Elite Specialization "Trade-offs"

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > > They're not supposed to be better. Now if you like them better, that's another thing, but it's simply intended to just be different.

> > They are indeed intended to be that way, but at this point they _aren't_. Elite specs are better at _everything_ core specs were ever good at. They are not just different.

> >

> > > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > > I think it'll be easier for you to say what role function you think each profession is supposed to fill, since you believe that to be the case.

> > Basically _anything_ the original, core classes were good at (except pure thematics). Anything you might want to do with a core class, is generally now better achieved by taking one of its elite specs.

>

> I see we have a totally different idea of what the function of the elites should be. I say go back and look and listen to what the Devs stated when they came out with HOT.

You might want to read what i actually wrote.

 

I agree with the what the _stated_ dev intentions for the elite specs were. What i try to tell you however is that those intentions are **not** how the elite specs actually work. The elite specs _are_ better. That's not an intention, that's a _fact_. Whatever the devs said they wanted achieve has never been realized.

 

 

> How are they supposed to be better, if they're not?

But the elite specs _are_ better.

 

> Their only Elite because they can do what others in their profession couldn't do

That's only true of Druid. All other elite specs do what the core could do, but do it better. In _addition_ to being able to do stuff core couldn't.

 

Just tell me, why you might want to pick, for example, Elementalist, instead of Tempest or Weaver? Just show me one thing where one of those two eplite specs would not be a better choice.

Now, do the same for other classes. And when you'll look at the results, you will know what i'm trying to tell you.

[VocalThought.9835]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > > > They're not supposed to be better. Now if you like them better, that's another thing, but it's simply intended to just be different.

> > > They are indeed intended to be that way, but at this point they _aren't_. Elite specs are better at _everything_ core specs were ever good at. They are not just different.

> > >

> > > > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > > > I think it'll be easier for you to say what role function you think each profession is supposed to fill, since you believe that to be the case.

> > > Basically _anything_ the original, core classes were good at (except pure thematics). Anything you might want to do with a core class, is generally now better achieved by taking one of its elite specs.

> >

> > I see we have a totally different idea of what the function of the elites should be. I say go back and look and listen to what the Devs stated when they came out with HOT.

> You might want to read what i actually wrote.

>

> I agree with the what the _stated_ dev intentions for the elite specs were. What i try to tell you however is that those intentions are **not** how the elite specs actually work. The elite specs _are_ better. That's not an intention, that's a _fact_. Whatever the devs said they wanted achieve has never been realized.

>

>

> > How are they supposed to be better, if they're not?

> But the elite specs _are_ better.

>

> > Their only Elite because they can do what others in their profession couldn't do

> That's only true of Druid. All other elite specs do what the core could do, but do it better. In _addition_ to being able to do stuff core couldn't.

>

> Just tell me, why you might want to pick, for example, Elementalist, instead of Tempest or Weaver? Just show me one thing where one of those two eplite specs would not be a better choice.

> Now, do the same for other classes. And when you'll look at the results, you will know what i'm trying to tell you.

 

Elementalist is a decent core, especially if you don't want to be lock in an Attune for an extended period of time like the Tempest or if you don't want to be jumbled and confused with what your doing like the weaver. Does that help.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> Elementalist is a decent core, especially if you don't want to be lock in an Attune for an extended period of time like the Tempest or if you don't want to be jumbled and confused with what your doing like the weaver. Does that help.

Sure, you may prefer the core playstyle, and the core _is_ decent. That does not change the fact that at everything you might want to do, either Tempest, Weaver, or both would still be flat out better (and not just barely). If you want to play core, you do it knowing, that, to keep the playstyle you like, you'll be essentially crippling yourself.

Am i wrong?

[VocalThought.9835]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > Elementalist is a decent core, especially if you don't want to be lock in an Attune for an extended period of time like the Tempest or if you don't want to be jumbled and confused with what your doing like the weaver. Does that help.

