LetoII.3782

Don't apologize, be proud of your erroneous opinion. It's not as if Anet was actually going to remove Cashclaw.

This is an emotional support thread at best.

Don't stand in the red stuff

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

> even if he did better against the de, a competent de can counter basically anything thrown at them. maybe that's just inherently hard to understand for some people.

They die just as easy as they kill.

Learning how to obtain the initiative is hard for some people.

> @"SWI.4127" said:

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

>

> > Hate to break it to ya bud, but Mag EB is rarely queued, rarely has a tag, and NEVER monoblobs. In fact, far from monoblobbing, we're fighting both servers at once.

> > Yeah, it's that drastic.

>

> I have a Mag account and play there quite often. I know EB is queued like 90% of the time from early NA to late. So don't even try me with that nonsense.

On weekends? Sure.

Who isnt.

Oh, right. Whoever's facing mag

Such wow

12charrcars

> @"SWI.4127" said:

> > @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > > @"SWI.4127" said:

> > > > @"Katrina.8702" said:

> > > > I just don’t get the notion of smaller groups having no chance with mount stomps. If anything, at least based on my experience, the mount stomp gives smaller groups a much better chance as you can finish the downs immediately and turn the fight around. It really can go both ways as a mechanic that is available to everyone equally. A better group with better execution wins the fight with or without the mount stomp, imho.

> > >

> > > Which group can afford to have people standing off to the side not participating in the fight while still being able to generate downed states? I can tell you most of the time it's not the smaller group.

> > >

> > > > Oh and please do not remove mount stomp unless you first address the op downstate/rez mechanics.

> > >

> > > They did address res mechanics. In fact they were nerfed very heavily including the most used one, Merciful Intervention.

> >

> > We use mount stomp all the time as a small group against larger numbers or as pugs v a tagged up comped squad. And so does Kats guild. It's a decision we take per fight. Do we think we can generate down quickly enough that it's worth keeping someone mounted for a possibly game changing stomp on a key target? Or do we all engage and hope we can cleave. I generally find that I get mount stomped myself when it literally doesn't make any difference to the fight. Outmanned buff on us being chased by a map queue, I get mount stomped. Doesn't matter, I was going to get run over anyway.

> >

> > I can't see how anyone who fights outnumbered would complain about mount stomps. I can see that it would very much annoy that zergling chasing 5 people with 30 who got stomped though :3

> >

>

> You say outnumbered, but you're playing with a map queue. Let's get some perspective here.

Hate to break it to ya bud, but Mag EB is rarely queued, rarely has a tag, and NEVER monoblobs. In fact, far from monoblobbing, we're fighting both servers at once.

Yeah, it's that drastic.

> Bursting someone with rangers and a dedicated mount stomper isn't a fight, it's a gank. Gankers are gonna gank, so to each their own.

Now getting culled from your Zerg is ganking too? My, what a diverse word.

> I'm not trying to balance around ganking.

You're not trying to balance, your trying to eliminate situations where you lose. Such makes up 75% of posts about "balance"

> You really can't see how someone who fights outnumbered would complain about mount stomps? Imagine this scenario. You are being W-keyed by a bigger zerg and they have so many people that they half of them are still mounted and just running at you. This is a very common situation.

No different than combat speed pre-mount. Something small groups have had to deal with since day one. Only thing mounts changed about that is it made life in the Zerg a bit less safe _while_ they're chasing us across the map lol.

HALF YOUR COMBAT OPTIONS ecksdee

The only hamstring round here is the one in my sammich

> @"DeceiverX.8361" said:

>

> What's even more astounding is he's on multiple occasions been upvoted heavily on the ranger subsection,

Yes, hence my rather heated response.

All that on the forums.... And then this?

Was that supposed to be good ranger play?

You're representing THAT as the best that can be done vs. a deadeye?

Did you just attack empty space two times in three falls and submit it as proof of anything but your own lack?

> @"Psycoprophet.8107" said:

> Retal is fine, games doesn't need further dumbing down.

A passive response to facetanking attacks isn't as dumbed down as it gets? It might be tactical if it was somewhat limited by cooldowns, but blobs with 100% uptime?

Boobies.

Game needs to be less fruity and hock some tna. It's worked for a millennia, no matter what your professor says

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"EremiteAngel.9765" said:

> > > @"SamouraiPizzaCat.4821" said:

> > > Power builds still work. You need to make adjustments. I've adjusted all my toons. They are still playable. You need to theory craft.

> >

> > This man knows his stuff.

> > Power was a lot stronger than condi before the patch.

