Guild Wars 2

I probably pay, on average, twice a typical subscription fee. Like others here I find cash shops wonderfully freeing since I don’t pay for gems until there is something I want to purchase.

Also, I find the ability to convert gems to gold an incredibly satisfying way to get my cultural armors.

I figured it was tied to the Migration PR push, expecting “new” Tyria residents.

Or, maybe it’s tied to the Do Not Touch generator-towers?

Please see the Do Not Touch threads and the like.

Which tower? Please provide a bit more information…

JustTrogdor.7892:

Katreyn.4218:

Being offered refunds is the least they can do though. I’m sure they will credit in trans stones and a splitter or something if needed. ANet isn’t usually afraid to refund or fix a wrong when it comes to real money.

Sure but what about people that bought gems with RWM specifically for the set the way it looked? Bob sees set and likes it, pays cash to get his 800 gems only for it, buys set, then the set changes. Now Bob doesn’t like it and gets a gem refund but has 800 gems for his real world money and has nothing to buy unless and if something comes along later he wants. He spent $10.00 to get some gems in the end and not the skin he wanted.

Say I was looking for a new coat and I find one on some online store that offers all sorts of clothing. I buy the coat but then they tell me they no longer carry it and they are giving me store credit to make up for it. I gave them my money for the coat and now all I have is the option to use the money I spent on something else from their store I may not want or need. I wanted a coat not 30 pairs of socks.

The precedent for this phenomenon is “refunds for in-store credit only.” This is a fairly typical and common business practice.

Regina -

Thanks for making this detailed call so quickly after the concerns were voiced.

As you guys are finalizing conversations with the Character Art Team, could you please come back to the community and give us an indication of what the Art Team’s thinking is in how they approach the new set? Basically, just a short comment like “the CAT was trying to come up with something that was visually appealing to X cultural/lore reference” or “the CAT is working to make the light armor skin more in line with the medium and heavy armor skins so that they all look a part of the same skin set.”

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/DO-NOT-TOUCH/first#post3274493

niteskate.3641:

Found one in Harathi Hinterlands. Looks like Scarlets work…

scarlet

hide spoiler

in Thaumanova Reactor Scarlet mumbles somthing about not being a good idea to construct reactors on veins of dragon energy. So maybe she has found a way to extract dragon energy somehow…

It would also give nice explanations for the reason of the invasions…

I like this. It makes me think that Scarlet really is the anti-Trahearne. Molten Alliance, Toxic Alliance and Aetherblades are her version of the Vigil, Durmand Priory, and Whispers. Instead of trying to destroy the Dragons, Scarlet probably is trying to harness/tame them.

My fervent hope is that Kralkatorrik will be brought back and devour Scarlet for she is crunchy and will be good with ketchup.

The irony of this thread, is that I find the destruction of the Thaumanova Reactor to be perfectly within Scarlet’s purview.

She was initially revealed to be a super genius who was trained by Asuran colleges and rebelled because they didn’t let her do what she wanted… While I am personally miffed by the idea that salad could be smarter than the Asuran geniuses (my main character is an Asuran engineer), Scarlet is who she is.

If anyone was responsible for the Thaumanova Reactor fallout, Scarlet makes lots of sense. While I would have preferred an Inquest macro villain, Scarlet is who we have and she did have significant contact with the Inquest. The lore of the reactor could easily be seen to be the impetus for all of her work for the past few months with Molten and Toxic and Aetherblade…

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I am thinking we will go with three topics. I will make a decision on this today.

Chris

If it helps to tilt the decision, Chris, the 3 topic route will be easier to allow on-ramps for some of us who want to participate rather than a single macro thread. It also allows us 3 times the chance to have a topic that matters/impacts us each time.

Also, can I request that the CDI threads get summarized by the main dev on salient topics. At least, if we could read a list of the the ideas/suggestions/comments that have been high-graded and low-graded that would help us participate in the actual dialogue with you and your team.

Looking forward to next steps, and thanks for all the fish!

Nike.2631:

That’s just untrue. A WvW Dev is not going to spend time posting responses to a Living Story thread for example. In fact the fewer topics going, the less (total number of) Dev responses we’re likely to see during that timeframe.

Good point, Nike. However, for some of us who are interested in engaging (or re-engaging) into the discussion who don’t have as much time to read/reply on a constant basis a number of separate treads makes the data management a tad easier to digest.

Three threads at once also means we need to be on our best game (critical or brainstorming) to show them its actually worth their time to stop and talk to us to that degree. If they launch three threads next week and one of them is a ghost town because of a lack of constructive players, I think we could see a noticeable scaling back on ANet’s investments in round three. The ball is in their court right now, but its gonna be coming back at us fast .

Agreed, and as above, the breakdown of threads would be incredibly helpful as entry-points for others in the community to engage in a meaningful way on those CDI issues about which they care most.

Also found in Snowden Drifts.

Yargesh.4965:

Xcom.1926:

Yargesh.4965:

Xcom.1926:

That was painful and cringe worthy. Things like this make me embarrassed. Can you guys do something cool instead that make me proud to play GW2 and something that I can share with friends that don’t play GW2? I want to tell my friends hey check this thing out it is so cool. Instead of things like this that are so cringe inducing?

