I’d…play an Ogre, honestly. Sure, it’d be funny to have an Ogre Engineer, but hey.
yes they actually are (if temporary)
And this is the issue with two-week cycles of content right here.
Content gets pushed out, buggy as hell due to an evidently nonexistent or incompetent QA team and/or testing, they need to fix it ASAP so people don’t get locked out of kitten because the content’s only around for two weeks…which means neglecting other issues, which have been, and will be, around for far longer than the content will be available for.
And then they might just delay bugfixes until the next ‘Feature Patch,’ because obviously it’s not like people would like a little hustle in getting existing content to function properly, not when they’ve got Villain Sue Salad and their army of idiots to contend with. Really, it’s not like it probably causes that much of an issue, as their bugfixes will probably break just as thoroughly as the thing they’re trying to fix.
Sorry, I got a little off-track there. Anyway, point is, this two-week content cycle is bad for every part of the game, including that part that actually is the purpose of the content cycle. QoL improvements like being able to actually see your back item while using Kits fall by the wayside as resources are redirected to fixing the unpolished zergbait of the Living Story.
Poison should also shade/outline the Healing Skill in green, to remind the afflicted of the effect.
Also, confusion should be noted in the orb; it would assist in deciding at a glance whether to risk the payback or not.
Alright, I have no comment on any of the proposed changes.
In fact, I’m only posting in this thread to point out the title. I actually went looking for this thread earlier, figuring that it would have Engineer somewhere in the title, thus making it easier to find. All of the other class threads I’ve seen from this author have the class name, and a derogatory, complimentary, or just head-scratching bit of text next to them, after all.
Instead, the thread for Engineers has ‘Grenadier: The Spamgineer’ as a title. I couldn’t take any suggestions in this thread seriously if I wanted to, because the original poster can’t even be bothered to use the class’s name in the title, instead opting to define the class as ‘the one with the Grenade Kit, and the skill spamming.’ If OP intends the thread to be taken seriously, it might be wise to change that; it’s inconsistent with the naming theme in general, if nothing else.
That said: I’m looking forward to seeing what’s suggested for Turrets. I can always use a laugh.
“My main’s an Engineer, I want it too.” – If Colin’s main really is an Engineer and he really does want to get Engineers melee weapons…Well, it’d just be nice if he’d weigh in, I think.
It would help to establish more of a feeling of connection, and we could maybe get a couple ideas on how it’d work. Doubt it, but still.
Is there an argument against axing toolbelt skills and replacing them with a selection of four kits?
F1 – Flamethrower
F2 – Elixir Gun
F3 – Bomb Kit
F4 – Grenade KitThe last trait line would lower the amount of time it takes to switch to another kit, and Tool Kit would replace Flamethrower at the F1 position if you spec so far into that same trait line.
The argument against putting Kits where they seem to have been intended to be, given that we’re balanced around them, pretty much goes as follows: It would be too close to the Elementalist’s class mechanic.
If we want to play Elementalists, not only do we have an entire set of skills that allow us to mimic Attunements, but we can just go play Elementalists.
No two classes have the same mechanic, because not only would that make the classes less unique individually, it would also rankle for players of both classes – the first class might go “Look at them, they can do just about what we can do. Our class identity is being infringed upon!” and the second might respond with “Our class mechanic is an imitation of another class. What gives? Should we just reroll to that class?”
Instead, I think they should do what at least one other in this thread has suggested about the Toolbelt – allow us to choose the skills that go onto it independently of our Utility slots. That, and more weapon choices, could make for some very, very interesting builds; if nothing else, there’d be a massive amount of build variety, at least for a while.
On a side-note, I find it hilarious that the guy who went ‘No, giving Engineers weapon-swapping would be homogenizing’ is supporting the idea that Kits are the Engineer’s core mechanic, when Kits are pretty similar to Attunements, the core mechanic of the only other class without weapon-swap.
ive defended kits all along… >.>
Kits have never needed defending. Every time somebody goes “It’s kind of, uh, awkward and build-limiting how we only have three choices of weapon,” a very common response is “Just use Kits or change class.”
Not wanting to use Kits in a build and be competitive is what’s far more in need of defending, at least going by the response these boards tend to have when somebody is so audacious, so impertinent, as to make a post about how it’d be nice to have more non-Kit weapon choices or generally be less reliant on Kits.
