Guild Wars 2

Ethics.4519:

I agree, but he’s simply voicing his opinions, which is exactly what this forum is for. OP is saying there are problems with the ele. If everybody agreed then maybe some Devs would read it and think about it. People like Creslin and myself are disagreeing with OP to let the Devs know that there are people who like the ele and where it is right now in relation to other classes. Overall I think rangers and necros are the most broken, but the other 6 seem somewhat well balanced.

Of course. I’m not telling him to shut up or anything. I’m merely pointing out that if he’s trying to say “I do well, so Eles are fine,” then his logic is no better than someone who says “I do poorly, so Ele’s are underpowered.”

magnafides.8136:

Creslin, if you have to be a D/D Ele to be as effective as other classes, something is wrong. I have used S/D primarily, and some staff too, and it’s weak no matter how often I switch attunements or stack might.

Well if the argument is that one of your weapon sets does a lot better in PvP than others, then you’re in good company. Very few classes can use any weapon in any situation. Several classes have modes/kits/tricks that are actually counterproductive in some contexts.

Is that the case for Elementalist? I am looking for a new main and evaluating Necro and Ele, and most of my experience with friends in PvE content is seeing them use staff or scepter builds in PvE and D/D in PvP.

Blaine Tog.8304:

Ethics.4519:

I agree, but he’s simply voicing his opinions, which is exactly what this forum is for. OP is saying there are problems with the ele. If everybody agreed then maybe some Devs would read it and think about it. People like Creslin and myself are disagreeing with OP to let the Devs know that there are people who like the ele and where it is right now in relation to other classes. Overall I think rangers and necros are the most broken, but the other 6 seem somewhat well balanced.

Of course. I’m not telling him to shut up or anything. I’m merely pointing out that if he’s trying to say “I do well, so Eles are fine,” then his logic is no better than someone who says “I do poorly, so Ele’s are underpowered.”

I’m not arguing that Ele’s are fine and need no fixes. I’m arguing that Ele’s are NOT a red-headed stepchilded, underpowered class like so many people think.

I will completely agree that Ele’s need fixes. I think that the fire trait line is lackluster for example.

But the fact is that if you spec into what Ele is strong at currently, you are a very powerful class. And right now, that seems to be D/D with lots of water and 20 arcane.

Staff, I think actually can be effective, but I am really not that good at it. For the brief times I use it, I feel like it actually requires a lot more finesse than D/D. I have seen some staff ele’s that just rocked…but I think it’s situational. Amazing when fighting a group…not super effective 1v1.

Also…I want to let all staff Ele’s out there know that you can MOVE while you cast almost all your abilities. I see so many staff Ele’s just stay still and cast while they get destroyed. Don’t do this…keep moving.

Blaine Tog.8304:

Of course. I’m not telling him to shut up or anything. I’m merely pointing out that if he’s trying to say “I do well, so Eles are fine,” then his logic is no better than someone who says “I do poorly, so Ele’s are underpowered.”

Just an aside: this is not true.

It is not really the same complaint. If someone says, “I do well, therefore elementalists do not need fundamental changes” then offer proof of them doing well, that’s a positive claim towards the possibility that elementalists do well. Saying, “I do not do well, therefore elementalists cannot do well” is offering a negative claim. Saying, “Elementalists generally do not do well” is vague in the extreme, but would require a lot of data to assert and we’re seeing a paucity of actual objective data in this thread.

It’s substantially harder to prove a negative claim in the real world, bordering on impossible unless you can demonstrate outright contradictions. And the criterion for what is broken and what is acceptable is even more muddied right now, especially given how many classes have serious design or scaling issues they are struggling with.

In other words, it’s Layne’s Law all over again. Both sides are talking past each other because they have different criterion using the same word “fine”.

KirinDave.6451:

magnafides.8136:

Creslin, if you have to be a D/D Ele to be as effective as other classes, something is wrong. I have used S/D primarily, and some staff too, and it’s weak no matter how often I switch attunements or stack might.

Well if the argument is that one of your weapon sets does a lot better in PvP than others, then you’re in good company. Very few classes can use any weapon in any situation. Several classes have modes/kits/tricks that are actually counterproductive in some contexts.

Is that the case for Elementalist? I am looking for a new main and evaluating Necro and Ele, and most of my experience with friends in PvE content is seeing them use staff or scepter builds in PvE and D/D in PvP.

Tell you the truth, I actually think Ele is better off than most other classes weapon wise. How many warriors to you see in WvW that aren’t using GS, Rifle, Hammer, or Axe? That’s really all I ever see.

I don’t think anyone can dispute that staff is very powerful in certain WvW situations. As for scepter, I haven’t used it much, but I have seen other players do well with it.

I just think that D/D is the easiest weapon set to learn.

Creslin.1758:

I’m not arguing that Ele’s are fine and need no fixes. I’m arguing that Ele’s are NOT a red-headed stepchilded, underpowered class like so many people think.

Then let me rephrase: just because you have done well (or even do well on a consistent basis) doesn’t mean the profession is balanced. Your experience is a data point, but you’re brandishing it like it’s a trump card, which it would only be if I were saying the Elementalist is so underpowered that no one could possibly do well with them (and I’m not saying that).

KirinDave.6451:

Just an aside: this is not true.

It is not really the same complaint. If someone says, “I do well, therefore elementalists do not need fundamental changes” then offer proof of them doing well, that’s a positive claim towards the possibility that elementalists do well. Saying, “I do not do well, therefore elementalists cannot do well” is offering a negative claim.

This strikes me as a mere semantic difference rather than a substantive one. One could rephrase the former assertion as “I don’t do poorly,” if one were so inclined, and it would be the same thing. What I was speaking about in that example was a hypothetical individual’s success level, which isn’t even strictly binary.

Furthermore, “elementalists cannot do well” is not the inverse of “elementalists do not need fundamental changes”. You added the stronger word “cannot” in there, which is far stronger than anything I implied or intended to imply.

It also strikes me as an irrelevant distinction: one person doing well or poorly can be considered incremental evidence towards a profession’s power level, but neither is very meaningful by itself.

KirinDave.6451:

It’s substantially harder to prove a negative claim in the real world, bordering on impossible unless you can demonstrate outright contradictions.

Yes, but I’m not making a negative claim. I’m making a positive claim: the Elementalist’s power level is at X point. Others think it’s at Y point, but neither of these are negative statements. We are, essentially, disagreeing about how many jelly beans are in a jar. It may be tricky to estimate the number, but one of us is closer to being correct.

(Also, the reason negative claims are so difficult to prove in the real world is because of the vast scope of reality. The only way someone can prove unicorns absolutely don’t exist is if they could somehow check everything in existence simultaneously. In a video game, the scope is much reduced and this sort of search becomes far more possible.)

Blaine Tog.8304:

Creslin.1758:

I’m not arguing that Ele’s are fine and need no fixes. I’m arguing that Ele’s are NOT a red-headed stepchilded, underpowered class like so many people think.

Then let me rephrase: just because you have done well (or even do well on a consistent basis) doesn’t mean the profession is balanced. Your experience is a data point, but you’re brandishing it like it’s a trump card, which it would only be if I were saying the Elementalist is so underpowered that no one could possibly do well with them (and I’m not saying that).

KirinDave.6451:

Just an aside: this is not true.

It is not really the same complaint. If someone says, “I do well, therefore elementalists do not need fundamental changes” then offer proof of them doing well, that’s a positive claim towards the possibility that elementalists do well. Saying, “I do not do well, therefore elementalists cannot do well” is offering a negative claim.

