The GW2 Mesmer: A critical reflection after BWE1

[Alaris]

I was jumping on the attitude that they were here 'explaining the misunderstood Mesmer', the assumption of their own correctness

Yes, I can see how that would be irritating to someone who was wrong and refused to accept his wrongness.

Differences of opinion are fine, but you said a lot of things that are just factually wrong, and that needs to be corrected if you want to debate. I said it nice. But after a while re-explaining the same things, I don't care to sugarcoat it for you.

Again, back to my point that people who didn't like the GW1 Mesmer prefer the GW2.

We should have a poll. I'd be curious to know how widespread that is, actually.

I wonder if it would be possible to get a petition going for Mesmer interupts and Degen to be resurrected.

*sigh* at least say interrupt role and degen role in your petition. I'm still waiting for some explanation as to how the current minstrel isn't doing degen via his songs.

Daze, similarly, is not the same as an interruption.

From GW2 wiki: "Daze is an effect caused by some skills which interrupts and prevents the target from using skills for a period of time."

All that needs to happen is they need to add a more intentional interruption and degen focus

I'd like your comments on the build I posted above.

[EnoughAlready]

Yes Yes Yes to all of the below. And especial thanks to Teina for the point by point.

Not enough precision, not enough control, not enough Mesmer. To random, to long a delay.

And much of what has been classified in this thread as interupt, strictly speaking, isn't. Daze is Daze, it interrupts as a consequence, an artefact of its action, not as its purpose.

Exactly. There's a feel to the playstyle of GW1 Mesmer that is not in the GW2 version. One can justify all they want based on skill descriptions and such, but GW1 Mesmer is more than just interrupt and empathy/backfire. A couple of examples:

In GW1, Rangers can also interrupt and degen in the form of conditions. Yet there is a distinct feel to the Ranger compared to the Mesmer. Many Mesmer players dislike the lack of immediacy (arrow flight time) and lack of certainty (dodged arrows) of Rangers. To me, the GW2 mesmer is no more the GW1 Mesmer as the GW1 Ranger is the GW1 Mesmer.

In GW2, guardians have heals and protection skills. But I would not consider them GW1 Monks. Just because they share similar skill effects does not make them play the same way. To me, that's the biggest difference between GW2 mesmer and GW1 Mesmer. They don't play the same.

-T

Not picking on you, Fluffball, just using your post to expand more on the whole gameplay feel:



Slow and possible to miss, more like GW1 Ranger interrupt than Mesmer.



Clone/Phantom destruction dependant, thus slow and not dependable for interrupting key skills.



Downed state, so special case.



Random, so not dependable.



These two are the only skills that are possibly close to the GW1 Mesmer interrupts (but see below).



Note that interrupts in GW2 is already different than interrupts in GW1. By design, they moved away from ping dependency and shutdown, which were major features of GW1 Mesmer.



By design, they de-emphasized shutdown, the bread-and-butter of GW1 Mesmer. Whether this is good for the game is up for discussion, but GW2 mesmer is not the GW1 Mesmer.

-T

Lol I actually almost wrote the exact same post as Teina, but didn't want to look like I was trying to prove anyone wrong or anything haha

In addition to the above, there's also the potential delay involved in using clones instead of a direct skill to interrupt, plus the uncertainty with skills like Trick Shot and Chaos Storm (ie. Will the right condition land on the right target). In that case, my warrior can potentially interrupt faster.

Again, the point isn't that Mesmers can't do anything or even that one version is better. The point is that they're different and some of us prefer the old version.

Tapatalk'd

I don't want to see the GW2 Mesmer go back to being a simple modification of a GW1 Mesmer. I'm okay with the changed nature of gameplay. My main concern is the "chance to apply a random condition". Mesmers are not random. They are calculating, masters of illusion. The Mesmer is a targeted and specialized role, which is why it was so hard to play and a relatively rare class in GW1.

Daze, similarly, is not the same as an interruption. I do agree that the GW2 Mesmer has a role to play as a condition spammer or shutdown caster, but think about the giant epic boss battles where bosses are telegraphing their attacks, dozens of players are zerg rushing, and so on. The Mesmer has a role to play here as a crowd protector by giving us direct and lasting interrupt and shutdown abilities.

