Daishi.6027

> @"Shao.7236" said: > > @"Daishi.6027" said: > > Actually this is very important for the perspective of how the game has evolved until this point. Compounding factors are not irrelevant simply because you say so. > No, it's irrelevant. The game hasn't evolved in the slightest for any important goals whatsoever. Actually it's devolved. > > The community wishes not being met is how we got to where we are. When Hambow and Petting Zoo were dominating; balance only needed to be tweaked regarding those (and maybe Engie), and we'd have had half a year of solid PvP. Instead A-net shakes the entire thing up and does not correct for errors. These aren't the types of thing that are "senseless and without foundation". If A-net wanted to have a shake up in 6 months- that is fine. But you don't go "well sucks to be you, enjoy what you have for now something new will be here later." That is a spit in peoples face; and isn't "irrelevant" in anyway, since this is analogues the entire history of the game, even up to the feb patch. > We are here because the community had expectations outside the vision, that's what you're basically saying and that's why you're wrong. Like I said, you're acting as a strict consumer and you'll never understand the reason behind anything at this point. Also no proof of concept that balancing would have improved it whatsoever when who knows how many other broken aspects would have surged just to have the same complains to be heard again. > Go look at the old marketing, Go look at old Interviews, Go look at the pvp balance "Ready up" videos. You will find you are objectively wrong regarding expectations given the information made readily available to players, and consistently streamed to them. We had fairly good balance and a healthy population prior to HoT, a lot of old players from two prior mass exodus came back and legitimately enjoyed the scene. Post HoT We lost a lot of ppl after S1's, then had another massive population drop around season six. Consequently, despite problems there was massive growth around seasons 9 - 11 and massive drops following season 12. The consistent variable in all these were relevant balance changes and the directions they were going, most of which killed diversity. You keep brining up being a consumer, yet the burden of proof is on you to present evidence of either insider knowledge, or information that runs contrary to the media presented to the customers to set a level of expectation. If it is simply inference or a guess that expectations would not be up held then sorry, that's not good enough; and people would have a right to be upset when the standard isn't met. Feel free to correct the nuance but if your argument boils down to "a-net lied, I knew they'd lie; so it's fine" That is very dismissive and complicit over something class action lawsuits have been won for. > > The scene is so small so yes, if everyone in PvP refused to pay it wouldn't make a difference. But you're going to have to clarify your argument because the first part doesn't make sense, Yes; I am seeing it from a consumer. This is a product and it's simple business. None of that changes what A-net choose to do, and what they continue to choose to do. The only expectation was to have good, reasonably balanced PvP, and I already mentioned one thing above that was not an unreasonable burden and people have been asking for, for years. We're only stuck with it here now because of compounding factors that could have been avoided, have been pointed out over the years, and are constantly ignored in place of whatever they want to do. Go check the archived forums. > > All I see is complains that wouldn't fit in, so really. Nothing different from the past, present or future. Just another day with people being the same broken records they have been. > People are "broken records" since the demands have never been met. People asked for a PTR prior to 2014. You say "it wouldn't fit" when there has never been an official word beyond A-net thinking that their internal testing was good enough. - and clearly it wasn't > > Not true; there were balance issues but there were several metas where I was very satisfied and at least fun. But adjustments needed to be made for better balance; but instead of getting tweaks and fixes to solve those issues all we got was decline after decline killing diversity, and then maybe massive a shake ups with no reversion to unhealthy choices. This isn't about satisfying everyone, it's about satisfying people who want good PvP; that is the only demand that needed to be met. Especially if they were not going to meet the standards, that the community has told them for years to preserve balance and diversity. > > Your good PvP can't exist, how many times does it have to be said. If it can exist in other games, it can exist here. What needs to be done just never gets done. > > The only reason I brought LoL was for your point to your narrative of "people leave when they can't win" Which is wholly untrue and even documented by in several psychological research papers. Which if you want to argue against fine; but I think you lack the credentials to do so, and this is not the place. > > > > If you are claiming anything else as justification for players sticking around, that is moving the goal post. The Volume isn't what ultimately matters, it's the consistency that is relevant to our debate. > > LOL right. The world isn't pretty as you think it is. I'd be pretty rich if I had a dollar for every player from any game I have seen give up on the slightest challenge. Just because some people do doesn't mean the statistical vast majority does, and this is well documented for the variables that do cause people to bail and the factors involved to keep people to stay. Your ignorance is embarrassing to the entire psychological field; please stop. > > No, your facts don't matter and are easily dismissed if they are anecdotal. Everything you have brought like your 7/10 statistic, or your "People need their mindless power for people to stay" is anecdotal at best. > > "Anecdotal". It's an hard evident fact that people quit easily, why do you have to deny something so easily proven by **watching ANY content out there.** 'cites anecdotal, then proceeds to use anecdotal arguments.' Lol I'm starting to think you don't know what anecdotal evidence means. You're legitimately funny. Can't tell if troll and I'm massively feeding. > > Go look at early marketing, it was promised. When we had chances to obtain it; decisions were made that tore us further way from such a goal. Maybe it's been abandoned, but there is that omni present expectation of quality; if you're saying "Game has been consistently bad, Why compain? This is what we consistently get." Then you are complicit, and part of the problem. > > What goal? How about you provide it instead. To me sounds more like people have wished for things that never existed nor will. Should you know, no companies have ever worked for the consumer exclusively LOL you're as lazy as A-net if you can't even just do a google search to verify my claim. You are capable of doing your own research, I'm not claiming anything hidden that really needs to be proven that you can't easily find. But here tho, it's their channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/guildwars2/videos Sort by date; you can figure out how to do that at least right? I'm not posting every little interview that has to do with PvP that talks about E-sports. **It is a known fact that GW2 aspired for E-sport quality in bite sized 15 min 5v5 competitive games.** Players didn't just make this up. It shows just how ignorant you are if you're even trying to argue that it didn't exist. The real pushs to make it happen started in 2015. You can find a lot more just by searching, and be sure to sift through the youtube channel but here are 2 rando interviews that took me two seconds to find: https://www.alistdaily.com/media/arenanet-invests-esports-200000-guild-wars-2-world-championship/ https://www.eslgaming.com/interview/future-guild-wars-2-esports-and-pvp-interview-arenanet-team-1974 and just for fun, here's a reddit post linking to one of them where the first comment remarks on the infrequent patches Just do your damn research or be informed before you make an ignorant claim. At least if you want your opinion to matter. Because everything you have said comes from a narrow perspective with a lot of assumptions... Much like your claims about how people psychologically react in games along with your constant stream of anecdotal evidence. > > Good changes has to be made at the time, and revision and un-nerfing when it goes to far needs to practiced. Safe guards need to be put in place to allow for community testing to preserve healthy game play, as so things don't get worse. A-net should have realized this in 2013, but none of this has ever been a standard, and it needed to be met. Feb patch was the nail in the coffin. If you're saying that there is no use complaining because what's done is done, and all arguments have to be to be relevant to the current meta, then sorry, no. The problem is that A-net didn't listen in the first place, and as the ship sinks and as they die; they deserve the biggest "I told you so" followed by a schadenfreude fueled smirk. > > There's no good changes, you can say that as much as you'd like. There is none, just try to fit anything in their system. You'll be disappointed as always for expecting. > You can't prove that there are no good changes, and who are you to decide that I'd be disappointed.