> Sure, you may prefer the core playstyle, and the core _is_ decent. That does not change the fact that at everything you might want to do, either Tempest, Weaver, or both would still be flat out better (and not just barely). If you want to play core, you do it knowing, that, to keep the playstyle you like, you'll be essentially crippling yourself.

> Am i wrong?

 

Well you're not wrong because that's your opinion, but you are stating your opinions as facts. I can see why you would prefer an elite specialization over a core elementalist, but that's also the same as why you may prefer a Tempest over a Weaver or vice versa. I can see how the elites are currently in a better position with some professions, but hence the trade off... The original question is should there be a trade off for elites. My answer is still yes. Especially now that you convinced me that you believe the elites are in a better position in pvp or pve, it only makes sense that with great power comes a trade-off.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > > Elementalist is a decent core, especially if you don't want to be lock in an Attune for an extended period of time like the Tempest or if you don't want to be jumbled and confused with what your doing like the weaver. Does that help.

> > Sure, you may prefer the core playstyle, and the core _is_ decent. That does not change the fact that at everything you might want to do, either Tempest, Weaver, or both would still be flat out better (and not just barely). If you want to play core, you do it knowing, that, to keep the playstyle you like, you'll be essentially crippling yourself.

> > Am i wrong?

>

> Well you're not wrong because that's your opinion, but you are stating your opinions as facts.

Because elite specs being better is not an opinion. It _is_ a fact.

 

> I can see why you would prefer an elite specialization over a core elementalist, but that's also the same as why you may prefer a Tempest over a Weaver or vice versa.

Preferring has nothing to do with it. _Ouperforming_, or being better suited for a role, however, does.

 

> I can see how the elites are currently in a better position with some professions, but hence the trade off...

First, not "some" but "all" professions. Second, the trade off does nothing to balance that, because the tradeoff is in something completely unrelated.

 

> The original question is should there be a trade off for elites. My answer is still yes. Especially now that you convinced me that you believe the elites are in a better position in pvp or pve, it only makes sense that with great power comes a trade-off.

The point i'm (again) making is that the tradeoffs should matter. I mean, if the tradeoff does not affect anything about the inequality issue, then the tradeoff might as well not exist. The core classes do not really get _anything_ of value back for being inferior.

 

[Cuks.8241]

If elites would be a clear upgrade and not a side grade than they would need to re balance all the old content or it became obsolete. Well more than it is now, because elites are better (in most but not all cases) but they are at least trying to pull them back while still having them just a bit more interesting since they are expansion paid content.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

My beef with the trade offs is that some E-Specs have gotten EXTREME trade offs while others feel like to trade off at all.

 

For me personally:

Soulbeast pet swap lock does not feel like a trade off, pets are dumb. You gain so many stats via Beast Mastery that it is OP, and is still OP even though they reduced that stat gain.

DH + FB feel like straight upgrades. Yeah not being able to instant cast F2 and F3 is different, but what you get is so much better that this isn't a trade off.

Reaper feels like a straight upgrade, yeah the shroud degens more quickly, but you also kill more quickly and cleave so much better so... again not really a trade off.

 

Spellbreaker, flat out loses T2 and T3 bursts. That is a lot of damage lost, and reduces the effectiveness of certain traits by 66%. THAT is a trade off.

Berserker, flat out loses all core bursts in exchange for stronger Primal Bursts, but are locked behind a mode that you do not have instant access to, you get stat bonues, but also -300 toughness. That is a MAJOR tradeoff, perhaps the steepest trade off of any espec.

Scrapper, gets an easy finish/rez at range, barrier on hit, but -150 vitality. THAT is a tradeoff, more damage mitigation but less health.

 

So, when there are QQ threads about "XYZ class needs a real trade off" they are not without merit. I play all of the above specs for the record, and yes I like them all but the trade offs are not equivalent cost/benefit and they should be. It may be lazy but the stat penalty on Scrapper and Berserker perhaps should be included on each of the other E-Specs in some fashion.

[VocalThought.9835]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > > > Elementalist is a decent core, especially if you don't want to be lock in an Attune for an extended period of time like the Tempest or if you don't want to be jumbled and confused with what your doing like the weaver. Does that help.