And do you realize this isn’t 2005 anymore? You realize most MMOs are F2P? Why are you talking about subscriptions? Most MMOs are F2P with less barrier to entry than GW2.

I think they are talking about subs because two big names coming next year (maybe) will be sub based. They want to differentiate themselves from the competition.

That is a good point. So they are asking people to pledge and not jump ship?

No idea. The whole concept they are trying to put across is very strange to me, which is why I created this thread.

Might I point that ANet seems to be putting more emphasis on the idea of Tyria as the most dynamic and as a consistently evolving world of any MMO on the market. The idea of not just “playing” the game, but “being part of the world” is a strong marketing technique. If you take into account the recent PS4 ads on talking directly to the player base and personalizing them as a way to get them engaged in their product (remember, this is a business first), I don’t find the messaging overly bizarre in the current market.

Also, as a follower of the U.S. immigration policy debates, I found the play on “hot topic issues” really smart and intriguing.

Because I am a Wake Forest alumnus (Demon Deacons are our mascot…), and it’s been an online tag/name for over a decade now. Also helped to form the idea that all my characters’ names start with a “D.”

I really like the idea of alternating location of the kits on the body. We have a Toolbelt which apparently discharges a BoB from a belt, and an enormous cache of grenades from a belt… why not have a side-satchel for grenades and bombs? Is it a sad state of affairs that I would be happier with a manpurse than a hobosack? Perhaps, but there we have it.

Copied from an earlier post in the general forum on builds… apologies if already read and digested/discounted/absorbed/etc

I really enjoy the motivation behind these changes, so that they reduce the reliance on randomness and gambling on % procs. However, the intent of increasing build diversity has not done much to broaden the versatility within the builds themselves. Modified Ammunition helps, but does not do much to soften the lock-in of certain weapons/skills in other traits. A few comments below are to address that issue and provide more context for the weapon-based trait-lines.

Explosives:
As stands, there is not much to encourage us to make a power-based Explosives-heavy focus meaningful outside of a Grenade-exclusive build.
*Incendiary Powder – Why move to Master tier as-is other than to replace with Accelerant turrets? It still has the potency of an Adept trait. Why not buff inside Master tier so that perhaps it is triggered by all shots, but cannot proc more than every 10s. After all, putting a crit-triggered buff in a Power-line Master tier outside of the Precision line is difficult for a trade-off in Power/Precision).
*Exploit Weakness – excellent change to health threshold as it makes this trait meaningfully synergistic with a Firearms-heavy build (ie, Modified Ammunition).

Proposed change to Explosives Grandmaster:
Grenadier – Grenadier adds a reduction to bomb fuse time from ~2s to instant. Explosives line should be a boon for bomb as well as grenade kits, and GM XI trait should reflect this. This would at least allow the Explosives build to be not as exclusionary and provide a GM support for bomb kits within the Power line.

Firearms:
Agreed that Firearms is the most lackluster mid-tier line, and thankful that the 15-20points is getting more attention.
Modified Ammunition: Great that we get the 2%/condition is applied to kits… I would also like to see a small condition-duration increase for all conditions applied by pistols/rifles added to this trait, to make it even beefier and useful in a variety of builds.

Proposed additional change to Firearms Master Tier:
*Juggernaut – Remove toughness increase, expand the might-tick for any wielded kits (expand tick from 3s to 5s). An overhaul of Juggernaut would allow it to more accurately fit into the Firearms line and have versatility with a number of builds while removing the constraint of having a Master tier trait benefiting a single utility skill/kit.

Inventions:
Interesting start on changes, but still makes Inventions a bizarre mixed-bag in the Master tier.
*Energized Armor – Excellent upgrade to the conversion. Thank you.
*Autotool Installation – Nice attempt to make a turret more durable, but does little to make the Engineer work with the turrets well (ie, an actual turret build being worthwhile). Would like to see something along the lines of a protection/aegis for the Engineer when the turrets reach a threshold (25%). This would make deploying turrets even in situations where they will be burned down viable for the Engineer.
*Elixir Infused bombs – Yay! Pure and simple love.

Proposed additional change to Invention Master Tier:
*Reinforced Shield – Would love to see this trait incorporate an increased toughness with not just shield but also wielding kits. This can be gained through removal of toughness on Juggernaut in Firearms (see above)

Some of the most fun I had while getting my Emperor title was decking out this guy. Was trying to go for a young Entish feel… Thoughts?

I really enjoy the motivation behind the Engineer changes, so that they reduce the reliance on randomness and gambling on % procs. However, the intent of increasing build diversity has not done much to broaden the versatility within the builds themselves. Modified Ammunition helps, but does not do much to soften the lock-in of certain weapons/skills in other traits. A few comments below are to address that issue and provide more context for the weapon-based trait-lines.

Explosives:
As stands, there is not much to encourage us to make a power-based Explosives-heavy focus meaningful outside of a Grenade-exclusive build.
*Incendiary Powder – Why move to Master tier as-is other than to replace with Accelerant turrets? It still has the potency of an Adept trait. Why not buff inside Master tier so that perhaps it is triggered by all shots, but cannot proc more than every 10s. After all, putting a crit-triggered buff in a Power-line Master tier outside of the Precision line is difficult for a trade-off in Power/Precision).
*Exploit Weakness – excellent change to health threshold as it makes this trait meaningfully synergistic with a Firearms-heavy build (ie, Modified Ammunition).