But that’s all aside from the ’Don’t give Engineers weapon swap, it’ll homogenize the classes’/’Engineer’s class mechanic is really the set of Utility skills most similar to the Elementalist’s Attunement mechanic’ juxtaposition I was pointing out, where it seems that two classes having effectively almost the same class mechanic doesn’t qualify as homogeneity.
Edit: Swear filter triggered. Of and Awkward can’t be right next to each other, apparently.
(edited by Anymras.5729)
Giving us more weapon choice…I really don’t see why people argue against more options. It doesn’t make any sense to me. What is lost by adding options?
It would increase build variety, because we’d at least be able to choose different weapons, which might make given kits more or less vital for different builds.
Arguing against it and suggesting supporters of more weapon choices seems to me like going “There really doesn’t need to be a Red Velvet option for cake. We have Vanilla, and Chocolate! Be happy with those, or get a different dessert!”
Also: As an Engineer who actually really dislikes using Kits: I think they should focus on making our Non-Kit Utility skills good enough to be competitive, rather than improving our Weapon Skills. I think this would increase build variety, reduce reliance on Kits, and keep the Engineer particularly Utility-centric, which could prevent the issues powerful weapons might cause.
In essence, I suggest updating the Class Balance Philosophy to focus on Utility Skills as a whole rather than Kits.
Because somebody always asks: “Why do you play an Engineer if you don’t like Kits?”
I pretty much bought the game to play a Turret-using Engineer, not speed-piano my way through weapon skills. If I wanted to, after all, the Elementalist is right there.
I like Turrets and Gadgets, I don’t like Kits and Elixirs.
On a side-note, I find it hilarious that the guy who went ‘No, giving Engineers weapon-swapping would be homogenizing’ is supporting the idea that Kits are the Engineer’s core mechanic, when Kits are pretty similar to Attunements, the core mechanic of the only other class without weapon-swap.
It might help a bit if you mention what bug.
Balancing without knowing what functioning Turrets are like is a bad idea. Not that Anet’s stinted on trying, of course.
In any case, I think getting the bugs fixed is a step in the right direction – with Turrets functioning properly, it will be easier to tell what needs done.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/27-Turret-Bugs-I-ve-lost-count/first#post2601719
Ask, and you shall receive (a link).
This is a known bug, and is on a list I am certain the staff are aware of (as they’ve thanked me for putting it together).
Also: They’re actually going to be working on that buglist, from the sound of things. They’ve already announced their intent to resolve the Firing Rate issue, as well as Rifle Turret’s Overcharge not giving it its speed boost.
Cheers. Here’s hoping this makes it into the fix list.
Engineer is already balanced in such a way that main hand weapons are intentionally less effective than other classes’, by the admission of the devs – to encourage using Kits, of course, though this also places the burden of damage-dealing upon Utility skills in general.
Figuring out whether Turrets should deal more damage or not is actually kind of a pain in the kitten on the one hand, they’re less effective than autoattacks, on the other hand, we can have up to…five, I think, with Elite Supplies X.
Combined with the Engineer themselves, that makes a potential total of six separate sources of damage – and we’ve seen Anet’s reaction to Supply Crate pushing something over the line.
It really doesn’t help the situation that Turrets don’t scale, leaving them lackluster to begin with.
Complicating the issue is that, well, even with the things that Engineers are balanced around, there’s only one source of damage, that being the Engineer themselves.
Personally, I think they should at least have scaling, have cooldowns start when they’re placed, and…just see where it goes from there.
An improvement to the handling of cooldowns could allow Detonation to occur more often, which would encourage a more dynamic playstyle without directly buffing anything, while giving them scaling would let them stand more evenly alongside other skills, especially toward endgame.
no and hopefully they never will and you don’t need a gaming keyboard to play engi. that’s just silly talk. gaming accessories are a waste of money.
how many buttons does your mouse have
id be in heaven with a real dedicated gaming mouse, 5 isnt quite enough… and 3 is like ogodicanteven play engi
I’ve been remapping all my controls. You really don’t need more buttons on mouse – just a better layout for the keyboard.
Here’s what I’m talking about:
Default layout is QWEASD for movement, 1-5 for Weapon Skills, 6-0 for Heal/Utility/Elite, F1-4 for Toolbelt, V for dodge, Tab for targeting.
