Guild Wars 2

My suggestion is move Incendiary Powder to a Grandmaster trait.

Dhuumfire is a Grandmaster trait and it is a “Chance to inflict burning on critical hits”.

So not only is Incendiary a guaranteed burn on crit, but it is a master trait.

It would be nice if a dev could explain the reasoning behind this.

All the problems people see with Dhuumfire are even worse with regards to Incendiary Powder.

Please leave all comments relating to how bad I am or inexperienced to yourself.

EDIT: I’m not buying into the argument that Incendiary Powder is the only method of gaining the burning condition for an engineer. If you try to argue that necros have way more access to condition damage, they still have to pick up certain weapons and utilities to do so. The same way a necro picks up a sceptre to stack bleeds, an engineer should pick up the flamethrower kit to burn, otherwise pick up Incendiary Powder but as a Grandmaster trait!

You know that it was just moved from an Adept trait to a master trait, last major content patch?

Yeah, seeing as it would break condition grenade builds, I’m going to have to pass. Don’t compare traits directly across professions. A condi necro burning you for 5s is very different than an Engineer burning you for 5s.

As Chaith said, burning on an engineer is very different from burning on a necro. Engineers have pretty good access to Burning while a necro’s sole access to the condition is through this trait (situationals like corrupting Aegis and a friendly VoJ aside).

I agree that the trait needs a change, much like Dhuumfire is getting. It needs to be more predictable for both parties and have counterplay associated with it.

Dhuumfire is being changed no longer on crit so you can’t “compare” it anymore. The trait was there before dhuumfire was even a thing.

People like to compare similar traits but dhuumfire and ip will no longer be similar after the patch so you can’t compare

They are different classes when engi gets fear that is hard cc+interrupt+does 1k+ damage per tic then maybe ip needs to be moved to gm.

If engg had the necro’s ability to stack bleeds, cause torment, and gain damage on fears, I think I would probably be behind this.

Engies already have a necro’s ability to bleed stack.

I will say that while I feel Incindiary Powder needs to be changed to be more active and have counterplay, it should not be done like Dhuumfire where it is tied to just one skill. Perhaps make it something like “equipping a kit causes your next attack to cause burning” could work, since all condi spec engies use kits.

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

Engies already have a necro’s ability to bleed stack.

I will say that while I feel Incindiary Powder needs to be changed to be more active and have counterplay, it should not be done like Dhuumfire where it is tied to just one skill. Perhaps make it something like “equipping a kit causes your next attack to cause burning” could work, since all condi spec engies use kits.

They don’t have the same bleed ability as necros, even with the grenade kit, most assuredly not considering weapons alone. If you’re talking about the old beta p/p builds, then they were actually better at it, but a necro has always been better in the bleed department since then. The flip side is that they never had burning before dhuumfire, although they still don’t have confusion innately (but can get via perplexity).

I don’t think making incendiary powder proc on a kit swap is a bad idea in principle, but it’s just another thing that would make kits even more of a necessity than they already are for engineers. There’s already so many inherent disadvantages into not running kit utilities that I don’t think we need to throw incendiary powder on there too.

Not to mention that a kit swap is done instantly, so a person could just shoot an auto attack, and kit swap just before it hits to proc the incendiary powder on demand with no way for the opponent to predict it was coming. In actual fact, that could even make it potentially more powerful than it currently is.

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

Engies already have a necro’s ability to bleed stack.

I will say that while I feel Incindiary Powder needs to be changed to be more active and have counterplay, it should not be done like Dhuumfire where it is tied to just one skill. Perhaps make it something like “equipping a kit causes your next attack to cause burning” could work, since all condi spec engies use kits.

Not in my experience 10+ bleeds isn’t uncommon for a necro 10+ bleeds on a engi you gotta be running nades with shrapnel trait, grenadier trait and the person has to be afk.

Incendiary powder does need a change, as it likewise doesn’t promote skillfull play. One reason why condi-tank engineer is so strong is that it can play really defensively between condi-bursts caused by procs such as this. The only real weakness of condi-engi is necro condi-transfers.

Some engineers will claim IP takes skill b/c you have to pay attention to the 10s timer and make sure it procs on the correct target, but that is only true in a team-fight and is really just increasing its usage as opposed to a requirement to make it effective. Most fights against condi-engineers are lost almost solely because of this trait.

Making it active and able to mitigated via dodges in some way would be a great thing. On one-hand, long blocks like the gear-shield (3s block every 20s, which is better than most entire utilities on many classes) could be shaved to help fix the extreme tankiness (and a slight shave is warranted, maybe just 2s block, or 30s CD). On the other-hand, fixing this trait to allow more counter-play would be a great thing.

Possible suggestions:
-IP proc OPPORTUNITY after critting (10s icd). The engineer glows orange like going super-saiyan (and has a status-bar indicator), and next attack will proc IP. If it misses, too bad about getting out-played. All such on-crit procs should have a similar mechanic so that they can be dodged.

-IP applies longer burn, but longer icd: 5 or 6s on 20s icd so that cleanses are more effective against it.

-IP procs only successful activation of an F1-F4 ability.

Honestly, its kind of silly that engineers just take IP, then don’t really have to worry about burning as its then just covered. There should be some incentive to taking actual weapon-sources of burns (like flamethrower, off-hand pistol, flame turret, etc).

BlackBeard.2873:

Incendiary powder does need a change, as it likewise doesn’t promote skillfull play. One reason why condi-tank engineer is so strong is that it can play really defensively between condi-bursts caused by procs such as this.