Really, the skills they have already given us are probably sufficient. All that needs to happen is they need to add a more intentional interruption and degen focus rather than random conditions or conditions that are more appropriate for a physical attacker than an illusionary one.

I knew I was in trouble when one of my backstories was running away to join the circus...lol

[EnoughAlready]

Yes, I can see how that would be irritating to someone who was wrong and refused to accept his wrongness.

*sigh* I know I shouldn't feed the troll... so I'll just thank you for underscoring my earlier point about your attitude and manner.

[teina]

OK you two, enough of the tangent. You've both made your points. Now stick to topic please.

-T

[Alaris]

And much of what has been classified in this thread as interupt, strictly speaking, isn't. Daze is Daze, it interrupts as a consequence, an artefact of its action, not as its purpose.

I think we should let daze decide what it's purpose was.

By design, they moved away from ping dependency and shutdown, which were major features of GW1 Mesmer.

Agreed, and I consider this a good thing personally, though I would not have been to upset if it stayed as one way to play it.

There are some skills that interrupt without clones or being downed though, I didn't get to try them... would those be viable for the ping-based interrupt mesmer?

By design, they de-emphasized shutdown, the bread-and-butter of GW1 Mesmer. Whether this is good for the game is up for discussion, but GW2 mesmer is not the GW1 Mesmer.

I'd be curious to know your comments on my interrupt-focused mesmer build in this thread.

While the gameplay is different from a GW1 mesmer in that this one does other things than just interrupt, how would you judge it in terms of shutdown? I think it could be very effective as shutdown.

[RD]

I don't want to see the GW2 Mesmer go back to being a simple modification of a GW1 Mesmer. I'm okay with the changed nature of gameplay. My main concern is the "chance to apply a random condition". Mesmers are not random. They are calculating, masters of illusion. The Mesmer is a targeted and specialized role, which is why it was so hard to play and a relatively rare class in GW1.

Not anymore lol Guess all our descendants got lazy over the last 200 years.

There are some skills that interrupt without clones or being downed though, I didn't get to try them... would those be viable for the ping-based interrupt mesmer?

I'd be curious to know your comments on my interrupt-focused mesmer build in this thread.

While the gameplay is different from a GW1 mesmer in that this one does other things than just interrupt, how would you judge it in terms of shutdown? I think it could be very effective as shutdown.

Mesmers in GW 1 did things other than shutdown. I almost never played interrupt or shutdown. I played more of a punishment role.

I wasn't going to comment on the build, but since you asked twice... :)
1- Trick Shot is unreliable as an interrupt. For one, it can miss. Secondly, it needs to travel to your target, so it's not instant. Finally, only the first shot has the chance to interrupt who you want: There's no way to really plan who gets hit with the third shot. EDIT: Also, aren't there a bunch of skills that block projectiles in GW 2?
2- Diversion requires the use of clones and it dazes their target, not yours.
3- Power Lock is the only classic interrupt on this build, but you can only use it once. If you miss, it's down until you can channel your mantra again. I didn't get to use any mantras this beta, but from what I know of them, you have to prepare them before combat.

So, yeah, your build can be used for interrupts, but it seems like you'd be crippling yourself in terms of being useful to your group. You can't even switch your weapon set without losing the only skill you have that can be used to interrupt your target more than once (Trick Shot).

Also, where's the fourth interrupt?

[Alaris]

Mesmers in GW 1 did things other than shutdown. I almost never played interrupt or shutdown. I played more of a punishment role.

Well, it's quite satisfying to hit an interrupt on an important spell.

1- Trick Shot is unreliable as an interrupt. For one, it can miss. Secondly, it needs to travel to your target, so it's not instant. Finally, only the first shot has the chance to interrupt who you want: There's no way to really plan who gets hit with the third shot.

1) Correct. As I do most of my interrupts on a ranger, that doesn't bother me though.
2) Also correct, see above.
3) Not likely that I know what my non-targets are doing. I see it as collateral interrupting similar to Cry of Frustration.

2- Diversion requires the use of clones and it dazes their target, not yours.
3- Illusionary Mage is also entirely too random to be reliable. And, as Quintus pointed out, GW 1 Mesmers were not random.

True. So it works well in 1vs1 or against bosses, not so much in large fights.

4- Power Lock is the only classic interrupt on this build, but you can only use it once. If you miss, it's down until you can channel your mantra again. I didn't get to use any mantras this beta, but from what I know of them, you have to prepare them before combat.