Proposed change to Explosives Grandmaster:
Grenadier – Grenadier adds a reduction to bomb fuse time from ~2s to instant. Explosives line should be a boon for bomb as well as grenade kits, and GM XI trait should reflect this. This would at least allow the Explosives build to be not as exclusionary and provide a GM support for bomb kits within the Power line.

Firearms:
Clarification on Modified Ammunition: the 2%/condition is applied to kits? I would also like to see a small condition-duration increase for all conditions applied by pistols/rifles added to this trait.
Proposed additional change to Firearms Master Tier:
*Juggernaut – Remove toughness increase, expand the might-tick for any wielded kits (expand tick from 3s to 5s). An overhaul of Juggernaut would allow it to more accurately fit into the Firearms line and have versatility with a number of builds while removing the constraint of having a Master tier trait benefiting a single utility skill/kit.

Inventions:
Interesting start on changes, but still makes Inventions a bizarre mixed-bag in the Master tier.
*Energized Armor – Excellent upgrade to the conversion. Thank you.
*Autotool Installation – Nice attempt to make a turret build durable, but does little to make the Engineer work with the turrets well. Would like to see something along the lines of a protection/aegis for the Engineer when the turrets reach a threshold (25%). This would make deploying turrets even in situations where they will be burned down viable for the Engineer.
*Elixir Infused bombs – Yay! Pure and simple love.

Proposed additional change to Invention Master Tier:
*Reinforced Shield – Would love to see this trait incorporate an increased toughness with not just shield but also wielding kits. This can be gained through removal of toughness on Juggernaut in Firearms (see above)

Adamantium.3682:

DeathPanel.8362:

Westwood.1043:

Fighting a giant ice guy that we pour lava on. All my stuff is broke and I’ve been dead for an episode and a half of Archer now. If this is 80, I’ll just start another character. This is brutal.

There’s a reason most of the fractal vids on youtube for higher lvls usually show only warriors and guards with maybe 1 Mesmer.

Because those are the most popular professions? I have done all the fractals at 48 with no Guard or Mesmer.

When people tell me you need X profession for Y content, I just politely tell them they’re wrong. Over a year after release and some people still aren’t getting that this game is designed differently than typical MMOs.

Technically, the data released on the year anniversary would say that Ranger/Warrior are the most popular professions.

Other than that, I agree with you that it’s somewhat silly for people to think content requires a certain profession or party makeup. Are some professions more proficient than others in certain content? Perhaps. But that doesn’t make them also-rans.

To the OP, I am just starting to get into running TA myself since I’m thinking that Nightmare Runes would be fun to play with and if I’m not doing it on my Sylvari, it just feels WEIRD. I just try to run it as my little Asuran Engineer is just as miffed as I am and that this is all some weird mistake of the Eternal Alchemy. ;-)

In other words, OP, I get through my blergh moments re-tackling the game by getting a bit of immersion into the character’s perspective. I know I know, it sounds perilously close to “RPing”, but sometimes it’s actually fun to be able to laugh at the game from inside the game.

tl;dr: if you’re having problems getting back into the game, roll and Asura and mock EVERYTHING.

Anymras.5729:

On the Flame Turret: No Turret’s Overcharge will activate without targets, except for Healing Turret.

Somebody thought it was a good idea to bind Overcharges to firing cycles, which are currently bugged anyway, as far as I am aware. I’m not going to get into the habit of testing all the Turret bugs every time a patch happens, because there are a lot of bugs, so I’m not sure whether they fixed this but I don’t think they did.

This should be fixed with the upcoming patch that makes turrets fire on the target the Engineer him/herself is currently attacking. I don’t know why the smoke screen doesn’t proc outside of combat, since you can get area stealth from the smoke bomb/shield 4 combo very very reliably.

So here’s the conundrum I’m currently having… I had to take a few months off from playing; came back and realized that the majority of my guild is also in a down cycle of participation. I thoroughly enjoyed running small-roaming/point defending WvW, fractals and some dungeon paths with this group on my 2 80s (Engineer and Guardian). But without that core group, lolling around debating whether I would enjoy a PUG or not as they call out has lost some of the lustre of current endgame PvE-ing.

That is why I’m feeling tugged back into my old alt-aholic ways and debating about whether I should become more proficient in multiple professions or drilling deep into my main(s).

For those out there with any take on the virtues and vices of alt-rotating for multiple profession proficiency or drilling into 2 professions, I’d love to hear your take. For the record, I do thoroughly enjoy both alts and tinkering with endgame build-outs and experiences… unfortunately there are only so many gaming hours in the day. ;-)

Yoshifxe.8346:

If the class was designed to swap between kits like an elementalist swaps attunements, then the class should have kits as a profession mechanic and not as a utility where it is now.
The developers have even stated that:
“They can use different kits based on the situation, but this extreme versatility comes at a cost in damage on their main hand weapons.”

