Guild Wars 2

Musty.3148:

Ganzo.5079:

Musty.3148:

EDIT: Ok, I see Ganzo is wanting weapon changes. my bad.

Wait lol, im not asking to have equals weapons, when im talking about flexility, im referring about the mobility\snaring issue.

I understand, but they are still weapon changes.

I wasn’t discounting your argument as much as I was correcting my own assumptions about the thread. Hence the “my bad”

Carry on!

Yeah are surely weapon change, but are not about a weapon homogenizations.
i only think that have a trait that fix a class problem is not the right path to follow, because you are forced to take that trait(less build choice), just like its happening now with AH or monk focus, that are mandatory.

Musty.3148:

Heinel.6548:

It’s unfortunate that a more convincing case isn’t made for homogenized weapons.

A change like this might mean greater versatility at the cost of slightly lower damage or less healing.

Who is wanting homogenization?

No, I don’t think people are suggesting that. They are suggesting (for the most part) changes that make other BUILDS viable, not an increase in the efficiency of currently accepted builds. There should (as you seem to point towards) no sum gain in power. Just a greater availability of options.

But I may have missed a point somewhere, that’s just the way i read them.

EDIT: Ok, I see Ganzo is wanting weapon changes. my bad.

I don’t actually have an issue either way. You have the same characters as I do, so we’re likely working with the same set of information.

The thing that makes guardian different from ele, mesmer, and thief, is that with those three, just about any build will give you a fairly good chance at ganking. Not so for the guardian. The things people are running into right now is that as a guardian, your weapon will declare your role (to a larger extent than those three).

Some people don’t like this. I’d like for them to develop the idea further and see where this could lead to.

Ganzo.5079
We know what is the class problem,

For the uninitiated, the problem is that The Guardian does not fit this description:

Guardian
The Guardian[s] [..] focus on area control and punishing enemies for the position on the battlefield. We want them to feel very powerful when their boons are active, but if those boons are removed, they will start to feel pressure. They can remove conditions more easily than the Warrior, but share the Warrior’s need to be in melee range to dole out maximum damage.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Game-Update-Notes-December-14-2012/first#post999247

Svarty.8019:

Ganzo.5079
We know what is the class problem,

For the uninitiated, the problem is that The Guardian does not fit this description:

Guardian
The Guardian[s] [..] focus on area control and punishing enemies for the position on the battlefield. We want them to feel very powerful when their boons are active, but if those boons are removed, they will start to feel pressure. They can remove conditions more easily than the Warrior, but share the Warrior’s need to be in melee range to dole out maximum damage.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Game-Update-Notes-December-14-2012/first#post999247

I think another thing that is worth discussing is the apparent lack of theme Anet has decided to publicize with respect to the guardian.

The guardian class as is does fit the description provided, however, the description is not effective at describing guardians as a whole. I know this sounds weird, but you have to look at the short paragraph critically, and see what the actual content are. Only the first sentence has substance, the others are problematic at best.

“The Guardian[s] [..] focus on area control and punishing enemies for the position on the battlefield.”

- This is correct. Even the scepter fits this description. All it says is that if someone chooses to stand still in any given area, you have an arsenal to punish that person. Do note that this has nothing to do with locking people inside a location (that is usually associated with the term “crowd control”). Area control has always been about forcing people to move.

“We want them to feel very powerful when their boons are active, but if those boons are removed, they will start to feel pressure.”

- This is correct, for all professions. Boons making a character powerful is universal for all classes. Starting to feel pressure when boons are stripped is true for all class that has boons, which is every single class. What we have here is a very conservative statement that fails to provide distinction, as one would expect from these descriptions.

“They can remove conditions more easily than the Warrior, but share the Warrior’s need to be in melee range to dole out maximum damage.”

- This one has two parts. It is talking about the limitations of the profession, not its strength. It is correct in pointing out that guardians has stronger condition removal than the class with the least capability of removing conditions, which is not much, just mediocre. The second part is what most people have mis-interpreted. It does not say anything like “the guardian is a strong melee combatant,” remember this statement is stated as a lack, “share the need of” staying in melee range is basically saying you aren’t going to have the ranged damage capability of rangers. It is a logical leap to link this to being an effective melee combatant (note: Eventhough I do think the guardian is an effective melee combatant, this statement doesn’t imply this fact).

===

What we can glean out of this description? Very little. We got a short sentence about a highly specialized role that has little relevance in most parts of the game. Another sentence that is a general statement for everyone, and a third that tells us what the guardian is not. We can see so much about the writer’s integrity with these sentences that are stated in the negative and weasel words meant to glaze over the lack of content. In other words we are given little more than filler for a supposedly Description Of The Guardian. It leaves much to be desired.

Heinel.6548:

snip

Pretty much.

This description is essentially telling us things about the Guardian that aren’t even substantial or unique, and are often only accurate for certain builds.

Heinel.6548:

It’s unfortunate that a more convincing case isn’t made for homogenized weapons.

I think a lot of people actually are arguing for this (even if they don’t realize it themselves). Bash is ready to take an efficiency decrease in favor of all weapons getting hinder, for example. Never mind that hindering is not needed in PvE and mace is still the premier weapon for rolling through pve with your eyes closed and hands tied to your back.

See the issue here is we have two different ideas of efficiency here. Losing some damage to gain a snare in my mind would be gaining efficiency, since our damage is mostly about sustained preasure. Also most of my listed ideas were targeted at certain areas where I believe we could use some change, such as cutting down our retaliation uptime for snare, making a currently broken trait usable for most specs which choose to take it, and a trait to help zeal which would massively boost build diversity and help the dps build set that needs it the most.

Trust me in saying that I know what guardian burst is capable of. I spend 95% of my time as damage specs trying to make some good workable builds. The issue though, is that our damage is still very much sustained damage. WW and ZD are our only true burst abilities, outside of that it is pretty much auto attack spam. Which does us no good with constantly moving targets.