> > > Sure, you may prefer the core playstyle, and the core _is_ decent. That does not change the fact that at everything you might want to do, either Tempest, Weaver, or both would still be flat out better (and not just barely). If you want to play core, you do it knowing, that, to keep the playstyle you like, you'll be essentially crippling yourself.

> > > Am i wrong?

> >

> > Well you're not wrong because that's your opinion, but you are stating your opinions as facts.

> Because elite specs being better is not an opinion. It _is_ a fact.

>

> > I can see why you would prefer an elite specialization over a core elementalist, but that's also the same as why you may prefer a Tempest over a Weaver or vice versa.

> Preferring has nothing to do with it. _Ouperforming_, or being better suited for a role, however, does.

>

> > I can see how the elites are currently in a better position with some professions, but hence the trade off...

> First, not "some" but "all" professions. Second, the trade off does nothing to balance that, because the tradeoff is in something completely unrelated.

>

> > The original question is should there be a trade off for elites. My answer is still yes. Especially now that you convinced me that you believe the elites are in a better position in pvp or pve, it only makes sense that with great power comes a trade-off.

> The point i'm (again) making is that the tradeoffs should matter. I mean, if the tradeoff does not affect anything about the inequality issue, then the tradeoff might as well not exist. The core classes do not really get _anything_ of value back for being inferior.

>

 

I see... your looking at the trade off being more so toward improving the core profession, not the trade punishing the elite. That's a good point, but I think adding to the core instead of adding a penalty to the elite or removing a perk of the core from the elite is taking us the wrong direction. I say just keep core the same and, when it comes to the elites, play around with those. We're not trying to make elites unlikable and under par, just not too over powerful that you need to be the elite.

[Taril.8619]

> @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> I see... your looking at the trade off being more so toward improving the core profession, not the trade punishing the elite. That's a good point, but I think adding to the core instead of adding a penalty to the elite or removing a perk of the core from the elite is taking us the wrong direction. I say just keep core the same and, when it comes to the elites, play around with those. We're not trying to make elites unlikable and under par, just not too over powerful that you need to be the elite.

 

Honestly, what should be the case is that E-Specs should focus on providing something _different_ than the core.

 

Such as having a completely different functionality of the core mechanic (Such as is the case for Chrono and Scourge, the former getting different shatters and the latter having Shroud become a series of F skills) or providing a new build type for a class (Such is the case for Druid, having a spec and weapon that provides a lot of party support utility)

 

Rather than trying to slap on stat nerfs to elites to stop their outright superior version of the same mechanic making them outright better.

 

Since, if the E-Specs are focused on a completely new build type for a class (Such as Druid) or provide a new take on the classes core mechanic, then there only needs to be a level of equiable balance between E-Specs and Core to then have people pick a build based on what they prefer to play as opposed to right now where you 99.99% of the time pick an E-Spec because it's outright stronger.

 

Of course, such balance is also marred by the nature of how many Core weaponsets are absolute garbage while many E-Spec weapons are much better designed (Or help round out a build archetype that doesn't have 2 weapon sets available in its core because some classes don't have a very good selection of weapons for both Power and Condi based builds), meaning that even if Core and E-Specs ended up being equal and only had different gameplay mechanics, you'd still end up picking E-Specs a lot of the time just to get a better set of weapons (I.e. Necro for a Power build has... Axe/Focus + GS and for Condi build has Scepter/Torch +... ???)

[VocalThought.9835]

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > I see... your looking at the trade off being more so toward improving the core profession, not the trade punishing the elite. That's a good point, but I think adding to the core instead of adding a penalty to the elite or removing a perk of the core from the elite is taking us the wrong direction. I say just keep core the same and, when it comes to the elites, play around with those. We're not trying to make elites unlikable and under par, just not too over powerful that you need to be the elite.

>

> Honestly, what should be the case is that E-Specs should focus on providing something _different_ than the core.