> > On a scale of 1-10, 10 being most effective, power was 10 and condi was around 6-8 depending on class before the patch.

> >

> > After the balance, condi is still around 6-8 and power has also been brought down to the same 6-8 level.

> >

> > Power vs Condi effectiveness is now balanced.

> >

> > **As the Samourai cat said, power still works. But you need to theorycraft. Bring more condi clears and you can still do well.**

> >

> > I fought Cake Walk Vaans just yesterday. I won the first round against his spellbreaker using a condi core necro. He tweaked his build to include more anti-condi and came back to thrash me twice.

> >

> > **Please stop complaining that condi is stronger because it ain’t true. We all have access to many condi management tools. It is just a matter of whether you want to include them in your build.**

> >

> > Those who adapt survive.

>

> So.. you create a poll in which you tell people what the answer is supposed to be...

>

> Why? Other than mentions and traffic, why?

>

> Put up a poll, make it private and comment further down.

>

> OR make it a young cat post and stop the poll nonsense.

I liked the part where he stealth implied he SHOULD go 1:1 against vaans. Because, you know, equally competent.

Welcome to WvW o/

No, you can't has all the shinies real quick

> @"Teratus.2859" said:

>

> At the very least we should allow Warclaws to benefit from swiftness or have a map earnable boon that gives Warclaws a small mobility buff if your team manages to obtain it.

NO

Under no circumstances should any further winning-team buffs be added until disproportionate team sizes has been addressed in a significant way.

Just switch to base or druid, pet swap away.

Soulbeast needed to not be a straight upgrade somehow.

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > @"Hadi.6025" said:

> > > > > > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > > > > Does it remove their stability?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > D:

> > > > >

> > > > > it removes yours and removes theirs but you are the only one thats stunned. Even if you have stab you're still stunned.

> > > >

> > > > It’s a 3 second stun on them... 1 second on yourself.

> > >

> > > Does it still stun you if they block it? Hue hue hue.

> > >

> > > D:

> >

> > It should.

> > If you bash your skull into my shield, the shield doesn't mind much. No time outses

>

> Better use it on shattered aegis guardians.

>

> D:

Speaking of Stuns and Guardians, it's always bugged the crud out of me that thief steals a daze from guardian.. I'd like to know where that handy daze is I supposedly have, to be stolen, that I don't seem to see on my skill bar. <,<

> @"Bish.8627" said:

> Funny this popped up, I saw a soulbeast delete a minstrel FB in 5 seconds last night and I wondered if maybe they had been forgotten.

There's 2 kinds of rangers in WvW.

Got your rangers on one hand that can't make it work after any nerf..

Then, you got your #*©£|@ RANGERS that keep getting the first group nerfed.

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Hadi.6025" said:

> > > > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > > Does it remove their stability?

> > > >

> > > > D:

> > >

> > > it removes yours and removes theirs but you are the only one thats stunned. Even if you have stab you're still stunned.

> >

> > It’s a 3 second stun on them... 1 second on yourself.

>

> Does it still stun you if they block it? Hue hue hue.

>

> D:

It should.

If you bash your skull into my shield, the shield doesn't mind much. No time outses

Spaghetti Bolgonarrage

I'd have much preferred seeing the cripple go and keep the unique AoE type.

> @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > > > > > @"God.2708" said:

> > > > > > > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > > > > > > > @"God.2708" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Babytater.6803" said:

> > > > > > > > > > I love this change, please don't change it back. It's still faster than swiftness running. It'll just take a bit to get used to. Mounts should be very weak in WvW and these changes helped with that.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > And may i know why mounts should be very weak in WvW? I understand they don't have to be strong but should be very weak? Why? Why? Why?.....

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Because frankly they are not a very insightful or interesting addition to the mode. Their form of implementation actively harms both the PvP aspects of WvW and the zone control aspect of WvW by throwing respawn time (in the form of running back) off. In the way it was designed the only thing it actually helps is bad players who die a lot whether by intention or accidental. It doesn't even help new players as they won't have one (and up till this patch actively harmed them getting into the mode), just bad players by minimizing an active consequence of their actions. Anything that weakens that aspect of them will be most welcome.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then don't use one, the rest of us enjoyed them, as it is, I don't enjoy the change. One of the reasons I came back to the game was the addition of the WarClaw to WvW. Communism by lowest common denominator might be your thing, but it makes the game slow paced and boring.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or dumb. Whether I use one or not is irrelevant to the damage it does to the mode overall. The fact it still runs faster than anything else for the most part and still has some tertiary uses is more than enough. It didn't need to make any other form of movement obsolete.