You’ve got to do some weird stretches to hit Toolbelt and Utility skills, and – at least with my hand size – hitting V with your thumb (the only reason that could possibly make sense as a location for that function) is just awkward.
Slows you down overall, and you don’t want that. Besides, the further you have to move, the more likely you are to make an error. Combined with unnecessary movement keys (A and D turn your character, but so does holding right-click and moving the camera), this is just awkward. Also: It’s really easy to make mistakes in heated fights if you lift your hand for the Utility skills, or to accidentally turn off running by hitting Caps Lock.
What I’m about to change mine to:
ESDF for movement (Up-LeftStrafe-Down-RightStrafe), 2WQAZ for weapon skills, R/TGV/H for Heal/Utility/Elite, 34XC for Toolbelt skills. Shift for dodge, Tab for targeting.
With everything placed around the movement keys, less movement is required to activate nearly anything. With less movement required, hopefully efficiency is improved.
Unnecessary movement keys are done away with, the whole set is moved away from Caps Lock, little finger rests naturally on the dodge button (and can easily move to hit Z or A), and the home row notch often on F helps keep the user centered.
If they’d implement a Target Mode system similar to that found in, oh, pretty much every other action MMO I’ve played (TSW let you toggle it, Neverwinter has it as a nearly always-on system, TERA does similar and lets you adjust where it rests), then I’d be pretty much happy with the controls after adjustment (and be able to set skills to my mouse buttons). Unless they do, though, I’ll just keep holding down RMB everywhere I go.
The notes were fake. How the biscuit do people STILL not know that?
OP’s actually quoting the devs directly, though the ‘leaked’ notes did feature those changes prominently.
Here’s a link to the post itself, so you can read it for yourself:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Feature-Build-Balance-Preview/page/16#post3667926
Personally, I’m also not entirely convinced that the ‘leaked’ notes are fake; there’s been several leaks, most of them mostly accurate, with just about all threads about each being shut down.
The staff response to this leak is little different from the staff response to the last plausible one.
I think it’s possible that they’re real, but being claimed as false in order to allow for further modification pending staff opinion, with the first waves of responses here and on Reddit being used to gauge first-look public opinion.
One way or another, we do have some confirmed Turret fixes on the way, according to Karl McLain, and I keep my hopes for fixes restrained to what’s been stated for certain until I see the real patch notes.
(edited by Anymras.5729)
This is the focal point many Engineers completely ignore. Everyone is calling for improvements upon a currently broken system when we really need them to be functional before anymore adjustments are made to traits and abilities. What it really boils down to is that we all have to be patient and see how these fixes impact all avenues of the game, then take a retrospective look at what can be tweaked.
P.S.
I sincerely hope I do not see another monster thread generated by you again on the subject of turret bugs… but I will be on the lookout!
Couldn’t have put it better – and hopefully there won’t be another monster thread, but I’m going to spend the first few days after the fix-patch testing each fix listed, including rechecking firing rates. With luck…well, with luck, the list won’t grow.
…yeah. That’s pretty much the explanation of the issue – the kit covers back items, only for them to clip through them. For a game as cosmetics-driven as GW2, this is a problem.
Still on the road.
These turret fixes lay the groundwork for improvement, I think – it’s impossible to balance something that doesn’t work to begin with. If they resolve the bugs, they’ll be more likely to be able to balance them effectively.
They could, if they really wanted, implement an inset cooldown timer on the secondary skill, which would vanish when the turret came off cooldown.
Or they could do a variation of their ammo counters, having each turret generate an ammo count that would decrease at a rate of one-per-second from their cooldown to 0.
I know. If you could turn it on or off on your screen, what’s the point of being a commander? 90% of people will not notice them anymore.
I don’t really care about this topic one way or another, but this is actually kind of an amusing thing to say. I’ll go ahead and break down why in a simple thought experiment:
- If 90% of people wouldn’t notice commanders if this happened, what does that say?
To me, that says ‘90% of people would turn commander tags off if they could.’
(I think that’s hyperbole, but I’m merely extrapolating from your own words.)
- Why would they turn off commander tags?
Obviously, they don’t want to see them at all, and don’t want to join any squads to only see one.
- If they don’t even want to see the tags, are commanders really necessary?
You say they are, and then you say nine-tenths of the playerbase would choose not to see them.
This leads me to believe otherwise, going by the implications of your own words.