>

> Such as having a completely different functionality of the core mechanic (Such as is the case for Chrono and Scourge, the former getting different shatters and the latter having Shroud become a series of F skills) or providing a new build type for a class (Such is the case for Druid, having a spec and weapon that provides a lot of party support utility)

>

> Rather than trying to slap on stat nerfs to elites to stop their outright superior version of the same mechanic making them outright better.

>

> Since, if the E-Specs are focused on a completely new build type for a class (Such as Druid) or provide a new take on the classes core mechanic, then there only needs to be a level of equiable balance between E-Specs and Core to then have people pick a build based on what they prefer to play as opposed to right now where you 99.99% of the time pick an E-Spec because it's outright stronger.

>

> Of course, such balance is also marred by the nature of how many Core weaponsets are absolute garbage while many E-Spec weapons are much better designed (Or help round out a build archetype that doesn't have 2 weapon sets available in its core because some classes don't have a very good selection of weapons for both Power and Condi based builds), meaning that even if Core and E-Specs ended up being equal and only had different gameplay mechanics, you'd still end up picking E-Specs a lot of the time just to get a better set of weapons (I.e. Necro for a Power build has... Axe/Focus + GS and for Condi build has Scepter/Torch +... ???)

 

Why didn't you just say that from the beginning. I fully agree with you.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> I see... your looking at the trade off being more so toward improving the core profession, not the trade punishing the elite.

Not quite. What i am saying is that the tradeoff of "yes, this new car version is faster than the base model, but as a tradeoff it's PINK!" is not a good approach to tradeoffs. That just means that someone that happens to like pink gets a win - they ride in a car that is both faster, and in a color they like. But someone who prefers black either has to live with pink, or with driving a slower model. Notice also, how that "tradeoff" does not change the fact, that the base car _is_ worse in every aspect but the color.

Which, i guess, would be okay for cars, but is definitely not okay for elite specs if they are supposed to open more choices and not just be upgrades.

 

 

> I say just keep core the same and, when it comes to the elites, play around with those. We're not trying to make elites unlikable and under par, just not too over powerful that you need to be the elite.

No, we're not trying to make elites unlikable. We want the core to have some options left where elite spec is not better, so core and elites can work together to enhance the overall class, instead of newer options replacing older ones. That however can be only done when for some options that are important to the class and present in the core elite specs are not even competing.

 

Druid is a good example of what should happen - it is a healer, which is not competing with core (as it's an option ranger did not have). At the same time, druid does not compete with core ranger in dps roles. There's a clear separation, and both can easily coexist alongside each other.

 

Compare that with core Necromancer and Scourge. Scourge gets a number of support options core lacks. At the same time it is also better in a condi damage role. How it compares as a power damage is not important (although even here scourge probably has some advantage), because that role is securely taken by Reaper. Core gets absolutely nothing left to do. Whatever you might want to do, one of the elites is doing it better, so you basically _need_ to go elite. Even if you don't like Reaper's slowness or Scourge's shades mechanic and would prefer to play a classic Necro, if you actually care about your effectivenes you still have to pick one of the elites.

 

Elites designed in such a way _are_ a flat out upgrade. That's because their design did not start with clearly defining their roles, but with their aestethics and mechanics. The same with tradeoffs - they put too much importance on gimmicks, and ignore the stuff that is truly important.

 

 

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > How? I think we all have a different idea of what each professions core mechanics are and even more so with elite specializations and what their supposed to do.

>

> There's plenty of classes whom have E-Specs that do the same thing that their core class does. But better.

 

> Elementalist's core mechanic is swapping attunements. Tempest gets the additional ability to Overload attunements while Weaver gets to combine 2 attunements at once.

 

Tempest: you get a longer cooldown, so you can't switch as quickly.

Weaver: you can do 2 elements at once, but to change the second element to what you want you have to switch more - all the while having useless combinations. So you lose a lot. In fact, weaver is ultra-clunky.

 

As expected, since ele has been the stepchild for a while, outdamaged, harder to play than others, more squishy - or if you go tank, you are again outdamaged, outhealed, outcleansed, out-hped by every other class.