What? IP is a proc on crit. How much crit does a tank have?
A tank build with high condition damage and high precision is not a tank build.

Comparing Dhuumfire and IP, even before the upcomming change is silly. Great example of how different professions are different.

A necro has no other burning. Getting Dhuumfire adds a massive amount of dps (damage per second).
An Engineer’s main condition is burning. Even without IP i can get a perma-Burn going.

My dps isnt going to skyrocket, but it is going to be more reliable as i have another way to keep my main condition going.
But in a target dummy fight, IP actually adds zero extra damage for me.

Terrahero.9358:

BlackBeard.2873:

Incendiary powder does need a change, as it likewise doesn’t promote skillfull play. One reason why condi-tank engineer is so strong is that it can play really defensively between condi-bursts caused by procs such as this.

What? IP is a proc on crit. How much crit does a tank have?
A tank build with high condition damage and high precision is not a tank build.

The standard 30/10/0/20/10 and variants (moving a few points around) using rabid amulet (the standard in pvp) are VERY tanky with over 1600 toughness, over 17k health, one of the best heals in the game, a 3s block on 20s CD, and another 1.5s block. This build can take a LOT of damage, mitigate even more, and condi-burst then kite with the best of them.

Comparing Dhuumfire and IP, even before the upcomming change is silly. Great example of how different professions are different.

A necro has no other burning. Getting Dhuumfire adds a massive amount of dps (damage per second).
An Engineer’s main condition is burning. Even without IP i can get a perma-Burn going.

My dps isnt going to skyrocket, but it is going to be more reliable as i have another way to keep my main condition going.
But in a target dummy fight, IP actually adds zero extra damage for me.

That is all fine, but the “best” engie builds only get burning from IP. They realize they can get more condi-bursts by just relying in IP to passively apply burning quite frequently, and it can’t be avoided. My point is that, without IP, engineers have to actually make use of their “many sources of burning.” The problem with IP is that it is unavoidable, involves no skill really, and is INCREDIBLY strong. Its stronger than grandmaster level in its current form (Grouch has even said such).

For reference, many “top engineers” run something like this (with some changes depending on the person): http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vcAQJAqelUUpErlcx+KseRiMqQnBqAgJSR+ZZfe8WsFEC-ToAAzCpIaS1krJTTymsNN8YuA

BlackBeard.2873:

For reference, many “top engineers” run something like this (with some changes depending on the person): http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vcAQJAqelUUpErlcx+KseRiMqQnBqAgJSR+ZZfe8WsFEC-ToAAzCpIaS1krJTTymsNN8YuA

In PvP, Engineers are not able to fight on-point even close to the extent that carrion Rangers or Soldiers/Berserker Warriors can! If your argument is about Engineers being too tanky, it’s going to fall on pretty deaf ears. Especially since Engineers have no viable way to counter more than 6-8 conditions per minute.

Regarding relatively unavoidable procs from Incendiary Powder,

Every profession in the game has instant and potent abilities that are impossible to reactively avoid.

• Ranger & Pet auto-attacking with Sun Spirit buff: 6s of burning, base, every 10s (soon to be nerfed).

• Doom: Instant 3s Fear, does 3k+ damage, on a 17s cooldown when traited.

• Berserker Fresh air Eles – More instant damage than you can shake a stick at, that’s completely off the global cooldown, and decently long ranged.

To be honest.. to a certain degree, there needs to be a small amount of guaranteed outgoing pressure in order for PvP combat to work – fights against dodge/invuln/teleport happy professions have to end somehow.

I’m not entirely sure whether we’re visiting the same forums, but nobody asked for Dhuumfire. It came completely out of nowhere.

Also, you need a master trait to get unblockable marks, from a traitline that’s fairly rubbish for anyone who isn’t an MM necro- And MM has better traits to get.

All this said, IMO, I would say to think about moving Dhuumfire down to Master. Maybe weaken it a little, but that’s debatable. Remember it is getting changed p significantly in the coming patch.

I am not even a necro and never asked for dhuumfire. In fact, most necros were immediately alarmed when they saw it coming and pre-emptively asked for it to be removed. It was really bad for the game. Now I understand you probably main an engineer and don’t want to see it nerfed in any way. I have that bias for my ele, even when we have seen plenty of nerfs.

Also, that is not to say that necro gameplay could use some more depth, but I would also like to point out that untraited engineer/necro can put out a similar amount of pressure with just their skills, not needing “extra procs.” My dislike of incendiary powder isn’t tied to only that skill, as Chaith pointed out, but extra procs in general. Things like air-sigil, IP, dhuumfire, etc are all pretty bad for the game imo. They make burst too bursty, and condi specs more bursty rather than attrition-y (as they are meant to be).

Now, I understand having some level of base-line pressure is a very good thing, but making it more active for both the user and defender would be a great thing. If you look at my suggested changes, they are all in this vein:

1. Get an IP proc “opportunity” following a crit, with a visual queue that the next attack is “super-charged.” This adds counterplay, and should be done with all “on-crit” I believe.

2. Increase burn duration and increase ICD. This makes it more capable to play around via cleanses, rather than just guaranteed damage.

3. Tie it to toolbelt skills in some way, so that, once again there is more active usage and decision, rather than just passively burning frequently.

I am very pleased with the change to dhuumfire, because it makes the trait more skillful for both the user and defender. Let’s do more of that for all classes.