They expected us to swap between kits with this class, but I don’t feel the benefit of taking 3 kits because what good does it do when I only use certain parts of the kits and never touch it again.

a) Engineers are not Elementalists and I don’t see a rational inference that we were meant to be such.
b) We have access to multiple kits that we can slot on the fly. We don’t have to keep all of them slotted at the same time. I don’t think the dev quote used above implies that. I think it implies that there are options for Engineers to use multiple kits based on different scenarios. For example, I normally do not run with grenades, but I can switch out one of my utilities or current kit for grenades when I need to be in a more distance AOE role rather than a field-supplier. That doesn’t mean that I have to run with grenades AND 2 other kits all the time.
c (or b-2)) Part of the inherent playstyle (which I don’t find broken or horribly designed, but rather complex and cognitive) is situational awareness and using a host of utility skills as the situation demands. Now, if we had to go back to a trainer to reset our utility skills each time we wanted to switch out, that would be a severe detriment to the on-the-fly versatility inherent in the utility skills, including kits.

Why not make a more elegant solution that beefs up other utility lines, rather than ask for a complete redesign of class mechanics? If the issue is skill diversity (which seems to be one of the OPs original frustrations given the initial attempts at math comparisons to Elementalists’ attunement skills, and the idea that we are forced into kits for “non-gimping”), then make other utilities have a larger skill diversity.

I don’t know many Engineers who run a single utility line exclusively exactly because of the desire for more skill diversity. Maybe Turrets could have a functionality on their F# slot that puts you into the /use mode ala Trebs/Catapults/Mortars/etc so you can get more skill diversity out of a turret build as well? It would imply that a new Master/Grandmaster trait in Inventions would be to remote-control turrets from the toolbelt, but that might solve some of the OP frustration of feeling like kits are the only way to maximize the diversity of 1-5 skill options.

Arkham Creed.7358:

Possibility A; the tool belt is what we are supposed to be relying on the most and creating our builds around, not kits, and yet it is so unimpressive and underpowered that most people would rather claim kits are our mechanic. This is an example of horrible design.

You keep focusing on the semantics here of mechanic, when I’ve even stated repeatedly that perhaps I misspoke. Granted, when looking over posts, it was clear that the phrase was “A” core mechanic. There can be more than 1 core mechanic of a profession. Either way, you seem to be hung up on your opinion (not objective fact of “horrible design,” which by definition is subjective and not objective) that toolbelt skills are underpowered. Why not make the case to beef them up rather than making the logically flawed case that the profession is broken?

Arkham Creed.7358:

Possibility B; kits are our primary mechanic that we (sic) the profession is balanced around and that we are supposed to make extensive use of. <snip> This is an example of horrible implementation.

Starting from the bottom… this is not horrible implementation qua implementation. You simply don’t like it because for some reason, you feel like it constrains your ability to have build diversity. Given the context of all of our other utility skills, I think there is a qualitative case that using a single kit and 2 other utilities (gadgets, elixirs, turrets) provides the potential for diversity of builds. This does not make the profession broken by a case of “horrible implementation.” Again, it makes it a case of an implementation which you seem to not want.

I’m not quite sure what you actually want – it seems like you want a profession to operate more closely like others in terms of an easy sense of around what mechanic to form a build. Engineers just are a more complex profession than that. The thing is… you can build around gadgets, elixirs, kits, turrets, main weapon. What I think you try to hit and somewhat miss is the idea that min-maxing of builds seems to favor kits at the moment. Sadly, you seem to go back to the same well of confirmation bias. Sense you brought up the concept of cognitive biases as a way of discounting opposing views or disagreement feedback, I think Shakespeare had it best when he wrote of Ophelia, “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”

Which leads us directly to this quote:

Either way the engineer has a rather glaring flaw and is objectively broken. <snip>

And here is where you run off the rails in terms of logical consistency. It’s just poor debate tactics to say that the only 2 options you present are the only options available, you state an opinion as objective fact (which doesn’t make it any more correct the more you repeat the answer), and then re-apply the confirmation bias above to say the the profession is objectively broken.

Rather, you might get more traction if you would say something along the lines of “I find that the only way to currently maximize our skill efficiency and diversity is to rely on kits to the exclusion of other utilities. Since our toolbelts seem to be reflective of whatever utility build-out we have, I would like to see more options in builds that incorporate a similar impact on playstyle from utility skills outside of kits. Whether this means to beef up the toolbelt functions of non-kit utilities or to provide elixirs as skillbar sets ala kits, or to make gadgets on a severely minimal cooldown so as to function more like 1-5 skills, that would be a nice option for me to get to play the Engineer as something other than just kits.”

But railing about objective brokenness is disingenuous for the sole reason of the clear fact that Engineers are not, by definition, broken. Many people seem to be able to play them effectively and well. Just because you can’t play them the way you want to play them as effectively as others in a different playstyle doesn’t make the profession broken.

Arkham Creed.7358:

Deacon.9725:

-snip-

Firstly, I find your comment about “earliest stages of non-Anet participation in this game” to be an odd one considering that Arena Net made the game, and as such as never “not participated” in it in one form or another. Secondly, in interest of getting this back on track, perhaps I should elaborate on my problem further. Consider the following.