This strikes me as a mere semantic difference rather than a substantive one. One could rephrase the former assertion as “I don’t do poorly,” if one were so inclined, and it would be the same thing. What I was speaking about in that example was a hypothetical individual’s success level, which isn’t even strictly binary.

Furthermore, “elementalists cannot do well” is not the inverse of “elementalists do not need fundamental changes”. You added the stronger word “cannot” in there, which is far stronger than anything I implied or intended to imply.

It also strikes me as an irrelevant distinction: one person doing well or poorly can be considered incremental evidence towards a profession’s power level, but neither is very meaningful by itself.

KirinDave.6451:

It’s substantially harder to prove a negative claim in the real world, bordering on impossible unless you can demonstrate outright contradictions.

Yes, but I’m not making a negative claim. I’m making a positive claim: the Elementalist’s power level is at X point. Others think it’s at Y point, but neither of these are negative statements. We are, essentially, disagreeing about how many jelly beans are in a jar. It may be tricky to estimate the number, but one of us is closer to being correct.

(Also, the reason negative claims are so difficult to prove in the real world is because of the vast scope of reality. The only way someone can prove unicorns absolutely don’t exist is if they could somehow check everything in existence simultaneously. In a video game, the scope is much reduced and this sort of search becomes far more possible.)

Given the vast variety of things that one profession can do in this game, it’s almost impossible to say if a profession, as a whole, is balanced.

What I can say is that water/arcane D/D Elementalist is in a pretty good place right now, and I think my video and experience is more than enough proof of that. As for staff or S/F Ele…I really have no idea. I haven’t played them enough to get an idea of how good or bad they are.

But you see, what this means is that any Ele player CAN be successful in PvP if they spec correctly and L2P sufficiently. I’m not saying that any spec will work. And I’m not saying there aren’t problems with certain skills. But Ele definitely CAN be awesome if specced correctly, and you don’t have to be a god to do it…I think that any passable FPS player could probably play D/D Ele very well.

Creslin.1758:

What I can say is that water/arcane D/D Elementalist is in a pretty good place right now, and I think my video and experience is more than enough proof of that. As for staff or S/F Ele…I really have no idea. I haven’t played them enough to get an idea of how good or bad they are.

I’ve only done PvE, and S/D and Staff are underwhelming in that setting (to put it nicely). With S/D you’re trying to stack might to do passable damage (against stationary opponents), and now that they nerfed/broke Dragon’s Tooth and nerfed EA it’s even worse. Staff is okay for large events/zergs, but otherwise pretty bad unless you have some way to take the aggro off of you consistently (GoE’s cooldown is too long to rely on). I’d imagine that both are even worse against Human opponents that actually dodge.

Creslin.1758:

What I can say is that water/arcane D/D Elementalist is in a pretty good place right now, and I think my video and experience is more than enough proof of that.

Again, that’s just one data point.

The Elementalist has very few issues. None of them being damage. I critical hit for 5k damage every other hit normally and every once in awhile I crit for 7k. My build is centered around Power/precision/Critical hit damage. Every other fireball is a crit for me. My guild begs me to come along in dungeons so that I can utterly destroy the final bosses with my aoe’s. Am I lacking in survivability? Definitely. But with a half-decent computer and 20+ fps I can easily stay far back enough that I don’t aggro mobs. The only thing wrong with this class is the survivability, and that’s debatable. Elementalists are a harder class to play than any other, so it makes sense that people would complain about it. I hate to be the one to say this, and I used to resent people that said this, but learn to play. Experiment with builds, get better armor, even restart if you have to, but if you really learn how to play the Ele, you will destroy everyone in PvP, I promise.

Creslin.1758:

Lewa.9285:

This is not about you Creslin and about your selfclaimed god playing elementalist.:-). This is about the majority who hasn’t found a tiny niche in the elementalist build – the only one that works for fairly good dps. They want fun without having to study the profession for 2 weeks first because of what might work and which won’t. People are unhappy with the class because of what I already wrote above whether you like it or not. Being personal doesn’t make your argument stronger.

Will video proof help change your mind about Ele?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRw5jW80XJg

I’m seriously not that good, Ele is just a very, very good class once you get good with it. You absolutely do not have to study the class for 2 weeks. You just have to…you know, play it, practice it.

If you are arguing that every class in GW2 should be so simple that you can just pick it up and play immediately at high effectiveness…then I strongly, STRONGLY, disagree. Complexity is great for PvP games and makes them much more long-lived. If people are honestly complaining because they had to invest some modicum of effort to learn their class…then well, I don’t know what to say.

Great vid..
But do you have any conjured weapons ele builds doing that well…
Or staff..
or S/D ( I would love to see this one…get to makin it =_=)

Blaine Tog.8304:

That accounts for the first few payments, but at a certain point it becomes too much.

According to you.

No, that’s my argument.

People need to stop throwing out the word “opinion” as if it invalidates what the other person is saying, as if it were a hack in the discussion’s programming that let you safely ignore someone’s points.

I already said, multiple times, that an opinion can’t be invalid, because it’s based on personal beliefs. If you are the kind of person that thinks the opnions of others are invalid, that’s your problem.

Opinions aren’t ultimately based on anything except personal preference, so they aren’t arguable. We are arguing about judgements, which are inferences based on facts. There’s a degree of fuzziness there, but the purpose of an argument is to resolve that fuzziness.

But that’s exactly why opinions are arguable. They are based on the way one sees the facts. And the fuzziness can’t be resolved. That’s why neither of us has yet said “oh, yeah, you are right, i was wrong”.

Your band analogy doesn’t apply to this situation, though. I’m not trying to say the Elementalist is the greatest or worst profession. That speaks to a question on “fun,” and fun is largely subjective. I’m saying the Elementalist is somewhat underpowered, which is a claim about objective reality. I may be wrong or I may be right, but you and I can’t both be right if we disagree about this, whereas there’s no conflict if you say you prefer one band while I say I prefer another.

Objective reality? No, it’s a very subjective reality based on personal preference and style. We can both be right, for ourselves. I’m right for me and you are right for you. This is exactly what makes it personal and subjective. If you don’t lke my example, substitute it with a football team. Then think about how often people argue about those(to the point of physical balance).

For starters, “some people disagree with you, so obviously you’re wrong” is not a valid argument.

How about the actual argument of “obviously you are not stating the ultimate objective truth based on the ultimate hard facts if there are people who disagree with you?”

But, again, my preferences are not the topic of the discussion. What I like (subjective question, about me) is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether the Elementalist is underpowered (objective question, about a digital object written in 1s and 0s).

I have already asked you nicely to please cease this line of discussion. It’s insulting, rude, off-topic, and fallacious. I’m not claiming to be an authority on Elementalists, I’m just trying to present arguments. At best, you’re telling me I suck and my ego is out of control, neither of which is an acceptable thing to say in a polite discussion. To go back to the band analogy, it’s like I said I like the Beatles but think they were better with Pete Best, and you respond by telling me that maybe I should just listen to another band then because obviously the Beatles just aren’t for me. (That’s a random example, by the way. I have no preference for Pete Best one way or the other.) Or, maybe I express annoyance that my hypothetical significant other leaves her purse in weird places and you tell me to dump her and get someone else.

To be clear, because apparently it is necessary to go on record, I enjoy the Elementalist profession. I think it’s fundamentally well-designed and cohesive. It mostly just needs numbers tweaks to be on par with the other professions (and everyone needs work to become perfect from par, but that’s neither here nor there).