Also, as far as “fresh air burst on eles” I agree that the instant-burst isn’t great, but understand: 1. Fresh air doesn’t add to the instant burst at all. It adds sustained damage. 2. Ele auto-attacks (especailly on scepter) do almost 0 dps. A good portion of the damage is tied to the instant-burst skills, such as scepter 2. I believe this is by design, and fine as it makes ele bursty but have rather poor sustained damage unless they give up most defense. Thankfully, no eles really play a 100-0 spec, and that capability has been reduced quite a bit from the days that car-crash was running one vs. team paradigm. I would be all-for reducing instant-spikes of damage like lightning strike if you give that damage available somewhere else.

I am not following you here. In one paragraph your stating you do not play a necromancer, then in another paragraph you presume to tell us how the play is effected with a trait on a necromancer. What makes you such an expert that you can tell us how a profession you never played feels and use that as an argument to change another trait on an entirely different profession?

Because necros had predicted the effect of Dhuumfire well before it was released. And we were right.

What BlackBeard is saying is that he did some research. It doesn’t take much to find out what he said. The rest is just logical extrapolation.

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

Because necros had predicted the effect of Dhuumfire well before it was announced. And we were right.

What BlackBeard is saying is that he did some research. It doesn’t take much to find out what he said. The rest is just logical extrapolation.

Thanks for clarifying that. Also, unlike many, I have played every class enough to learn about their strengths and weaknesses, as well as watched gameplay of top ranked players of every class on twitch frequently. My main is still and will always be an ele, but it doesn’t mean I will keep myself ignorant to how other classes are or play.

Also, for the record, the class I play most often as an alt and have 2nd most hours on is engineer. I don’t make suggestions without understanding the problem.

BlackBeard.2873:

Incendiary powder does need a change, as it likewise doesn’t promote skillfull play. One reason why condi-tank engineer is so strong is that it can play really defensively between condi-bursts caused by procs such as this. The only real weakness of condi-engi is necro condi-transfers.

Why the bias against this skill, yet no complaints from all of the vast amount of proc skills that increase damage out there?

I mean, you openly state you have no problems with skills such as diamond skin, that offer zero skillful play what so ever. From reading your post history, you appear to be okay with skill less play traits from other profession (particularly the ele). Sure seems to me like it could be a display of bias, wanting to assist the elementalist to have more exclusivity to burning.

BlackBeard.2873:

Possible suggestions:
-IP proc OPPORTUNITY after critting (10s icd). The engineer glows orange like going super-saiyan (and has a status-bar indicator), and next attack will proc IP. If it misses, too bad about getting out-played. All such on-crit procs should have a similar mechanic so that they can be dodged.

I just don’t understand the thought process of adding even more graphic heavy ideas that will force the system to have just that much more to process in battles in WvW.

BlackBeard.2873:

-IP applies longer burn, but longer icd: 5 or 6s on 20s icd so that cleanses are more effective against it.

What is your justification for singling out this 20 point investment for such a nerf?

BlackBeard.2873:

-IP procs only successful activation of an F1-F4 ability.

I like the professions mechanic, so I could get behind this idea, but the proc rate would have to change. Or make it an on hit trait and adjust the cool down. Possibly even change it to give a Xs burn per tool belt skill (1s with 180 AoE range?) and it could be the condition version of static discharge?

Personally, I have always wanted some condition damage value from the shield. I would love to see this trait give 100% chance for 1s burn when hit with a shield skill with no ICD. This would let you hit multiple opponents. If their is some issue with hitting multiple foea and it had an ICD then it would need a longer duration by far, but with the first option I think the long cool down on the shield skill covers that.

dancingmonkey.4902:

Why the bias against this skill, yet no complaints from all of the vast amount of proc skills that increase damage out there?

From earlier: “My dislike of incendiary powder isn’t tied to only that skill, as Chaith pointed out, but extra procs in general.” I am also terrified of some of the new sigils, and how they will interact with different professions too. Its not just IP, it just so happens that this thread is about IP.

I mean, you openly state you have no problems with skills such as diamond skin, that offer zero skillful play what so ever. From reading your post history, you appear to be okay with skill less play traits from other profession (particularly the ele). Sure seems to me like it could be a display of bias, wanting to assist the elementalist to have more exclusivity to burning.

If you read my thoughts on D. Skin, I simply said I was o.k. with such traits in theory if it promotes building in ways that aren’t “all-in” into one angular build that turns out to be low-risk, high-reward. Also. D.Skin requires making build sacrifices yourself and significant playstyle changes to play around the trait. I’m not saying its the hallmark of design, as I would certainly be concerned if it were too strong (its actually just bad) or unfun to play against.

Also, guardian probably has some of the best burning in the game, followed by engie, then ele. I don’t want burn to be an ele only thing, I just don’t think it should be “free” from a trait. As I said earlier, most of the “meta” engie builds don’t take ANY sources of burns from weapon skills, despite having so many options. I would like to see them consider some of they myriad of options for such a powerful condition.

Possible suggestions:
-IP proc OPPORTUNITY after critting (10s icd). The engineer glows orange like going super-saiyan (and has a status-bar indicator), and next attack will proc IP. If it misses, too bad about getting out-played. All such on-crit procs should have a similar mechanic so that they can be dodged.

I just don’t understand the thought process of adding even more graphic heavy ideas that will force the system to have just that much more to process in battles in WvW.

Now this is the kind of feedback that is great. GW2 is already a little graphically overloaded, so I can see the concern about implementing this kind of solution (and not just for IP). WvW battles can’t really be saved, but on small-scale fighting (where individual skill matters more, and dodging such a proc is more important), this could be a big help. Now would it be too intense there, I’d be glad to hear thoughts.

