Obtena.7952

OK it's bad ... but swapping elements is STILL a class mechanic. This isn't up for debate. Any argument otherwise is absurd. If it's that bad and you don't like it ... hey, class choices, you got em.

> @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > That's true, I'm not, because the thread isn't about balance. The OP is VERY clear about what this thread is about: > > > > > > > > > > > > _This is mainly a complaint about core ele, as tempest has overloads and weaver skills 3 are on par with other classes skills (aka real skills), so the specializations have mechanics._ > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not about balance ... his complaint is LITERALLY that ele doesn't have a mechanic. That's not true ... and you have grasped onto that untruth to make this thread your soapbox to complain about ele balance because of changes over time you don't like. It certainly doesn't help that on top of all that, you continually make untrue statements to proceed in dishonest, perpetual argument. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, idk. Look at the profession mechanic page on guild wars 2 wiki and read off all the core mechanics. All of them add something. Ele is the only one that is a full replacement of how a system works like, weapon swapping, and then that's it. > > > > > > > > It's obvious ele has a class mechanic. There should be NO debate on this. > > > > > > > > > > You didnt read any of my statement besides the first sentence apparently. Ok what if we take away thieves steal and revs ancient echo? that would be fair and cool, right? > > > > I don't know ... what if you did? What does that have to do with the fact that ele has a class mechanic? > > Because every other profession mechanic can be removed from a class and replaced with another without destroying the fabric of how their skills work besides ele. That doesn't mean ele doesn't have a class mechanic. >Ele's mechanic is their weapon skills, you can't do anything with that. It's not a mechanic, its a different type of skill set. That doesn't make sense ... there isn't a rule that says swapping elements to get different weapon skills isn't a mechanic.

> @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > That's true, I'm not, because the thread isn't about balance. The OP is VERY clear about what this thread is about: > > > > > > > > _This is mainly a complaint about core ele, as tempest has overloads and weaver skills 3 are on par with other classes skills (aka real skills), so the specializations have mechanics._ > > > > > > > > That's not about balance ... his complaint is LITERALLY that ele doesn't have a mechanic. That's not true ... and you have grasped onto that untruth to make this thread your soapbox to complain about ele balance because of changes over time you don't like. It certainly doesn't help that on top of all that, you continually make untrue statements to proceed in dishonest, perpetual argument. > > > > > > > > > > > Well, idk. Look at the profession mechanic page on guild wars 2 wiki and read off all the core mechanics. All of them add something. Ele is the only one that is a full replacement of how a system works like, weapon swapping, and then that's it. > > > > It's obvious ele has a class mechanic. There should be NO debate on this. > > > > You didnt read any of my statement besides the first sentence apparently. Ok what if we take away thieves steal and revs ancient echo? that would be fair and cool, right? You're partially correct ... because ele DOES have a class mechanic EVEN if it's similar to weapon swapping. Let's stay on topic here. I don't know ... what if you did? What does that have to do with the fact that ele DOES has a class mechanic? This isn't open for debate; ele DOES have a class mechanic.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > That is for sure what you did i am not sure how you see you self here. No, I did NOT tell someone to switch class because they suggested something. That is NOT the reason I said that. That's just your disaster of a misinterpretation of what I said. > That is balance for core ele if you buff ANY thing on core ele you buff tempest and weaver The complaint was NOT about balance.

