Cepa, I think the upshot of all your posts in this threat is that you just do not like playing an Engineer. And that's okay! If you enjoy your guardian or your elementalist more, that's great. You should play them instead. However, coming to the Engineer forum to convince everybody here that their engineers are totally useless is not likely to be a successful venture. If you don't enjoy the way the Engineer class handles CC, that's fine. Some of us DO actually enjoy playing a Control Engineer of some sort or other, and it is unlikely that you will be able to convince us to delete our characters and roll something else.
I enjoy playing Grenadier (AoE damage and limited AoE control), and I also enjoy playing single-target damage and control with a rifle. There are unquestionably professions that do AoE control better than a SD-specced Engineer and professions that do single-target damage better than an SD-specced Engineer, and so on, but I invite you to find me a single class that can do ALL of that better than an Engineer without having to change specs. I reckon one of the reasons most of us like the Engineer is its versatility, and I've been hard pressed to find a more versatile class than this one.
You get the picture wrong, which is probably because you read the posts from midway when I've already gotten into some arguments, and as a general rule of thumb in forums ANY argument that happen, will happen so in a manner that derails from the original topic...
This is my original argument: If they nerf Grenade, they should find some way to buff the damage of the other kits such that an engineer can do compatible damage with some of the other professions. I'd argue this not only for engineers, but for all professions. ANet have stated again and again and again that every profession should be able to perform every role, I'd like to see them working toward that promise, and balancing engineer is just one of the steps.
Here's how it got derailed: I pointed out that without grenade damage, we do not have a "pure dps option", hence it IS of concern of engineers and people SHOULD be talking about it. This is in direct response to "engineer is fine and everyone who doesn't want grenades nerfed is complaining too much". I'm saying, engineer is of course "fine" in many ways, but there's no reason to shut people up if they're concerned about losing the only high damage option to the profession.
And here's where it got into the argument of conditions/crowd control: Some argue that having lots of conditions means we do not need a viable pure damage option at all, which I disagree with. There are sacrifices to be made and definitely not everyone wants to make them, but having an option means that we CAN choose to make that sacrifice IF we wanted to. Further, some have argued that engineer SHOULD be played as a support/crowd control profession, which I further disagree with: Again, this goes against the philosophy of ANet's description that every profession should be able to diversify into all kinds of roles. Besides, I spent several posts trying to point out that there is no evidence pointing to engineer as THE crowd control character --- why do we want to pigeon hole ourselves into a particular role, when others are able to be diverse? Of course you should enjoy playing a condition engineer, but is that ground for bashing your fellow engineers for wanting to do direct damage?
The whole comparison between professions is to bring one point: While engineers CAN excel at certain things, other professions CAN as well. Therefore, the engineers shouldn't be barred from performing certain roles when other professions can (for example, damage), and hence "will I be able to do enough damage after the patch" is a legitimate concern. If others CANNOT do what the engineer does even if they've specced and built fully toward that goal, then something is wrong. Picking a profession does not automatically make us a "unique snowflake", picking our traits/builds on top of our profession will do that. Besides, to say "we are the best at CC and no others come near" when a Guardian has spent 30+ trait points and lots of gears on a CC build, is arrogant. And to deny the damage opportunity to your fellow engineers is similarly very baffling.
I invite you to read through all my posts again, you'd see that in no place have I disregarded condition damage/crowd control. OK I've been a little "harsh" on the engineer compared to other professions, which is really a cynical view of the situation and one that is intended to be a "com back argument". That was in direct reply to comments that suggest "engineer is superior support over other professions", which I find to be arrogant and untrue. Bottom line is: I've invested just as much time and effort into my engineer, I shouldn't tell you how to play your engineer, why should you tell me how to play mine? I'd welcome a buff to engineer's support ability even if I've got 30 30 0 0 10 as my traits, why should you try to silence the concerns over our most potent damage spec? Yes you can be perfectly happy with your engineer, I'm quite happy with mine too, but there is such a thing called "the greater good" which starts with supporting the community's concerns and ends in everybody being happier than even before.
Edited by CepaCepa, 15 November 2012 - 01:35 AM.