Einlanzer.1627

It became common knowledge very swiftly after HoT released that the Revenant was too reliant on Glint to even come close to feeling like a complete class, but because it launched with its elite spec it never became a big enough practical problem for Anet to address. Now that we have Renegade and the option to spec out of Glint, the problems with the core Revenant design are being pushed to the forefront.

Honestly, though, I think these problems are not as big or difficult to solve as everyone thinks they are. Even the cooldown/energy thing is fine; the problems are just a matter of numbers tweaking. The bigger issue by far is that Revenants have no feeling of fluidity between their legends. Each legend is tied to a specific purpose which can't be customized, and legends do not impact weapon skills. It just makes them feel too rigid in their design.

The solution is pretty simple and should have been implemented from the beginning -

a.) give them 3-4 generic invocation utilities that can be slotted in to their existing legends. These utilities would be modified slightly based on the legend they are slotted into and would give Revenant players some ability to customize or tune their builds in the same way every other class can.

b.) OR give them a new core invocation legend that has a hybrid skillset and is always accessible as a 3rd legend option. This might justify removing weapon swap or altering the energy mechanic somewhat, although I'd wager that is very unlikely to happen at this point.

My general perspective is this -

FotM makes for a pretty cool scalable macro dungeon, but it does not fill the content void left my ceasing development on traditional dungeon content. This is because traditional dungeons provide a level of immersion and help deepen the story and world exploration experience in a way that FoTM cannot replicate. They are also much more accessible for casual players.

Frankly, even if it means even slower delivery on FoTM content - we need regular dungeons and updates to old dungeons from time to time. They made a mistake getting rid of their dungeon team years ago.

So far, the only thing that's really good about Renegade is that it fills out the Rev condi build with a viable second weapon/legend that it previously lacked. But, both the legend itself and the shortbow feel weak enough that I rarely swap to them and just continue to use M/A and Mallyx, and to make matters worse the F skills are in competition with the weapon and utility skills and therefore not that useful.

Altogether, it's kind of a problem and a no-brainer why Renegade tends to be considered the worst of the new elites.

> @psizone.8437 said:

> > @Loopgru.1026 said:

> > > @Arheundel.6451 said:

> > > You're not supposed to camp beastmode

> >

> > One dev made one comment about pet weaving being interesting and people act like it was written in the stars. Things change based on how players respond to it.

> >

> > Remember, Reaper was "supposed" to be a power spec, too...

>

>

> All these complaints against being able to swap are just "The dev said no, even though they didn't actually say no, and I don't want people to have options."

This cannot be emphasized enough. It's basically only really bad groupthinker types making this argument. Even if the devs did say no, it makes no sense for them to force it on players in this way. So they would basically need to be told they were wrong.

Pretty ridiculous that this wasn't addressed following feedback from the beta weekend. It seems to me that it's only there to force rangers to still interact with their pets, which I don't understand the purpose of Anet devs trying to mandate for players. Seems really myopic.

It's mostly an issue of how much better in solo PvE stuff Necros and Rangers are compared to other classes due to being pet masters.

> @pdboddy.4162 said:

> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

> > The reason Eles have that stuff is because they have the lowest in game health and armor values, AND their complexity just makes it more difficult to make them perform well. That isn't a counter-argument against the point I'm making.

> >

> > Their top DPS comes comes almost exclusively from Fire. Swapping out of fire drops your DPS into suboptimal at best, which swiftly turns into terrible the longer you aren't in Fire. All buffing the other attunements' autos would do is make it less punishing to spend more in them as opposed to Fire. I have no idea why that isn't both painfully obvious and desirable for everyone who plays a staff ele.

> >

> > So, once again, both of your argument are poor.

>

> The only way to boost the dps of the non-fire auto attacks is to take DPS from somewhere else in the ele's repertoire. Where do you think that would come from?

>

>

Lol, no it isn't.

> @pdboddy.4162 said:

> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

>

> > Do you think that Guardian should be forced to use Greatsword to do decent (not optimal) DPS? would you be down for a massive damage nerf to Guardian Hammer and Mace since they offer utility?

> >

> > It definitely isn't me who doesn't get it.

>

> Yeah, it is you. You keep focusing on one tiny aspect of the entire whole that is staff.

>

> How many weapons have: two escape skills, the ability to apply burning, crippled, vulnerable, chilled, blind, and immobilized, one reflection skill, blast finishers and fields out the yin-yang, plus good DPS on top of all of that? What two weapons that other classes get even come close to that?

>

> Do you not see how boosting the DPS of air, earth and water AA attacks is an overall DPS buff for elementalist, which would cause all kinds of upset, and push staff ele into OP territory?

The reason Eles have that stuff is because they have the lowest in game health and armor values, AND their complexity just makes it more difficult to make them perform well. That isn't a counter-argument against the point I'm making.

Their top DPS comes comes almost exclusively from Fire. Swapping out of fire drops your DPS into suboptimal at best, which swiftly turns into terrible the longer you aren't in Fire. All buffing the other attunements' autos would do is make it less punishing to spend more in them as opposed to Fire. I have no idea why that isn't both painfully obvious and desirable for everyone who plays a staff ele.

