Guild Wars 2

Meanwhile necro dagger #1 crits 4k.

this is marauder amulett & vampirism runes…

Please, up the dmg of the AA by at least 50-70%
That could also make your PvE crowd happier. Welp, not the meta-fans, but those who actually would like to take the hammer into the maguuma jungle. It really just feels like swinging a wet noodle.

Please do NOT increase the AA damage by 50% or more. The 2-5 skills hit pretty hard already, and taking the damage off those skills to pile it on to the AA chain will make the hammer much much weaker overall.

You should know better than to expect strong AA on Engineer. Engineer’s nr1 skills suck across the board. If you want to AA something for 3k roll a ranger, or a necro, or a warrior, or a thief, or just about anything other than Engineer and Ele.

For Engineer standards the Hammer AA is good, it has the Rifle beat.

Dude, it hits for less than the rifle AA. The golden rule of balancing is risk==reward balancing. If I have to go closer to my target (getting more in risk) I expect higher dmg (better reward).
And just because rangers are a exception to the rule, it doesn’t negates its general validation.

I think the slightly weaker AA of Hammer is necessary to offset the amount of might Scrapper can maintain without breaking a sweat. It seems rather balanced to me.

The AA is bad and we shouldn’t be making excuses for why that’s acceptable.

At the very least make it slightly faster if not increasing the damage.

nah it needs a solid 15-20% damage buff. if rev sword can get it, why not a 2 HANDED HAMMER

Er I spent all day yesterday in fractals and I was critting bloomhunger and the swamp drake for over 4k. ( I was in full beserker )

Atm it’s the recovery frames after each swing that is getting me killed although that’s more a learn to play/ get good thing directed at myself.

+1 for the it’s balanced camp.

bluesnacks.2301:

The AA is bad and we shouldn’t be making excuses for why that’s acceptable.

At the very least make it slightly faster if not increasing the damage.

Giving the hammer a good AA would make it grossly overpowered unless you pulled a ton of damage off all of the other skills.

From a damage standpoint: if you want the hammer to get used in a world where kits exist, you need to give the hammer skills that hit harder than Grenade AA + Shrapnel procs. The reason that Engineers have such high DPS currently is because the DPS rotations they use consist of basically every single skill that does hit harder than grenade AA. (Flame Blast, Napalm, Shrapnel Grenade, Chill Grenade, Acid Bomb, Blunderbuss, Jump Shot, Grenade Barrage). If you want hammer to take a place in that rotation, you have the following options

A: make it stronger than Grenade AA, which is a problem because the weapon has a TON of defensive tools baked into it

B: keep the AA weak, and let people swap to use the skills that actually hit hard (2, 5)

B is the obvious choice here from a design standpoint unless you are going to rework the majority of the skills engineers have available to them to balance things.

Knox, there is some miscommunication here.

1.) I’m not complaining about the Dungeon/Fractals/Raids part of the game. the hammer may ore may not work there. It has barely any skill that would be interesting for PvE, and given that you’d loose blunderbus & jumpshot for a good rotation, hammer is already declassified as PvE-meta option.

2.) Nobody is saying that any damage needs to be moved around on the hammer to buff its AA. Why people assume this would be the case?

3.) The hammer is meant as melee – cc option, and it partly fails to deliver as such. It brings enough survivability & mobility to have a awesome framework for melee-builds, but the weak AA breaks its neck. The hammer AA could have been the first melee-option we have that is viable AND does not get punished too hard in one way or another.
Melee nades & flamethrower suffer greatly from retaliation, bombkit & mortar have a way too long precast to get your dmg where you want it, toolkit only hits one target with ots 3rd chain & elixir gun just 1 target all together. Fragmentation shot has awesome dmg-deliverance, but again, awful power scaling.

4.) If you push with a zerg you’ll want to bring down thunderclap, finish it with #3 to put out more daze + close eventual gaps, bomb your vincinity with #2 & #4… and then what? You are the cc-spamer in your party, so you want the scrapper-gyro for its pulsing daze, slickshoes & either toolkit or elixir S for your own sake…
So, what do you do when your cd’s are blwon for this push?
You cleave with the wet noodle and cry to the balance gods about why they have struck you with such an inefficient cd-bridge.