You can recharge them during combat, but the cast time is long. Also, there's a trait so you can use it twice before needing to recharge it.

5- Confusing Images looks okay, but I don't know how it works (cast time, when confusion is applied).

Dunno either. I assume it's a fairly standard interrupt though.

So, yeah, your build can be used for interrupts, but it seems like you'd be crippling yourself in terms of being useful to your group. You can't even switch your weapon set without losing the only skill you have that can be used to interrupt your target more than once.

I'm not sure I'd be crippling the group, provided I was decent at interrupting and foes actually needed interrupting. Admittedly, this is speculative... if only we had a similar game where we can judge if interrupting is useful to the team (hummmm).

I managed to interrupt a meteor shower during the press beta, I think that was a skill well used.

As for switching weapons, I'll regularly swap weapons to use up my long-recharge skills, provided my weapon is good for the range.

[teina]

While the gameplay is different from a GW1 mesmer in that this one does other things than just interrupt, how would you judge it in terms of shutdown? I think it could be very effective as shutdown.

But I think gameplay difference is the heart of Quintus' OP, so we can't turn a blind eye to it in this discussion. RDarken pretty much covered many of the points already. I didn't unlock the utility skills on your build, so I can't comment on those. But otherwise, as already been said, the build is too imprecise and slow (need to build up clones first, for example, to shatter). I would also add that a lot of the effects have very short duration compared to either recharge or time it takes to build up clones, or both (ex.: Cry of Frustration).

Now, from a general, "let's forget there was ever a GW1 Mesmer" perspective, I would personally use Torch with Sword. IMO Torch's The Prestige synergizes better with the melee sword. In fact that was what I was running in BWE: Scepter+Pistol and Sword+Torch.

-T

Edit:

1) Correct. As I do most of my interrupts on a ranger, that doesn't bother me though.

I think that sums up the issue. Many GW1 Mesmer players don't want to play a Ranger. Otherwise, they would have played a Ranger.

[Alaris]

But I think gameplay difference is the heart of Quintus' OP, so we can't turn a blind eye to it in this discussion.

Far from it my intention. A lot of my rebuttals have to do with pointing out that some things people claim are gone (to use their words) are actually still in the game but changed.

Whenever people point out valid changes like delays I totally acknowledge that as a valid criticism. Btw, I think I was one of the first to point out the delay in interrupting with clones (thanks to press beta; see the mesmer experience article). Some people don't like the idea of clones and phantasms, so despite it being something that crept up in mesmer suggestions before the reveal, I think it's fair some people don't like it. If they understand those are essentially hexes, that's fine.

The question about shutdown wasn't to ignore gameplay differences, but rather to also discuss another important aspect: role. If a GW2 mesmer can be played as shutdown or interrupt or whatever, but the gameplay is different, then that's something. If the role is absent (it does not appear to be) or simply not useful (hopefully that is not the case), then that's a different story altogether.

the build is too imprecise and slow (...) a lot of the effects have very short duration compared to either recharge or time it takes to build up clones, or both

That seems to be true across the board, by that I mean across professions. Conditions and shutdowns tend to have shorter durations, heals tend to be lower, and damage tends to be less deadly (but harder to recover from).

Scepter+Pistol and Sword+Torch.

Ah, that does provide a better synergy. I put them that way because it seemed to make more sense from a stylistic perspective. Mesmers are supposed to be masters of style, no?

I think that sums up the issue. Many GW1 Mesmer players don't want to play a Ranger. Otherwise, they would have played a Ranger. :grin;

Well, I did enjoy the BHA ranger, so maybe my bias is showing.

[EnoughAlready]

OK you two, enough of the tangent. You've both made your points. Now stick to topic please.

-T

Yes Matron

Far from it my intention. A lot of my rebuttals have to do with pointing out that some things people claim are gone (to use their words) are actually still in the game but changed.

And this is the crux. If you enter the grand national one year with a thoroughbred race hoarse, and then the next year with a donkey, you can't claim that it's the same thing because it's basically the same shape and you've called it the same name as before. Or take your wife's engagement ring to be repaired and replace all the diamonds with zirconia, good luck convincing her that it might have changed, but it's basically the same really.

The changes, as have been delineated over and again, have altered the functionality to such an extent that it isn't the same thing.