> @"ScottBroChill.3254" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > That's true, I'm not, because the thread isn't about balance. The OP is VERY clear about what this thread is about: > > > > _This is mainly a complaint about core ele, as tempest has overloads and weaver skills 3 are on par with other classes skills (aka real skills), so the specializations have mechanics._ > > > > That's not about balance ... his complaint is LITERALLY that ele doesn't have a mechanic. That's not true ... and you have grasped onto that untruth to make this thread your soapbox to complain about ele balance because of changes over time you don't like. It certainly doesn't help that on top of all that, you continually make untrue statements to proceed in dishonest, perpetual argument. > > > > > Well, idk. Look at the profession mechanic page on guild wars 2 wiki and read off all the core mechanics. All of them add something. Ele is the only one that is a full replacement of how a system works like, weapon swapping, and then that's it. It's obvious ele has a class mechanic. There should be NO debate on this.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > It is i am not sure how you not getting this its as bad as saying "just win" to some one losing. > > > > > > > > Well, firstly, that comparison is nonsense ... you don't CHOOSE to lose ... just like all the other not true and irrelevant statements you have made in this thread. > > > > > > > > > Its logic > > > > > > > > Really? So the guy that uses untrue and irrelevant statements to justify his position is trying to school ME on logic? OK. That's funny. > > > > > > > > > I am not sure how you do not see your doing the same thing when you suggest to some one play another class. > > > > > > > > Because exercising choice to enjoy the game IS a valid and reasonable approach, despite your objections to that method. > > > > > > Right that the point of making it its a joke at the person expenses who are not able to do what they want to do. > > > > That's _not true_ ... you can do what you want based on the criteria you have used to make choices. If your criteria are too restrictive, you need to reconsider them. Anet can't make the game cater to individual ideas for how the game works. > > > > See, the big problem here is that lots of people don't have a problem choosing ele and teaming and being successful. So the rhetoric you are making here about ele needing change because 'balance' is just one big _not true_ story you've invented to justify ele buffs. You're just not being honest in how player choice affects people playing how they want. You're also not being honest if you think that a buff to the class mechanic will make the class more desirable for people to team with. Anet can't make the game so that EVERYTHING you want conforms to your criteria and how you want to play OR who people want to team with. This is EXACTLY the reason we have all these options to choose from in the first place. > > > > > My view is to stick with something not to find something else. > > > > Right ... so if your primary criteria for choosing a class is 'to stick with it' ... then that's more important to you than anything else. That's not a problem Anet needs to fix for you. We've already covered this so clearly you're just ignoring me. That's OK, because saying things that aren't true or irrelevant doesn't change how choice affects player game satisfaction and neither does ignoring the truth of that statement. > > > > > so you must work with others and by doing so you MUST provide value to them. This cut your ability to play as you want. > > > > That's _not true_. If you team with people that tell you to bring a certain category or level of value ... that's a CHOICE you made; you have GIVEN UP playing how you want to get into that team. > > > > Funny, you don't have a problem making all these bad choices that negatively affect how you play ... but when someone suggests making good choices for yourself, you have massive issues with that. This is the dishonesty I'm talking about. You argue that you don't want to experience negative things ... then turn around and make choices where you expose yourself to them. > > So wait its ok to come to an class form and tell some one to play another class because of a suggestion? That's not an honest assessment. I'm not telling anyone to play another class because of a suggestion they are making. That's nonsense. > Your not dealing with the point of what anet had to do to core ele to bring balance to tempest and weaver That's true, I'm not, because the thread isn't about balance. The OP is VERY clear about what this thread is about: _This is mainly a complaint about core ele, as tempest has overloads and weaver skills 3 are on par with other classes skills (aka real skills), so the specializations have mechanics._ That's not about balance ... his complaint is LITERALLY that ele doesn't have a mechanic. That's not true ... and you have grasped onto that untruth to make this thread your soapbox to complain about ele balance because of changes over time you don't like. It certainly doesn't help that on top of all that, you continually make untrue statements to proceed in dishonest, perpetual argument.