Giving us squishy AF gyros is already enough punishment for the supposed “frontline bruiser” spec. At least make sure that we feel the impact of the pounds of steel that we smack our opponents head in with.

Lessen the aftercast duration on the AA and give it a meaty dmg-buff, else it fails to deliver in WvW.

If anything, this says more about necro dagger needing too get tuned back, along with probably everything else. Power creep has absolutely taken a noticeable toll over the years. It makes things boring. It is the reason that DPS is all anyone cares about.

I don’t see a problem. The whole risk/reward argument doesn’t really make sense to me because hammer is by far the least risky weapon we have. Possibly in the whole game. Sure you have to stand in close which is inherently more risky, but you also have way more defense than any other weapon gives you. Standing in melee with a hammer is less risky than standing at range with a rifle, and you don’t even want to stand at range with a rifle anyays you need Blunderbuss and JS damage.

Bottom line for me: I would hate to see skills 2-5 gutted of damage to put on the AA. I could see the AA getting maybe a 5-10% boost by itself but if it comes at the cost of the other skills NO TY.

Adamantium.3682:

I don’t see a problem. The whole risk/reward argument doesn’t really make sense to me because hammer is by far the least risky weapon we have. Possibly in the whole game. Sure you have to stand in close which is inherently more risky, but you also have way more defense than any other weapon gives you. Standing in melee with a hammer is less risky than standing at range with a rifle, and you don’t even want to stand at range with a rifle anyays you need Blunderbuss and JS damage.

Bottom line for me: I would hate to see skills 2-5 gutted of damage to put on the AA. I could see the AA getting maybe a 5-10% boost by itself but if it comes at the cost of the other skills NO TY.

Why do people assume that dmg needs to be decreased on one skill in order to increase it on another.

Please look into the change-nodes of revenant and tell me where A-net applied this formula when people were commonly demanding a dps buff for basically all weapons.

Using the change notes for Rev as evidence the Engi hammer needs more damage tells me all I need to know about your intentions. You want a pure damage weapon (like Rev sword). That would be great, but it isn’t what we got. I disagree with changing what we did get into something else entirely. 50%-70% more damage on the AA? Seriously?

It would be great if the hammer were a damage weapon. It isn’t. It’s a defensive weapon that can put out some good damage and CC as well. If you want to do the max damage possible then don’t camp hammer. Just like you can’t camp any single weapon or kit for the Engi to get max DPS.

Looking at the utility for the hammer compared to the grenades it makes no sense to me that hammer should be even equal to grenade auto damage, let alone more.

Also Rev damage was horrendously low across the board after the first BWE, which is when damage was buffed overall. Since then damage has been brought down for some skills and up for others, making swords the intended pure dps option. This doesn’t mean the Rev staff is bad because it doesn’t do the same damage as swords. Options are good.

If we make hammer 50%-70% more damage on AA there are literally no options for Engi weapons. Hammer is best damage, best CC, best defense. Why choose anything else? Only for condis?

Nothing wrong with hammer dps. With Marauder im getting about 2.5k, but other skills like 2,3 and 4 I get 6K+ while having lotta tankyness. Its fine.

Increasing the damage is the worst way to improve hammer AA.

Instead:

-Double Might/Vuln Stacking. Halve Might/Vuln Duration.
-Slightly Increase attack speed
-Reduce Aftercasts

Adamantium.3682:

Using the change notes for Rev as evidence the Engi hammer needs more damage tells me all I need to know about your intentions. You want a pure damage weapon (like Rev sword). That would be great, but it isn’t what we got. I disagree with changing what we did get into something else entirely. 50%-70% more damage on the AA? Seriously?

Yes seriously.
It doesn’t matter what you think my intentions are, I already clearly stated them. I want proper cleave-dmg for its AA, else its mostly long, defensive cd’s will not cut it in WvW. And yes, the revenant change-notes were meant as evidence – for the ludicrousness of the notion that dmg-increases of one skill HAVE to be accompanied by dps-loses on other skills.

And it’s definitively not our best dps option. rifle still cuts this by miles. 13k-14k from jumpshot and another 8k from blunderbus, both on rather short cd’s. Hammer was never intended to replace rifle for dungeons and thats clearly not what I’m asking for.