So what’s the point of being a commander if this happens? The 10%(really, probably a much higher number, but again, only going by your own words) of players that don’t choose to ignore the commander tag, probably. After all, if I recall the last metric released properly, that’s…every single Charr player character ever made, or every single member of one or the other of the two least-played classes ever made. That’s a lot of people.
Also, vanity. You can pretend you shelled out the hundred gold for purely altruistic purposes, but in the end, there’s got to be at least a smidgen of ‘Look at me!’ involved to run around with a goofy blue badge thing floating over your noggin and then complain when people say they’d rather have the choice about whether or not to see it.
It doesn’t, really. Most minions/summons/pets got that HP buff, and can move or be traited to move.
Turrets are permanently immobile, and didn’t get the HP buff.
Yeah, they did look nice; the increase of a couple of the cooldowns was minimal, while it does also cater to the ‘improve pickup reduction’ crowd.
I really wouldn’t be surprised if those were accurate, and the ’they’re fake’ is supposed to give Anet leeway to modify based on feedback (that we can’t see, because the posts have been removed).
(I still think Turret placement cooldowns should start on placement, rather than on removal.)
Cloak and Dagger’s a major part of permastealth builds, I think, so that’s probably what you’re thinking of. It’s Dagger #5, if I recall correctly, and it’s probably the second stealth access most Thieves get.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/balance/Feature-Build-Balance-Preview/page/16#post3667926
Apparently we got bug fixes to turrets incoming:
We’ve fixed a lot of turret issues that were causing them to behave poorly or inconsistently (many of these issues have been reported via the bug forums, thanks guys!) In the coming patch, you’ll see quite a few improvements in this area. For example:
• Fixed the bug that was causing all turrets to have a lower rate of fire than intended.
• Fixed the bug that was preventing the overcharge for the Rifle Turret from increasing its rate of fire. – Karl McLainI am curious what other turret bug fixes will be on the list since there are may to choose from to fix. (Big thanks to Anymras for the list)
Aside from the fire rate issue, and the Rifle Turret having trouble with its fire rate…
There’s also Hitboxes, and overcharges still act oddly with Rifled Turret Barrels; they’ve tried to resolve RTB’s issues before, so maybe they’ve given that another pass, while fixing the hitboxes would be a massive improvement (which has been suggested by the recent leaked patch notes, and usually the patch note leaks haven’t been too far off from the mark; take with grain of salt due to Anet declaring these, in particular, false).
Hopefully they’ll also have resolved the Deployable Turret/RTB interaction that leaves Deployable Turrets stuck with the default range.
I doubt there’ll be resolution of the ‘World Bosses aren’t targeted,’ partially because that’s an issue that’s shared with at least Necromancer Marks – World Bosses just don’t count as enemies to these, and probably others.
Oh, and…no problem. I’m glad they’re finally doing something about that list.
…Yes, they do. Their first healing skill is a stealth-giving skill. They also start out with Steal, though I can’t guess which they’re balanced around.
I’ll be spending the first couple days running through the ‘fix list’ and testing, one way or another. I get the feeling they may have gutted the code entirely, but I’m not going to take a bloody thing on that list on faith.
Looks like, going by Rozbuska’s link (which is an example of legit-looking leaked notes) I’ll be checking fire rates, primarily, and continued function of overcharges. I will also be making a trip to Orr to check the hitboxes via PBAoE-wielding enemies.
Hopefully these aren’t really the entire patch notes – there’s still the issue of world bosses being untargetable, for example, though that’s actually a problem that’s shared with the Necromancer’s Marks.
(edited by Anymras.5729)
Well, you got the point, one way or another – the point being, of course, access.
We have to choose to gain access, but everyone else has it to begin with.
a new weapon wont make us less kit centric
Err, it would. Quite a bit so.
Right now if I want to melee on my Engineer, I need to equip a kit for it. Give me a melee weapon, I could go without a kit.Yes, I probably will equip a Grenade Kit or Elixir Gun for ranged combat, but I wouldn’t need to, necessarily. When running in organized groups, I very well might be specialized into Elixir Support, and just run my natural weapon so I can equip 3 utility elixirs and still provide endless AE stun with my Hammer (I can dream, right? : P).