So, once again, both of your argument are poor.

> @pdboddy.4162 said:

> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

> > Optimal - Staying in Fire most of the time, but swapping around for various utility when needed

> > Functional - Mostly camping Fire

> > Barely functional - Swapping around as needed, but staying in anything other than Fire for extended periods

> > Completely broken and unusable - Mostly camping anything but Fire

> >

> > In other words - Fire is overtuned and everything else is undertuned. How do you not see that as a problem? This is actually not how most other classes/weapons work. You used the example of the Guardian - the Guardian hammer and mace, which offer various healing and utility, still do enough damage for them to be good in a lot of situations. That is simply not the case for attunements other than Fire.

> >

> > No offense, but you just seem to not really be getting it.

>

> I think it's you who doesn't get it.

>

> Do you think staff elementalist has poor DPS? I'm pretty sure, overall, that the answer is no. Staff ele has decent DPS, at least for PvE. Does it really matter that most of the DPS comes from fire? Why?

Do you think that Guardian should be forced to use Greatsword to do decent (not optimal) DPS? would you be down for a massive damage nerf to Guardian Hammer and Mace since they offer utility?

It definitely isn't me who doesn't get it.

> @pdboddy.4162 said:

> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

> > In cases where it is like the staff attunements, it's a problem that needs to be fixed. This is why Water, Air, and Earth are kind of awful. Their utility is useful, but they sacrifice too much damage to get it, perpetually pushing you back into fire. I fail to see any useful purpose for that whatsoever.

>

> To keep you from camping in one spec if you want utilities? If all you care about is DPS, then of course you'll camp fire. If you actually want the different utilities, then you'll switch around. It's not like you have to stay in that attunment for long after using the utilities you wanted.

>

> Perhaps _you_ think that you lose too much DPS to use other utilities, but that's just your opinion. Which obviously differs from Anet's.

That's exactly the point. It's not that you don't have to stay in the other attunements, it's that the game overly-penalizes you for doing so, yet it doesn't do that for Fire. In a nutshell, Ele staff is like this for most situations (the only exception is if you're running Water as a healer in a full party)

Optimal - Staying in Fire most of the time, but swapping around for various utility when needed

Functional - Mostly camping Fire

Barely functional - Swapping around as needed, but staying in anything other than Fire for extended periods

Completely broken and unusable - Mostly camping anything but Fire

In other words - Fire is overtuned and everything else is undertuned. How do you not see that as a problem? This is actually not how most other classes/weapons work. You used the example of the Guardian - the Guardian hammer and mace, which offer various healing and utility, still do enough damage for them to be good in a lot of situations. That is simply not the case for attunements other than Fire.

No offense, but you just seem to not really be getting it.

I can't help but intuitively feel like the whole way Anet handles gear stats is flawed, but I haven't really come up with a better approach.

I don't have a problem with it. It's a way they can have add high-flavor items that are lore related in ways you don't have to keep, and there's also a big of satisfaction in using them from your inventory and seeing the bonuses. I have a bigger problem with the other forms of currency and crafting mats that don't go into the wallet or bank.

> @pdboddy.4162 said:

> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

> >

> > The main problem I see with this design is that Fire then by necessity operates as your default attunement, because you take too much of a DPS hit staying in the others. You might swap around to get some of the other benefits, but you always fall back to Fire for damage and spend disproportionate time there.

> >

> > To me, that's just a bad design, and it's almost entirely a product of how weak the non-Fire autos are. I essentially can't play a water, earth, or air mage because they're flat-out less effective than a fire mage.

>

> I think your issue here is that you're thinking of an ele's weapon as ONE weapon, where in fact it is essentially four weapons in one. Do all of the other professions' weapons do the same DPS? So Guardian staff, hammer, sword+shield... all the same DPS? You don't lose any in switching to the alternate weapon set you have equipped?

>

> Yes, if you switch to another attunement, you lose the DPS of fire. But that's the whole point. You want healing, you give up DPS to get healing. You want some break ability, you have to switch out of fire.

Strawman argument drawing flawed conclusions. I never said they should do the same DPS. I said the balance between damage and utility needs to be better. In most cases, it is. Does Guardian's hammer do less damage than greatsword because it offers better utility? Yes. Does it do so much worse damage that you can't functionally use it in most situations? No. Ditto for the Mace, which heals.

In cases where it is like the staff attunements, it's a problem that needs to be fixed. This is why Water, Air, and Earth are kind of awful. Their utility is useful, but they sacrifice too much damage to get it, perpetually pushing you back into fire. I fail to see any useful purpose for that whatsoever.

> @Kyon.9735 said:

> I agree, staff AA sucks. But I tend to believe that the original designers thought that with 20 weapon skills, people would be rotating around attunements instead of camping 1 and spamming AA which is of course, not really viable anymore now that we have Tempest and Weaver.

The main problem I see with this design is that Fire then by necessity operates as your default attunement, because you take too much of a DPS hit staying in the others. You might swap around to get some of the other benefits, but you always fall back to Fire for damage and spend disproportionate time there.