I would already be happy enough it it were on par with the warris hammer AA. You already stated yourself it would be awesome, so why contradict yourself? We have not “gotten” anything, this beta-weekend is there for us to find possible bugs & point out what went wrong in the design process, and the weak hammer AA is definitively one entry on this list.

Arantheal.7396:

Adamantium.3682:

Using the change notes for Rev as evidence the Engi hammer needs more damage tells me all I need to know about your intentions. You want a pure damage weapon (like Rev sword). That would be great, but it isn’t what we got. I disagree with changing what we did get into something else entirely. 50%-70% more damage on the AA? Seriously?

Yes seriously.
It doesn’t matter what you think my intentions are, I already clearly stated them. I want proper cleave-dmg for its AA, else its mostly long, defensive cd’s will not cut it in WvW.

And it’s definitively not our best dps option. rifle still cuts this by miles. 13k-14k from jumpshot and another 8k from blunderbus, paired with an AA that is hitting way harder than the hammer AA. Hammer was never intended to replace rifle for dungeons and thats clearly not what I’m asking for.

I would already be happy enough it it were on par with the warris hammer AA. You already stated yourself it would be awesome, so why contradict yourself? We have not “gotten” anything, this beta-weekend is there for us to find possible bugs & point out what went wrong in the design process, and the weak hammer AA is definitively one entry on this list.

Then take rifle in WvW. Its not all about dps in the game man. The weapon seems to be perfectly balanced as it is at this moment for me. It doesn’t have burst but huge utility with good dps.

How much damage does the hammer AA do compared to toolkit’s over the same time period? Seems like that would be a good way to see if it needs buffing or not, since they’re both melee range autoattack chains that inflict vulnerability along with one other condition or boon. Comparing it to other classes seems weird.

The V.8759:

Then take rifle in WvW. Its not all about dps in the game man. The weapon seems to be perfectly balanced as it is at this moment for me. It doesn’t have burst but huge utility with good dps.

I don’t take rifle into frontlining for a simple reason: dps is not all & rifle has barely any survivability. The issue is, the hammer’s consistent dmg is so low that it barely gets compensated for the high defense & mobility it offers, leaving it with a bursty setup that does not justify your spot in the frontline.
Again, the engineer will be more a gimmick than a backbone, just in this case it will not be high dps/low sustain, but the complete opposite.

Elite-specs were meant to compensate the classes for something their core-specs are lacking in. The hammer currently fails to fulfill this promise.

This is the issue with Hammer dps with the use of the new gyros, and this makes me wonder if any real time was spent developing the Engineer elite.

Its not that the Hammer has bad dps in terms of the weapon itself, its that what dps do you have to fall back on when your waiting for cool downs? nearly nothing. If you use gyros, you have taken away all your other offensive and defensive weapons that the kits or elixers provide. You can explode your gyros I guess than wait for long cool downs to do it again, but honestly you don’t have a secondary weapon so your stuck with a very slow hammer 1 auto attack.

The scrapper has bad dps for the dps available with gyros. The gyros need to increase dps and or better sustain the scrapper who wares medium armor by the way to last in a fight longer.

At least they got the name right Scrapper – The chars outcast who can’t hack it in the legion. I can see why. The char would just laugh at your miserable attempt at making crappy gyros and your weak hammer skills. Back to cleaning the latrine son.

Arantheal.7396:

The V.8759:

Then take rifle in WvW. Its not all about dps in the game man. The weapon seems to be perfectly balanced as it is at this moment for me. It doesn’t have burst but huge utility with good dps.

I don’t take rifle into frontlining for a simple reason: dps is not all & rifle has barely any survivability. The issue is, the hammer’s consistent dmg is so low that it barely gets compensated for the high defense & mobility it offers, leaving it with a bursty setup that does not justify your spot in the frontline.
Again, the engineer will be more a gimmick than a backbone, just in this case it will not be high dps/low sustain, but the complete opposite.

Elite-specs were meant to compensate the classes for something their core-specs are lacking in. The hammer currently fails to fulfill this promise.

Take Rifle and bombs with bomb traits:
Jump shot in enemy zerg > Blunderbuss > Spam bombs with Slick shoes. Theres your frontline build. Been using it for ages and works perfectly.