After reading this, yeah, your ego is out of control since you seem to believe that if you are not good at everything you “suck” and if smb dares say you a certain activity is not for you, you take it as in insult, because you see yorself as the image of perfection and the mere thought of you having a flaw is insulting. And since one can never win against pride or even have a normal discussion with pride….I’m done.

Blaine Tog.8304:

(Also, the reason negative claims are so difficult to prove in the real world is because of the vast scope of reality. The only way someone can prove unicorns absolutely don’t exist is if they could somehow check everything in existence simultaneously. In a video game, the scope is much reduced and this sort of search becomes far more possible.)

The degree of complexity in casual interaction between humans over a network with a computer program that may or may not have bugs is plenty of complexity.

Just thought I’d chip into the discussion here to add a few thoughts.

To get the best out of the elementalist you need to swap attunements on a regular if not frequent basis. You are encouraged to use all your attunements to make the best of a situation.
However the trait lines encourage making one attunement stronger than another so that you are better in one attunement than another.
These two things counter one another, like saying “we want you to use all your attunments but just stick with this one because it’s the strongest.”

As each attunement has a trait for “20% more damage in this attunement.” and a “this attunements skills recharge faster.” If you want the ele to be good across all attunements these buffs ought to be changed to ones that can apply to all attunements.

Or if you’re going to invest in making one attunement stronger than another you should really be able to go for it. Each trait line should have a “this attunement recharges 40% faster” which would stack with your arcana attunement recharge rate. (either you can only have one at a time , or the trade off for having one on all four would be that you are super versitile but not strong at one thing)

It just feels like at the moment the ele is neither here nor there, we are being told 2 conflicting messages. The attunement rechaege rate is so slow that you have to put points in arcana just to make it feel the right speed. But if you decide not to do that, and put your points in other places you can’t make one attunement particularly strong either.

I sppose in summary I am saying, the default attunement recharge rate is too slow.

Blaine Tog.8304:

Creslin.1758:

What I can say is that water/arcane D/D Elementalist is in a pretty good place right now, and I think my video and experience is more than enough proof of that.

Again, that’s just one data point.

I agree with Creslin. Now there are 2 data points. If you’re being all ‘statistical’ then you can’t tell a person that his opinion doesn’t count because it’s just one person’s opinion. The way we gain consensus is to gather everybody’s “one person” opinion. Why the hell are you getting so upset about this. You don’t like the ele cuz of X, I like the ele because of Y. Now lets go grab some beers and stop this pissing contest.

Half Tooth.1867:

Just thought I’d chip into the discussion here to add a few thoughts.

To get the best out of the elementalist you need to swap attunements on a regular if not frequent basis. You are encouraged to use all your attunements to make the best of a situation.
However the trait lines encourage making one attunement stronger than another so that you are better in one attunement than another.
These two things counter one another, like saying “we want you to use all your attunments but just stick with this one because it’s the strongest.”

As each attunement has a trait for “20% more damage in this attunement.” and a “this attunements skills recharge faster.” If you want the ele to be good across all attunements these buffs ought to be changed to ones that can apply to all attunements.

Or if you’re going to invest in making one attunement stronger than another you should really be able to go for it. Each trait line should have a “this attunement recharges 40% faster” which would stack with your arcana attunement recharge rate. (either you can only have one at a time , or the trade off for having one on all four would be that you are super versitile but not strong at one thing)

It just feels like at the moment the ele is neither here nor there, we are being told 2 conflicting messages. The attunement rechaege rate is so slow that you have to put points in arcana just to make it feel the right speed. But if you decide not to do that, and put your points in other places you can’t make one attunement particularly strong either.

I sppose in summary I am saying, the default attunement recharge rate is too slow.

Yep, I actually agree with your conclusion, I have said similar things in the past.

The only major problem I see with Ele right now is that we are basically forced into 20ish arcane just for the attunement recharge rate.

Having arcana capable of reducing your attunement recharge from 15 seconds to 9 seconds is just WAY too extreme. That is a 40% reduction in time…that is a HUGE deal. I mean, just think about what this means:

1. It allows you much more flexibility as to when you can use your skills, which can be life saving.

2. It essentially reduces the cooldown of ANY skill that has a cooldown of less than 15s, because no good Ele should remain in 1 attunement for 15s.

3. It allows you to use your attunement “perks” MUCH more often when you spec for them. This means you get fairly powerful buffs whenever you switch attunements 40% more, AND two condition removals when you switch to water 40% more.

That is too much to give up. They really should make the default recharge rate 12s, and have 30 arcana reduce it to 9s…still good, but not absolutely required.

TWMagimay.9057:

According to you.

Of course. That’s why I’m the one arguing the point.

TWMagimay.9057:

I already said, multiple times, that an opinion can’t be invalid, because it’s based on personal beliefs. If you are the kind of person that thinks the opnions of others are invalid, that’s your problem.

I’m also not trying to argue about opinions. I’m trying to make an argument. It is possible for someone’s argument to be invalid: because in the process of proceeding logically from agreed-upon facts to inferences from those facts, objective mistakes can be made.

TWMagimay.9057:

Objective reality? No, it’s a very subjective reality based on personal preference and style.

If the Elementalist dealt no damage, offered no utility, and was easy to kill, it would be underpowered. I don’t think it would be possible for anyone to argue otherwise.

If every single one of the Elementalist’s spells could one-shot anything else in the game in an AoE larger than the size of a screen while also applying a stun that couldn’t be broken, and also Elementalists were extraordinarily difficult to kill while also having unmatched mobility, I don’t think anyone could argue that they weren’t overpowered.

Anything else is just a matter of degree.

TWMagimay.9057:

We can both be right, for ourselves. I’m right for me and you are right for you. This is exactly what makes it personal and subjective. If you don’t lke my example, substitute it with a football team. Then think about how often people argue about those(to the point of physical balance).

You’re making my case for me: one football team can be better at the game overall than another. It’s difficult to say which professional team is better, but no one would expect the Patriots to lose to a bunch of 8th graders, for example. The Patriots are objectively better at the game than a random group of 13 year olds. Just because I think the Pats are better than the Cowboys (as an example) doesn’t mean I magically can’t be wrong. It just means the gap is less clear. I’m entitled to my opinion, but as soon as I start to make an argument I’ve moved beyond opinions (as opinions are necessarily not connected to facts, whereas arguments start with facts — possibly we just have different understandings of what the word “opinion” means?).

TWMagimay.9057:

How about the actual argument of “obviously you are not stating the ultimate objective truth based on the ultimate hard facts if there are people who disagree with you?”

If I say “Right now, there is a man standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial waving a sign that says ’I love Fluttershy,”" I may or may not be correct. Someone disagreeing with me doesn’t mean I’m wrong, but nor does me making that statement mean I’m correct.

I may well be wrong about the Elementalist, but I’m attempting to be right. I am reaching for objective truth. Whether I’ve made it there or not is very unclear, which is why I’m attempting to resolve that fuzziness. I would like to know as well whether I’m right or wrong.

TWMagimay.9057:

After reading this, yeah, your ego is out of control since you seem to believe that if you are not good at everything you “suck” and if smb dares say you a certain activity is not for you, you take it as in insult, because you see yorself as the image of perfection and the mere thought of you having a flaw is insulting.

No. I find your presumption that you know something exclusive about me quite rude. I like the Elementalist. I have implicitly and explicitly said as much. My opinion, as it were, is that they are pretty cool. You are trying to tell me that that’s not my opinion, that I’m wrong about what my opinion is, which is particularly ironic given the rest of the conversation. And now you’re strawmanning my reaction of umbrage. Apparently being told you suck at something when the insulting party hasn’t anything to go on except a disagreement isn’t a reasonable cause for taking offense.