> @"Shao.7236" said: > @"Daishi.6027" You believe in too many things that never mattered from the very start and won't ever later on. Bringing arguments, past and future that don't correlate whatsoever. Actually this is very important for the perspective of how the game has evolved until this point. Compounding factors are not irrelevant simply because you say so. > The community wishes are senseless and without a foundation that doesn't hold to the current vision. The complains are no more than strict self oriented lack of satisfaction, players were always bleeding before and after your realization, times change, shocking! The community wishes not being met is how we got to where we are. When Hambow and Petting Zoo were dominating; balance only needed to be tweaked regarding those (and maybe Engie), and we'd have had half a year of solid PvP. Instead A-net shakes the entire thing up and does not correct for errors. These aren't the types of thing that are "senseless and without foundation". If A-net wanted to have a shake up in 6 months- that is fine. But you don't go "well sucks to be you, enjoy what you have for now something new will be here later." That is a spit in peoples face; and isn't "irrelevant" in anyway, since this is analogues the entire history of the game, even up to the feb patch. Correcting this pattern is not an excessive demand to be met, and could have been done YEARS ago. > You've expected so much from what you knew would be always homogenized more than anything else out there. If anything, all you see is from the perspective of the consumer and nothing else. > > Blame Anet all you want, it won't matter. The structure is there and you're stuck with it unless /you/ have the money and meaning to give Anet the better option, also no paying for the new xpac won't change a road map. The scene is so small so yes, if everyone in PvP refused to pay it wouldn't make a difference. But you're going to have to clarify your argument because the first part doesn't make sense, Yes; I am seeing it from a consumer. This is a product and it's simple business. None of that changes what A-net choose to do, and what they continue to choose to do. The only expectation was to have good, reasonably balanced PvP, and I already mentioned one thing above that was not an unreasonable burden and people have been asking for, for years. We're only stuck with it here now because of compounding factors that could have been avoided, have been pointed out over the years, and are constantly ignored in place of whatever they want to do. Go check the archived forums. > It's very easy to speak from your very unsatisfied perspective, you don't have to be pretending, I know that you and all of the majority would still not be satisfied. Involving LoL which is known to have constant balance issues that rocks back and forth with the same exact situations, too tanky, too bursty, too tanky, too bursty. > There's nothing to do for Anet to ever satisfied anyone. Not true; there were balance issues but there were several metas where I was very satisfied and at least fun. But adjustments needed to be made for better balance; but instead of getting tweaks and fixes to solve those issues all we got was decline after decline killing diversity, and then maybe massive a shake ups with no reversion to unhealthy choices. This isn't about satisfying everyone, it's about satisfying people who want good PvP; that is the only demand that needed to be met. Especially if they were not going to meet the standards, that the community has told them for years to preserve balance and diversity. > Talk about LoL being more popular is not proof of just good gameplay, most people hate playing the game yet they still do because they like insert "x" reasons, often likely, the characters and lore. The only reason I brought LoL was for your point to your narrative of "people leave when they can't win" Which is wholly untrue and even documented by in several psychological research papers. Which if you want to argue against fine; but I think you lack the credentials to do so, and this is not the place. If you are claiming anything else as justification for players sticking around, that is moving the goal post. The Volume isn't what ultimately matters, it's the consistency that is relevant to our debate. > Experience speaks for itself, it always did with accurate repetitive results, having said many hours to gather results and show a proof of concept is how you gather facts and I've been doing that for the longest time. No, your facts don't matter and are easily dismissed if they are anecdotal. Everything you have brought like your 7/10 statistic, or your "People need their mindless power for people to stay" is anecdotal at best. > However you can take that away and act like I'm just some random dude on the net, I've never been too busy to notice the decline of quality in the gaming industry for both players and companies alike, in our case here. Anet has never changed one bit, but kitten have the players been thirsty for something different that was never promised... Go look at early marketing, it was promised. When we had chances to obtain it; decisions were made that tore us further way from such a goal. Maybe it's been abandoned, but there is that omni present expectation of quality; if you're saying "Game has been consistently bad, Why compain? This is what we consistently get." Then you are complicit, and part of the problem. > Oh do you mean the PvP patches? Sure, let's just scramble anything every week without any apparent need, that'll bring back the old perfect so claimed fun times that feb patch ruined, remember that in practice nothing takes time to make good decisions. You'll be able to play celestial ele while tetherbreaker rolls over your team with 5k unblockable damage per dodge. Good changes has to be made at the time, and revision and un-nerfing when it goes to far needs to practiced. Safe guards need to be put in place to allow for community testing to preserve healthy game play, as so things don't get worse. A-net should have realized this in 2013, but none of this has ever been a standard, and it needed to be met. Feb patch was the nail in the coffin. If you're saying that there is no use complaining because what's done is done, and all arguments have to be to be relevant to the current meta, then sorry, no. The problem is that A-net didn't listen in the first place, and as the ship sinks and as they die; they deserve the biggest "I told you so" followed by a schadenfreude fueled smirk.