Arena Net has neither the manpower nor willpower to address every issue plaguing every profession, and have themselves admitted to that much. By their own admission they primarily focusing on problems in descending order from more important to least, or rather from most widely reaching within the community to least. Now it is a known fact that the engineers are a minority profession, with strong speculation to be the “least played profession.” What this means is that, logically, we already get very little attention by the development team, and our problems no matter how glaring have already been declared low priority by default.

Now consider this; should Arena Net work their way through their backlog of problems enough to actually get some time to spare for us lowly engineers, are they more likely to give us a thorough overview and address major problems, or simply identify and address the issues and skills most widely used and talked about by the community? I say the latter; they are likely to address “popular” skills first, leading to a situation wherein the vocal minority has the most influence over the future development of our profession. And this is where my problem lies.

I feel like major profession-breaking issues like our primary mechanic being so underwhelming it has been replaced in the mind of most players with a common utility skill type, and the horrible effect that has on style-of-play (not to be confused with individual play-style) and profession balance should be deemed high priority and fixed first, even before other issues I myself have been complaining about for months. However so long as the community chooses to sweep this problem under the rug and pretend it is not an issue Arena Net will remain blind to it, addressing issues of lesser overall mechanical impact first and only further unbalancing our profession and invalidating our actual mechanic and all non-kit based play-styles and build options.

In short it is already unlikely that Arena Net will ever bother to fix this issue, and the communities refusal to acknowledge it as a legitimate problem in favor of propagating common misconceptions and confining themselves to pre-established popular builds further reduces those odds. Basically, to be frank, if the engineer is never truly fixed it is your fault. Hence my frustration and lack of patience with the community.

So at last we get you to acknowledge the entirety of your issue with this display: You don’t like the way the Engineer plays on a fundamental level.

Well, again, I find it incredibly disingenuous to say that the profession is BROKEN as a fact, and that it’s our fault because we simply don’t agree with you. I think what would be much more honest and correct would be this phrase: "the communities (sic) refusal to acknowledge it as a legitimate problem in favor of playing within the confines of the profession build further reduces those odds of me getting what I want in this profession. Basically, to be frank, if the engineer is never truly the profession I want it to be it is your fault. Hence my frustration and lack of patience with the community. "

There. Now it actually makes sense, and fully exposes the argument as a personal opinion rather than a misguided attempt to make your own ideas dogmatically “the only right way.”

Granted, I think that there is a lot of validity to expressing your opinions on what could shift within the profession to make your playtime more enjoyable. Under that guise, making a strong case for a beefier toolbet skill would be incredibly valid and intriguing in the debate. I would be interested to see you tackle that in an honest opinion setting.

Arkham Creed.7358:

Aberrant.6749:

So… 2 pages of a semantics fight pretty much? Or did I miss something?

I’m not entirely sure you or anyone else has, no. But you’re acting that way. It is just easier to dismiss this and call it a semantics argument rather than address the real issue at hand. Oh well, my own fault for assuming critical thinking from a bunch of lemmings. One or two guys say kits are the primary mechanic of our profession, and whip up a few useful builds with them, and suddenly everyone follows suit, never once stopping to consider what that does or what that says about our profession.

Arkham, let me take a direct tack here with you on your whole premise. You seem to be inordinately frustrated and upset with the profession design of the Engineer. And so you have decided to set yourself on a dogmatic path of lashing out at any line of thought or argument that disagrees with your personal view of the situation. I’m sorry for you, but just because you claim something is a fact does not make it so. And sense the issue at hand from your OP is whether kits themselves are the Core Mechanic… when there is a veritable cornucopia of discussion even within this thread that kits are fundamental to the skill variety of diversity of the profession that even shies away from using the phrase “core mechanic” you still have clung to the semantics argument. I find that a tad lazy, but that’s my personal opinion. Heck, I’ve even admitted to perhaps misspeaking about the terminology in order to assuage the semantics piece and get back to the argument of skill diversity.

However, your consistent attempts at belittling the intellectual capacity and critical thinking skills of your colleagues in this forum is outright deplorable. There is little to no excuse for you making such inane comments about people who have a different view of the profession. I personally find people who sit in an inquisitorial dogma impossible to communicate with.

Therefore, I will just finish my piece to this thread by saying that the actual mechanic aside, it is important to recognize and inform an Engineer playstyle around the use of kits as the venue for achieving a wide variety of skill options. That may not be the playstyle of choice for everybody, but it has been how the class has been developed and worked since the earliest stages of non-Anet participation in this game. To wit, the issue for me is that I would like to see more synergistic options between equipped weaponsets and kits as well as some variability of weapon set traits outside of pure DPS. I recognize that is another thread, but it was the impetus for me to use (admittedly incorrectly) the term of art of kits as the core mechanic.

jaif.3518:

I’m missing the argument here. So what? Many people refer to “kits” as “the profession mechanic”.

Who cares? Does the label really bother you that much?

-Jeff

I think the argument is a function of whether the Engineer is acceptable or broken in terms of successful application of profession mechanics… If kits are considered core to the profession, then dev focus on kits makes sense. I think the argument becomes that “since kits are not, then don’t work on them.”

VIVorcha.7853:

google.3709:

VIVorcha.7853:

NevirSayDie.6235:

The toolbelt is nothing more than extra skills. Kits are also just extra skills.

The engineer mechanic is having more skills available at one time than other professions, whether through kits or through other utility skills with their toolbelt counterparts.