Apart from the fact that you’re not a frontliner.
You can not withstand the constant pressure in front of gates, nor keep up with your commander to all times during zerg-dives. You can jump in, deliver your cd’s and get the heck out of there again, which is definitively a fun playstyle, one that I have promoted several times during the past years and run actively myself, but none I couldn’t have without the scrapper – the promised frontline bruiser – already.

So, why do we get this specialization again?

Arantheal.7396:

Adamantium.3682:

Using the change notes for Rev as evidence the Engi hammer needs more damage tells me all I need to know about your intentions. You want a pure damage weapon (like Rev sword). That would be great, but it isn’t what we got. I disagree with changing what we did get into something else entirely. 50%-70% more damage on the AA? Seriously?

Yes seriously.
It doesn’t matter what you think my intentions are, I already clearly stated them. I want proper cleave-dmg for its AA, else its mostly long, defensive cd’s will not cut it in WvW. And yes, the revenant change-notes were meant as evidence – for the ludicrousness of the notion that dmg-increases of one skill HAVE to be accompanied by dps-loses on other skills.

And it’s definitively not our best dps option. rifle still cuts this by miles. 13k-14k from jumpshot and another 8k from blunderbus, both on rather short cd’s. Hammer was never intended to replace rifle for dungeons and thats clearly not what I’m asking for.

I would already be happy enough it it were on par with the warris hammer AA. You already stated yourself it would be awesome, so why contradict yourself? We have not “gotten” anything, this beta-weekend is there for us to find possible bugs & point out what went wrong in the design process, and the weak hammer AA is definitively one entry on this list.

I don’t think it’s fair to ask to change a weapon’s intent and purpose to fit something that you want it to be. The hammer is not broken which is why the comparison to Rev is not a good one. Rev damage was literally broken. It was terrible across the board.

Hammer is good. It’s just not good at pure damage. This is not a fault of the hammer and why I don’t think it’s good feedback to try and change it into something it’s not. The problem is not hammer, the problem is that the hammer doesn’t fit into your expectation of what it should do. This is an important distinction to me.

Adamantium.3682:

Arantheal.7396:

Adamantium.3682:

Using the change notes for Rev as evidence the Engi hammer needs more damage tells me all I need to know about your intentions. You want a pure damage weapon (like Rev sword). That would be great, but it isn’t what we got. I disagree with changing what we did get into something else entirely. 50%-70% more damage on the AA? Seriously?

Yes seriously.
It doesn’t matter what you think my intentions are, I already clearly stated them. I want proper cleave-dmg for its AA, else its mostly long, defensive cd’s will not cut it in WvW. And yes, the revenant change-notes were meant as evidence – for the ludicrousness of the notion that dmg-increases of one skill HAVE to be accompanied by dps-loses on other skills.

And it’s definitively not our best dps option. rifle still cuts this by miles. 13k-14k from jumpshot and another 8k from blunderbus, both on rather short cd’s. Hammer was never intended to replace rifle for dungeons and thats clearly not what I’m asking for.

I would already be happy enough it it were on par with the warris hammer AA. You already stated yourself it would be awesome, so why contradict yourself? We have not “gotten” anything, this beta-weekend is there for us to find possible bugs & point out what went wrong in the design process, and the weak hammer AA is definitively one entry on this list.

I don’t think it’s fair to ask to change a weapon’s intent and purpose to fit something that you want it to be. The hammer is not broken which is why the comparison to Rev is not a good one. Rev damage was literally broken. It was terrible across the board.

Hammer is good. It’s just not good at pure damage. This is not a fault of the hammer and why I don’t think it’s good feedback to try and change it into something it’s not. The problem is not hammer, the problem is that the hammer doesn’t fit into your expectation of what it should do. This is an important distinction to me.

And a unimportant distinction to me since A-net is currently asking for our feedback about their developments so far. And while they were clearly stating in the live-stream that they don’t want the hammer to be THE dps weapon of the engi, they went way too far with their concept & made it way worse than it would have needed to be.

And I’m – along with others – are pointing out this fact. So unless you can explain me why my opinion, that i offer as constructive feedback, is less valuable than your or any others opinion that is offered as valuable feedback, I don’t think there is a reason to continue this argument.