It wouldn’t because of the way our weapons are balanced. Our weapons are balanced for the additional skills we get from kits, which is why nearly every build you see brings at least 1 kit and uses it liberally (even SD builds often have nades). Our weapons just aren’t strong enough to use on their own.
Just having a new weapon would not somehow make us less dependent on kits. The way our weapons are balanced would have to change.
I have to…well, I’m not sure if I have to agree.
After all, for quite a while, I used a build that lacked Kits entirely – Healing/Rifle/Flame/Thumper Turrets, P/S. Not that it wasn’t easier to use Kits (occasionally I would to reaffirm my hatred), but I just…didn’t use them much.
However, and this is why I’m not sure if I have to agree: The Engineer is currently balanced around something you can go from level 5 to level 80 without ever unlocking or having on your skill bar. This is stupid.
It’s only been six kittening months since that thread was started and acknowledged.
By the time those fixes are implemented, it’ll have been seven.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they’re being fixed (many of the bugs were reported via a thread I created and still curate), but this has been absurd for a while now. A little more alacrity would be appreciated – if only in making sure that bugs get fixed when a fix is available, not a month down the road.
It’ll still probably end up creating just as many issues, too.
(I promise I can be happy about things. Or at least less irritated. It just requires people to do their jobs, and the QA team probably hasn’t, going by prior experience.)
Edit: Also, if they can actually manage a miracle and not cause twenty more bugs, this would lay the groundwork for eventually improving Turrets.
Increased on-destroy + reduced range = “Well, I guess it’s not like I was playing anyway.”
I barely play, because the Turret skillset is so heavily bugged and bugfixing is so lacking. Rifle Turret, when I do play, is a mainstay of my build – because it has A ) decent range (900 untraited, 1000 traited) and B ) a short cooldown (20 seconds).
The decent range gives me room to move while still keeping enemies in range of it. It also makes it less likely to be destroyed.
Decreasing the range makes it more likely to be destroyed (because it’s closer to enemies), as well as reducing its ability to support an area (because it would less range than Pistol #1).
The short cooldown means that if/when it does get destroyed, it’s an inconvenience, but not an excessive one. I can Detonate it if I need/want to, and I view this as a valuable part of the Turret – traited, it brings both damage and control, as well as a blast finisher.
Increasing the on-destroy cooldown would cripple this. I can understand wanting to improve the pickup cooldown, but increasing the most likely cooldown – the one that enemies can trigger – just means more time spent going “Great, Turret’s destroyed.”
Combine the two, and you’ve not only removed the main draws to the Rifle Turret itself, you’ve created a compound issue – now it has to be closer to enemies, and will spend more time on cooldown when destroyed.
Nerfing one of the more versatile (in my opinion) Turrets in such a severe way would pretty well guarantee me simply uninstalling the game, instead of keeping it on my system while I wait to see if they ever fix the bugs.
The toolbelt thing does suck, but the bugs are why their attempts to balance are baffling.
There’s a considerable amount of bugs being worked on for turrets currently. (Special thanks to Anymras for putting the list together.) I know these things don’t happen as quickly as we (and you) would like to see them, but it’s a comin’.
You know, the more I think about this, the less convinced I am that the bugs are really being worked on.
I’ve typed and deleted a few explanations of why, but I’m going to try to keep this one as direct as I can, without deviating into ranting (harder than you might think): It’s been six months since the buglist was acknowledged, and almost none of the issues in even the first wave have been resolved.
I know there’s no hope of getting an ETA or progress update at all, and that really doesn’t help me trust that things are going to improve.
I’m a little tired of ivory towers and half-answers, of ’It’s happening, have patience,’ of beta-testing a product that should have been finished and functional more than a year ago.
They say to vote with your money, and, well…I’ll not be giving ANet or NCSoft a dime more than I did when I bought the game.
but then how would engi be different from warrior, guard, mes, ranger, thief, or necro? homogenized gameplay gets stale.
It’s funny, I’m…pretty sure all those classes actually have different weapon and utility skills, as well as traits and class mechanics, from each other. They also each have different niches they fill to a greater or lesser degree.
How are they homogenized? I’m actually curious as to what the answer will be.
Variety for the sake of variety is a mistake; it might be the spice of life, but I’ve overseasoned steak before, and that was not pleasant.
You want to be moderate with your spices, not slap them on just because you can.
