The kit dilemma.

The kit dilemma.

in Engineer

Posted by: Wallach.7291

Wallach.7291

So, I have been playing the Engineer since head start. While I love the aesthetic and general design of our individual skills, the one thing that has stuck out since the beginning as problematic is the kit system.

Engineers are limited to only one weapon set on the basis that they are capable of choosing one or more kits that we can swap to; the benefit being our kits do not suffer only a 1 second cooldown rather than 10. The problem I have with this is that if we choose not to select any of these kits, we are left with the fewest number of abilities of any class in the game at any given moment, including the toolbelt skills.

This doesn’t inherently sound like a problem when you consider that we also are capable of having the largest number of abilities at any given moment if we take the opposite path and equip a bunch of kits. Here’s the catch – their existence as replacements for core heal/utility slot skills skews the relative worth of the rest of the skills that are not kits but fight for the same slots. If I take a skill that is not a kit – particularly in the utility slots that contain offensive cooldowns – I take a hit in the amount of skills I am capable of bringing into combat. More importantly, I am pressured into taking one of these kits because my class inherently starts with less combat skills than any other class due to lacking a second weapon slot, which places additional pressure on my utility slots.

Ultimately I find myself wondering how much this mechanic actually benefits the class. It strikes me that the Engineer has a baseline disadvantage that the core class mechanic does not serve to offset by default like it does for the Elementalist. In fact, the toolbelt skills themselves are skewed in value towards the kits as you still gain 1 skill in the toolbelt whether you take a kit or a utility.

There is too much pressure when constructing a build to take a utility slot kit simply due to the lack of baseline functionality compared to the other classes, and our class mechanic actually adds to that pressure when it should act as a moderating valve. Essentially, I think the “baseline” Engineer needs to match core class functionality in a zero-kit situation and currently it does not. The result of this is that build variety and flexibility suffers, and for a class that is designed around adaptability, I find this a pretty frustrating limitation.

The kit dilemma.

in Engineer

Posted by: jukkou.5102

jukkou.5102

I entirely agree with you that we should all be equivalent at a baseline, but I’d like to offer my thoughts on possibly why a-net decided to make kits function the way they do now.

The fact that our baseline core mechanics are subpar compared to others is probably because it was assumed that we would pick at least one utility kit to begin with. The synergy between kits and our regular weapon sets does tend to work out well depending on your stat priorities. To mitigate the fact that we aren’t able to pick a ‘utility’ slot despite wanting more variety in our arsenal, a-net introduced the tool belt system for us to gain that extra skill we would have lost otherwise. Of course the downside is that we can’t pick the skill associated with the kit, but we are capable of having three kits in our utility slots if we felt like it.

I think balance is the key for this profession. To make up for the fact that we have to choose a utility kit reinforces the creation of the tool belt. Your gadgets, elixirs, and turrets now give two skills to make up for that lost slot. However, you can’t pick them, again.

Not that this is a perfect example, but not picking a kit may have been considered by a-net something on par with not switching weapons in the other professions. You can definitely get by with a single weapon set but utilizing the other set opens up so many possibilities.

By no means do I think the kits are perfect nor the mechanic that they abide by; I just wanted to offer my opinion on why a-net may not consider this a fundamental flaw.

The kit dilemma.

in Engineer

Posted by: nofo.8469

nofo.8469

The only real problem I see with kits at the moment aside from scaling and some abilities not working or being rather bad is that the engineer is too heavily dependent on grenades and/or bombs to do damage.

This may be the case that grenades are OP because they beat either engineer main weapon dps at any range even without grenadier or it could be the case that engineer weapons are just extremely bad at doing damage.

From what I can see though this class was designed on the basis that every engineer would be taking at least one utility slot to kits, is this a problem in design? Not really, I would rather they supplemented rather than replaced the main weapon as a source of damage though.

The kit dilemma.

in Engineer

Posted by: Wallach.7291

Wallach.7291

I entirely agree with you that we should all be equivalent at a baseline, but I’d like to offer my thoughts on possibly why a-net decided to make kits function the way they do now…

Thanks for the response.