> > > > >

> > > > > strange as I could ask you the same question. The benefit of the speed was it's use as Calvary. That is the point of Calvary, a fast response, blitzkrieg maneuvering, actual tactics being used to win the situation. If you can't win by an evolving battle field condition, you don't then say, EVERYONE SLOW DOWN WE CAN'T PVP, MOUNTS ARE OP, WE CAN'T ADAPT. Not only is it intellectually disingenuous, it stagnates the game play.

> > > >

> > > > So... since we are talking Calvary, in every war, cavalry was one of the lowest numbers of a force, as infantry is needed to occupy territory..

> > > >

> > > > Maybe we up the mounts but only allow 20% of any team on any border to use?

> > >

> > > You have infantry to hold ground they are called Guards, or even players who remain in Keeps and Castles using siege to repel invaders. Calvary is used for two purposes, vast action response as a defensive measure to reinforce against an invading force, advancing into a territory from a territory you control.

> >

> > If cavalry was sent out alone, they would get wiped.

> >

> > Again, it’s not a good analogy.

>

> They are called Scout's, and no they don't get wiped they usually run away.

Recon tends to have horrifyingly high loss rates. Getting blobbed irl sucks too.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > > @"God.2708" said:

> > > > @"Tungsten Monarch.6058" said:

> > > > > @"God.2708" said:

> > > > > > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > > > > > > @"Babytater.6803" said:

> > > > > > > I love this change, please don't change it back. It's still faster than swiftness running. It'll just take a bit to get used to. Mounts should be very weak in WvW and these changes helped with that.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And may i know why mounts should be very weak in WvW? I understand they don't have to be strong but should be very weak? Why? Why? Why?.....

> > > > >

> > > > > Because frankly they are not a very insightful or interesting addition to the mode. Their form of implementation actively harms both the PvP aspects of WvW and the zone control aspect of WvW by throwing respawn time (in the form of running back) off. In the way it was designed the only thing it actually helps is bad players who die a lot whether by intention or accidental. It doesn't even help new players as they won't have one (and up till this patch actively harmed them getting into the mode), just bad players by minimizing an active consequence of their actions. Anything that weakens that aspect of them will be most welcome.

> > > >

> > > > Then don't use one, the rest of us enjoyed them, as it is, I don't enjoy the change. One of the reasons I came back to the game was the addition of the WarClaw to WvW. Communism by lowest common denominator might be your thing, but it makes the game slow paced and boring.

> > >

> > > I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or dumb. Whether I use one or not is irrelevant to the damage it does to the mode overall. The fact it still runs faster than anything else for the most part and still has some tertiary uses is more than enough. It didn't need to make any other form of movement obsolete.

> >

> > strange as I could ask you the same question. The benefit of the speed was it's use as Calvary. That is the point of Calvary, a fast response, blitzkrieg maneuvering, actual tactics being used to win the situation. If you can't win by an evolving battle field condition, you don't then say, EVERYONE SLOW DOWN WE CAN'T PVP, MOUNTS ARE OP, WE CAN'T ADAPT. Not only is it intellectually disingenuous, it stagnates the game play.

>

> So... since we are talking Calvary, in every war, cavalry was one of the lowest numbers of a force, as infantry is needed to occupy territory..

>

> Maybe we up the mounts but only allow 20% of any team on any border to use?

Cavalry were low count because horses are expensive and soldiers funded their own equipment. Most peasants could afford a stick (spear) or a stick that shoots sticks (bow). Maybe have warclaw be gold powered?

Can't facetank everything in my blob, game ruined.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"DragonSlayer.1087" said:

> > i need more popcorn.

> >

> > this balance is a kittenshow. ???

>

> ?

>

> There you go. Its buttered

>

> > @"koribas.7386" said:

> > Why is it when you think of balancing a class system you MESS WITH US RANGERS!!!!!!!? I have played this game since the beginning and you all keep lowering us over cries and whines. You do realize as Devs our pets are our main defense and fighting? STOP MESSING WITH US!!! 2 thumbs down on your idea of a good balance. WE are nerfed enough. I don't normally go off like this but after 8 years someone had to say it. Oh and this no swapping pets during combat? HORRID!!!

>

> Every class got hit. This wasn’t about ranger.

Ranger didn't really get hit either, marginal builds got made appropriately marginal. No more sustain AND damage AND mobility.

Now you have to pick a role and build into it fully, it's a good thing. An unfortunate side affect for Anet is lots of folks were abusing the outlier builds and they're understandably upset.

Less fluff more stuff