-IP applies longer burn, but longer icd: 5 or 6s on 20s icd so that cleanses are more effective against it.

What is your justification for singling out this 20 point investment for such a nerf?

Well, because IP can single-handedly win fights against many builds. Its possible to play around bombs, dodge important grenades, etc. But with IP you are going to get burning (at least 50% uptime by the time condi duration is included), and each tick of burn is almost 1K by the time you have some might. Even if you make it 8s on 20s icd, that is still the same dps potential, but now it has counterplay. That is a good thing. Other traits that have this flavor could use this same treatment.

-IP procs only successful activation of an F1-F4 ability.

I like the professions mechanic, so I could get behind this idea, but the proc rate would have to change. Or make it an on hit trait and adjust the cool down. Possibly even change it to give a Xs burn per tool belt skill (1s with 180 AoE range?) and it could be the condition version of static discharge?

Personally, I have always wanted some condition damage value from the shield. I would love to see this trait give 100% chance for 1s burn when hit with a shield skill with no ICD. This would let you hit multiple opponents. If their is some issue with hitting multiple foea and it had an ICD then it would need a longer duration by far, but with the first option I think the long cool down on the shield skill covers that.

A good idea, although I don’t think anyone is going to trait for a 1s burn, even if its aoe. Idk if you want to tie this trait to the shield as well. Perhaps the trait could be similiar to incendiary ammo effect on activation of a toolbelt skill (even 3 hits maybe) and redesign incendiary ammo (the flamethrower toolbelt). That would offer the option to get tons of burn, but it comes at the cost of using a toolbelt skill at a potentially sub-optimal time. Trade-offs and sacrifices like such are a great thing for play!

Your contradicting in your justifications. You claim traits on your favored profession require sacrifices, then state that traits you are attacking do not. IP is a trait in a trait line that has several high value traits, and a player is forced to trade one for another. You are simply ignoring true investment needed for the sake of your argument.

Your claim that it single handedly wins fights, is subjective at best. Sure seems highly questionable to me. It is not a sin to have traits that boost a specific build type, that are not a grandmasters.

It just makes it hard to take your argument seriously that your “okay” with this traits hard counter IP being 100% passive and requiring zero skill what so ever, then going on and using the opposite argument as a reason to nerf this trait.

dancingmonkey.4902:

Your contradicting in your justifications. You claim traits on your favored profession require sacrifices, then state that traits you are attacking do not. IP is a trait in a trait line that has several high value traits, and a player is forced to trade one for another. You are simply ignoring true investment needed for the sake of your argument.

There isn’t really any tradeoff to taking IP, as every engie is going to take it b/c it is far and away the best trait at its tier. Also, it is in the trait-line with the other “mandatory” trait, grenadier. Almost every engie build has to take grenades because they are so strong. If you are going 30 up explosives, IP is almost free.

We can discuss D. Skin in the appropriate thread, as I can see cases where it could be an issue, no reason to get off-track as to whether IP is too strong on engie.

Your claim that it single handedly wins fights, is subjective at best. Sure seems highly questionable to me. It is not a sin to have traits that boost a specific build type, that are not a grandmasters.

This is true, traits should boost your build, but not carry it. If it wasn’t that important you wouldn’t be defending it so vehemently, no? If a trait is build-defining, it should be GM level, but obviously that would hurt too much as grenadier is there and is already necessary. I would argue that it IS build defining, as it allows you to have superior condi-pressure while building NO other sources of burns. If that is true, rather than make it GM, you could just tweek it to make it slightly less powerful/reliable but still make it able to supplement your build.

One of the problem with IP is that it is UNAVOIDABLE burns (if you dodge a “would-be crit” it doesn’t go on CD), that require no active play on the engie’s part. It also is TOO RELIABLE in terms of damage. It is short enough and frequent enough in application that you can’t rely on cleanse to seriously mitigate it, yet long enough that engies can continue a playstyle of “condi-burst and kite” that has too much reward for the risk. In some ways, its similar to people’s complaints about impale: its too easy to land, does too much damage for what it is, and the methods of mitigation that normally apply to condis aren’t really effective.

It just makes it hard to take your argument seriously that your “okay” with this traits hard counter IP being 100% passive and requiring zero skill what so ever, then going on and using the opposite argument as a reason to nerf this trait.

See earlier notes on D. Skin. Also, I would love if engineer’s got some more tools to deal with the necro matchup (which is far more of a hard-counter than D. Skin) while making these changes to give power builds a better chance vs. the condi playstyle that currently is far superior.

Traits do define your build and in several cases carry it. I put 30 water on ele you know what carries my condition management? All of the traits from traditional water selections.

You went 30 critical strikes you know why you can go full valk? Hidden killer

There are a lot more see deceptive evasion. Traits don’t always define a build but many do and many carry it in some form.

You think build defining traits should be GM that is your opinion there are several examples where that is not the case usually the ones that go against your opinion are defensive traits. The defensive traits are some the most build defining traits out there and many aren’t grandmaster.

Chaith.8256:

Don’t compare traits directly across professions. A condi necro burning you for 5s is very different than an Engineer burning you for 5s.

This is absolutely true. You can’t just make incendiary powder grandmaster and/or trigger on toolbelt skills.

Really, engineers shouldn’t even have a burn applying trait at all. At the very least, it shouldn’t invalidate their other sources of burning. Engineers should have to use blowtorch, bomb kit, flamethrower, rocket kick or flame turret to get burning. Powder beats every single one of those skills in terms of up-time and ease of application.