I think we seem to agree that ArenaNet makes the assumption that the Engineer is playing with one kit equipped as sort of the “baseline” in regards to the class. It seems pretty much directly implied by the removal of the weapon swap feature that the other classes (sans Elementalist) have by default.

What I am trying to highlight as the dilemma specific to the Engineer is that very idea; that the balance of the class revolves around a choice that must be made post-foundation in regards to a character template. The comparison made of a zero-kit Engineer to say a Warrior that refuses to weapon swap actually highlights the core concept as to why I think this is a fundamental flaw; the Warrior’s has to take a reductionist step through gameplay to reach a deficit that the Engineer begins at before build choices get made.

Now, that concept in isolation – in a different game, or different set of systems – is not necessarily a flaw if the other unique mechanics of the class worked as a moderating force that counter-balanced that deficit at the foundation level. The problem, then, comes when we apply the idea to the Engineer specific systems and find that this does not happen.

Let’s examine the toolbelt in detail so it’s clear what I mean by that. We have four additional skill slots that are accessible at any time (sans transformations), and these four skills are determined by what we place in the heal and utility slots. Basic stuff; the important thing is the last bit, as it tells us that the value of each individual slot is wholly determined in the build creation process and not before. There is no inherent value in the mechanic until we make a selection in the 6-9 slots.

It’s not until we get to that step where I think we see the effects of this system being flawed in the Engineer’s case. The heal and utility slot skills are a precious resource and I think everyone will agree are some of the most important choices a player makes. The Engineer, unlike the other classes is tasked with solving a the deficit we mentioned earlier with these four slots on top of trying to select from them a set that fits their gameplay style. This negatively impacts the balance of the individual skills that make up those categories because they have to provide not just their own stand-alone value as a utility against all the others (compounded by their linked, uncustomizable toolbelt skill value) but against the need to take a kit to dig the class out of that skill deficit we started at. That first utility slot has a completely lopsided value until a kit is chosen, especially when we consider it still provides equivalent toolbelt power compared to the stand-alone utility skills.

In my opinion, it’s in that step where the Engineer is constrained from really providing that flexibility that the class seems so close to achieving. Too many pieces have to fall in line with resources made too scarce by additional limitations specific to the Engineer.

Compare this to the Elementalist, the other class that shares our limitation of weapon slots. Their unique system – the elemental attunements – works as the counter-balance on the foundation level, and never encroaches on the value of resources that make up the utility slots. Because of that, they don’t start at that negative deficit, and they get to make the same value judgments between utility slots on the merits of each individual skill, just like any other class.

The result of our class mechanic instead is basically a force multiplier of our utility slots. Since we still have the same resource limitations as any other class when it comes to utility slots, build variety suffers as the additional pressure to spend in a way that counteracts that deficit pushes players in certain directions; that is the kit dilemma. It’s a negative force that works against the total number of builds players are willing to carry, and personally it feels limiting when the I think intention is for additional flexibility.

The kit dilemma.

in Engineer

Posted by: jukkou.5102

jukkou.5102

Thanks for the response.

I think we seem to agree that ArenaNet makes the assumption that the Engineer is playing with one kit equipped as sort of the “baseline” in regards to the class. It seems pretty much directly implied by the removal of the weapon swap feature that the other classes (sans Elementalist) have by default…

It does appear that we are on the same page regarding the Engineer profession is flawed in its most basic level, the weapon system. In aims of not beating a dead horse, I’ll get straight to the point. The engineer profession needs somewhat of an overhaul in order to address this issue. The likelihood of this happening is slim at best but we can at least theorize what the most appropriate changes would be.

First of all, to establish a common ground, would you agree that our utility kits are capable of replacing half of our regular utility skills (i.e. gadgets) with not only similar benefits but more versatility? If that’s the case, then half of our utility skills have been rendered useless because there is a utility kit in our arsenal capable of out-preforming each of them in some way. That ‘statistic’ alone is horrifying to accept.