I wasn't gonna respond and Kuma did a pretty good follow up. But a conceited perspective of those complicit with this game is something that should be pointed out and displayed. Not for the benefit of Shao, those like minded, and the devs who believe they can do no wrong, or are apathetic about their wrongs; and will choose to believe whatever they want to believe. But for the greater body of A-net, and all other on lookers in hopes they apply critical reasoning when thinking about this game. > @"Shao.7236" said: > @"Kuma.1503" > > >Conviction does not turn hypothesis into fact. You cannot prove this to be true, claiming otherwise would be dishonest. > > Dude with the years I have spend on the gaming community as a whole with over 10k hours in certain games, it was clear fact that 7 times out of 10 players can't take it and leave if things don't go their ways. It doesn't take a degree in Psychology to figure out how gaming has evolved as a whole in matter predatory acts that exploits those behaviors too. > A lot of us here have over 10k hours in games. That does not give anyone any metric to label someone as an expert. Any argument following it is anecdotal at best. Also this hypothesis is false, People do not leave simply because things do not go their way. LoL for example has 30 - 50 million players DAILY, only 1.5% of the population are diamond. Those numbers get smaller going up. Less than 10% are in platinum, and the vast majority are in Gold and Silver. This would imply the vast majority of the population loses their games and stay in those divisions. If people left simply "because things didn't go their way" there wouldn't be such a large volume of players because everyone in gold and silver would have all quit. Also It's interesting Psychology is brought up, and this is a proof of someone using anecdotal evidence. I suggest anyone interested read up on peer reviewed papers of Motivation in the face of defeat. Because there is a large amount of documentation to show that motivation is retained after a defeat when it is viewed as fair and achievable, and one sided losses serve to demotivate. You can infer from this whatever you want; but if a player leaves GW2 and starts playing LoL or Smite, a fighting game, or something, and has more fun despite not reaching high up the ladder and they subsequently stick to it over GW2. Are we supposed to believe that the other game is brain dead, and artificially makes you feel powerful over other players? Some may, EA I know has been looking into doing that to exploit microtransactions (but we all know we can't trust EA **EVER**). But personally I'd argue Starcraft, Fighting games, and Dark souls pvp aren't braindead, and are reasonably fair between matchups. Plus I'd argue something like Starcraft is harder than GW2 and a true-er measure of someone's APM and reaction time... and those are the types of games where I went. > >Guess that poor lad who just wanted to play his celestial ele and couldn't doesn't count eh? > > Should I add myself to the exception that I want to play my perma resistance herald again? > > No, why do we always bring up examples like this, you know they aren't relevant. Because I want to play something specifically doesn't mean I should be devoid of balance. > > That's just another example of, I can't do what I want therefor ima quit. I mean I liked power mirage myself. Wasn't over powered by any metric, and Feb made it pretty garbage not to mention clunky, actually I'd argue the clunkyness is what made it the most unfun. Either way the issue is that balance could have been maintained while allowing it to thrive, and it was a perfect example of why Mirage's survivability was less of the problem. Yet A-net made a choice that actively removed fun instead of preserving the fun, and adding balance. Vast majority of the playerbase can see this was lazy, but in truth that laziness is a microcosm that represents an analog of the entire games history. > >You'd be surprised. A desire for growth is near-universal among humans. It's not something exclusive to an elite club of individuals. It's arrogant to assume that your own desire to improve far exceeds the majority of the playerbase. > > You never had to assume it's only about me, there's no other way to put it. People should "git gud" or let the game die, both are fair to me because in the end I had fun, did you? Did anyone else? You see, as much as you or anyone think of me as an egocentric jerk, I'm tired of seeing the whining here or in game when the players themselves have never changed but the game has changed countless times for them, yet they're still disrespecting the efforts of the people in charge. > > It's disgusting. Good balance should be expected to be included in a game that marketed itself on it's aspirations of being an E-sport, and propped up on the idea of "oh we can make changes at any time". I'd almost argue the oversight is akin to false advertising. Despite their claims they had no plan, and only served to do worse over time; GW2 PvP by analogy became akin to the sequel trilogy of starwars. This game was so bad ESL didn't want it, and no one wanted to watch it. **People have a right to complain.** We never had test servers, we had Devs and top players with agendas (that other top players at the time would attest to), and A-net really only had to fix what was problematic at the time; not shuffle the entire deck and let something else be problematic, this is not the change anyone was seeking; nor is it the change anyone should be grateful for. If we started there from day 1, or at least following the specialization patch prior to HoT; we wouldn't be here now. I complain because I'm actually passionate about this game, or at least was so passionate my disappointment over the years has evolved into a profoundly melancholic apathy. But really I **DON'T WANT IT TO DIE**, that's the entire reason why I fight and complain and even come back to these forums. The only pleasure it's death gives me is schadenfreude (as sweet as it is) for the fools who cling on and justify it, and the "just-deserts" for A-net who refused to listen. Not only have I invested years, money, and effort into it, but the potential was so beautifully high, and the smoothness of the system could have been amazing. The only thing I personally would encourage others to find "disgusting" are the attitudes that are complicit in it's death. We SHOULD be mad, and A-net should be obligated to make it better. I know I'm not alone when I say: "I'm not buying any expansion unless PvP drastically improves." I also know I'm not the only player who has made purchases based upon the quality of PvP. Unrelated it's a shame GW2 has struggled with hemorrhaging money from even the PvE side of things; and polish should have been added before introducing the game to steam. Instead we got an influx of players who went "wtf is this" and left to go AFK in PvE. > >Better by what metric? If we're judging whether or not it's better based on opinion, well, we'll be here a while. However, if the population is any guage, things are, in fact, not better. Fewer players results in weaker matchmaking, which results in lower quality matches... A fact which is especially harsh on players attempting to pick up PvP for the first time. > > >Fact is, if the current state of balance only appeals to a niche few individuals at the expense of the large majority of retiring veterans, the quality of said balance should come into question. > > You see, even if GW2 was what everyone wanted this instant, it wouldn't magically bring people back and because players aren't coming back doesn't mean the game isn't improving either. > > I would say it's wrong that the current game state appeals to a niche population, it's the way the game should have been from the very start, free of the PvE power creep. Sure you can attract by making them think it's fun to be super strong but that will never make them think they'll have to improve in case of a roadblock, it'll be the same vicious circle all over again. I'll be honest if GW2 gave me what I wanted I'd be back playing it every day and spending money, and I've never wanted anything over powered; just fair fights for EVERYONE. But that's an anecdotal claim. I'll admit GW2 has had times when it improves, but slight inclines followed by drastic declines is still net negative... and it's been so many years. All the good will has been soured, the earth salted, and the well poisoned. People are eventually going to get fed up, and it's reasonable to expect them to. The problem isn't that PvP is catering to a niche population; the problem is that the niche being catered to isn't those who want good PvP; because at the end of the day that's all we've ever needed for it to thrive, and what it ultimately never was.