Look, what this comes down to is I don’t want to be the subject of the debate because I’m nothing here. I’m just a guy you’ll never meet. The only thing we have in common is that we both play the Elementalist class and have ideas about the extent of changes needed to it. Getting into whether I would be better off playing another profession is distracting at best and fallacious at worst.

Ethics.4519:

I agree with Creslin. Now there are 2 data points. If you’re being all ‘statistical’ then you can’t tell a person that his opinion doesn’t count because it’s just one person’s opinion. The way we gain consensus is to gather everybody’s “one person” opinion. Why the hell are you getting so upset about this. You don’t like the ele cuz of X, I like the ele because of Y. Now lets go grab some beers and stop this pissing contest.

I’m not saying his opinion doesn’t count. It does count, as a data point. It’s just not the be-all-end-all that he’s been explicitly and loudly claiming it is. Or did I misunderstand him when he said, “I think my video and experience is more than enough proof of that”?

Half Tooth.1867:

It just feels like at the moment the ele is neither here nor there, we are being told 2 conflicting messages.

Agreed. Even a bit of reduction on the base cooldown between attunements would do wonders.

Blaine Tog.8304:

Ethics.4519:

I agree with Creslin. Now there are 2 data points. If you’re being all ‘statistical’ then you can’t tell a person that his opinion doesn’t count because it’s just one person’s opinion. The way we gain consensus is to gather everybody’s “one person” opinion. Why the hell are you getting so upset about this. You don’t like the ele cuz of X, I like the ele because of Y. Now lets go grab some beers and stop this pissing contest.

I’m not saying his opinion doesn’t count. It does count, as a data point. It’s just not the be-all-end-all that he’s been explicitly and loudly claiming it is. Or did I misunderstand him when he said, “I think my video and experience is more than enough proof of that”?

Half Tooth.1867:

It just feels like at the moment the ele is neither here nor there, we are being told 2 conflicting messages.

Agreed. Even a bit of reduction on the base cooldown between attunements would do wonders.

For what I was trying to prove, which is that a D/D Elementalist can be extremely effective in WvW, and is more than on-par with the other classes….my video and my experience ARE the be-all-end-all of that argument.

To prove that something is possible, you need only provide one example of it occuring. This is what I did…you clearly saw that a D/D Elementalist can absolutely pwn face if played correctly.

Now you could argue that maybe that was an isolated incident, and I normally do much more poorly…but I can assure you that is not the case. I will admit that those players are I was fighting in the cave were pretty bad, but I can hold my own 1v1 excellent players of any class…and there are plenty of witnesses of this in the DR/Kain/FC WvW bracket.

Also…I’m not the only one. D/D Ele’s are quickly growing in popularity in WvW…I am seeing many more of them, and there are a bunch of them that are very skilled.

Creslin.1758:

To prove that something is possible, you need only provide one example of it occuring. This is what I did…you clearly saw that a D/D Elementalist can absolutely pwn face if played correctly.

Ah, then it’s possible I misunderstood the intended scope of your argument, and I apologize.

My concerns about the Ele are mostly related to PvE, which is mostly what I play. My sPvP experience is pretty limited so I’m not sure about balance there, and what WvW I’ve done has mostly been in Staff (I don’t have a guild or anything, so I’d just pick a fortification and help defend/besiege it).

Yer, I just pulled 40% out of the air, I simply meant the recharge rate needs a noticable reduction so that when you put points in Arcana you become more flexible whilst giving up being really really good at one thing.

If the Elementalist dealt no damage, offered no utility, and was easy to kill, it would be underpowered. I don’t think it would be possible for anyone to argue otherwise.

Anything else is just a matter of degree.

Exactly. And how can that degree be an objective anything? Who’s the objective person deciding on it?

You’re making my case for me: one football team can be better at the game overall than another. It’s difficult to say which professional team is better, but no one would expect the Patriots to lose to a bunch of 8th graders, for example. The Patriots are objectively better at the game than a random group of 13 year olds. Just because I think the Pats are better than the Cowboys (as an example) doesn’t mean I magically can’t be wrong. It just means the gap is less clear. I’m entitled to my opinion, but as soon as I start to make an argument I’ve moved beyond opinions (as opinions are necessarily not connected to facts, whereas arguments start with facts — possibly we just have different understandings of what the word “opinion” means?).

So, how would you make the argument about the…Patriots(what on earth is that?) being better than the…Cowboys(yeah, I’m European)? What “facts” do you have? And how many times did you convince a Cowboys’ fan that the Patriots are better? Like I said with the band thing, you can keep showing “facts” about scores, rewards, wins, w/e. It won’t convince anybody who doesn’t agree with you from the start(ok, honestly, i forgot what this part was all about…)

If I say “Right now, there is a man standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial waving a sign that says ’I love Fluttershy,”" I may or may not be correct. Someone disagreeing with me doesn’t mean I’m wrong, but nor does me making that statement mean I’m correct.

I may well be wrong about the Elementalist, but I’m attempting to be right. I am reaching for objective truth. Whether I’ve made it there or not is very unclear, which is why I’m attempting to resolve that fuzziness. I would like to know as well whether I’m right or wrong.

Well, as I said, you are right for yourself. There can’t be an “objective” truth when it comes to classes unless smth is horribly horribly wrong. It comes down to -gasp- personal preference. This whole thing reminds me of the “healers are boring”-arguments. Or any -insert class here- is boring. You feel like attunement cd is too long, the f1-f4 skills are too…blant etc. That’s cool and true for you.

No. I find your presumption that you know something exclusive about me quite rude. I like the Elementalist. I have implicitly and explicitly said as much. My opinion, as it were, is that they are pretty cool. You are trying to tell me that that’s not my opinion, that I’m wrong about what my opinion is, which is particularly ironic given the rest of the conversation. And now you’re strawmanning my reaction of umbrage. Apparently being told you suck at something when the insulting party hasn’t anything to go on except a disagreement isn’t a reasonable cause for taking offense.

Look, what this comes down to is I don’t want to be the subject of the debate because I’m nothing here. I’m just a guy you’ll never meet. The only thing we have in common is that we both play the Elementalist class and have ideas about the extent of changes needed to it. Getting into whether I would be better off playing another profession is distracting at best and fallacious at worst.

Did I ever say you don’t like ele? Or that you don’t think they are cool? Why are you assuming I did then? I’ll try it one more time, cause I’m bored… I like tennis. I think tennis is a really really awesome sport. I absolutely suck at it. As in, if I allowed people to film me while attempting to play tennis, I’d have my own youtube channel with fail videos starring only me. Now, what do I have to go on about my opinion?
- on a few occasions you compare ele to other classes you play and deem those other classes better
- you are obviously dissatisfied by basic class mechanics, just look at the post that started it all:
- attunement swapping is not good enough for you as f1-f4
- the lack of weapon swapping bothers you even though you do understand the reason behind it
- you find the dmg low and the vast range of abilities not enough to justify it
- attunement swap cds are longer than weapon swap cds and the arcana tree is apparently bothering you as well
- can’t finish all own combo fields(6 fields, 5 finisher = not good enough)
- skill cooldowns are also too long for your taste
I can’t believe you don’t see it.

PS: I’m amazed that I still haven’t gotten an i-word…makes you wonder if anybody ever comes around here…

Welcome back.

TWMagimay.9057:

Exactly. And how can that degree be an objective anything? Who’s the objective person deciding on it?