At this point I’d agree to disagree with you. Everything else would just be pointless banter between two people not being able to convince each other.

Have any of you tried Warrior or Guardian hammer? I’d say the engineer hammer has comparable damage to the Guardian hammer and better damage than the Warrior hammer. AND it has better utility.

Adamantium.3682:

I don’t think it’s fair to ask to change a weapon’s intent and purpose to fit something that you want it to be. The hammer is not broken which is why the comparison to Rev is not a good one. Rev damage was literally broken. It was terrible across the board

Hammer is good. It’s just not good at pure damage. This is not a fault of the hammer and why I don’t think it’s good feedback to try and change it into something it’s not. The problem is not hammer, the problem is that the hammer doesn’t fit into your expectation of what it should do. This is an important distinction to me.

What is the weapons intent and purpose? Why does your view of its intent or purpose supersede anyone else’s?

Sure, I agree the revenant may not be a good comparison. Though guardian hammer may be. it has similar defensive and/or CC functionality and similar auto attack timing, yet does 35% more damage.

coglin.1867:

Adamantium.3682:

I don’t think it’s fair to ask to change a weapon’s intent and purpose to fit something that you want it to be. The hammer is not broken which is why the comparison to Rev is not a good one. Rev damage was literally broken. It was terrible across the board

Hammer is good. It’s just not good at pure damage. This is not a fault of the hammer and why I don’t think it’s good feedback to try and change it into something it’s not. The problem is not hammer, the problem is that the hammer doesn’t fit into your expectation of what it should do. This is an important distinction to me.

What is the weapons intent and purpose? Why does your view of its intent or purpose supersede anyone else’s?

Sure, I agree the revenant may not be a good comparison. Though guardian hammer may be. it has similar defensive and/or CC functionality and similar auto attack timing, yet does 35% more damage.

Guardian hammer damage is frontloaded onto the AA. The rest of the skills are mostly utility.

Scrapper hammer does significantly more damage on 2 – 5 in addition to the utility.

And here is where we are reminded that comparing classes directly is bad:

Scrappers can at any time swap into/out off a DPS kit with virtually no penalty. Since Guardians cannot do that, the same principles that drive their weapon design is not appropriate here.

Shifu.4321:

Have any of you tried Warrior or Guardian hammer? I’d say the engineer hammer has comparable damage to the Guardian hammer and better damage than the Warrior hammer. AND it has better utility.

Yes, warri is my 2nd longest played character.
It does rather consistent dmg on all skills, but does so on a elevated level to the engi hammer AA, skill 3 & skill 4.

Skill 2 is roughly hitting for the same on both weapons & engi hammer #5 is far superior because of its range / target-amount advantage.
Still, the warri AA can hit like a truck (3.5k hits on knight/zerker mix are nothing uncommon). Earthshaker would be another thing on the plus-side, but lets not compare to the randomness of our toolbelt.

Warri wins the cleave-dps race
CC wise, the engi hammer has the upper hand currently, coming with so much daze, weakness and ofc thunderclap.
Survivability wise, the warri clearly wins with stances, higher armor & higher healthpool.

So yes, the engi hammer comes with awesome cc and definitively good amounts of survivability, but still can’t scratch the warris place, because it is actually less durable than warri & fails on the dmg department.

I know its weird to compare classes, but there are simple questions that will commanders ask themselves & make the design flaws for scrapper quite obvious:

Given that you have a full warri/guardian group, which amount of scrappers to replace them would be beneficial to the overall group composition?
Given that you have a full scrapper group & a full warri/guardian group, which one annihilates your opponents faster?
Given that you have a full scrapper group & a full warri/guardian group, which one survives longer in a out-manned, helpless situation?

Answer these for yourself, but my money is on the pure warri/guardian mix currently. And even tho better cleave on the AA might positively influence that, I’ve no idea if it is enough.

Do people here really want to play engi by camping the AA?

I don’t. Yea, it’s not a terribly impressive AA, but hammer is the one thing going right for Scrapper. Just leave it the hell alone!

If they buff it like they did last time, it just means they nerf the other attacks. Seriously, just leave it alone.

lorddarkflare.9186:

Increasing the damage is the worst way to improve hammer AA.