To me, that's just a bad design, and it's almost entirely a product of how weak the non-Fire autos are. I essentially can't play a water, earth, or air mage because they're flat-out less effective than a fire mage.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> There are many posts like this already. I don't feel that anyone has satisfactorily explained the difference between 'fractals' and 'dungeons'. They are both 5-person instanced content. The main difference to ANet is that one requires more infrastructure to support, update, and add and the other requires less.

>

> Since I don't see a distinction, the question makes little sense to me: we already have dungeon content; it's just called fractals.

To me, the difference is obvious. Dungeons are longer, more complex, tied to world exploration and the story, and act as extensions to various world environments. Fractals are short/simple and disconnected from the world & story. This essentially makes them less immersive than regular dungeons, and immersion is important in an MMO - especially with instanced content.

Fractals are a great idea for a single large dungeon. They are a terrible idea to take the place of all other dungeons.

The two worst models by far are norn and asura males.

Norn males have very bad proportions while also being too similar to humans in the face (the latter is somewhat true of the females, but less so)

Asura male faces are inexplicably really ugly while the female faces are really cute

I think the others are all pretty solid, including the Charr.

Simple question with a simple answer. Feel free to elaborate in comments.

I think not getting at least one new full dungeon per expansion with multiple paths and its own gear set is a little ridiculous. I don't care what anyone says - good instanced content is important for the game, and FoTM really doesn't have the immersive quality to compensate for never adding new real dungeons.

I would actually rather they just stop doing raids and resume doing traditional dungeons.

edit - part of me feels I misvoted. If the alternative is never getting new real dungeons, I'd gladly accept dungeons not having multiple paths and their own equipment sets. Fractals just aren't good enough to satisfy any real desire for dungeon exploration.

> @bOTEB.1573 said:

> The majority speaks, boys and girls.

>

> This is why PoF <<< HoT

Except the majority doesn't think that.

> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

> > > @andyMak.6985 said:

> > > Open world content is better.. Bigger groups trains are fun and no kicking for your build or class choice

> >

> > I don't think the open world can simulate the same level of immersion and camaraderie that dungeons can, frankly. It's sort of an apples and oranges thing, though - the open world provides a different type of fun and I think the game needs both. I kind of wish I'd left it out of the survey so the focus of the conversation could have been the dev balance between fractals, raids, and dungeons.

>

> So you get an answer you don´t like and probably only added for giggles, and now you have to lie in the bed you made for yourself. Poetic, nice.^^

>

Maybe, I dunno, try to be a nice person?

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

> > > @Fermi.2409 said:

> > > I'd like more instanced content in general. I'm not huge on open world stuff, it's generally not really challenging and it's less repeatable then a good instance

> >

> > Yeah, this is my same issue. I'm surprised by the number of people indicating they prefer open world stuff.

>

> Why? _This_ . . . _is_ . . . _GUILDWARS!_ 2.

>

> >I don't think the open world can simulate the same level of immersion and camaraderie that dungeons can, frankly.

>

> True, but most Guild Wars players don't care about that. They want casual, drop in, drop out, no waiting around, no interdependency, just to be able to do what they want around other players, and dungeons are terrible for that. Fractals and Raids even worse.

>

> >I kind of wish I'd left it out of the survey so the focus of the conversation could have been the dev balance between fractals, raids, and dungeons.

>

> The people want what the people want, and the developer resources should be allocated accordingly.

Yeah but Anet isn't going to stop all development on instanced content because having none of it would be bad for the game - a sizable chunk of players _do_ care about that, and it's arguable that the game suffered immensely by not doing it better from the beginning (many of those players have left the game).

Since instanced vs open world content is apples vs oranges, I should have left the open world out of it because I'm more curious about what people think about the balance between raids, regular dungeons, and FoTM.

> @andyMak.6985 said:

> Open world content is better.. Bigger groups trains are fun and no kicking for your build or class choice

I don't think the open world can simulate the same level of immersion and camaraderie that dungeons can, frankly. It's sort of an apples and oranges thing, though - the open world provides a different type of fun and I think the game needs both. I kind of wish I'd left it out of the survey so the focus of the conversation could have been the dev balance between fractals, raids, and dungeons.

> @Fermi.2409 said:

> I'd like more instanced content in general. I'm not huge on open world stuff, it's generally not really challenging and it's less repeatable then a good instance

Yeah, this is my same issue. I'm surprised by the number of people indicating they prefer open world stuff.

What is your preference for priority on various PvE design spaces?

> @"Jason Reynolds.4297" said:

> Hey party people,

>

> For those not aware, I took over as Team Lead for Raids and Fractals a couple of months ago after Crystal went off to be the department lead. Now that introductions are out of the way:

Greetings!

So, regular dungeons are still out-of-mind for Anet? I think that's a mistake. Fractals lack immersion due to being both small and disconnected from world environments, raids are needlessly prohibitive due to the player requirement, and neither is released with enough frequency. FotM is a good concept for a single large dungeon, but it's inadequate to replace all other classic dungeon content on its own. I'd rather see more classic dungeon content over raids, frankly.

I know it isn't the topic of this thread, but since you introduced yourself here I just wanted to throw it out there.