The damage adjustment wouldn’t, due to increased rate of fire, be a nerf, actually. Current Turret deals 188 base, with a fire rate of (theoretically) 2 seconds, while this would deal 118 base, with a fire rate of (theoretically) 1 second.
Damage per two seconds, therefore, might be 188 vs 236.
The issue with the attack is the reduced range, in conjunction with the proposed increase of on-destroy cooldown.
Increased on-destroy + reduced range = “Well, I guess it’s not like I was playing anyway.”
The Overcharge should also fit what the Turret is supposed to be. A Rifle Turret might, instead fire more slowly, with each shot dealing more damage and possibly Dazing or dealing knockback (though they could telegraphed with a laser sight).
Thumper Turret’s regular attack makes the suggested 600-radius Cripple redundant, besides.
Rifle turret:
Cooldown 30 seconds, 5s when picking up. 3s channel to place it. Can be used on the move.
I’m not a fan of this line at all. The increased cooldown is a problem, and the channeling…I just don’t see that ending well. I don’t expect the pickup cooldown to actually be useful, in light of the rest of this Turret, either.
Fires pistol #1 damage, traitable with target pierce, without explosion or conditions. Traitable with bleeding on shot.
Attacks per second: 1.0, range: 600
…so its regular attack is basically a worse Pistol #1 that can be traited to give Bleeding and Pierce. The faster fire rate might make up for that, but…I don’t know, really. Requires a bit more math than I’m going to subject myself to.
Edit: It would, as this would reduce the damage by…about a third, I guess, while doubling or tripling the fire rate.
Also, 600 Range, really? Increase the on-destroy cooldown, decrease the range, and hope people can pick it up before it gets destroyed? Not liking that. Even has shorter range than Pistol #1, now that I think about it.
Overcharge: fires 12 shots in a circle around the turret, 600 range, each bullet crippling for 1 second. 30s cooldown.
Toolbelt skill: same as overcharge, but from your character.
Let’s leave Cripple to the Thumper turret. Especially relatively close-range Cripple. Rifle Turret shouldn’t be in the fray, it should be firing into it.
15k health 3k armor, trait for -10% damage received & 10% more damage dealt.
Immune to conditions but not to CC. They can be pushed around.
I’m not sure what those HP/Armor numbers would be equivalent to, honestly, so I’m not going to comment on those. However…it does look like you’ve nerfed traits. Really not a fan of that. Especially with this interpretation of Rifle Turret.
Cons: Longer on-destroy cooldown, shorter range, nerfed traits, channeling required.
Pros: Increase in damage, possible increase in survivability (don’t know current Rifle Turret HP/armor numbers), shorter on-pickup cooldown.
I wouldn’t use this.
(edited by Anymras.5729)
I can’t use the build I want to use without having to deal with almost thirty bugs.
They’ve known of them for six months, but no action has been taken – except to tell us that they will eventually be addressed.
Maybe they really will be, but by then, will I still even check the game release notes before deciding not to bother logging on?
Mmmh.. if i well remember a dev recently stated they are going to work on the bugs.It will be a long and slow work i guess.
They said they were working on them. At this point, I think they’re probably recoding chunks of the game to reduce spaghetticode.
As somebody thought shocking to discover, people on forums tend to be the vocal minority. If somebody is happy with how things are going, usually they end up just…playing the game.
I don’t mind if it takes a long time if it means they actually get it working. Rushing content is why Living Story is often bugged in stupid ways, why Turrets barely work…
Patience is necessary.
Making Turrets competitive starts with two things, in my opinion – aside from the bugfixing.
Ranked in order of probable ease:
- Cooldown adjustment. I’m a fan of the start-on-placement, myself.
- Scaling.
This has its upsides and downsides. Using the current state of Turrets as justification, though, is a bad idea; any potential change needs to be something that can be kept even in the face of improvements.
In addition, the entire cycle of putting down and picking up would have less downtime than there is between shots – even with Rifle Turret, which currently has the quickest firing cycle, this would result in more attacks than intended and ultimately cause issues. There’s also a couple bugs affecting on-placement shots, but I’m not going into those here.
Josh Davis says they’re working on the bugs, so let’s try to come up with ways to improve them that don’t hinge on them not working.
I think there’s a slightly different version that I, personally, favor:
Cooldown starts when Turret is placed.
Picking Turret up still causes the 25% reduction to cooldown.