No one. That’s what “objective” means.

If you admit that there’s such a thing as underpowered and there’s such a thing as overpowered, then it’s possible for the Elementalist to not be balanced. Peoples’ opinions would have nothing to do with that. If there were no one playing GW2, the Elementalist would still be at X level of power.

TWMagimay.9057:

So, how would you make the argument about the…Patriots(what on earth is that?) being better than the…Cowboys(yeah, I’m European)? What “facts” do you have?

The Patriots and the Cowboys are American Football teams. Would European Football be a better example? I was basically saying Manchester United is objectively better at football than a bunch of preteens.

TWMagimay.9057:

And how many times did you convince a Cowboys’ fan that the Patriots are better? Like I said with the band thing, you can keep showing “facts” about scores, rewards, wins, w/e. It won’t convince anybody who doesn’t agree with you from the start(ok, honestly, i forgot what this part was all about…)

I don’t follow football so I actually don’t have any idea of how football fans argue. But, difficulty in convincing someone of your point doesn’t mean the matter is subjective; it just means the matter is murky.

Let’ kitten a different example: someone is murdered and the police have three suspects. They know for sure that one of those three people committed the murder (maybe the four people were sealed in a cargo container together when the murder happened), but the evidence isn’t clear who did it. That doesn’t mean the victim wasn’t murdered, just that they can’t necessarily convince a jury that it was Suspect A rather than Suspects B or C.

TWMagimay.9057:

Well, as I said, you are right for yourself.

No, you’re ignoring my example. There’s either a guy with a sign there or there’s not. His existence has absolutely nothing to do with me. I’m merely commenting on it (rightly or wrongly).

TWMagimay.9057:

It comes down to -gasp- personal preference. This whole thing reminds me of the “healers are boring”-arguments. Or any -insert class here- is boring.

Again, “boring” speaks to “fun,” which is subjective. Fun with a profession has to do with your interaction with it. Balance relates to power, which is objective. It has to do with the interaction of professions to each other and the game world, all of which exists in reality.

TWMagimay.9057:

Did I ever say you don’t like ele? Or that you don’t think they are cool? Why are you assuming I did then?

You said you don’t think the Ele is the profession for me. I’ve said the opposite. Since this whether a profession is or is not “for” someone is subjective, that makes it none of your business whether it is or isn’t for me. It also makes it wildly fallacious.

TWMagimay.9057:

- on a few occasions you compare ele to other classes you play and deem those other classes better

Now you’re equivocating on my use of the comparative “better.” Those other professions have superior performance to the Elementalist in some aspects. I was not using “better” to express a preference. I was, essentially, saying the Ferrari Enzo is faster than the Porche 911. I may think the 911 is a “better” car (as in, the one I would prefer to own), but that wasn’t the meaning of the word I was using when I said the Enzo is faster.

TWMagimay.9057:

- you are obviously dissatisfied by basic class mechanics, just look at the post that started it all:
- attunement swapping is not good enough for you as f1-f4
- the lack of weapon swapping bothers you even though you do understand the reason behind it

That’s not what I said, and I’ve been excruciatingly clear about that.

To put it yet another way, it’s like I’m including my monthly heating bill in my budget when doing my finances. It’s not that paying my heating bill is bad, it’s just that I need to keep track of it when I’m watching my funds.

TWMagimay.9057:

- you find the dmg low and the vast range of abilities not enough to justify it
- attunement swap cds are longer than weapon swap cds and the arcana tree is apparently bothering you as well
- skill cooldowns are also too long for your taste

That’s all numbers issues, not the class fundamentally. Fundamentally, I like Attunements. It’s even fair to have less damage in exchange for more utility. But it’s possible for the precise ratio to be off.

Blaine Tog.8304:

Welcome back.

What can i say..was expecting i-word, didn’t come, figured I’d see how long it takes(if it ever happens).

No one. That’s what “objective” means.

If you admit that there’s such a thing as underpowered and there’s such a thing as overpowered, then it’s possible for the Elementalist to not be balanced. Peoples’ opinions would have nothing to do with that. If there were no one playing GW2, the Elementalist would still be at X level of power.

And that is exactly why we can’t have objective anything on a forum where people are discussing their opinions.

If a class is OP or UP, everybody agrees on it. Thin balance degrees are open for discussion but there is never an objective end to those discussion.

The Patriots and the Cowboys are American Football teams. Would European Football be a better example? I was basically saying Manchester United is objectively better at football than a bunch of preteens.

It’s all relative xD For all you know, those preteens are the future world cup dream team of 20-w/e. You know how the movie Rocky is based on a real story, right? Objectively, Muhammad Ali should’ve owned that wanna-be boxer in no time and yet realistically, the fight went on for 15(i believe) rounds.

I don’t follow football so I actually don’t have any idea of how football fans argue. But, difficulty in convincing someone of your point doesn’t mean the matter is subjective; it just means the matter is murky.

Let kitten a different example: someone is murdered and the police have three suspects. They know for sure that one of those three people committed the murder (maybe the four people were sealed in a cargo container together when the murder happened), but the evidence isn’t clear who did it. That doesn’t mean the victim wasn’t murdered, just that they can’t necessarily convince a jury that it was Suspect A rather than Suspects B or C.

I don’t follow it either, but football fan fights here make the news(yes, that’s how big of an issue that is). Last year a football hooligan made it on the Austria’s most wanted list xD

Actually, it can also mean that the victim wasn’t murdered. Maybe it was an accident? Elaborate suicide? Or just stupidity(there was this article on the Darwin awards site…guy chopped off his own head with a chainsaw to prove he was man enough)?

No, you’re ignoring my example. There’s either a guy with a sign there or there’s not. His existence has absolutely nothing to do with me. I’m merely commenting on it (rightly or wrongly).

Actually, it has everything to do with you. Maybe you are delusional and imagined the guy. It’s still there for you and very real to you thus you are subjectively right. And here we hit my point: If smth is objectively true(or close to), everybody will agree with it. If the guy really is there, everybody will nod and tell you you are right. If the guy isn’t there, everybody will look at you funny and tell you you are wrong. But if the local mental hospital is on a trip, some people will nod and agree, others will shake and disagree. Because some of the people see the guy there and others don’t. Ultimately raises the question….who is the delusional one? The one who can see the guy or the one who can’t? And how do we get that answer? The guy is equally real to you as he isn’t real to me.

Disclaimer: It’s an explanation, not actually saying you are delusional or anything.

That’s not what I said, and I’ve been excruciatingly clear about that.

To put it yet another way, it’s like I’m including my monthly heating bill in my budget when doing my finances. It’s not that paying my heating bill is bad, it’s just that I need to keep track of it when I’m watching my funds.

But do you think you are paying too much for heating?

That’s all numbers issues, not the class fundamentally. Fundamentally, I like Attunements. It’s even fair to have less damage in exchange for more utility. But it’s possible for the precise ratio to be off.

Actually, it is closely related to the class. The dmg is a result of the utility. The cds are a result of the increased number of weapon skills. And whether it’s to much or just right is the personal opinion part of it.

Short version: If a class is objectively unbalanced, people will agree with it, it’ll be obvious by the amount of people playing the class(you’ll know when you are one of the total 5 healers on all 3 servers of a game). Once people disagree on the matter, it becomes vastly subjective, because it comes down to the personal preference and personal expectations.