> @"Nephalem.8921" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > If we were talking about WoW, your proof might have some relevance to this discussion. This is GW2 and GW2 is PURPOSEFULLY not designed like WoW. Nothing you can present will change the fact that if you impose (or allows others to impose) restrictions on how you play, you aren't playing inline with the design of the game. > > > > This arrogance is what made anthem and the first ff14 iteration fail hard. They are not that different afterall. Not looking at highly successful competitors is not working. A dodge key and unified buff/debuff system dont make gw2 completely different. 40% lower dps than the top performer is unacceptable. > There isn't any arrogance. GW2 does NOT need to follow in the footsteps of highly successful competitors to be an MMO that people want to play. In fact, the proof there is the fact that it's still here. If 40% lower dps than the top performer is unacceptable TO YOU, then don't play that option but DON'T try to pretend this is some barrier to using that option and being successful with it in the game. People can and are successful with that option because of how the game is designed. See, that's the nonsensical part ... GW2 is designed in this way ... so it follows logically that the classes are balanced around this design, not that of it's highly successful competitors. That wouldn't make sense for Anet to balance classes to some higher threshold of success because it's not necessary and it's not inline with allowing people to play how they want either, which is a major selling point of this game. What would that accomplish given the _current_ success threshold of game content? Saying things like "_40% lower dps than the top performer is unacceptable_" is just a thinly-veiled ruse to continually push for buffs for people's favoured classes that aren't actually needed in the content you are justifying them for.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > It is i am not sure how you not getting this its as bad as saying "just win" to some one losing. > > > > Well, firstly, that comparison is nonsense ... you don't CHOOSE to lose ... just like all the other not true and irrelevant statements you have made in this thread. > > > > > Its logic > > > > Really? So the guy that uses untrue and irrelevant statements to justify his position is trying to school ME on logic? OK. That's funny. > > > > > I am not sure how you do not see your doing the same thing when you suggest to some one play another class. > > > > Because exercising choice to enjoy the game IS a valid and reasonable approach, despite your objections to that method. > > Right that the point of making it its a joke at the person expenses who are not able to do what they want to do. That's _not true_ ... you can do what you want based on the criteria you have used to make choices. If your criteria are too restrictive, you need to reconsider them. Anet can't make the game cater to individual ideas for how the game works. See, the big problem here is that lots of people don't have a problem choosing ele and teaming and being successful. So the rhetoric you are making here about ele needing change because 'balance' is just one big _not true_ story you've invented to justify ele buffs. You're just not being honest in how player choice affects people playing how they want. You're also not being honest if you think that a buff to the class mechanic will make the class more desirable for people to team with. Anet can't make the game so that EVERYTHING you want conforms to your criteria and how you want to play OR who people want to team with. This is EXACTLY the reason we have all these options to choose from in the first place. > My view is to stick with something not to find something else. Right ... so if your primary criteria for choosing a class is 'to stick with it' ... then that's more important to you than anything else. That's not a problem Anet needs to fix for you. We've already covered this so clearly you're just ignoring me. That's OK, because saying things that aren't true or irrelevant doesn't change how choice affects player game satisfaction and neither does ignoring the truth of that statement. > so you must work with others and by doing so you MUST provide value to them. This cut your ability to play as you want. That's _not true_. If you team with people that tell you to bring a certain category or level of value ... that's a CHOICE you made; you have GIVEN UP playing how you want to get into that team. Funny, you don't have a problem making all these bad choices that negatively affect how you play ... but when someone suggests making good choices for yourself, you have massive issues with that. This is the dishonesty I'm talking about. You argue that you don't want to experience negative things ... then turn around and make choices where you expose yourself to them.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > It is i am not sure how you not getting this its as bad as saying "just win" to some one losing. Well, firstly, that comparison is nonsense ... you don't CHOOSE to lose ... just like all the other not true and irrelevant statements you have made in this thread. > Its logic Really? So the guy that uses untrue and irrelevant statements to justify his position is trying to school ME on logic? OK. That's funny. > I am not sure how you do not see your doing the same thing when you suggest to some one play another class. Because exercising choice to enjoy the game IS a valid and reasonable approach, despite your objections to that method.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > > > So you went off talking about how i am not the player base ... > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that's _not true_ (maybe I need to trademark this ... what do you guys think?) > > > > > > > > > > > > I said you are only a PART of the playerbase, so you can't make blanket statements about what the playerbase thinks should change for ele. Therefore, Anet can't change the game to cater to how you think ele should work. > > > > > > > > > > > > >It is your the attker here i am the defer sry > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that's _not true_. You were the FIRST person to respond to ME in this thread, seemingly because you don't think having choice is a reasonable approach to finding satisfaction with the game. Being apologetic doesn't give you a license to say things that aren't true. > > > > > > > > > > > > >So you cant do any thing for the core ele out side of giving the class its own mechanic. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that's _not true_. Making the mechanic that ALREADY exists on ele and changing it so it's unique only to ele is NOT the ONLY way to 'do anything' for it. That's nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You made the point that it was not important to point out most of the player base dose not use these forms it is. > > > > > > > > No, that's _not true_. Furthermore, it's irrelevant as well. > > > > > You went after the op. > > > > > > > > That's _not true_ and absurd ... suggesting he exercise choice is CERTAINLY not 'going after' the op. > > > > > > > > > Please tell me why its ok for core ele not to be part of the meta in any place in gw2 > > > > > > > > Because the game isn't designed around what is meta, it's designed around playing what you want. > > > > > > > > > > Wait what most of the ele player base for sure dose not use these forms lol. > > > > ... and I've pointed out it's not relevant. Just because something isn't used by most of the playerbase doesn't mean it needs to be changed. That kind of thinking is absurd. > > > > > > You told him to play another class when they made a suggestion about ele core. > > > > Right ... but saying that's me going after the OP is _not true_. > > > > > > Its a benchmark for if a class is doing well or not. > > > > No, that's _not true_. Meta is NOT a benchmark for anything BUT what is optimal play. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asked them to play another class... for ele player is that realty a bad thing to suggest to them. No, that's _not true_. That's the INTENTION behind giving players options to choose from so they can enjoy the game, even when the game changes. > I am not saying it need to be the meta but that it can fit some what into what ppl want. And you don't speak for the whole playerbase when you say ele doesn't fit somewhat into what people want. It's _not true_ to claim ele doesn't give some of the people what they want to enjoy the game.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > So you went off talking about how i am not the player base ... > > > > > > > > No, that's _not true_ (maybe I need to trademark this ... what do you guys think?) > > > > > > > > I said you are only a PART of the playerbase, so you can't make blanket statements about what the playerbase thinks should change for ele. Therefore, Anet can't change the game to cater to how you think ele should work. > > > > > > > > >It is your the attker here i am the defer sry > > > > > > > > No, that's _not true_. You were the FIRST person to respond to ME in this thread, seemingly because you don't think having choice is a reasonable approach to finding satisfaction with the game. Being apologetic doesn't give you a license to say things that aren't true. > > > > > > > > >So you cant do any thing for the core ele out side of giving the class its own mechanic. > > > > > > > > No, that's _not true_. Making the mechanic that ALREADY exists on ele and changing it so it's unique only to ele is NOT the ONLY way to 'do anything' for it. That's nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > You made the point that it was not important to point out most of the player base dose not use these forms it is. > > > > No, that's _not true_. Furthermore, it's irrelevant as well. > > > You went after the op. > > > > That's _not true_ and absurd ... suggesting he exercise choice is CERTAINLY not 'going after' the op. > > > > > Please tell me why its ok for core ele not to be part of the meta in any place in gw2 > > > > Because the game isn't designed around what is meta, it's designed around playing what you want. > > > > Wait what most of the ele player base for sure dose not use these forms lol. ... and I've pointed out it's not relevant. Just because something isn't used by most of the playerbase doesn't mean it needs to be changed. If there is options, there is ALWAYS an option that is the least popular one. > > You told him to play another class when they made a suggestion about ele core. Right ... but implying I'm attacking him by saying that's me going after the OP is _not true_. > > Its a benchmark for if a class is doing well or not. No, that's _not true_. Meta is NOT a benchmark for anything BUT what is optimal play. Is this whole misunderstanding you have based on your improper use of meta as a benchmark for class viability? Shame shame. That's meta-pushing and as you have been told multiple times, this game isn't designed around meta as a benchmark for being successful. BTW, for expedient replies, I've put the phrase _not true_ on my clipboard.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > So you went off talking about how i am not the player base ... > > > > No, that's _not true_ (maybe I need to trademark this ... what do you guys think?) > > > > I said you are only a PART of the playerbase, so you can't make blanket statements about what the playerbase thinks should change for ele. Therefore, Anet can't change the game to cater to how you think ele should work. > > > > >It is your the attker here i am the defer sry > > > > No, that's _not true_. You were the FIRST person to respond to ME in this thread, seemingly because you don't think having choice is a reasonable approach to finding satisfaction with the game. Being apologetic doesn't give you a license to say things that aren't true. > > > > >So you cant do any thing for the core ele out side of giving the class its own mechanic. > > > > No, that's _not true_. Making the mechanic that ALREADY exists on ele and changing it so it's unique only to ele is NOT the ONLY way to 'do anything' for it. That's nonsense. > > > > > You made the point that it was not important to point out most of the player base dose not use these forms it is. No, that's _not true_. Furthermore, it's irrelevant as well ... ele doesn't need a change because most of the player base doesn't use it. That's not even something you can confirm is true. > You went after the op. That's _not true_ and it's absurd ... suggesting he exercise choice is CERTAINLY not 'going after' the op. > Please tell me why its ok for core ele not to be part of the meta in any place in gw2 Because the game isn't designed around what is meta, it's designed around playing what you want. FINALLY we get some honesty here ... you just want ele to get a buff so it's meta.