 

Tempest was supposed to have sword. We got warhorn. Weaver is a total mess - so much of a mess that wvw guilds are ditching it.

 

So 'better' does not apply. Not on ele.

 

 

 

[Taril.8619]

> @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> > @"Taril.8619" said:

> > > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > > How? I think we all have a different idea of what each professions core mechanics are and even more so with elite specializations and what their supposed to do.

> >

> > There's plenty of classes whom have E-Specs that do the same thing that their core class does. But better.

>

> > Elementalist's core mechanic is swapping attunements. Tempest gets the additional ability to Overload attunements while Weaver gets to combine 2 attunements at once.

>

> Tempest: you get a longer cooldown, so you can't switch as quickly.

> Weaver: you can do 2 elements at once, but to change the second element to what you want you have to switch more - all the while having useless combinations. So you lose a lot. In fact, weaver is ultra-clunky.

 

> So 'better' does not apply. Not on ele.

 

And yet... Every competitive build runs either Weaver or Tempest. Because they outperform Core.

 

Implying that yes, even with their "Tradeoff" with clunkiness/additional swap cooldown, they still outperform Core.

[mikdepadua.8376]

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> > @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> > > @"Taril.8619" said:

> > > > @"VocalThought.9835" said:

> > > > How? I think we all have a different idea of what each professions core mechanics are and even more so with elite specializations and what their supposed to do.

> > >

> > > There's plenty of classes whom have E-Specs that do the same thing that their core class does. But better.

> >

> > > Elementalist's core mechanic is swapping attunements. Tempest gets the additional ability to Overload attunements while Weaver gets to combine 2 attunements at once.

> >

> > Tempest: you get a longer cooldown, so you can't switch as quickly.

> > Weaver: you can do 2 elements at once, but to change the second element to what you want you have to switch more - all the while having useless combinations. So you lose a lot. In fact, weaver is ultra-clunky.

>

> > So 'better' does not apply. Not on ele.

>

> And yet... Every competitive build runs either Weaver or Tempest. Because they outperform Core.

>

> Implying that yes, even with their "Tradeoff" with clunkiness/additional swap cooldown, they still outperform Core.

 

While this is true, I think the line of thinking here should be that core gets buffed instead of tempests gets nerfed.

[LucianDK.8615]

Reapers is one of those Anet touted as not needing a tradeoff, as they give up core shroud for the melee shroud. So that one was pulled off well too.

[Taril.8619]

> @"mikdepadua.8376" said:

> While this is true, I think the line of thinking here should be that core gets buffed instead of tempests gets nerfed.

 

The issues with the idea of "Just buffing Core" are that:

 

1) It leads to power creep, especially if new E-Specs are released that are in a stronger state than Tempest (Since, do you continue to buff Core up to that level?)

 

2) It is exceedingly difficult to buff Core, without indirectly buffing all E-Specs that have access to literally everything in Core. E-Specs can use all Core weapons, all Core utilities and any combination of 2 Core specializations.

 

So what would you buff to buff Core and Core alone?

 

The only suggestions I've seen have been about adding a "Core E-Spec" either as a replacement for the 3rd Spec (Meaning all builds would be 2 Core Specs and 1 E-Spec) or moving E-Specs into an independent 4th Specialization slot (Meaning all builds would be 3 Core specs and 1 E-Spec) and then putting all the buffs to Core into that "Core E-Spec"

 

Meanwhile, it still would be better design for E-Specs to be tuned as to be something _different_ to Core. Neither more or less powerful, but opening up a new way to play or a new type of build. Through the "Tradeoff" of having a different class mechanic replacing the Core one (Such as how Scourge has F skills replacing the Shroud transformation or how Chrono has unique Shatters replacing the Core ones) and/or having the traitline + utilities focused on a unique build (Such as how Druid has a focus on healing allies which is different to most of their Core Specs that are purely damage focused)

[mikdepadua.8376]

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> > @"mikdepadua.8376" said:

> > While this is true, I think the line of thinking here should be that core gets buffed instead of tempests gets nerfed.