> @"Shao.7236" said: > Your point is faulty. > > >I'm sorry, but no. People aren't leaving because "they can't have their mindless fun". Literally no one in any competitive game has ever done that except the most petulant and entitled kids who can't win; and it's spectrum levels of short sightedness, as well as insulting, and profoundly conceited to simply assume everyone who supported the game over the years has dropped for such a reason... > >Not to mention statistically unlikely, given the sheer number of players who've left. > > Hypocrisy at it's finest. It's been already told that people were quitting because GW2 was never balanced unlike now but it was already too late. You're implying in HoT and PoF the game was totally balanced which is an hilarious sight seeing. > Sorry but no, the fault rests with you. What you just did here is called Denying the antecedent. Along with your red herring below it's proof you are objectively wrong and not worth responding to; your perspective is simply and profoundly fallacious, and you can't even prove the truth of your examples for those games. But I'll indulge this last post. > You're gonna tell me that permanent damage sponge stunbreaking heralds, 1v5 5k unblockable evade damage spamming spellbreakers, 1v5 scrappers node bunkers, unburstable mirages, node wide covering damage sponge scourges, 1v5 node symbol spamming immortal firebrands, unblockable 50k damage bursts from soulbeasts, 1v5 chrono bunkers, nearly have all boons permanently holosmiths, 40 burn stacks untouchable weavers- Isn't that mindless gameplay? > Could go on with this, you don't call that mindless gameplay? Nobody is? Just me? I must the only one that's sane anymore. I never made such a claim that HoT and PoF were balanced, those are your words, and either your faulty inference, or blatant attempt to argue by a red herring; when that is not my claim. This game has never been balanced, and it's not balanced now. It's been bleeding players since release, we've had multiple waves and multiple mass exodus' on top of a steady stream of continual deteriorations like being dropped from ESL. You even said in a prior post that you only came around HoT, several years following initial decline. However, such declines are never instantaneous. The big Feb patch to many was a breaking point after 8 years of let down; the point where anyone hopeful that this game could have been a thing, gave up. The game COULD have been balanced a lot better, a lot earlier, but feb was for many players, the last hope. And the biggest thing it served to do was eliminate diversity, and seat a new build on a throne which wasn't taken care of for over half a year. CMC on a live steam even said himself "we could do perfect balance, but that wouldn't be fun" which I'd argue that it hasn't been tested in this game but, fine. However the biggest let down is that he followed up that statement with (paraphrasing) "not every change we make will be healthy, it's fine we'll try better next time.", which ya; reasonable to assume that. However this comes across as extremely apathetic when you consider that it explicitly shows full awareness when something is unhealthy. **And then we see no attempt to fix it, and only it; as it pollutes the game for months and moths on end** > GW2 has demanding timing, reaction and mechanical understanding. The game has in fact all of the aspects of what could be in competitive games outside aiming, that's the only thing GW2 doesn't do. And fighting games which have all the same, are far more recognized as a e-sport, and even the dwindling communities for some dwarf GW2 in concurrent players, and many of them support a wider diverse roster of selection and playstyles than GW2. What's the biggest difference between them and GW2? Reasonable deviations of balance between the characters. But okay, keep defending your dying scene as if it gives you a leg to stand on. Everyone else is the problem, your game is god tier and perfect, with amazing balance and everyone else is wrong. *eyeroll*