> @"Zeesh.7286" said: > Can someone give a tldr? I'm a bit intimidated by 2 full pages given that the 3rd page makes no sense to me as to what even is being discussed... Some people think they speak for everyone and think the game should cater to how they think it should work at everyone else's expense. They are wrong. Some people think that making untrue statements justifies their ideas of how the game should work. That is wrong. Some people think choosing from options available to them is an unreasonable approach to ensuring they enjoy the game. That is wrong.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > So you went off talking about how i am not the player base ... No, that's _not true_ (maybe I need to trademark this ... what do you guys think?) I said you are only a PART of the playerbase, so you can't make blanket statements about what the playerbase thinks should change for ele. Therefore, Anet can't change the game to cater to how you think ele should work. >It is your the attker here i am the defer sry No, that's _not true_. You were the FIRST person to respond to ME in this thread, seemingly because you don't think having choice is a reasonable approach to finding satisfaction with the game. Being apologetic doesn't give you a license to say things that aren't true. >So you cant do any thing for the core ele out side of giving the class its own mechanic. No, that's _not true_. Making the mechanic that ALREADY exists on ele and changing it so it's unique only to ele is NOT the ONLY way to 'do anything' for it. That's nonsense.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > Sobx > > > > > > > > > > Not desired by whom? Some of the people blindly following an online ""guide"" for the top meta theoretical deeps squad comp? Never saw the problem when I had necros in my squad as long as they weren't slacking. > > > > > > > > > > You have to understand that if you are raiding and you got others who can do what you can do but better, then why bring necro? if the utility dmg and condi nec has is inferior in all ways why bring nec? > > > > > > > > Also true for vast majority of classes/especs/builds in the game, so not sure what point you're trying to make by pretending that's some kind of isolated case. "but something is stronger!" -cool, most people don't care as that content isn't balanced around strongest options. Which is exactly why I wrote what I wrote before. > > > > > > > > Format your post better please so it's clear which parts are quotes and which parts are your answers, I'm not going through that in its current form, just saying. > > > > > > Its important for a good reason: If you have a class who is weaker than others in all jobs possible in raids, then there is literally no reason to have one, and it creates an excuse not to bring them to raids. > > > > No, that's false. It's only no reason if you restrict your criteria for building a team to performance. Since the game is balanced around a low performance threshold that enables people to play whatever they want, it is NOT important. Also, let's not pretend the survival of this MMO is somehow contigent on making Necros more acceptable for performance-based teams ... that makes no sense. > > > > If you want necros to be more accepted in performance-based teams, then it's a WIDE open debate on how that could be done. In otherwords, don't assume that 'balance' is easily come by to enable this. You are familiar and I'm certain you have been involved in the discussions about this in the necro forums. Starting that same debate here will not end differently. > > I can prove otherwise. In world of warcraft ... If we were talking about WoW, your proof might have some relevance to this discussion. This is GW2 and GW2 is PURPOSEFULLY not designed like WoW. Nothing you can present will change the fact that if you impose (or allows others to impose) restrictions on how you play, you aren't playing inline with the design of the game.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > I am being blunt about my views ... > > > > > > > > > > > > ... and it's causing you to make irrelevant or untrue statements and conclusions about the game. These things are NOT helping you create good reasoning for changing ele. > > > > > > > > > > > > >ppl play a class for years then have the rug pulled out from under them > > > > > > > > > > > > OK .. but that's how evolving MMO's work ... like since always. The approach you have to deal with that is making choices from the options you have available to you. You need to get over yourself because Anet can't cater to how you want the game work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > > > You realty cant play what ever class you want because the game builds on it self it takes time to unlock and to build up a character and as anet added in more gear and things to build up to the grind has only gotten worst. This game is NOT made for alts and its getting worst for them every day. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't make sense because those things do NOT prevent you from playing whatever class you want. The ONLY thing that prevents you from playing whatever class you want are your OWN criteria for choosing a class. If your primary criteria for choosing a class is "_I've already leveled, geared and unlocked everything on this character_" ... that's your CHOICE and it's more important to you than any other criteria you have. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing you say is going to diminish the fact that making choices in evolving games, like this one, IS intentional as a method to deal with game change and it's one of the primary reasons Anet gives us all these options to choose from. Like, NOTHING. > > > > > > > > > > You are calling me a lair over and over ... > > > > > > > > That's _not true_; I've NEVER called you that. I'm simply clarifying the discussion when I see you saying untrue or irrelevant statements. > > > > > MMO update for sure but you can and you MUST point out when they are evolving in such a way that is wrong to the player base. > > > > > > > > That's _not true. It might be wrong _for you_ but you don't know if it's wrong to the player base. Anet can't cater to how you think the game should work just to please you. > > > > > > I am part of that player base and i know what i know ... > > > > OK ... except being part of that doesn't mean you know if how ele works is wrong to the player base so it's still _not true_ when you say how ele works is wrong to the player base. You can't base your justification to change ele on statements that are _not true_. I'm also a part of the playerbase ... and I don't like your reasoning for changing ele because it's based on _not true_ things. > > > > >Please do not look down on ppl too much for disagree with anet. > > > > I don't ... but I do look down on people that make untrue and irrelevant statements to disagree with Anet, especially if those people aren't being considerate of how other players enjoy and play the game. > > > > > > But your amusing your point of view is the player base these forms are NOT the over all player base or we would have more post per day and realty this is one of the least places where ppl go. Anet is sadly not the player base and over all they do not seem to interact with there player base in any meaningful way now. This has nothing to do with the topic: _irrelevant_ > > If you tell some one to play another class because of there suggestion on something you are looking down on them a lot. This is _not true_; I've explained why several times. I'm _not_ telling someone to go play another class because they made a suggestion. > > By no means will i comment on other post in a meaningful way as i am talking to one person at a time not to the 3 or so ppl who post on these forms. Good, because frankly, we shouldn't have to continually filter _not true_ or _irrelevant_ statements to have a discussion. > > But i must say most of your guys points of views seem to be base off the ideal that as long as you can use an elite spec you should and some how that is not p2w is borderline madness. Core ele is lacking and it was made lacking because of the elite spec. and how anet did not make the elite spec give up any thing meaningful. So every nerf to staff weaver is a hard nerf to core ele staff. Any support nerf to auras during is a hard nerf to core ele. Again, that's _irrelevant_ speculation. I get you want to paint this picture that especs are evil p2w things, but it's STILL not a reason to buff ele.