>

> The issues with the idea of "Just buffing Core" are that:

>

> 1) It leads to power creep, especially if new E-Specs are released that are in a stronger state than Tempest (Since, do you continue to buff Core up to that level?)

>

> 2) It is exceedingly difficult to buff Core, without indirectly buffing all E-Specs that have access to literally everything in Core. E-Specs can use all Core weapons, all Core utilities and any combination of 2 Core specializations.

>

> So what would you buff to buff Core and Core alone?

>

> The only suggestions I've seen have been about adding a "Core E-Spec" either as a replacement for the 3rd Spec (Meaning all builds would be 2 Core Specs and 1 E-Spec) or moving E-Specs into an independent 4th Specialization slot (Meaning all builds would be 3 Core specs and 1 E-Spec) and then putting all the buffs to Core into that "Core E-Spec"

>

> Meanwhile, it still would be better design for E-Specs to be tuned as to be something _different_ to Core. Neither more or less powerful, but opening up a new way to play or a new type of build. Through the "Tradeoff" of having a different class mechanic replacing the Core one (Such as how Scourge has F skills replacing the Shroud transformation or how Chrono has unique Shatters replacing the Core ones) and/or having the traitline + utilities focused on a unique build (Such as how Druid has a focus on healing allies which is different to most of their Core Specs that are purely damage focused)

 

You are assuming that core eles are balanced at the moment. They are not.

[MithranArkanere.8957]

It's one of the best ideas, actually.

Elite specializations were not meant to be a better way to play a profession, but a *different* way to play the profession, making it feel like a new profession.

They are a way to add more play styles without cluttering the game with endless classes to balance.

 

What was bad was not having tradeoffs from the start as it was originally intended.

Now that tradeoffs are finally being done, it will feel like professions are losing something, and it will feel bad until people get used to it. But it will also be healthier for the game in the long turn.

This always happens when players are allowed to keep for a long time something that's actually bad, and why updates to address such things have to be done ASAP.

CoF1 farming, multiloot, dungeon exploits, AI gimmicks, broken builds...

The longer such things stay around, the longer players feel like it's normal intended gameplay they are entitled to enjoy, and the greater the backslash when it's fixed.

 

There's still a few trade-offs left to do, and the sooner they get done, the sooner they can be balanced better and improved if they have flaws.

 

* Spellbreaker doesn't have separate Bursts.

* For this one I'd recommend merging Full Counter and the Bursts into a single F1 key, so Bursts would then become Counter Bursts. Counter Bursts would channel for a bit and have two possible outcomes: if not attacked, they would unleash a weaker effect. If attacked when channeling, they trigger a Full Counter and a stronger version of the burst is unleashed along the counter effects. This way it's a more defensive style with delayed bursts, but greater effect when playing on defense, and different weapons can have different counter skills. For example, Arcing Slice would become "Counter Arc". If it's allowed to fully channel, it would simply unleash the same effects as a T1 Arcing Slice. But if it counters, it would unleash a second cleaving attack that deals damage and daze to up to 5 enemies in a line in the direction of the attacker, and also give extra fury and the base effects of full counter like unblockable, evasion and damage reduction.

* Daredevil and thief share stolen skills.

* For this one I'd recommend giving daredevil stolen skills that are better suited for closer rages. For example, by getting the set of stolen skills that can be stolen from enemy players in PvP, give to core thief the ranged ones, give daredevil the melee ones, and then make new 900-1200 range ones for core thief and new 150-600 range ones for daredevil to fill the remaining gaps in both sets. Stolen skills from NPCs make too much of a long list, so those could just work the same as now.

* Ranger has nothing druid can't do, lowered pet stats are not enough to make the elite specialization feel like druid isn't just an upgrade over it. Core ranger thus needs something like a separate F5 skill that is lost by druid and soulbeast.

* I'd recommend a skill with a long cooldown that revives and summons both pets at the same time for a short time, or a skill that swaps the pet with a 'tag-attack' making the alternate pet appear, both pets break stun, become immune to CC for the duration of their next attack, do their pet attack at the same time, then swap.