Instead:

-Double Might/Vuln Stacking. Halve Might/Vuln Duration.
-Slightly Increase attack speed
-Reduce Aftercasts

I’m still testing the recover frames of the atuo attack or aftercasts as you know it. Either way they feel fair so I can’t say atm wither I agree or not about reducing them

The problem isn’t the damage. The problem is the aftercast. If the whole combo actually took 1.5 seconds to execute it would be a very good combo. The problem is it takes closer to about 2.1 or more to execute because of the godawful aftercast.

If you want to see it for yourself, go into PvP and start hitting a golem, then chug Elixir U and be amazed at how pronounced the kitten aftercast is.

Ricky Rouse.1583:

The problem isn’t the damage. The problem is the aftercast. If the whole combo actually took 1.5 seconds to execute it would be a very good combo. The problem is it takes closer to about 2.1 or more to execute because of the godawful aftercast.

If you want to see it for yourself, go into PvP and start hitting a golem, then chug Elixir U and be amazed at how pronounced the kitten aftercast is.

Yup. It affects both DPS (which I am not entirely concerned about) and the ‘feel.’

Another possible fix:

-Put 3 stacks of 4 sec might and vuln on the third skill and dump most of the aftercast on it.

After playing some builds in pvp were not that bad on damage. We are not that great in utilities though. GYROS are the main problem

Arantheal.7396:

Still, the warri AA can hit like a truck (3.5k hits on knight/zerker mix are nothing uncommon)

Well warrior is my least played class, and frankly I never play hammer on it, when I look at the wiki there seems to be very little difference between the engy AA & warrior AA:

engy:

AA1 – 323 (0.8)
AA2 – 323 (0.8)
AA3 – 404 (1.0)

warrior:

AA1 – 333 (0.9)
AA2 – 333 (0.9)
AA3 – 444 (1.2)

Or is the wiki wrong? Or do you play with more damage modifying traits in your warrior build?

edit:The wiki isn’t wrong, just tried out both in PvP against the golems with no traits selected, using same trinket, both put out very similar damage numbers.

zinkz.7045:

Arantheal.7396:

Still, the warri AA can hit like a truck (3.5k hits on knight/zerker mix are nothing uncommon)

Well warrior is my least played class, and frankly I never play hammer on it, when I look at the wiki there seems to be very little difference between the engy AA & warrior AA:

engy:

AA1 – 323 (0.8)
AA2 – 323 (0.8)
AA3 – 404 (1.0)

warrior:

AA1 – 333 (0.9)
AA2 – 333 (0.9)
AA3 – 444 (1.2)

Or is the wiki wrong? Or do you play with more damage modifying traits in your warrior build?

edit:The wiki isn’t wrong, just tried out both in PvP against the golems with no traits selected, using same trinket, both put out very similar damage numbers, with warriors marginally higher.

The third AA of the warrior auto also hits 5 targets instead of 3.

lorddarkflare.9186:

zinkz.7045:

Arantheal.7396:

Still, the warri AA can hit like a truck (3.5k hits on knight/zerker mix are nothing uncommon)

Well warrior is my least played class, and frankly I never play hammer on it, when I look at the wiki there seems to be very little difference between the engy AA & warrior AA:

engy:

AA1 – 323 (0.8)
AA2 – 323 (0.8)
AA3 – 404 (1.0)

warrior:

AA1 – 333 (0.9)
AA2 – 333 (0.9)
AA3 – 444 (1.2)

Or is the wiki wrong? Or do you play with more damage modifying traits in your warrior build?

edit:The wiki isn’t wrong, just tried out both in PvP against the golems with no traits selected, using same trinket, both put out very similar damage numbers, with warriors marginally higher.

The third AA of the warrior auto also hits 5 targets instead of 3.

And the first engy AA gives you might, the second vulnerability and the third both, point was he claimed warrior AA hits like a truck, when the reality is it hits very marginally harder than the engy AA, so there must be some other reason like traits he chooses that make his warrior AA “hit like a truck”.

coglin.1867:

Adamantium.3682:

I don’t think it’s fair to ask to change a weapon’s intent and purpose to fit something that you want it to be. The hammer is not broken which is why the comparison to Rev is not a good one. Rev damage was literally broken. It was terrible across the board

Hammer is good. It’s just not good at pure damage. This is not a fault of the hammer and why I don’t think it’s good feedback to try and change it into something it’s not. The problem is not hammer, the problem is that the hammer doesn’t fit into your expectation of what it should do. This is an important distinction to me.