> @"Firebeard.1746" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > That's not a problem in this game because even though the game is designed from the ground up with active damage avoidance and mitigation in mind, the threshold for success is so low and the options for gearing is so wide that it's not that critical for players to actively avoid and mitigate damage anyways. > > Except it's not that low, I know that's personal experience, etc. See, this is where you have to understand that what sets GW2 from it's peers is that relative to THOSE game, the threshold is low. That threshold isn't based on someone's personal experience. It's based on Anet's desire to provide people a game where they can play how they want with a wide range of performances ... and that is exactly what they have done. Most other games do NOT do this, or if they do, no where near the level that GW2 does. NO game maker could cater to every player's capability, so your perspective on what is 'low threshold' based on your experiences is wrong, not just for GW2 but for every game ever. ... and whether you PUG or not, the threshold doesn't change, just the attitude of the people you play with.

> @"mindcircus.1506" said: > At what point does the Guild Wars 2 community stop pointing at team compositions from a small Speed Running guild as something for Anet to base their balance around? They don't. Ideas like what we are seeing in this thread are baggage that people keep bringing with them from other games. That's why it's important for people to continue to argue that these kinds of threads aren't relevant to GW2 and explain why. > @"Firebeard.1746" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > No, you literally do not want that. Let me explain: > > The common misconception that class balance is to blame for the dps meta is just that: a misconception. T**his game is designed from the ground up with active damage avoidance and mitigation in mind**. What this means is that good players are more than capable to mitigate all or nearly all damage via pure skill. In any case where this is not the case, defensive skills and boons are taken. The games design from the ground up is responsible for the dps meta, not class balance (though balance can affect how easy or difficult certain encounter can be for certain classes). > > > > IF the developers actually designed an encounter WITHOUT focus on damage, and most encounters are not that focused on damage to begin with as to make the damage requirements difficult to meet, you would end up with fights similar to: Xera, Deimos, Dhuum, Qadim 2, etc. Essentially fight with a ton of extra mechanics which players have to deal with instead of just dealing damage. Now take a guess which fights are most difficult for non static players to tackle: the ones where more than only dps is expected and players need to fulfill specific tasks. > > > > Even 100CM meets exactly that criteria. The main mechanic to overcome is positioning and crowd control aka defiance bars. Expert players are more than capable of running this CM on differing classes, meeting the cc requirements and positioning so that damage to group is minimal (even running without healers). Weaker players can not and are either locked out of the fractal or dependent on running the most run meta class as to ease success. > > > > What you actually want IS fights designed around damage and nothing else, because every class in this game can meet dps requirements from a balance perspective. > > **This**. I believe is the problem. An online game doesn't do as well with that. And there's tons of players that for whatever reason, slow reflexes, latency, etc just don't do well with this. That's not a problem in this game because even though the game is designed from the ground up with active damage avoidance and mitigation in mind, the threshold for success is so low and the options for gearing is so wide that it's not that critical for players to actively avoid and mitigate damage anyways.