I play WvW alot as Elementalist.
First at all, the fact that ele’s don’t have weapon swaps really pisses me off sometimes. Ok, we can change attuments, but it doesn’t change our effective range.
If I encounter one or two enemies, I useally use the combo lightning ride, then go to earth and use that Earth Grab (can’t remember how the skill is callen), switch to fire and use all of its skills, switch to water and heal myself if necessary, and then Earth, fire, water, earth, fire, water, … until my enemies are dead (or I’m dead :P). Elementalist damage is nice, but it’s not that much higher as other classes, if you focus on fire/prec you really lack a lot of vitality and toughness and you die easy.

TWMagimay.9057:

And that is exactly why we can’t have objective anything on a forum where people are discussing their opinions.

Unless we’re discussing facts about the game and trying to piece them together, pyramid-style, to deduce other things about the game.

TWMagimay.9057:

If a class is OP or UP, everybody agrees on it. Thin balance degrees are open for discussion but there is never an objective end to those discussion.

There’s not necessarily going to be a point where everyone agrees, but we’re still arguing about something that’s objective. It’s like we have a sealed box and we’re discussing what’s inside. We’re not ever going to be able to be sure what’s in it said sealed box, but that doesn’t mean the box contains an ontological null zone containing everything in the universe simultaneously.

So, it’s basically like every discussion ever.

TWMagimay.9057:

It’s all relative xD

No, it’s not. There’s nothing relative about saying “this team of 13 year olds is, at this moment, not as good at playing football as this group of professional players.” That’s simply a fact.

Or, let’s make it even more extreme: Manchester United is up against a cardboard box. The cardboard box is literally incapable of winning. Barring a meteor strike that kills the entire enemy team, that cardboard box is not going to win.

TWMagimay.9057:

Actually, it can also mean that the victim wasn’t murdered.

Not all the time. Though suicide would, at most, expand the list of suspects to 4. You’re not making a substantive response to my point.

TWMagimay.9057:

Actually, it has everything to do with you.

No it doesn’t, and I’m done with this line of discussion. It’s distracting and fallacious, and it stops now.

TWMagimay.9057:

But do you think you are paying too much for heating?

Maybe I’m running the numbers to find out of I’m being gouged.

TWMagimay.9057:

Actually, it is closely related to the class.

I’m still just making a claim about the numbers as they currently stand.

A class can be imbalanced in one of two ways: either it has a broken kit, or the numbers are off. If the former, no amount of tweaking the numbers will help.

Do you play League of Legends? I’m going to assume you do for a moment: map control and vision are extremely important in that game, which made Evelynn an impossible champion to balance. She had near-permastealth, which meant she could pretty much go wherever she wanted, wait around for as long as she needed, and strike whenever she deemed was best. She had a stun, too, which basically made it impossible for anyone to counter her, unless they bought this specific item that revealed her through her stealth (Oracle’s Elixer). If they bought that item, she was pretty much useless at a certain level of play. Consequently, she would do way too well at low-levels of play, killing everyone with impunity, but no professionals used her because she was so easy to counter. No amount of tweaking her numbers would make her balanced; Riot had to intentionally bodyslam her numbers just so lower-level players would have a chance, and she still did too well there. So they reworked her kit and now she’s in a much better place. They’ve just been fiddling with her numbers to get her as close to balance as possible.

I don’t think the Ele’s kit is a problem. It’s obviously possible to overpower them with the wrong buffs, but I also don’t think they need a serious overhaul. I just think some of the numbers are off.

TWMagimay.9057:

Once people disagree on the matter, it becomes vastly subjective, because it comes down to the personal preference and personal expectations.

Our agreement or disagreement has no effect on reality itself. The Ele’s balance can’t “become” subjective. You’re essentially claiming that disagreement has the power to make it a subjective issue whether Mentos and Diet Coke together create a large amount of foam very quickly. It’s just a chemical reaction. It’ll happen either way regardless of what I say.

doesnt matter OP all the pro elementalists are masochists and thats who Arenanet takes their advice from. They want the class to be bad because they are selfish and feel special because they can master a weak class and make it seem competitive on the level on an average ‘up’ profession player. They use the excuse that the class is complicated when in reality its not… most good eles just compensate by having better than average twitch skill which can make up for how bad alot of the tool set is.

They will basically tell you to L2P then show you a couple of vids with all CDs up and a long chain of skills on non-moving targets showing ZOMGBurst and say the classes’ damage is also fine. Meanwhile warriors and thieves can spam burst with 3 spammable non-aimed skills that outperforms even the staged burst damage an elementalists can output.

The biggest problems with elementalist are (besides all the bugs) the class is pigeonholed into only a few specs, pretty much has to take heavy Arcana like you said and has far too many long cast time + directional facing + aimed abilities and also has to stack toughness in pvp which hurts your ability to spec into other stats.

Most elementalists players are used to it but the majority of other classes dont have half as many of these type of abilities as elementalists do. And because of this elementalist is basically forced to play D/D or Staff and bunker. Sometimes you can get away with S/D but mostly in PvE or WvW. Would be really nice if there were some other builds that were stronger with different weapon combos like say D/F or S/F.

People are also saying they play ‘support’ but the reality is most groups dont want ‘supporters’ they would rather have another DPSer that knows how to use support.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/There-is-no-holy-trinity

I think they would really help this profession out a lot if they actually changed arcana (attunement swapping should be shorter in general without points in arcana) and actually made a few other weapon sets actually viable in PvP. (long animations that can be dodged without dodging etc)

And like Lalangamena said, a good portion of ele traits are designed around conjured weapons but they way they operate in game is fail in a major way since they dont allow you to change attunements with a conjured weapon. The way conjures should work is they should really just replace the skills of the element the weapon is associated with and still allow you to swap attunements.

I play a critical ele and I don’t miss Evasive Arcana, I never used it before and Arcane Wave does fine, having a blast AoE heal sometimes is really awesome to help yourself and your party.

Great post OP i totally agree, i hope one day all these issues get looked at, they need it all badly.

oflow.2157:

They use the excuse that the class is complicated when in reality its not… most good eles just compensate by having better than average twitch skill which can make up for how bad alot of the tool set is.

Aaah, the good ol’ “We’re simply better players”-argument.
Always really easy to back that one up, is it?

Carighan.6758:

oflow.2157:

They use the excuse that the class is complicated when in reality its not… most good eles just compensate by having better than average twitch skill which can make up for how bad alot of the tool set is.

Aaah, the good ol’ “We’re simply better players”-argument.
Always really easy to back that one up, is it?

To be fair, he was speaking about a specific type of skill rather than skill in general. I don’t think it’s an unfair assumption to assume Elementalist players generally have better twitch skill than the average GW2 player since playing an Elementalist forces you to dance attunements and chain skills from different attunements quickly, thus training you in twitch skill. In Staff, the Earth 2 + Water 3 or Fire 2 combo is actually rather mechanically tricky to pull off. Toss a Warrior player into an Elementalist’s shoes and I doubt most of them would be able to successfully complete it right out of the gate.

Blaine Tog.8304:

Carighan.6758:

oflow.2157:

They use the excuse that the class is complicated when in reality its not… most good eles just compensate by having better than average twitch skill which can make up for how bad alot of the tool set is.

Aaah, the good ol’ “We’re simply better players”-argument.
Always really easy to back that one up, is it?

To be fair, he was speaking about a specific type of skill rather than skill in general. I don’t think it’s an unfair assumption to assume Elementalist players generally have better twitch skill than the average GW2 player since playing an Elementalist forces you to dance attunements and chain skills from different attunements quickly, thus training you in twitch skill. In Staff, the Earth 2 + Water 3 or Fire 2 combo is actually rather mechanically tricky to pull off. Toss a Warrior player into an Elementalist’s shoes and I doubt most of them would be able to successfully complete it right out of the gate.