The engineer was beautifully designed. Look at how much variety our engagements have compared to any other profession.

Elementalist with their four attunements say hi.

And guess what? An Elementalist with four attunements still gets to fully choose their utilities. An engineer with four kits doesn’t get to choose any skills at all.

lol oh god… why do people who know the least about the class are always the ones trying to talk…..

every kit utility gives 5 skills + 1 (toolbelt)… and you do get to chose ur utilities lol no one can force you to run 4 kits, and with the little knowledge you’ve shown about the class, i very well doubt you could handle it… so much ignorance

If you don’t run four kits, you no longer have more skills than an Elementalist.

And Elementalists always have access to 25 skills, regardless of their choice of utilities and healing.

Math is not hard.

So wait… the whole point of this is to complain about not having the baseline 25 skills of an Elementalist? But… uh… we’re NOT Elementalists.

The better math comparison to not be disingenuous is to claim that other classes have 5×2 skills (double weapon sets), Between 1-4 F# skills (remember not all classes have F1-4!), 1 healing, 3 utility and 1 elite. Assuming that kits are supposed to function as a secondary weapon set, we should be comparing at least apples to crabapples of a baseline skill set of 18 (assuming the average F# is 2.5 rounded to 3). With our baseline of 14, taking a single utility slot as a kit bumps us up to 19. That seems to track nicely with all other classes, Elementalists excepted (and I don’t think any Engineer wants the light armor restriction nor lowest health pool caveat of Eles either….).

But this is why I think it’s a problem to dissuade Engineers from being expected to perform to their maximum utility by using at least 1 kit… that’s just a fundamental part of the way we were built. Elementalists were built vastly differently from the other professions as well. We don’t have to have F# or Traitline passive (an argument I find weak on its face) commonality across the spectrum of other professions to make our profession either valid or not broken (as seems to be the point of the OP’s wrath).

Agreed, Henry. And I was trying to get to one of the issues with a frustration of leveling an engineer: how can I get more playstyle options out of my equipped weaponset?

Arkham Creed.7358:

Don’t worry about it, I’ll provide a visual aid so everyone knows exactly what traits I am speaking of. Please direct your attention to the attached jpg.

What you’re looking at is a copy of every profession’s fifth trait line, with a particular passive bonus received for investing points in said line highlighted with a red box. You’ll first notice that every one of those bonuses is even represented by that profession’s unique thumbnail icon. Now if you check a wiki or skill/trait builder web site you will notice that in every instance that bonus apples a small statistic buff (not an additional or altered function) to that profession’s unique mechanic, and that said bonus even relates directly or indirectly to the functionality that profession has linked to pressing one or more of the function (F#) keys. This is true across the board and without exception, even to in the case of the engineer, as the engineer’s bonus directly applies to the Tool Belt skills, and not in any way to kits.

It seems like you’re just bent on making the small narrow case that because kits are not F# mechanics that they are not a core part of gameplay. Sadly, I don’t see how this makes sense unless you made the analogy that the 5th trait line in other classes (outside of Ele) had something to do with beefing up alternate weaponsets.

But the real thrust of the problem with this argument, Arkham, is that you seem to be saying “Engineers are not like everyone else. And that’s a Bad Thing!” I don’t see that as cause for concern at all. Treat kits like alternate weapon sets, which is a core function (I would still hazard to say core mechanic) of other professions’ playability. You don’t want a second weapon set? That’s ok. But it would be disingenuous to believe that the profession should be expected to have the greatest degree of flexibility, optionality and diversity in play as if you did use it.

luckywaldo.6089:

And I was under the impression that elixir builds were still best with one utility reserved for a kit.

Well sure, since kits give Engineers the diversity of skills outside of the main weaponset. This was actually the intent from the devs’ perspective very early on – that kits provided the multi-skill diversity implicit in other professions’ weapon set swaps.

Elixir builds without a kit in a slot would be like equipping signets/banners/etc and not switching between 2 weapon sets. As far as I have understood the class since I’ve been here, that’s WAI.

Arkham Creed.7358:

Chaba.5410:

No, they are not passive statistical buffs. If you narrow the terminology down enough, you can exclude anything to prove a point. Yet, as a friend says, if you only watch the finger, you won’t see it pointing at the moon and you shall miss out on all the moon’s wonder and glory.

So you’re suggestion we ignore an established pattern set forth by the developers, refuse to use it as a baseline for judgment, and use the wrong terminology all so that we can pretend something is what it objectively isn’t?

I think you’re trying very hard to fit a square peg in a round hole, seemingly to justify your claim that “everything is broken with Engineers.” Because let’s be honest a bit about the 5th trait line for other professions… they relate to various unique attributes of that particular profession. If you want to make a direct comparison to a single other profession, then please do so. But for the sake of clarity and honesty, please don’t try to force an established pattern where none exists. Sometimes patterns aren’t built to fit neatly into what you want them to prove, but Chaba’s point is well made and if I can paraphrase in yet another fun quote in the same vein: “there are 3 different kinds of lies – lies, kitten lies, and statistics.”