* Mirage has the same shatters as core.

* I'd recommend making mirage shatters even better at close range and focus more on torment and evasion. Maybe make the F4 skill give mirage cloak instead distortion, but in exchange have a slightly shorter cooldown or a condition for a faster recharge like shattering 3 clones or hitting enemies with the other 3 shatters.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"LucianDK.8615" said:

> Reapers is one of those Anet touted as not needing a tradeoff, as they give up core shroud for the melee shroud. So that one was pulled off well too.

Not really. That's the problem with espec being different mechanically but not functionally. Reaper, when got introduced, practically replaced core in everything PvE, leaving only some PvP uses left (although it was in general better there as well). Some of those functions were lost by Reaper later, but ony because they were taken over by Scourge, which completed the delegation of core to the subpar status.

 

The only way especs can be made what they were initially supposed to be is not through class mechanic tradeoffs, but through clear segregation of roles between core and especs.

 

[LucianDK.8615]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"LucianDK.8615" said:

> > Reapers is one of those Anet touted as not needing a tradeoff, as they give up core shroud for the melee shroud. So that one was pulled off well too.

> Not really. That's the problem with espec being different mechanically but not functionally. Reaper, when got introduced, practically replaced core in everything PvE, leaving only some PvP uses left (although it was in general better there as well). Some of those functions were lost by Reaper later, but ony because they were taken over by Scourge, which completed the delegation of core to the subpar status.

>

> The only way especs can be made what they were initially supposed to be is not through class mechanic tradeoffs, but through clear segregation of roles between core and especs.

>

 

Reaper is melee, core is not.

[Taril.8619]

> @"mikdepadua.8376" said:

> You are assuming that core eles are balanced at the moment. They are not.

 

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with my post...

 

Irregardless of if Core is Balanced or not, you cannot simply buff Core without indirectly buffing the E-Specs. Since E-Specs have access to everything that Core has.

 

If the case is that Core is too weak, then what will still need to happen is to bring E-Specs DOWN to the same level as Core and then buff Core which will simultaneously buff the E-Specs.

 

As that will achieve the desired result of all 3 sub-classes being in a similar power level, whilst not making anything broken as a result (While also keeping the class on par with other classes)

 

Of course, the idea of Trade-offs should still err less towards stat debuffs (Such as is the case for Berserker and Scrapper) and more towards trading class mechanics for functionally different ones. So you're not "Nerfing" an E-Spec, but rather you're having the E-Spec become its own thing, not "Core but with extra goodies"

[Anchoku.8142]

> @"Mobian.8256" said:

 

FFXIV has vertical progression.

* Power creep is balanced by increasing PvE difficulty.

* New skills and new level cap

* Grind maps for levels

 

GW2 has horizontal progression.

* Elite specializations add new roles and functionality so power creep is supposed to be minimal as are PvE challenges. Of course, that is not exactly true because Arenanet likes to provide challenges with increasing technical difficulty.

* Convenience upgrades

* Story-gated map expansions but no new level requirements

* Grind maps for map-currency

 

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"LucianDK.8615" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"LucianDK.8615" said:

> > > Reapers is one of those Anet touted as not needing a tradeoff, as they give up core shroud for the melee shroud. So that one was pulled off well too.

> > Not really. That's the problem with espec being different mechanically but not functionally. Reaper, when got introduced, practically replaced core in everything PvE, leaving only some PvP uses left (although it was in general better there as well). Some of those functions were lost by Reaper later, but ony because they were taken over by Scourge, which completed the delegation of core to the subpar status.

> >

> > The only way especs can be made what they were initially supposed to be is not through class mechanic tradeoffs, but through clear segregation of roles between core and especs.

> >

>

> Reaper is melee, core is not.

True, but only for shroud, because all the ranged weapons core can use, Reaper can use equally well if not better. Of course, ranged dps was never a strong feature of the core in the first place, and in PvE you're almost always fighting melee anyway...

And in the niche case you'd be needing range to the point you'd accept being significantly weaker, you can always choose to not be weaker and simply pick Scourge.