> @"Shao.7236" said: > You can say the playerbase is dying because of the balance, I'll keep telling you it's because people can't have their mindless fun so they quit. LOL! Are these the lies we use to justify this state of the game? No wonder this is where we're at. Pick any reasonably balanced competitive game that is popular with a substantially larger playerbase than GW2, doesn't even need to be a video game. How much more mindless is it compared to GW2? Or I'm sorry, is GW2 just the biggest brain competitive game and sooooo complicated, and requires sooooo much skill; no other game can keep up? Even more than Chess? Even more than Mahjong? Even more than Starcraft? Even more than MTG? Did you pick a game or two? Good, Now: Why can those games maintain large player bases with interest, despite how many are likely at the bottom level? Why do they have healthy populations? If you think it's mindless think of the easiest builds to play right, now and ask yourself if GW2 is still more demanding? Let's say GW2 is not well enough known, and so it will have a naturally smaller player base; then why couldn't it retain the healthy numbers we had a few years ago? I'm sorry, but no. People aren't leaving because "they can't have their mindless fun". Literally no one in any competitive game has ever done that except the most petulant and entitled kids who can't win; and it's spectrum levels of short sightedness, as well as insulting, and profoundly conceited to simply assume everyone who supported the game over the years has dropped for such a reason... Not to mention statistically unlikely, given the sheer number of players who've left.