Necros never got the benefit of saying “I don’t need x skill to burn enemies anymore because of this burning trait,” so you really can’t compare dhuumfire to powder 1 to 1.

BlackBeard.2873:

There isn’t really any tradeoff to taking IP, as every engie is going to take it b/c it is far and away the best trait at its tier. Also, it is in the trait-line with the other “mandatory” trait, grenadier. Almost every engie build has to take grenades because they are so strong. If you are going 30 up explosives, IP is almost free.

A few things that are hard to swallow here. You think it is not a trade off, there for you state its as if it were fact and expect the rest of the community to swallow that. As far as diamond skin being discussed, well it is a passive skill and relevant for many reasons. It offers zero skill game play, which you are attempting to stand behind as bad design, when in reference to DS specifically you promote the opposite and specifically state that you are okay with it. We are not discussing the skill, we are discussing your bias towards a specific aspect in relation to one over the other.

The fact that you believe almost every engineer build takes or focuses on grenades, in itself is a bit of a testament to your limited knowledge of the profession and its community. Grenades may be a popular kit, but to claim they are in over 50% of the builds seems inaccurate.

BlackBeard.2873:

We can discuss D. Skin in the appropriate thread, as I can see cases where it could be an issue, no reason to get off-track as to whether IP is too strong on engie.

No one is discussing D. skin. I am discussing how it is an example of a trait that requires no skillful play what so ever, and how you promote it as okay on your main profession and use it as a aspect on a rival profession. From my perspective, the bias takes away from your argument.

BlackBeard.2873:

One of the problem with IP is that it is UNAVOIDABLE burns (if you dodge a “would-be crit” it doesn’t go on CD), that require no active play on the engie’s part. It also is TOO RELIABLE in terms of damage.

DS avoids it 100% if it crits in the first 10% of an eles damage with that trait, putting it on full CD. So do not state it, as if it has no counters. I can list many if you do not like that one. Transmute for example. Automated response. Berzerker stance. Those are a few of the ways IP will do zero damage and go on CD. Please to not claim it is “UNAVOIDABLE” as if doing it in all caps makes those counters i just listed do not exist. The fact it, in many cases it is completely avoidable with hard counters.

As well it can be strongly negated by food that lowers condition duration, runes that lower condition duration and so on.

Even as a master trait, Incendiary Powder is too powerful.

Keep trying to rationalize its power, but the fact is that it’s too good. It’s effectively 5 seconds of burning every 10 seconds. In a condition damage build, that’s over 550 damage per second for a total of over 2750 damage. Engineers do have other access to burning, but in current engineer builds, burning comes predominately from bomb kit #2 and incendiary powder. Any significant application of burning at range is coming from Incendiary Powder. Compare that to a typical physical damage master level trait, which adds 10% damage. To add the same bonus damage that Incendiary Powder is adding, they would have to be doing 27,500 damage in 10 seconds after armor. That’s not going to happen in a realistic scenario. Even half of that is hard to achieve when you consider your opponent is avoiding the big attacks.

So how do you balance it without destroying it. Making it a grandmaster trait is not a good solution. It needs to be an adept or master level trait, but weaker. I would suggest that it does 1 second of burning every n attacks/hits. Keep in mind that many abilities attack multiple times or count each target they hit as an attack. I would pick n to be about 10. The end result is that the ability is weaker against a single target, but still strong in a group scenario, though it spreads the damage. And by knowing multiple hit attacks are more likely to stack it, it now has some counter-play.

I don’t really agree that IP is too strong, but I do think it’s pretty essential in condi builds for applying pressure. And I don’t think having an extra step past an engineer critting to add counterplay will have the desired effect. Maybe for a week it will. Reason being is that engineers will figure out another way to land that second attack to the point where there’s not a thing an opponent can do about it. Static discharge comes to mind. Or pistol #3 with sigil of intelligence and more than one enemy or hittable object in close proximity. Or acid bomb, or box of nails etc. Or a simple grenade cluster. Don’t even get me started on grenade kit doubletap. And how long would I have to land my next attack? Could I “store” an IP proc and just save it for my next opportune attack? That almost guarantees I can apply burning whenever I want to, which would probably make it harder to deal with than it already is.

All the new added change you suggest does is force people to blow their cooldowns and dodges to try and avoid our next attack. That’s kind of what engineers want so your suggested change would make us more effective unless I’m reading it wrong.

The alternative of making Incendiary Ammo a GM trait is… I don’t think I like it, but if Grenadier becomes a Master trait, I’ll be okay with it haha.

By making it lower duration but more often, it gets around the problem of it being a very powerful proc that you only need to land once in ten seconds. By spreading the damage, it means that the damage can be avoided in increments and that you don’t get a lot of bonus damage when you aren’t attacking your target.

Keep in mind, it’s a suggestion. Someone may have a better idea.

If you want to compare engineers to the other classes, start giving the engineer the same baseline of the other classes – a second weapon slot and a non-dps nerfed main weapon. Then we can talk about it.

Manuhell.2759:

If you want to compare engineers to the other classes, start giving the engineer the same baseline of the other classes – a second weapon slot and a non-dps nerfed main weapon. Then we can talk about it.

I agree. As the devs posted balance philosophy specifically states that they intentionally made out only 3 weapons combos intentionally weak/subpar because of kits.

