missed elite spec opportunities
- Guardian should’ve been given monk\paragon
- Mesmer should’ve been given spellbreaker. (not warrior)
- Ranger should’ve been given deadeye. (not thief)
- Thief should’ve been given assassin. (complete with “You move like a dwarf!”)
- Revenant should’ve been given ritualist.
Meh. Subjective. I like most of what they went with.
Yes, because Ranger lacks that long-range weapon option.
Meh. Subjective. I like most of what they went with.
Subjective versus a proven formula in GW1.
I’ll agree that there’s some stuff to like — but like my title suggests, elites are not as good as they could be.
Yes, because Ranger lacks that long-range weapon option.
I think you missed my point. I’d rather stow the pet and wield a sniper rifle.
Lulz Thief needed a Ranged option and base Thief alone is assassin playstyle already, and Ranger is defined by having the pet……. and didn’t need another long range option especially since it already has two… and did you even look at the Lore behind spellbreaker? It shows why it’s warriors and not mesmers…..
Lulz Thief needed a Ranged option and base Thief alone is assassin playstyle already, and Ranger is defined by having the pet……. and didn’t need another long range option especially since it already has two… and did you even look at the Lore behind spellbreaker? It shows why it’s warriors and not mesmers…..
Ok, give thieves a bard elite spec (eg LOTRO) then.
Why restrict rangers to pets only? Wooden Potatoes speculated about petless rangers for over a year now.
You’re going to let lore get in the way of a good time\fun mechanics?
The Path of Fire elite specs seem to be an excuse to remake unpopular mechanics in a way people might like. I think this is a mistake. There’s a reason people hardly play mantras, turrets and kits!
Engi: DPS minion build. A “mechromancer” of sorts. little robot swarms that are more than just immobile turrets or floating pulsing buffs.
Like miniature charr tanks and machinery rolling around shooting things. Or golem-like.
The Path of Fire elite specs seem to be an excuse to remake unpopular mechanics in a way people might like. I think this is a mistake. There’s a reason people hardly play mantras, turrets and kits!
At least they’re trying to make it “in a way people might like.”
I hope ANet is quick to remove anything that’s not fun (disbanding from the deadeye’s kneeling state) this weekend while remaining open-minded enough to live up to their full potential.
Engi: DPS minion build. A “mechromancer” of sorts. little robot swarms that are more than just immobile turrets or floating pulsing buffs.
Like miniature charr tanks and machinery rolling around shooting things. Or golem-like.
I like it!
I’m definitely disappointed after all this time, they still haven’t brought back the ritualist, paragon and dervish.
I’m definitely disappointed after all this time, they still haven’t brought back the ritualist, paragon and dervish.
Rev is essentially ritualist…. ritualists channel spirits from the mists Revs channel spirits from the mists…..
Meh. Subjective. I like most of what they went with.
Subjective versus a proven formula in GW1.
I’ll agree that there’s some stuff to like — but like my title suggests, elites are not as good as they could be.
You mean the proven formula that gave it 1/8th of GW2s population at launch and 1/2 of GW2s peak population?
There are a few disappointing things about the expanion.
That expansion being Guild Wars 2, instead of its less successful predecessor, isn’t one of them.
(edited by Conncept.7638)
I can go back to GW1 if I want to play ritualist, the original mesmer, paragon, or monk. I don’t particular want to play nostalgia classes.
So, no, I disagree with the OP.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
I can go back to GW1 if I want to play ritualist, the original mesmer, paragon, or monk. I don’t particular want to play nostalgia classes.
So, no, I disagree with the OP.
Then don’t play them.
I’m reading a ton of negative feedback on just about every new xpac class elite spec thread.
Mostly completely disagree with the op, except with Thief.
The Specs would have been better this way:
Guardian > Firebrand to Archivist
Mesmer > Mirage to Minstrel
Thief > Deadeye to Assassin
Warrior > Spellbreaker to Gladiator
Necromancer > Scourge to Defiler
Engineer > Holosmith to Sapper
Revenant > Renegade to Ascetic
Elementalist > Weaver to Arcanist
Ranger > Soulbeast to Soulbinder
Why the changes n terms?
Archivist = the much better fitting term for a “Keeper/Guardian of Secrets and Wisdom”, whos all about Tome Gameplay itself
Minstrel = fit same as good to Elona, we need Bards and could as come with the illusionist Gameplay as well, but just in a different form based on music that distracts
Assassin = with Offhand Sword they woudl have perfectly fitted into the arabian style of Assassin thats based on Assassins Creed
Gladiator = with larger offensive Shields would have fitted alot better to the Elona Theme
Defiler = would have been a better fitting name, easier to localize, cause in the past of arabian lands, there existed alot of desecrators, which defiled graves and tried to rob the dead which is why pyramids were full of deadly traps
Sapper = would have been again just a better, and easier term to localize, that fits also to the concept of having an inventor, which pioneers in new high technology, like Photon Tech and Holography, while beiing not afraid of being at the frontline like military pioneers, which is why they fight with a melee weapon.
Ascetic = Instead of giving us Kalla, we get with this Mhenlo to have with the Ascetic some kind of “War Monk” which would fight with fist rings/gauntlets using Energy to perform Chi based ranged attacks instead of needign somethign liek a shortbow for that…while being also great for healing instead of support like the Herald
Arcanist = better fitting term for an Elementalist which knows the secrets of merging elements together, – a term with historic background, while Weaver is just invented nonsense, plus Elementalists already use Arcanism, its part of their Attributes, so it just makes sense to call a spec, which specializes on this attribute also an Arcanist
Soulbinder = just the better sounding term, that is again also easier to localize into somethign that makes sense, based on the gameplay for a person, who binds the souls of animals to his own to merge together and become one, that actually sounds more like a profession, than Soulbeast.
Personally I like the idea behind sub classes ~ quoted from Chris Whiteside
base Thief alone is assassin playstyle already,
lol nope, an assassin is fast and mobile while using combo;s and it’s energy properly, the thief has a lame excuse of an initiative system with a slow attack base and pathetic damage.
Rev is essentially ritualist…. ritualists channel spirits from the mists Revs channel spirits from the mists…..
actually you are wrong on two accounts.
1. the engineer was Anet’s answer for the rit replacement
2. none of them even get close to what the rit is, even the rev is just a really small shadow of what the rit really is.
I can go back to GW1 if I want to play ritualist, the original mesmer, paragon, or monk. I don’t particular want to play nostalgia classes.
So, no, I disagree with the OP.
Then don’t play them.
I’m reading a ton of negative feedback on just about every new xpac class elite spec thread.
If ArenaNet went with your suggestions there’d be just as many negative feedback threads. People who are happy don’t tend to create threads.
If ArenaNet went with your suggestions there’d be just as many negative feedback threads. People who are happy don’t tend to create threads.
Getting back to my point: I tried the new specs, wasn’t impressed by ANet’s trying to round hole/square peg everything, and am relieved I didn’t pre-order.