In order to bring back the viability of many of our ignored utilities, certain adjustments need to be made to make them more appealing. If we take the function of signets that other professions have (passive and active properties) we could apply that to the engineer utility skills. Of course they wouldn’t be on par with the other professions’ signets, but it would still be reasonable.

Let’s use Slick Shoes as an example. The utility skill itself could remain the same, but the tool belt could have an addition. Since the idea of the utility is to deter danger through movement, the tool belt skill when activated can continue to be what it is now, but the passive can be an endurance regeneration of +25%; however, the tool belt skill would receive an increased cool down. This way the engineer would have to decide whether or not the speed boost is worth losing that +25% endurance during the encounter, be it PvE or sPvP/WvW. Despite it being such a ‘minor change’, it can be a world of difference when that endurance or speed is the difference between life or death for you and friends.

Now let’s look at probably one of the most ignored utilities we have: Throw Mine. We don’t have many blast finishers so this could be where we gain an advantage. The skill itself could now include a blast finisher on top of what it already does. The tool belt skill as a passive can be a one second daze on detonation of a mine, which would also work with the passive trait Evasive Powder Keg. So luring an enemy into melee range is now a more effective kiting maneuver if properly timed. The active tool belt skill, however, is a dropped timed mine that explodes for a blast finisher and knock back (with a longer cool down, again). So now Throw Mine becomes a blast finisher for working with groups in PvE (i.e. might stacking for group burst coordination) or an effective knock back tool with kiting capabilities for sPvP/WvW when defending.

These are all, of course, arbitrary ideas that I came up with while writing example, but this could possibly give the Engineer more group utility that we all love and better versatility for sPvP/WvW.

None of this fixes the fact that on a base level we are essentially at a disadvantage, but it does give you more of a reason to pick utility skills over kits if they provided a passive/active effect.

The kit dilemma.

in Engineer

Posted by: Aegael.6938

Aegael.6938

We really just need more traits, and fixes to the ones that exist.

I’ve played full elixir builds before, and they work fine. Lots of condition removal, buffs, and whatnot. It plays similarly to a thief that only uses two of the same weapon set to acquire on-switch buffs while always staying on the same weaponset.

Turrets and gadgets, however?

Turrets are almost universally agreed to be useless except in gimmick builds. Even when you spec for them specifically, they’re of questionable value. Going with three or four turrets is beyond overspecialized.

Gadgets suffer from the same deal. They’re generally situational, and they suffer from not having any unique traits that buff their usage – there’s only a trait that reduces CD.

On the other hand, we have amazing traits like Grenadier, Powerful Explosives, Fireforged Trigger, Deadly Mixture, Speedy Kits, Kit Refinement and so on, all buffing kits. If there were two or three more traits that buffed gadgets, and if turret functionality was improved, then I do feel as if the engineer wouldn’t be as kittened.

My idea would be to create a trait that causes turrets to pulse stability to nearby allies. It sounds overpowered as a permanent source of stability, but you could limit the radius to something short. And because turrets are already fragile, they’d probably die quickly anyways – unless you brought more than one.

I’d love to see a gadget buff, either through base functionality or through traits, that added passive effects to gadgets when equipped and not on cooldown, similar to signets. It’d improve 3-gadget gameplay immensely.

The kit dilemma.

in Engineer

Posted by: Rfreak.6591

Rfreak.6591

While I partially agree with the lack of main weapon builds, you have to also consider we also got an extra 4 skills on our toolbelt.

@Aegael.6938

About AoE stability, why should we limit it that much? guardians got a couple too, big range, average cooldown, gives another boon (forgot which but 1 extra boon’s always useful) and, when traited, target-AoE, also lasts quite some time.

The thing is I wouldn’t rly see a stability synergy with the engineer, just w8 for turrets and more stuff to be reworked/fixed (as they announced), hopefully just 3-4 days to go, then we can discuss about it.