So I completely agree with you on this IP is intended to aid in compensating how we have to sacrafice a utility slot just for a weapon swap. Thus we have an on par weapon set if we sacrafice a utility slot, and one intentionally under powered weapon set.

Manuhell.2759:

If you want to compare engineers to the other classes, start giving the engineer the same baseline of the other classes – a second weapon slot and a non-dps nerfed main weapon. Then we can talk about it.

Aren’t the main weapons on Engi actually pretty good? The 1 is kinda sorta rubbish for Pistol, but the other 4 pistol skills are all pretty fantastic. Rifle skills are also fantastic and as I understand they’re really important for decap which is apparently popular right now.

Sarrs.4831:

Manuhell.2759:

If you want to compare engineers to the other classes, start giving the engineer the same baseline of the other classes – a second weapon slot and a non-dps nerfed main weapon. Then we can talk about it.

Aren’t the main weapons on Engi actually pretty good? The 1 is kinda sorta rubbish for Pistol, but the other 4 pistol skills are all pretty fantastic. Rifle skills are also fantastic and as I understand they’re really important for decap which is apparently popular right now.

Not “pretty good” when compared to the weapons on other classes…

Pistol 1 – Trash bleeds, trash direct damage
Pistol 2 – sprays and rarly hits all the pois unless you’re point blank, still not bad though
Pistol 3 – Pretty darn good
Pistol 4 – Short duration burn unless point blank (2s unless 200 range)
Pistol 5 – 1s root + 1s cripple pulse

Pistol 4/5 usually not worth taking over the utility of the shield (shield is pretty boss even despite the long cd’s).

Rifle 1 – Decent direct damage
Rifle 2 – Slow moving net, probably won’t hit a moving target unless very close
Rifle 3 – low damage and 1 stack of bleed unless you’re point blank
Rifle 4 – Knockback on a short CD – Pretty good
Rifle 5 – Decent damage/range, but highly telegraphed

Rifle has issues combining together well with itself for combos. Far easier to avoid/break out of than other combos on other classes.

Decap is getting nerfed via AR… deservingly so,.

Go try playing an eng without a kit, then come back and tell me the main weapon skills are “pretty good” -.- You’ll quickly see that eng need kits to be viable.

Aberrant.6749:

Go try playing an eng without a kit, then come back and tell me the main weapon skills are “pretty good” -.- You’ll quickly see that eng need kits to be viable.

Brb gonna spvp as PP FT Elixirgun.

Seriously though, the suggestion that engineers need to be completely turned on their head before you can compare them to other classes is kinda insane.

Exedore.6320:

By making it lower duration but more often, it gets around the problem of it being a very powerful proc that you only need to land once in ten seconds. By spreading the damage, it means that the damage can be avoided in increments and that you don’t get a lot of bonus damage when you aren’t attacking your target.

Keep in mind, it’s a suggestion. Someone may have a better idea.

I would actually argue the opposite. Making it shorter duration and more often just makes it more guaranteed damage. As it is, it’s hard to often justify cleansing kitten burn every 10s, as you know its just coming back in 10s anyway. If you make it a longer proc, but less frequent, there is now the possibility for cleanse to be effective against it. If you got, say 2s of burn every 5s, then cleanse is even less valuable versus this.

Also, for people who were unsure of the suggestion about “on-crit” skills giving you an “attack opportunity.” This would mean that it procs IF you land you next attack, and if you miss/blind/evade/invuln./block that next attack – you lose your chance and have to wait the cooldown. If doing this gets players to think more about how to land those procs (with a quick channel on FT for instance) – then great, it is already increasing the skill cap. If it just gives opponents the chance to dodge it, even randomly, they are no longer guaranteed damage. I think that would be good for all-procs, although implementing a way to easily tell when an attack has a proc attached would be difficult. Perhaps a glow?

Aberrant.6749:

Pistol 2 – sprays and rarly hits all the pois unless you’re point blank, still not bad though
….
Pistol 4 – Short duration burn unless point blank (2s unless 200 range)
….
Rifle 2 – Slow moving net, probably won’t hit a moving target unless very close
Rifle 3 – low damage and 1 stack of bleed unless you’re point blank

you undervalue these, its pretty easy for engi to control the distance at which it fights… especially with a rifle.

First of all i didn’t read most of the posts in this thread due to the fact i’m kinda busy atm, i would still like to reply to this thread regarding the fact there are actually a lot of ppl complaining about this trait.

Some ppl are going to compare IP to dhuumfire and stuff, but you can’t really do that. You have to admit the fact that engineer is lacking in some other stuff (a second weapon kit, fear, torment, a lot of stunbreakers, deathshroud, condition transfer or removal e.g.) and our traits and utility-skills have to close this gap tho. Some ppl would say kits are equal to weapon sets, but they’re in fact not. Most of the time ppl are picking specific kits due to 1-3 usefull skills (block on tool kit for example).

Futhermore this trait is the most reliable dmg for condition engineers (and it was nerfed already). You can’t stack bleeding like a necromancer, we don’t even have torment or fears, we’re kinda bound to the burning (it’s almost essential for condi engineers).

A necromancer has his marks which are quite easy to hit compared to nades (which are slow and easy to dogde). You can’t predict doom (ds 3) either, it’s an instant fear.

There are actually plenty of skills and traits which you in fact can’t predict either. Buffs due to spirits etc. Shouldn’t we be able to predict a shatter? What about fresh air?

Imagine fighting a mesmer without this trait. Even now a good mesmer can basically outkite you and it’s quite hard to land some conditions on him (LoS, distortion, blinking away, invis, hiding behind clones, range with gs, chaos storm →aegis etc, null field and so on). Without this burning trait it’s even worse.