> @"Mini Crinny.6190" said: > > @"Daishi.6027" said: > > Never. Because Mirage is a mesmer and Weaver is an Ele. The Mantra is "Mesmer is OP and broken." No matter the evidence. Historic lack of top placement, Historic in slot replacement, easily identifiable and counter able mechanics, reasonable fair openings; sometimes even less than other classes. Only one damage type dominating while the other barely thrives, proving the survivability mechanics aren't the issue. It doesn't matter: Mesmer broken OP and must be destroyed. > > > > Old Cele Ele on the other hand is the ideal CMC sees for every class.... Except Memser. > > > > Weaver isn't OP, it's intended. > > Yes, bring back cele DD ele and watch it make no difference to PvP anyway > > On a more serious note, there are people who actually want balance and then people who, when they die, cry out that it's not them who need to improve, but the class is just too strong and cry out for nerfs, this post is just silly as it wasn't weavers deciding how to balance Mirage and generally the majority of the community doesn't agree with how Anet dealt with Mirage (I say majority because there will be a few people silently happy about the nerfs to mirage). > > I have nothing else to say to this post seeing as it's not about balance but to just butcher a class because your still salty about Mirage nerfs You're quick to ascribe motive; I never said to butcher another class nor ever blamed weaver. The title and OP brought up mirages, meaning the standard and comparison needs to be stated. This game has a historic amount of inequality and double standards regarding mesmer since release, many that fly the face of of factual evidence that never is addressed. So I don't see why I shouldn't make a sarcastic post now that people are asking for what happened to mirage, to happen to another class. Which as anyone who matters would agree; isn't good balancing. I know you weren't being serious but for those with spectrum levels of shortsightedness: I only pointed out that the **STATE** of old Cele ele is CMC's ideal, clearly with any level of inference I didn't mean the literal specific build. Anyways my take away was that Weaver isn't OP and that it's intended, that isn't to imply nerfs. Maybe I should have clarified but that part wasn't sarcastic.