This isn't a new idea and the last thing we need is more focus on already questionably strong minion builds. Unfortunately, this is just another example of the big disparity between how a skill family performs in PVE vs. PVP/WvW. Still, since they share the same function in all game modes, they probably shouldn't be made better for competitive modes at the risk of making them ridiculously OP in PVE.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > Sobx > > > > > > Not desired by whom? Some of the people blindly following an online ""guide"" for the top meta theoretical deeps squad comp? Never saw the problem when I had necros in my squad as long as they weren't slacking. > > > > > > You have to understand that if you are raiding and you got others who can do what you can do but better, then why bring necro? if the utility dmg and condi nec has is inferior in all ways why bring nec? > > > > Also true for vast majority of classes/especs/builds in the game, so not sure what point you're trying to make by pretending that's some kind of isolated case. "but something is stronger!" -cool, most people don't care as that content isn't balanced around strongest options. Which is exactly why I wrote what I wrote before. > > > > Format your post better please so it's clear which parts are quotes and which parts are your answers, I'm not going through that in its current form, just saying. > > Its important for a good reason: If you have a class who is weaker than others in all jobs possible in raids, then there is literally no reason to have one, and it creates an excuse not to bring them to raids. No, that's false. It's only no reason if you restrict your criteria for building a team to performance. Since the game is balanced around a low performance threshold that enables people to play whatever they want, it is NOT important. Also, let's not pretend the survival of this MMO is somehow contigent on making Necros more acceptable for performance-based teams ... that makes no sense. If you want necros to be more accepted in performance-based teams, then it's a WIDE open debate on how that could be done. In otherwords, don't assume that 'balance' is easily come by to enable this. You are familiar and I'm certain you have been involved in the discussions about this in the necro forums. Starting that same debate here will not end differently.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > Just MAYBE the answer to the OP's question is that Anet boxed themselves OUT of a solution for Ascended Runes and Sigils. > > > That assumes that there should be an ascended version in the first place. My point was that, since ascended are something from normal gear progression, which runes/sigils _do not_ use, there needs not be a "solution" for ascended runes/sigils at all. > > > > So you don't think there is a 4th teir of runes/sigils because 'wording'? Um, OK. Maybe. I would think wording isn't really that significant a hang up if Anet were to add that 4th teir between exotic and legendary. > Again, there's no "exotic" tier. It's not just a matter of wording, it's the whole tiering system for runes/sigils working differently than the one for gear. Where the gear has 6 tiers (plus Legendary), the runes/sigils have 3 tiers (plus legendary). You can't just draw any comparison between those based on the fact that some tiers have the same colors assigned. The whole tiering system is completely different. > > I mean, if you specifically want some runesets that are stronger than superior, then say so, but claiming there should be an ascended tier just because gear has one is an argument that is based on either conscious misdirection, or complete lack of understanding of differences between those systems. OK .. but this thread is suggesting there might be an opportunity for Anet to add a tier in between 'Yellow' and "purple" (I'm not going to get bogged down in an argument about names here). I mean, this isn't my suggestion and I'm not arguing it should be there because of some parallel with the tiers on armor/weapons. I see the benefit of adding it. I also see some jeopardy doing so. Personally, I wouldn't mind another level of Runes/sigil in that hierarchy as it could be something interesting to craft or explore builds with. I'm not really fussed either way. I'm actually more interested in having more _sets_ added to runes/sigils, but that's not related to the thread.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > Just MAYBE the answer to the OP's question is that Anet boxed themselves OUT of a solution for Ascended Runes and Sigils. > That assumes that there should be an ascended version in the first place. My point was that, since ascended are something from normal gear progression, which runes/sigils _do not_ use, there needs not be a "solution" for ascended runes/sigils at all. So you don't think there is a 4th teir of runes/sigils because 'wording'? Um, OK. Maybe. I would think wording isn't really that significant a hang up if Anet were to add that 4th teir between exotic and legendary.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > I am being blunt about my views ... > > > > > > > > ... and it's causing you to make irrelevant or untrue statements and conclusions about the game. These things are NOT helping you create good reasoning for changing ele. > > > > > > > > >ppl play a class for years then have the rug pulled out from under them > > > > > > > > OK .. but that's how evolving MMO's work ... like since always. The approach you have to deal with that is making choices from the options you have available to you. You need to get over yourself because Anet can't cater to how you want the game work. > > > > > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > > > You realty cant play what ever class you want because the game builds on it self it takes time to unlock and to build up a character and as anet added in more gear and things to build up to the grind has only gotten worst. This game is NOT made for alts