What is the weapons intent and purpose? Why does your view of its intent or purpose supersede anyone else’s?

Sure, I agree the revenant may not be a good comparison. Though guardian hammer may be. it has similar defensive and/or CC functionality and similar auto attack timing, yet does 35% more damage.

Really? I feel like you’re just being argumentative.

I didn’t decide it was a defensive weapon. It’s not me trying to make it a defensive weapon. It is a defensive weapon. Irenio said as much on the stream and anyone who has had 30 seconds to use it can see that pretty easily.

Guardian hammer is not a good comparison. It does not have similar auto attack timing, in fact it might be as dissimilar as you can get. It takes nearly kitten to complete the Guardian AA chain 10 times compared to just about 32s for the Scrapper. I certainly hope it would do more damage because it takes almost 50% longer to complete even including the nasty aftercast hammer is currently suffering from.

Adamantium.3682:

Really? I feel like you’re just being argumentative.

I didn’t decide it was a defensive weapon. It’s not me trying to make it a defensive weapon. It is a defensive weapon. Irenio said as much on the stream and anyone who has had 30 seconds to use it can see that pretty easily.

Guardian hammer is not a good comparison. It does not have similar auto attack timing, in fact it might be as dissimilar as you can get. It takes nearly kitten to complete the Guardian AA chain 10 times compared to just about 32s for the Scrapper. I certainly hope it would do more damage because it takes almost 50% longer to complete even including the nasty aftercast hammer is currently suffering from.

Irenio may have intended it for it to be a defensive weapon but that isn’t the case.

Did you really, REALLY, believe, even for a second, that a 1s reflect and a 1.75 second short range front-only block makes this weapon “defensive”? Have you actually played with the hammer? It’s a beatdown offensive stun weapon that actually functions best in a burst build, not a defensive build.

Have you actually tried using the #4 as a block? It’s horrendously bad for that purpose. You might as well just look at the block as a caveat and just use it to apply vuln. The whirl is only marginally useful, it will never ever stop you from getting reamed in the bum by a ranger from 1,500 distance as you attempt to close the gap, you’ll just reflect maybe 3-4 arrows out of a rapid fire and then eat the rest.

I have no idea what Irenio thought would make the hammer, or the scrapper for that matter, defensive. Was it Adaptive Armor? Yeah, that’s great, but i’ve got expert examination and a stealth gyro that make me into a better burst killer than most thieves or mesmers.

I mean, take a look at the Inventions tree and compare it to Scrapper.

Every trait in Inventions is dedicated to being tanky.

The first two minor traits in Scrapper is dedicated to stomping in PvP

There is much more evidence to support the claim that Hammer is offensive than defensive. And spouting some opinions about how good your “tank” build that heals less than a medic engie, deals less damage than a soldier rifle, and has the same survivability as both is going to change that. So please, don’t talk about how everyone hates the hammer because they expected it to be something else. If anything, the hammer is the exact opposite as what it was advertised as.

Adamantium.3682:

Really? I feel like you’re just being argumentative.

I didn’t decide it was a defensive weapon. It’s not me trying to make it a defensive weapon. It is a defensive weapon. Irenio said as much on the stream and anyone who has had 30 seconds to use it can see that pretty easily.

Guardian hammer is not a good comparison. It does not have similar auto attack timing, in fact it might be as dissimilar as you can get. It takes nearly kitten to complete the Guardian AA chain 10 times compared to just about 32s for the Scrapper. I certainly hope it would do more damage because it takes almost 50% longer to complete even including the nasty aftercast hammer is currently suffering from.

Your claims are incorrect.

Also the time for each profession to cycle back to initiating the first damage from a second set of AA is the same. Hence the complaint. By the way, isn’t the point of a discussion of differing outlooks to be argumentative? There is no need to berate posters for arguing with you when they disagree

This seems to be a pretty heated thread for some reason. I just don’t think the hammer needs more damage. I think it’s the only part of the Scrapper that is ready for launch and fun to use. I’m going to leave it at that.

