well mechanically. They basically play like baseline Mesmer but with some gimmicks ontop. They pretty badly need a proper rework, not just "new" Shatters which are basically the same as core. For example, well-like Shatters on Chrono and Venom/Enchantment-like and Ambush triggering Shatters on Mirage. However, I doubt ANet got the resources to spend time on that. It's just not reasonable from a business point of view. Especially since those aren't the only e-Specs with issues.

But yes, I guess a Shatter focussed spec is what we're missing unless you count baseline Mesmer as the Shatter spec. Considering the current track record for Mesmer, I have low expectations for the class mechanic of a potential third e-Spec, though. Which is rather sad, I guess. But that's where I'm at personally. Even Tempest feels like it makes a bigger change to the class which says a lot.

Still, pretty excited for the new add on.

This can hardly solely be attributed to the general Phantasm rework. They reworked both, Disenchanter and Defender. Plus, they were later nerfed for PvP/WvW. Personally, I think the change of their effects might be the biggest culprit here, not the Phantasm rework.

How Phantasms work isn't perfect but I personally prefer how it is nowadays.