and its getting worst for them every day. > > > > > > > > > That doesn't make sense because those things do NOT prevent you from playing whatever class you want. The ONLY thing that prevents you from playing whatever class you want are your OWN criteria for choosing a class. If your primary criteria for choosing a class is "_I've already leveled, geared and unlocked everything on this character_" ... that's your CHOICE and it's more important to you than any other criteria you have. > > > > > > > > Nothing you say is going to diminish the fact that making choices in evolving games, like this one, IS intentional as a method to deal with game change and it's one of the primary reasons Anet gives us all these options to choose from. Like, NOTHING. > > > > > > You are calling me a lair over and over ... > > > > That's _not true_; I've NEVER called you that. I'm simply clarifying the discussion when I see you saying untrue or irrelevant statements. > > > MMO update for sure but you can and you MUST point out when they are evolving in such a way that is wrong to the player base. > > > > That's _not true. It might be wrong _for you_ but you don't know if it's wrong to the player base. Anet can't cater to how you think the game should work just to please you. > > I am part of that player base and i know what i know ... OK ... except being part of that doesn't mean you know if how ele works is wrong to the player base so it's still _not true_ when you say how ele works is wrong to the player base. You can't base your justification to change ele on statements that are _not true_. I'm also a part of the playerbase ... and I don't like your reasoning for changing ele because it's based on _not true_ things. >Please do not look down on ppl too much for disagree with anet. I don't ... but I do look down on people that make untrue and irrelevant statements to disagree with Anet, especially if those people aren't being considerate of how other players enjoy and play the game.

> @"Jski.6180" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > I am being blunt about my views ... > > > > ... and it's causing you to make irrelevant or untrue statements and conclusions about the game. These things are NOT helping you create good reasoning for changing ele. > > > > >ppl play a class for years then have the rug pulled out from under them > > > > OK .. but that's how evolving MMO's work ... like since always. The approach you have to deal with that is making choices from the options you have available to you. You need to get over yourself because Anet can't cater to how you want the game work. > > > > > @"Jski.6180" said: > > > You realty cant play what ever class you want because the game builds on it self it takes time to unlock and to build up a character and as anet added in more gear and things to build up to the grind has only gotten worst. This game is NOT made for alts and its getting worst for them every day. > > > > > That doesn't make sense because those things do NOT prevent you from playing whatever class you want. The ONLY thing that prevents you from playing whatever class you want are your OWN criteria for choosing a class. If your primary criteria for choosing a class is "_I've already leveled, geared and unlocked everything on this character_" ... that's your CHOICE and it's more important to you than any other criteria you have. > > > > Nothing you say is going to diminish the fact that making choices in evolving games, like this one, IS intentional as a method to deal with game change and it's one of the primary reasons Anet gives us all these options to choose from. Like, NOTHING. > > You are calling me a lair over and over ... That's _not true_; I've NEVER called you that. I'm simply clarifying the discussion when I see you saying untrue or irrelevant statements. > MMO update for sure but you can and you MUST point out when they are evolving in such a way that is wrong to the player base. That's _not true_. It might be wrong _for you_ but you don't know if it's wrong to the player base. Anet can't cater to how you think the game should work just to please you.

> @"Khisanth.2948" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > > > All this ascended and legendary stuff has been added, so I'm confused as to why runes and sigils have been stuck at the exotic level? > > > > > > > > Let's ask a different question. WHAT would be the step up from exotic to ascended runes/sigils? > > > No, let's clarify something again first - runes/sigils are _not_ "stuck at the exotic level", because they don't use the gear tier levels at all. The real question is whether there should be anything in between **Superior** and Legendary. > > > > > > > That's still a pretty reasonable question ... because whatever you want to propose is walled in by the functionality of what Superior and Legendary levels give you. Personally, I think Ascended versions would be pretty interesting and also good for the economy of the market. There is a fine line between making them worthless to craft (assuming they would be crafted) or just another step in power creep. > > > > Just MAYBE the answer to the OP's question is that Anet boxed themselves OUT of a solution for Ascended Runes and Sigils. > > Ascended would just be power creep unless they included drawbacks as a counterbalance. It has to be done as additional effects on top of the exotic version otherwise what is the difference between ascended and just adding another exotic rune set? > > Legendary just matches whatever is top tier so that isn't much of a wall. It does create the problem where not everyone who has crafted legendary runes and sigils necessarily want the ascended version. On the other hand ANet doesn't seem to care about those people considering the changes they've made to legendary weapons. > > Yeah I think that's a real and honest concern ... while Ascended Runes/sigils would be nice for various reasons, let's all acknowledge we are asking for power creep when we ask for them.