Example of effect:
Rifle Turret has a cooldown of 20 seconds. I’ll use this as the example.
If this idea were implemented, if Rifle Turret remained on the field for 20 seconds and was destroyed, it would immediately come off of cooldown.
(20-20=0)
If it were on the field for 15 seconds and was destroyed, it would have 5 seconds left on its cooldown.
(20-15=5)
Pick it up instead, and it’s off cooldown.
(20/4=5, 5+15=20, 20-20=0)
By subtracting uptime from downtime:
- Turret-users would be encouraged to keep Turrets out rather than drop-and-pop – but strategic detonation would become far more effective a tactic due to increased frequency, encouraging a more active style of play – there’s precious little to be gained by having the Turret out for the full five minutes, so why not Detonate it and reposition?
- Turreteers would be more inclined toward riskier, but more tactical, placement of Turrets if the punishment for their destruction was less severe.
- Also, if this were implemented and Turrets made capable of being threatening, enemies in PvP would find it important to cull the Turrets in order to slow the Engineer’s placement down.
I believe this would increase the fun quotient of Turret Engineers, from both the viewpoint of the person fighting them and the person playing them, without creating exploitable issues.
My opinion on crits:
Don’t put them on Turrets. Or any other minion-esque thing spawned by Utility or Elite skill.
Scale Precision and crit damage into the base damage, at a reduced rate, instead.
Leave them on Ranger Pets, though; it’s the class mechanic, and therefore is separate, to my mind.
Reasoning:
It seems to me that, while it would be nice for Turrets to be able to crit, it’s a bad idea because that means up to six distinct sources of potentially critical damage, each with different timing (making it difficult to dodge or block consistently, regardless of skill). Five, if the Turret-user runs away after placing the Turrets, with no action possible if the Turret-user can get far enough away, making it relatively safe, even by comparison to any other minion-style build I’m aware of.
This creates the question of how to balance the resulting mass of criticals, especially in light of the safety of the drop-and-dash tactic.
It seems most likely to result in reduction of the base damage of the Turrets to compensate, or perhaps the scaling would be so miniscule as to be pointless.
Instead, implementing a reduced-rate conversion of Crit Damage and Precision to Power, alongside Power scaling in general, would increase the direct damage of the Turret, hopefully allowing them to keep up in terms of damage. In theory, this could also prevent them from drawing nerfs as a result of ‘Whoah, that Engineer just got how many crits?’
That said, if they’ve got them on every other minion-esque thing?
Fair’s fair. Give ‘em. And the HP boost, too, don’t try to tell us Turrets aren’t minions.
Obviously there must not be much outcry about minion-crit builds, for other minions to have crits.
It’s already been reported as an issue, don’t worry.
The tooltips have been saying there’s power scaling for months, pretty sure. Just…had a faint hope that maybe they’d have actually done it.
Maybe eventually they’ll carry it through to actual function. Of course, these are the same people that haven’t fixed any of the old Turret bugs in the six months since I started my buglists; whether they say they’re working on them or not, I’m not going to hold my breath on any smart decisions, like implementation of broader scaling and resolution of issues, regarding Turrets.
@Adamantium, They didn’t, but at some point ANet changed that. It’s not huge power scaling however, but, it’s extra damage regardless.
Really? Did they actually make them scale, or is just the tooltip readout?
They’ll probably instance the whole thing anyway.
Raise our armor class to heavy, raise our HP to warrior levels, give us more reliable stability, and bunker engineers would be ridiculously overpowered.
(I really do want the ability to disable or at least dye my hobosacks though. ANet please.)
Would just raising our armor class make bunker engineers overpowered? We already have more health than Guardians.
So I truly think it’s better to just leave them stationary and adjust them in ways they really need (i.e. more durability, less buggy targeting and attacking, impactful functionality that doesn’t rely on gimmicks, not locking out of tool belt skills, &c.).
I second this. If they make them work better as Turrets, and synergize with the user more effectively, then the lack of mobility might not be such a problem
It’s been thought of. For a while, that was ‘the big thing’ in trying to make Turrets viable – a Grandmaster trait that would make them mobile, with RTB being moved to Master, Metal-Plated fused with Autotool and put at Adept. I think this was after the great Make Turrets Attack Your Target (which Anet bollocked the implementation of, for those who actually wanted it).
No idea how it would have worked in conjunction with Deployable Turrets.