We actually need some kind of reliable and unpredictable dmg. If you want to be able to predict everything (i’m fine with this) they basically need to change the whole game.

I’m sorry but nerfing IP to be a 2-part crit proc doesn’t make sense in comparison to any other profession in the game. No one has to crit with an on-crit trait and then think about applying the benefit of said trait. Sigils don’t do it, Runes don’t do it. Maybe thieves do it in a way but that has nothing to do with crits. Singling out IP or starting with engineers doesn’t really seem very fair unless you add that same “hey I critted and now I’m coming for you” warning tell to other professions. And if I have to glow like that then I’d need to get some serious damage in on my next hit and not just a 5 second burn. If that was the case I’d be okay with IP changing to an on-crit-then-on-successful-attack trait.

And I think IP is fair considering engineer weapon and kit strength. Right now, pistol skills are underpowered but they are great when it comes to applying conditions. Rifle skills are good but situational at best. Nothing but mediocre sustain going on with rifle unless the enemy is close by and has the defensive awareness of a cup of yogurt with a spoon in it. Tool kit AA is bad because of range, speed and damage, Flamethower AA is okay but who stands still for that? Elixir Gun Auto Attack doesn’t do much but soften a target and apply cover conditions, And grenades literally give you time to visually identify the threat, move away and dodge unless you’re too close to the engineer or he’s stealthed for an opener. I’d talk about bomb kit but come on it’s a defensive dps kit for enemies that are too aggressive. Also IP in and of itself isn’t scary unless you’re fighting a condition build engineer. Hybrid power/condi engineer is a good build but specialized, and not robust enough to survive if singled out in PvP or to stay alive in WvW while solo roaming.

Again I appreciate the OP’s ideas and thought that went into this, but I can’t really support a nerf to IP without valid buffs being given in exchange. The GW2 user base, and I think a lot of recent game’s user base has the tendency to come to the forums and request nerfs instead of learning how to beat something or understanding when you can’t on paper. I used to be the same way. But I started spending more quality time in WvW and PvP and I’m slowly learning the best times to withdraw and when to gank. Instead of complaining about necros, I know a bit better what they can do and when it’s time to run the heck away. I know to pack enough stealth traits and skills to get away from thieves I can’t beat and I’m slowly learning the best times to apply pressure. I can’t beat a cornered condi necro unless I cc the heck out of him or her, and if my spike attempt is unsuccessful, I simply don’t have the sustain to put up a real fight. Likewise, strong condi engineers have to be either dominated or evaded. All those ticking conditions do is force you to make a decision quickly.

Mouby.7096:

You can’t predict doom (ds 3) either, it’s an instant fear.

You can predict it, and in fact, many players do. What you can’t do is react to avoid it. It’s similar to thief stealth attacks. You can’t react to avoid them, because you can’t see it ahead of time. What you can do, however, is predict it and time your defense for when you think it will come. If you’re wrong, then you got out-played by someone who baited out your active defense before attempting to hit you.

Doom is far easier than stealth attacks to predict due to the necro needing to turn all black before he can use it and having two cooldowns tied to it.

Mouby.7096:

First of all i didn’t read most of the posts in this thread due to the fact i’m kinda busy atm, i would still like to reply to this thread regarding the fact there are actually a lot of ppl complaining about this trait.

Some ppl are going to compare IP to dhuumfire and stuff, but you can’t really do that. You have to admit the fact that engineer is lacking in some other stuff (a second weapon kit, fear, torment, a lot of stunbreakers, deathshroud, condition transfer or removal e.g.) and our traits and utility-skills have to close this gap tho. Some ppl would say kits are equal to weapon sets, but they’re in fact not. Most of the time ppl are picking specific kits due to 1-3 usefull skills (block on tool kit for example).

Futhermore this trait is the most reliable dmg for condition engineers (and it was nerfed already). You can’t stack bleeding like a necromancer, we don’t even have torment or fears, we’re kinda bound to the burning (it’s almost essential for condi engineers).

A necromancer has his marks which are quite easy to hit compared to nades (which are slow and easy to dogde). You can’t predict doom (ds 3) either, it’s an instant fear.

There are actually plenty of skills and traits which you in fact can’t predict either. Buffs due to spirits etc. Shouldn’t we be able to predict a shatter? What about fresh air?

Imagine fighting a mesmer without this trait. Even now a good mesmer can basically outkite you and it’s quite hard to land some conditions on him (LoS, distortion, blinking away, invis, hiding behind clones, range with gs, chaos storm ->aegis etc, null field and so on). Without this burning trait it’s even worse.

We actually need some kind of reliable and unpredictable dmg. If you want to be able to predict everything (i’m fine with this) they basically need to change the whole game.

IP isn’t the only method of gaining the burning condition on an engineer. The same way a necro has to stack bleeds with his sceptre, an engineer should have to pick up his flamethrower kit.

Jelzouki.4128:

IP isn’t the only method of gaining the burning condition on an engineer. The same way a necro has to stack bleeds with his sceptre, an engineer should have to pick up his flamethrower kit.

I am going to assume you are not actually familiar with the engineer, considering the FT scales with power well, and poorly with condition damage. Not to mention it only has 2 skills that apply burning, neither of which are player targeted skills.

What is worse is that your trying to use the necro as a comparison to nerf an engineer trait. A trait that augments conditions the profession already has available to them makes sense to me. Comparing that to a trait on a profession that offers a condition that is not otherwise native to it makes little sense to me.