I’ll try to address something that doesn’t seem to have a lot of emotion wrapped up in it instead. Are you guys sure you’re not getting normal block functionality from Shock Shield? Every time I have used it it blocks like any other block even after the skill is over for a second or so. I even tried it again just to make sure and it is definitely working at any range in any direction for me. I pulled one of the profession NPCs in the HotM (Engineer specifically) and immediately turned around and ran ~400 range away then used the block skill. I blocked the next two attacks.

The real question here is; Why would you need to just be auto-attacking with the hammer instead of doing other things? Are you really just asking for an option to be lazier but still get good results?

In PVE, hammer is fine. Doesn’t need AA damage. Really, there’s much better skills to be using than a slightly beefier weapon auto even if it’s more work.

In PVP, the hammer needs a downside. Right now it’s the weak auto and the slightly exploitable gaps in evades on hammer 3. If the auto was stronger, we’d have some issues with balance and lesser skilled played would have way too much reward for simply auto-attacking.

Adamantium.3682:

I’ll try to address something that doesn’t seem to have a lot of emotion wrapped up in it instead. Are you guys sure you’re not getting normal block functionality from Shock Shield? Every time I have used it it blocks like any other block even after the skill is over for a second or so. I even tried it again just to make sure and it is definitely working at any range in any direction for me. I pulled one of the profession NPCs in the HotM (Engineer specifically) and immediately turned around and ran ~400 range away then used the block skill. I blocked the next two attacks.

The block’s up-time doesn’t match it’s animation is the issue, the first half of the channel seems to leave you open, while you’re blocking for a bit after the channel ends.

The hammer auto-attack is imo right about where it should be. It does good enough damage that it gives bunker/bruiser builds some sustained damage presence when #2-5 are on cooldown, but it doesn’t do so good damage that you can forget about kits when built for DPS.

Has anyone actually done the numbers for this? I mean, has anyone sat down, cataloged the attack rate, base damage, and the sustained might/vuln stacks for the hammer?

The AA is fine, it applys might AND vuln, and is not even bad at that. Also The attackspeed is quick for a two handed weapon.

The rest of the skills need a slight till medium damage nerf, they deal way too much damage ontop of their intended effects. A weapon should never have 4 skills with such high damage values, else they turn into a skillspamfest just for the DPS.

Brujeria.7536:

The AA is fine, it applys might AND vuln, and is not even bad at that. Also The attackspeed is quick for a two handed weapon.

The rest of the skills need a slight till medium damage nerf, they deal way too much damage ontop of their intended effects. A weapon should never have 4 skills with such high damage values, else they turn into a skillspamfest just for the DPS.

How are you determining thay need for a nerf? Can you share the hammer damage output math, that you uses to make this determination?

While my first post was rather polemical (sorry, I needed a bait), Id like to quote myself on why I think AA needs a buff:

Frenk.5917:

The AA needs a slight buff. I understand that the ability to get and mantain high amount of might stacks is a form of compensation for not having higher DPS. Keep in mind though that there are occasions in which 25 might stacks are reacheable and mantainable without ever using autoattack (SPVP HGH builds, WvW melee train builds thanks to Empowers, PvE dungeons thanks to Phalanx Strength) thus decreasing the already situational value of might stacking with AA.

In short: if I already have 25 might stacks, the might stacking ability of the AA is garbage.

Brujeria.7536:

The AA is fine, it applys might AND vuln, and is not even bad at that. Also The attackspeed is quick for a two handed weapon.

The rest of the skills need a slight till medium damage nerf, they deal way too much damage ontop of their intended effects. A weapon should never have 4 skills with such high damage values, else they turn into a skillspamfest just for the DPS.

I think Shock Shield could be shaved a bit. The rest, I think, are fine.

Phineas Poe.3018:

Brujeria.7536:

The AA is fine, it applys might AND vuln, and is not even bad at that. Also The attackspeed is quick for a two handed weapon.

The rest of the skills need a slight till medium damage nerf, they deal way too much damage ontop of their intended effects. A weapon should never have 4 skills with such high damage values, else they turn into a skillspamfest just for the DPS.

I think Shock Shield could be shaved a bit. The rest, I think, are fine.

Yeah, shock shield is almost just another DPS skill. In would like to see a slightly longer block if the damage is nerfed though.