The kit dilemma.

in Engineer

Posted by: Casia.4281

Casia.4281

due to toolbelt skills and traits, its not realistic to slot 2 kits at the same time. I think that is a major problem. If you slot 2, one will be completely poor as you wont have the traits to support it, and you will now be out of a utility slot that should be something useful like a stun breaker, elixir R, or the like. I run my mesmer and I have null field, feedback, blink, portal, disenchanter all competing for a spot.
Engineer, I can’t possibly run grenades AND bombs. They even trait down the same line. but thats 2 slots. Whats my last, elixir R becuase its my only stun breaker option? Its not really even a choice. Grenade barrage is nice damage. but utility slots need to give utility. We give them up for kits, and weak toolbelt skills. this is especially true for elixir gun, flame thrower and their god awful toolbelt skills.

The kit dilemma.

in Engineer

Posted by: Xae.7204

Xae.7204

One of the key issue with Toolbelt skills, and Kits is having two abilities that are mediocre is not as good as one solid skill.

“Kits” are partially a problem because they are all poorly designed and do not display nearly the level of attention seen in other weapon sets. Kits seem to be a collection of random abilities, frequently with out thought as to how practical it is to use them together, or how to spec/itemize for a single kit.

The question about Kits and Tool Belts comes down to this: Is the mechanic helping or hurting the class?

I do not think anyone can say that Engineers are better off for having Kits instead of an actual “Weapon” for that kit. Or a different mechanic entirely.

The kit dilemma.

in Engineer

Posted by: Wallach.7291

Wallach.7291

While I partially agree with the lack of main weapon builds, you have to also consider we also got an extra 4 skills on our toolbelt.

This is something I feel I’ve addressed already, though I don’t think I did a very good job of managing brevity so I don’t blame folks for not having read all of it.

The short version though is that essentially every class mechanic brings with it extra skills; that isn’t really the unique element to the toolbelt that separates it from, say, the four extra skills a Necromancer has in Death Shroud. The value is supposed to come from the power to directly change those four skills, something no other class can do.

The problem – and what I spend most of my time trying to highlight in my previous posts – is how the toolbelt fails to achieve the goal due to how it is intrinsically linked to the core utility slots and the kit system simultaneously. So long as the kit system encroaches on the utility slot resources while being responsible for our weapon skill deficit on the base level, this will remain true. Basically, instead of attempting to balance out the skill deficit before it hands you the ability to customize your build (something that the Elementalist core mechanic successfully accomplishes), our deficit simply lingers and the designers hand you the pieces that don’t fit together and say “here, you manage it” – except the players are left to make exclusionary choices where other classes make no such sacrifices. The result impacts the way the customization of both the toolbelt itself and the utility slots negatively due to the pressure exerted on the player’s judgment to fix the skill deficit as a priority over slotting skills that they may actually prefer to use.

I suppose it is ironic that it is the Engineer that is handed a bunch of dysfunctional systems and left to figure out how to make them work. Who says role playing is dead?

(edited by Wallach.7291)

The kit dilemma.

in Engineer

Posted by: NevirSayDie.6235

NevirSayDie.6235

I suppose it is ironic that it is the Engineer that is handed a bunch of dysfunctional systems and left to figure out how to make them work. Who says role playing is dead?

Hahaha, I love this. And I can honestly say I love being left to figure out how to make it work.

I do agree with most of the above points as well. Every weapon/kit the engineer has some major flaws, and yet it’s just possible to almost make up for those deficiencies by making good, difficult choices. I think this is the way all the professions are supposed to function: you can’t have everything in your build.

On the downside, I will admit that I usually choose to make up for the flaws by taking at least two kits out of the 4 utilities (including healing). My favorite build uses four kits. I wouldn’t mind feeling like I could safely use some of those fun gadgets/turrets/whatever without leaving huge holes in my build, but I think that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

One somewhat-related thought: don’t envy the elementalist too much—they have the best support bunker build in the game right now, but their other builds are a little below average. And, to top it off, there are only a few utility skills that bunker elementalists can really benefit from.