Jelzouki.4128:

IP isn’t the only method of gaining the burning condition on an engineer. The same way a necro has to stack bleeds with his sceptre, an engineer should have to pick up his flamethrower kit.

Except it isn’t the “same way”, since one is a weapon and the other is an utility skill.
I’ll repeat that again: want to make comparisons about engineers and other classes?
Start giving the same baseline and we can talk about it. Until then, those comparisons are useless.

Manuhell.2759:

Jelzouki.4128:

IP isn’t the only method of gaining the burning condition on an engineer. The same way a necro has to stack bleeds with his sceptre, an engineer should have to pick up his flamethrower kit.

Except it isn’t the “same way”, since one is a weapon and the other is an utility skill.
I’ll repeat that again: want to make comparisons about engineers and other classes?
Start giving the same baseline and we can talk about it. Until then, those comparisons are useless.

Haha, i’ll bet you think you sound clever…

Except have a utility skill that gives access to 5 more skills without a recharge on the utility, is better than just 1 skill as opposed to 5.

If I was a necro and I could use a sort of “kit” for burning damage I sure as hell would.

Jelzouki.4128:

Haha, i’ll bet you think you sound clever…

Except have a utility skill that gives access to 5 more skills without a recharge on the utility, is better than just 1 skill as opposed to 5.

If I was a necro and I could use a sort of “kit” for burning damage I sure as hell would.

I think that is his point a Necro doesn’t have a kit so why are people trying to compare it?

I main elementalist and I have a engi also people compare ele and engi alot because of attunements and kits but they play nothing alike. I followed that same thought process until I actually made a engi myself and within the first few hours I realized it isn’t anything alike.

I also have a necro and the condition pressure a necro puts out much better then a engi also they play nothing alike.

If you had a kit that gave you burning as a necro then it would compete with your stun breaker(s), your signet of spike, your wall, your spectral walk, and epidemic.

Jelzouki.4128:

Haha, i’ll bet you think you sound clever…

Except have a utility skill that gives access to 5 more skills without a recharge on the utility, is better than just 1 skill as opposed to 5.

If I was a necro and I could use a sort of “kit” for burning damage I sure as hell would.

If you were a necro and had kits, your weapon dps would be nerfed by design (and even when you weren’t using said kits). And probably wouldn’t have a second weapon, too. Also, your kits would be balanced upon being fully traited with their grandmaster traits and be subpar as a baseline (see: grenades). At least, that’s how it works for engineers. I’m not sure why someone else would want such a similar treatment, but if you want to trade, heh, go on.

Anyway, while the utility itself hasn’t got a recharge, the single kit skills have, obviously. So it is quite useless to nitpick about that.
Also, consider that those 5 skills are already balanced taking in accord their number – and thus having reduced effects compared to either weapons or utilities.
Kits are all about sustained damage, by the way – that’s why many of them rely on conditions, rather than burst damage, as they would be terrible to balance otherwise. Thus saying that 5 utilities are better than 1 is just a simplicistic assumption.
One that doesn’t take account of opportunity costs, by the way – there aren’t many utility slots, after all, and there are things a kit can’t do.

Manuhell.2759:

Also, your kits would be balanced upon being fully traited with their grandmaster traits and be subpar as a baseline (see: grenades). At least, that’s how it works for engineers. I’m not sure why someone else would want such a similar treatment, but if you want to trade, heh, go on.

Isn’t grenadier the only grandmaster kit trait?

Is the toolkit subpar baseline?
Is the bomb kit subpar baseline?

It looks to me like grenades are the exception, not the rule.

Sub par how?

I would say yes, bomb kit is sub par baseline. 2 of the bombs do zero damage, but have a 25s CD. That is fairly long.

They are ridiculously easy to avoid, and have a two second delay from the time you press the key until the go off.

Untraited the range is very small for what it takes to land them plus the naturally small radius I say yes, they are absolutely sub par untraited

Tool kit, yes I feel it is sub par untraited. I feel it has value, but compared to other weapons skills, and other professions weapons, it is absolutely sub par damage wise.

oZii.2864:

Jelzouki.4128:

Haha, i’ll bet you think you sound clever…

Except have a utility skill that gives access to 5 more skills without a recharge on the utility, is better than just 1 skill as opposed to 5.

If I was a necro and I could use a sort of “kit” for burning damage I sure as hell would.

I think that is his point a Necro doesn’t have a kit so why are people trying to compare it?

I main elementalist and I have a engi also people compare ele and engi alot because of attunements and kits but they play nothing alike. I followed that same thought process until I actually made a engi myself and within the first few hours I realized it isn’t anything alike.

I also have a necro and the condition pressure a necro puts out much better then a engi also they play nothing alike.

If you had a kit that gave you burning as a necro then it would compete with your stun breaker(s), your signet of spike, your wall, your spectral walk, and epidemic.

Honestly man, some explanation from a dev would be nice.

A great deal of grenade damage comes from burning given this trait.
Burning is not otherwise available easily at range. You would probably need to add burning to one of the grenades if you did this. It is why engineer conditions on the actual weapon skills are a bit more toned down than the necros.

Jelzouki.4128:

Honestly man, some explanation from a dev would be nice.

dream on

By that logic lower necro bleed on crit chance to %33 in line with engineer.

village idiot.1436:

By that logic lower necro bleed on crit chance to %33 in line with engineer.

If the duration is increased to the same duration the engie trait has. Fine.