Never. Because Mirage is a mesmer and Weaver is an Ele. The Mantra is "Mesmer is OP and broken." No matter the evidence. Historic lack of top placement, Historic in slot replacement, easily identifiable and counter able mechanics, reasonable fair openings; sometimes even more than other classes. Only one damage type dominating while the other barely thrives, proving the survivability mechanics aren't the issue. It doesn't matter: Mesmer broken OP and must be destroyed. Old Cele Ele on the other hand is the ideal CMC sees for every class.... Except Memser. Weaver isn't OP, it's intended.

> @"bethekey.8314" said: > Only noobs have trouble with Dragon's Maw and would complain about it on the PvP forums. I play PvP at the highest level and never see anyone have trouble. Ya well, if this standard was the precedent mesmer would have never been nerfed except old glamour synergy, season 1 chrono bunk, and that one time shatters needed a bandaid.

> @"Soul.2710" said: > I can accept everything as long as it leads somewhere Lol since it's A-net, I think you have your answer. :^)

“How to keep sanity at silver tier?” By accepting the fact that maybe it’s the tier you belong in. And that the only room for advancement is to step your game up, get carried harder, and maybe game the system by queuing at optimal times.

This may be arguably unfair, but my conception of content is always taken as a whole. If I cannot enjoy PvP, WvW, I cannot in turn enjoy PvE content. If I cannot enjoy Fractals and Raids with the class or archetype I want to play; I cannot enjoy PvP, WvW. Open world content is such a mundane thing, that I can appreciate, and enjoy it as the bridge; but will never be able to hold my attention alone. Even less so when it doesn’t organically facilitate community interactions. As it stands now I’m so utterly displeased with PvP, and my main class, and the archetype, that I cannot find enjoyment in Ice brood. Ultimately why would I want to play in a world where I can’t have fun playing what I want to play? Especially when double standards are considered valid to the devs in the competitive and balance scenes. I stopped playing around the time we lost voice acting, I only log in for about 5 min to get updates knowing that if I ever did come back I’d have to pay. And I have the expectation the pendulum will eventually swing back; or fall off its chain entirely. (Hence why I even post or try to stay in the loop.) But by the time voice acting was added back it’s been far to late, and the disconnect is to large. On top of the fact good will has not been restored; customer service and their fairness has also significantly declined, I and my friend who still play this game have had quit e a few bad run ins in the past few years; which has soured the experience even more. Again maybe some of these are unfair standards and conflations. But they had over 8 years to make common problems, not be problems.