Right on, but what’s so bad about having a class where you need twitch skills? I don’t think every class should be playable to every skill set and ability. Why should somebody that has slow reactions be better than or just as good as me with fast reactions?

There are older people who play that just like PvE and sometimes dabble in WvW. That’s perfectly fine. But let them play a warrior or ranger where you don’t have to press 10 buttons in 3/4 seconds to stay alive. Eles have a very high skill ceiling, if you you’re good enough to reach it you should be rewarded.

Ethics.4519:

Blaine Tog.8304:

Carighan.6758:

oflow.2157:

They use the excuse that the class is complicated when in reality its not… most good eles just compensate by having better than average twitch skill which can make up for how bad alot of the tool set is.

Aaah, the good ol’ “We’re simply better players”-argument.
Always really easy to back that one up, is it?

To be fair, he was speaking about a specific type of skill rather than skill in general. I don’t think it’s an unfair assumption to assume Elementalist players generally have better twitch skill than the average GW2 player since playing an Elementalist forces you to dance attunements and chain skills from different attunements quickly, thus training you in twitch skill. In Staff, the Earth 2 + Water 3 or Fire 2 combo is actually rather mechanically tricky to pull off. Toss a Warrior player into an Elementalist’s shoes and I doubt most of them would be able to successfully complete it right out of the gate.

Right on, but what’s so bad about having a class where you need twitch skills? I don’t think every class should be playable to every skill set and ability. Why should somebody that has slow reactions be better than or just as good as me with fast reactions?

There are older people who play that just like PvE and sometimes dabble in WvW. That’s perfectly fine. But let them play a warrior or ranger where you don’t have to press 10 buttons in 3/4 seconds to stay alive. Eles have a very high skill ceiling, if you you’re good enough to reach it you should be rewarded.

Yep, I’m with you Ethics. I love that the Ele requires good twitch to be effective. I don’t see an issue with that at all. In fact, I think it’s great…there are classes that require less twitch, and classes that require more.

I think maybe people just complain because “Wizard” is usually the class that requires hardly any twitch, while light melee like thief or whatever tend to require a lot of twitch in other games. So Ele just doesn’t meet their preconceived notions…but that is a problem with their preconceptions, not the game.

Anyway, I think there are issues with the Ele, but twitch requirement is not one of them. Biggest issue I see is that I think we are forced into 30 water and min 20 arcane just to be effective as D/D. And while we are more than powerful enough with this spec…I would like to have more build options.

Ethics.4519:

Right on, but what’s so bad about having a class where you need twitch skills?

I didn’t say that. I was just correcting Carighan’s misunderstanding of what oflow said.

Ethics.4519:

There are older people who play that just like PvE and sometimes dabble in WvW. That’s perfectly fine. But let them play a warrior or ranger where you don’t have to press 10 buttons in 3/4 seconds to stay alive. Eles have a very high skill ceiling, if you you’re good enough to reach it you should be rewarded.

First, there’s actually two concepts at play here: skill ceiling (how skilled you can possibly get with something) and skill floor (how skilled you need to be in order to play something at a basic level). Having a high skill floor doesn’t necessarily mean having a high school ceiling as well, and a high school ceiling doesn’t necessarily mean you’re especially powerful. These terms are basically about skill differentiation: it’s harder to show that you’re really good at a low-skill-ceiling profession because there aren’t a lot of places where the difference between being good and being competent are obvious.

I’m not saying you’re right or wrong about the Ele, just that it seems like this might be a good place to make sure all relevant terminology is clarified.

Second, a high-skill-floor profession shouldn’t have greater power potential than a low-skill-floor profession if Guild Wars 2 wishes to become a competitive e-sport. What you’re essentially asking is for the Ele to be underpowered at low levels of play and overpowered at high levels of play, which would mean professionals would only play Elementalists unless they were trying to execute some niche strategy.

Blaine Tog.8304:

Ethics.4519:

Right on, but what’s so bad about having a class where you need twitch skills?

I didn’t say that. I was just correcting Carighan’s misunderstanding of what oflow said.

Ethics.4519:

There are older people who play that just like PvE and sometimes dabble in WvW. That’s perfectly fine. But let them play a warrior or ranger where you don’t have to press 10 buttons in 3/4 seconds to stay alive. Eles have a very high skill ceiling, if you you’re good enough to reach it you should be rewarded.

First, there’s actually two concepts at play here: skill ceiling (how skilled you can possibly get with something) and skill floor (how skilled you need to be in order to play something at a basic level). Having a high skill floor doesn’t necessarily mean having a high school ceiling as well, and a high school ceiling doesn’t necessarily mean you’re especially powerful. These terms are basically about skill differentiation: it’s harder to show that you’re really good at a low-skill-ceiling profession because there aren’t a lot of places where the difference between being good and being competent are obvious.

I’m not saying you’re right or wrong about the Ele, just that it seems like this might be a good place to make sure all relevant terminology is clarified.

Second, a high-skill-floor profession shouldn’t have greater power potential than a low-skill-floor profession if Guild Wars 2 wishes to become a competitive e-sport. What you’re essentially asking is for the Ele to be underpowered at low levels of play and overpowered at high levels of play, which would mean professionals would only play Elementalists unless they were trying to execute some niche strategy.

I think you’re oversimplifying this whole class balance thing. You can’t just say:

“This class has a higher skill ceiling, therefore it will be objectively better than every other class at the top levels of play, and everyone will play this class.”

This game does not have one single “scale” of power that you can measure everything by. The combat in it is actually pretty complicated, and there are TONS of factors that are involved.

For example, every decent D/D Ele knows that stun/daze/immobilize/KD are extremely dangerous for us due to our relatively low health pool and our dependence on constant skill use and mobility for survival. We have a lot of cond removal to deal with them, but if we get caught CC’d without a cond removal available, we are in serious trouble.

So if a D/D Ele goes against a class that specializes in this stuff, I think it would be a very difficult fight that the D/D might wind up losing. You only have so many cond removals.

Does this mean that the CC specialist class is “better” than the D/D Ele, and everyone will play that class? Of course not…it just was situationally superior in that one specific instance.

Creslin.1758:

I think you’re oversimplifying this whole class balance thing. You can’t just say:

“This class has a higher skill ceiling, therefore it will be objectively better than every other class at the top levels of play, and everyone will play this class.”

I agree, which is why I’m not saying that. I’m saying a high-skill-ceiling class still needs to be balanced against lower-skill-ceiling classes. It isn’t ok to overpower a class just because most of the power is hidden at lower levels of skill.

Blaine Tog.8304:

Creslin.1758:

I think you’re oversimplifying this whole class balance thing. You can’t just say:

“This class has a higher skill ceiling, therefore it will be objectively better than every other class at the top levels of play, and everyone will play this class.”

I agree, which is why I’m not saying that. I’m saying a high-skill-ceiling class still needs to be balanced against lower-skill-ceiling classes. It isn’t ok to overpower a class just because most of the power is hidden at lower levels of skill.

I actually disagree with this.

All that is important is that at higher level of skills, no class clearly dominates. There is no reason why a crap Ele should be as good as a crap Thief. Because being a crap player should be a TEMPORARY condition for anyone. And trying to make every class in the game be powerful for crap players will result in a lot of unnecessary dumbing down.

All you need to do in invest some time practicing Ele, and this whole “high skill floor” thing won’t be a problem for you anymore. I feel like people who complain about Ele’s complexity being a problem just don’t want to practice and are blaming the class for their issues…when it’s really just L2P.