Arkham Creed.7358:

Deacon.9725:

Considering that this was taken from a thread that I think replied to a post of mine directly, I would like to comment. The semantics of “primary profession mechanic” being the F-buttons seems to be an incredibly narrow view of how to view any given profession. Perhaps my verbage is what struck a chord, as “mechanic” seems to be taken literally. Rather, I would re-suggest that kits are still a core functionality of Engineers. This seems to be something that is not directly translatable to all other professions, however I would posit that it is akin to the idea that clones/phantasms are a core functionality of Mesmers (even though it seems that using Arkham’s literal semantics-baed logic, that Shattering is the core mechanic and that clones/phantasms are merely utilities?).

The point here is that Engineers are seen both inside and outside the playing community as a thoroughly unique profession. In that vein, we cannot do apples-to-apples comparisons on weapon-to-utility-to-F# skills. It is incorrect to relegate kits as something that acts as “just another utility skill” ala other professions. Quite simply, the way that kits work belies that comparison: kits function as the response to other professions’ weapon-swaps. Therefore, not discussing kits interaction with each other and the main weapon-set as a core function of how the profession plays would be similar to Elementalists talking about just sitting in one attunement, or how other professions deal with weapon swaps.

I believe the difference in literal semantics on what constitutes profession-mechanic and core functionality may go a long way to bridging this divide Arkham seems to imply in the OP.

There are two glaring flaws in your reasoning.

First; illusions and illusion shattering are both the primary mechanic (singular, not plural) of the mesmer, as you cannont shatter an illusion without first summoning one. Furthermore the mesmer has a visible display of how many illusions they have summoned, and how many total they may have in what is best described as the “profession section” of the HUD. Finally every mesmer weapon option, without exception, has access to at least one illusion summoning skill, meaning it is objectively impossible to play a mesmer without access to illusions.

Secondly; engineer kits are not a skill type singularly unique to the engineer, as their primary function is nearly identical to that of elementalist conjured weapons. That is to say that they are a utility skill option that when used replaces the equipped weapon and all associated skills with a pre-set skill build themed to the skill used, and that does not scale based on equipped weapon damage. The skill types are exactly the same, with the exception that engineer kits are “overpowered” or rather “unbalanced” by having no cooldowns and near instant casting times. That could be another line of discussion, but in summation I feel furthers the theory that kits were originally supposed to be the f-bar profession mechanic due to their similar “ease of use” to elementalist attunements.

Ok… let’s address these issues in order, shall we?

1) The Mesmer analogy is not a flaw in my reasoning for why kits are still to be considered a core function of the profession. It was merely there to make the point that digressing into semantics based on F-# as the only core mechanic of the class seems to be too literal (since you can still use the F-# mesmer skills without having any clones/phantasms summoned). But it did perform the nice little illusion/trick to getting you hooked on debating semantics yet again and not focusing on the reasons in my argument.

2) Your argument about kits having a “primary function nearly identical” to Elementalist conjured weapons but being OP because of your stated ideas still rings hollow. Elementalist attunement performs the same function you stated about conjured weapons (ie, they change the entirety of the 1-5 skill bar), and yet you don’t seem to have a problem with Elementalist’s “core mechanic” (or core functionality, in my opinion) of having 5×4 skills at their disposal that are required to shift in and out of a skillbar setting.

I would suggest that the difficulty in your understanding of this idea is where kits are placed in the Engineer kitten nal (ie, fitting in the 7-9 slots rather than the F# slots). Perhaps getting over that issue would allow an ability to view the argument in less literal/narrow terms.

Sadly I feel like I should repost here what I posted in Arkham’s new thread, as it directly contributes to the thought progression I was going for in this thread:

Perhaps my verbage is what struck a chord, as “mechanic” seems to be taken literally. Rather, I would re-suggest that kits are still a core functionality of Engineers. This seems to be something that is not directly translatable to all other professions, however I would posit that it is akin to the idea that clones/phantasms are a core functionality of Mesmers (even though it seems that using Arkham’s literal semantics-baed logic, that Shattering is the core mechanic and that clones/phantasms are merely utilities?).

The point here is that Engineers are seen both inside and outside the playing community as a thoroughly unique profession. In that vein, we cannot do apples-to-apples comparisons on weapon-to-utility-to-F# skills. It is incorrect to relegate kits as something that acts as “just another utility skill” ala other professions. Quite simply, the way that kits work belies that comparison: kits function as the response to other professions’ weapon-swaps. Therefore, not discussing kits interaction with each other and the main weapon-set as a core function of how the profession plays would be similar to Elementalists talking about just sitting in one attunement, or how other professions deal with weapon swaps.

What I was trying to tease out in this thread is the ability to see a bit more synergy between weaponsets and kits. Considering that we are expected to have a high degree of contextual/situational awareness in our profession, I would love to see some more cross-love between kits and weaponsets.

Oh, to supplement my previous post now that I’ve read some new posts…

Let’s please not take the route of blaming kits for perceived slights to the playstyle of Engineers.

Considering that this was taken from a thread that I think replied to a post of mine directly, I would like to comment. The semantics of “primary profession mechanic” being the F-buttons seems to be an incredibly narrow view of how to view any given profession. Perhaps my verbage is what struck a chord, as “mechanic” seems to be taken literally. Rather, I would re-suggest that kits are still a core functionality of Engineers. This seems to be something that is not directly translatable to all other professions, however I would posit that it is akin to the idea that clones/phantasms are a core functionality of Mesmers (even though it seems that using Arkham’s literal semantics-baed logic, that Shattering is the core mechanic and that clones/phantasms are merely utilities?).

The point here is that Engineers are seen both inside and outside the playing community as a thoroughly unique profession. In that vein, we cannot do apples-to-apples comparisons on weapon-to-utility-to-F# skills. It is incorrect to relegate kits as something that acts as “just another utility skill” ala other professions. Quite simply, the way that kits work belies that comparison: kits function as the response to other professions’ weapon-swaps. Therefore, not discussing kits interaction with each other and the main weapon-set as a core function of how the profession plays would be similar to Elementalists talking about just sitting in one attunement, or how other professions deal with weapon swaps.

I believe the difference in literal semantics on what constitutes profession-mechanic and core functionality may go a long way to bridging this divide Arkham seems to imply in the OP.

digiowl.9620:

indeed. What i am looking for is a middle group between no kits and spinning through the kits constantly to maximize DPS.

Then again, i also run a melee set and a ranged set on my other characters. Meaning i prefer situational flexibility over maximized DPS. So that if things becomes too intense in melee i can drop back to a ranged set and keep fighting while gaining some distance.

Juggernaut is interesting in this sense as it benefits me to have flamethrower active as much as possible rather than one second being in flamethrower for one skill, the next in another kit for another skill, the next in weapons and so on. I can understand that ANet wanted that play style as a valid one, but i am not sure if they wanted it to be the only one that seemingly mattered when it came to kit usage.

Well, I for one, do not mind spinning through the range of options. I simply want the main weaponset options to have some more flexibility in build-out options that we have for kits, and can become a more meaningful part of a flurried swap-out for skills.

ShadowPuppet.3746:

Deacon.9725:

ShadowPuppet.3746:

digiowl.9620:

ShadowPuppet.3746:

VIVorcha.7853:

We’re way too dependent on kit switching. We need more traits like Juggernaut that reward the use of a single kit.

Why would you want to encourage people to stay in a single kit more? I mean there is already incentive in the way builds are made that you will favor certain kits over others but I don’t understand why anyone would want to sit in one kit. I can make assumptions to why, but I would rather not do that.

Perhaps so you don’t feel like you’re gimping yourself by picking a gadget or elixir over a second or third kit?

In most cases you would still be “gimping” yourself by reducing the amount of variety of skills you have available to you. Buffing staying in one kit won’t ever fix that problem, and some cases would make the other kits far too strong depending on what incentive they provide.

What about making the main weapons more meaningful that would provide a substantial alternative to remaining in kits the majority of time?

Basically if I am understanding correctly the argument is that people want alternatives to having to be so active with their kit management. I will say this and someone will probably jump on me for it but understand I mean no malice, but why play a engineer then? What I mean is, if someone wants to basically limit themselves to using two weapon skill bars, why not play another class that is already strong in such a scenario? Part of what makes the engineer strong is the ability to have a large range of skills available to them, it’s fairly evident if you look at the traits that gadgets are meant to be supplemental and not have a build based on them. Turrets have trait support (although turrets are a mess), elixirs have trait support, kits have trait support…gadgets have one cd reduction trait

I agree with you that kits are the primary mechanic of the class. However, I see them also as something distinct from the Elementalist attunement state. By this, I mean that kits are situational skill-sets rather than innate overlays onto everything we do. Otherwise, why have slotted weapons at all?

Now personally I view my p/p or p/s setup as its own kit and try to fit a playstyle accordingly. However, this leaves a bit to be desired on the variety of options there. Maybe I’m asking for a bit more flexibility and creativity in our Firearms trait line. Right now, I feel like the options for main weapon playstyle are “increase dps.” This isn’t to say that main weapons should be replacements for kits (no more than saying that sitting in a single kit should be meaningful either a la previous posts).

ShadowPuppet.3746:

digiowl.9620:

ShadowPuppet.3746:

VIVorcha.7853:

We’re way too dependent on kit switching. We need more traits like Juggernaut that reward the use of a single kit.

Why would you want to encourage people to stay in a single kit more? I mean there is already incentive in the way builds are made that you will favor certain kits over others but I don’t understand why anyone would want to sit in one kit. I can make assumptions to why, but I would rather not do that.

Perhaps so you don’t feel like you’re gimping yourself by picking a gadget or elixir over a second or third kit?

In most cases you would still be “gimping” yourself by reducing the amount of variety of skills you have available to you. Buffing staying in one kit won’t ever fix that problem, and some cases would make the other kits far too strong depending on what incentive they provide.

What about making the main weapons more meaningful that would provide a substantial alternative to remaining in kits the majority of time?

digiowl.9620:

As for autofire on holding a button down with grenades, i strongly agree. I guess we will see how the “hold to aim, release to fire” option that will come in a month will work out.

The release-to-fire mechanic holds so much promise for Engineers, I am inclined to agree with the idea to wait to see how that pans out for Grenade kit before asking for auto-attack.

One of the reasons I like running in Grenade kit is that it does not have an auto-attack. It saves a bit on unwanted (and potentially unwarranted) multiple mob aggro while bunking around zones.