And I understand that some players are just weaker with twitch or whatever, but that’s why there are classes that are less twitchy that they can play. Shortbow ranger, for example, seems like it would be a decent choice. But you know, in the end, the btter gamer will typically win in a fight regardless of class. So just because a crappy player can do “okay” with an SB ranger, doesn’t mean that they are going to win against a very skilled Ele or whatever…and that’s how it should be.

Creslin.1758:

I actually disagree with this.

All that is important is that at higher level of skills, no class clearly dominates.

That’s pretty much exactly what I said…

Creslin.1758:

There is no reason why a crap Ele should be as good as a crap Thief. Because being a crap player should be a TEMPORARY condition for anyone. And trying to make every class in the game be powerful for crap players will result in a lot of unnecessary dumbing down.

A gaming company that’s trying to make a competitive game wants the game to be as balanced as possible at all stages of play because a) you’re catering to a wide variety of players (you want millions and millions of customers, not just the few hundred best players), and b) you don’t want to put people off getting started. The learning curve should be as gentle as possible. It’s fine for some options to be harder to play, but attempts should be made to make it possible to start getting into those options with without feeling like you’re slamming your head against a brick wall for the first 20 hours of play. I’m just speaking generally here, by the way. I don’t take issue with the Elementalist’s skill level at all. (It could be presented in a slightly more learning-curve-friendly way, but based off ANet’s efforts to make GW1 more user-friendly as time went on, I’m sure this is on their list of issues to polish.)

tl;dr: You’re putting forth a false dilemma. A balance between high skill floor and a reasonable learning curve is possible and should be a goal of game design.

Creslin.1758:

All you need to do in invest some time practicing Ele, and this whole “high skill floor” thing won’t be a problem for you anymore.

I didn’t say it was a problem, and I certainly didn’t say it was a problem for me. I’m just describing the situation (and, more generally, game theory).

Creslin.1758:

So just because a crappy player can do “okay” with an SB ranger, doesn’t mean that they are going to win against a very skilled Ele or whatever…and that’s how it should be.

Right, but that’s not the problem with making an overpowered class high-skill-ceiling.

Rock/paper/scissors-situations notwithstanding, a good Elementalist should demolish a bad player of another class. A bad Elementalist should be demolished by a good player of another class. But a good Elementalist shouldn’t just demolish good players of all other classes. A good Elementalist player should just be on an even playing field against a good player of another class. There shouldn’t be a point of skill at which you unlock godmode and become unstoppable.

The archetype of starting really weak and becoming stronger than anyone else can’t work when you get the “starting weak” part out of the way before the game even starts. When an sPvP match begins, everyone already has their skill level in hand, so a profession that’s too powerful when a skilled player is plugged into it will be too powerful at the professional level. What the newbies are doing at that moment has no relevance to the professionals whatsoever.

tl;dr: Complex mechanics are fine, but they still need to be balanced. That’s all I’m saying.

Blaine Tog.8304:

Creslin.1758:

I actually disagree with this.

All that is important is that at higher level of skills, no class clearly dominates.

That’s pretty much exactly what I said…

Creslin.1758:

There is no reason why a crap Ele should be as good as a crap Thief. Because being a crap player should be a TEMPORARY condition for anyone. And trying to make every class in the game be powerful for crap players will result in a lot of unnecessary dumbing down.

A gaming company that’s trying to make a competitive game wanst the game as balanced as possible at all stages of play because a) you’re catering to a wide variety of players (you want millions and millions of customers, not just the few hundred best players), and b) you don’t want to put people off getting started. The learning curve should be as gentle as possible. It’s fine for some options to be harder to play, but attempts should be made to make it possible to start getting into those options with without feeling like you’re slamming your head against a brick wall for the first 20 hours of play. I’m just speaking generally here, by the way. I don’t take issue with the Elementalist’s skill level at all. (It could be presented in a slightly more learning-curve-friendly way, but based off ANet’s efforts to make GW1 more user-friendly as time went on, I’m sure this is on their list of issues to polish.)

tl;dr: You’re putting forth a false dilemma. A balance between high skill floor and a reasonable learning curve is possible and should be a goal of game design.

Creslin.1758:

All you need to do in invest some time practicing Ele, and this whole “high skill floor” thing won’t be a problem for you anymore.

I didn’t say it was a problem, and I certainly didn’t say it was a problem for me. I’m just describing the situation (and, more generally, game theory).

Creslin.1758:

So just because a crappy player can do “okay” with an SB ranger, doesn’t mean that they are going to win against a very skilled Ele or whatever…and that’s how it should be.

Right, but that’s not the problem with making an overpowered class high-skill-ceiling.

Rock/paper/scissors-situations notwithstanding, a good Elementalist should demolish a bad player of another class. A bad Elementalist should be demolished by a good player of another class. But a good Elementalist shouldn’t just demolish good players of all other classes. A good Elementalist player should just be on an even playing field against a good player of another class. There shouldn’t be a point of skill at which you unlock godmode and become unstoppable.

The archetype of starting really weak and becoming stronger than anyone else can’t work when you get the “starting weak” part out of the way before the game even starts. When an sPvP match begins, everyone already has their skill level in hand, so a profession that’s too powerful when a skilled player is plugged into it will be too powerful at the professional level. What the newbies are doing at that moment has no relevance to the professionals whatsoever.

tl;dr: Complex mechanics are fine, but they still need to be balanced. That’s all I’m saying.

So I’m confused…do you have an issue with Ele related to this skill ceiling, skill floor thing…or were you just talking general theory? If you do have an issue with Ele, could you please specify exactly what that issue is?

Creslin.1758:

So I’m confused…do you have an issue with Ele related to this skill ceiling, skill floor thing…or were you just talking general theory?

.

Ethics.4519:

Ethics.4519:

Right on, but what’s so bad about having a class where you need twitch skills?

I didn’t say that. I was just correcting Carighan’s misunderstanding of what oflow said.

;)

Blaine Tog.8304:

Creslin.1758:

So I’m confused…do you have an issue with Ele related to this skill ceiling, skill floor thing…or were you just talking general theory?

.

Ethics.4519:

Ethics.4519:

Right on, but what’s so bad about having a class where you need twitch skills?

I didn’t say that. I was just correcting Carighan’s misunderstanding of what oflow said.

;)

So I’m guessing…you have no problem with Elementalist??

Creslin.1758:

So I’m guessing…you have no problem with Elementalist??

I have no problem with the Elementalist’s skill floor or ceiling being high, no. I do think they’re a little underpowered (as I detailed earlier in the thread), but I don’t think it’s a problem for them to be harder to play than other professions. EDIT: Underpowered in PvE, I mean. I’m not sure how they fare in PvP.

I think the ele is harder to play than at least some other classes, and that’s great.

I also think that my ele is lacking in HP and damage compared to other classes at the same level. Part of that is because of the mixed-messages issue in where we need to spend trait points (Arcane attunement vs other trait lines), so other classes get better options to use their trait points and effectively have more trait points. A clearer focus would be good – should we be flexible by design, or powerful by design? Don’t make us sacrifice both so we can be all-around mediocre.

If attunement switching is equivalent to weapon swapping, it should have the same cooldown as weapon swapping. I don’t see any reason to say “These things are roughly equal! …Except one takes much longer than the other”.

ThiBash.5634:

I think you’re confusin Arcane Blast and Arcane Wave. For the record, he’s talking about the 1500 range projectile skill.

Arcance blast recharges faster then the other “instant” skills in 7-9 and does more damage.