I think what Arheundel said is correct. I do not blame this guard-dev at all for anything balance related. He just seems like a dude who just loves his class, plays all modes, and and there is nothing wrong with that. Sure, they are likely biased; but the issues linger farther up the chain where class bias is not the sole issue.

GW2 should do what PSO2 is doing with New Genesis. Practically a new game, new engine, same launcher; and you get to carry over all your premium currency and hard earned or purchased skins. A-net could fix long standing bugs, re-balance the game from the ground up with much better data, make the game run more efficiently on GPU and hopefully be less CPU intensive.

2v2 could have been better than Conquest if they balanced for it. But nope, instead we end up with _slightly better than stronghold_

Lmao! Yes! plz! do this too. Not because it would be sound balance or anything. But simply because it will be funny. While we're at it if you want comedy gold toss out Carrion, Sage, Marauder, and Demolisher too.

> @"Arheundel.6451" said: > 1) STEALTH > 2) VISUAL CLATTER > 3) HUGE HP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROFESSIONs(should be limited to max 20% more HP...no 80% more like now) > 4) AOE SPAM (curb the amount of aoe spam, change 60% of all skills from aoe to single target) > 5) CC STUNLOCK (introduce decreased return on CC as it was in GW1 - no more stunlock kitten) > 6) EXCESSIVE BOON UPTIME > 7) BURST CONDITION DAMAGE (remove the "increase with intensity" feature from all the corresponding condis) Stealth is easy, but A-net refuses. It just needs to remove stealth when you miss for whatever reason or get blocked. It may feel bad to lose stealth from accidently auto attacking while trying to setup (which ircc was their original justification back around 2013), but frankly I believe that should be part of the risk and reward gameplay. If you're too eager and push buttons you shouldn't, while trying to set up and get punished for it; that's on them. I don't think "no tell" is flat out unhealthy, in many games you still need prediction; the issue is if the prediction is punishable and GW2 just makes it to safe. Visual issues will always be a problem with the game, and there are so few ways around this without culling half of literally every class, and even then it's still going to be a ton of visual noise. Many disagree with me but honestly only viable solution I can think of is to reduce match size. When the guard and the necro are making aoes, and the ele has all these bright effects, meanwhile the ranger sitting in the back in muted colours has barely any distinct animation yet is targeting you and is the immediate threat; sure you could give more animation to the ranger in this example but that only perpetuates the problem long term. Sure, this is the kind of thing that can be adapted to and learned from, but I don't think that's a standard that should be held when originally half the reason why we never got addons was because we had to "See, react, and learn" kinda antithetical when they remove the "see" aspect. HP Differences I agree, sort of. I feel like Amulets play a huge role in this, pretty sure the base difference is 40% between lowest and highest. Although sustain being to high is already a constant issue, I fear we make this issue worse by standardizing. At the very least HP would need to come down to match, as opposed to going up to match. CC Diminishing returns I think again can be mitigated by match size. CC is a lot more manageable when you have one opponent trying to lock you down; rather than getting focused and being stunlocked because you ran out of defensive options, and hoping your allies can do something about it amidst the clutter. Boon up time I hesitate to remove flat out. Certain boons are more problematic than others, and boons on certain builds are more problematic than others. This is what needs to be addressed first. Again I come back to the reasoning of smaller matches makes this more balanced. If there are less people to share boons to every class, boons can be hand crafted to be functional but not excessive. Burst condi damage 100% agree. Unpopular opinion from myself tho: It's been so long, and A-net has struggled forever to find the proper balance with condi. Either making it WAY to sustain tanky able to win via attrition with low effort. Or Nukes you better than some burst; and ends up often being more reliable than burst, so best solution: Simply remove all damaging conditions from PvP except for poison as a counter to healing, and make it stack in duration for PvP only. Even if you disagree PvP in this game is just bad, A-net has had years to fix it and never did what needed to be done. If you want a real pvp game better off playing something else; everyone here should just leave and let PvP continue to be the investment sink hole A-net thinks it is. And if you really want change long term then flat out leave PvE too. For as small as PvP is I have an inside source that has shown me the data regarding the ratio of players who play both PvE and PvP and how much they spend... But given how much A-net struggles; if everyone who purchases gems that currently reside in PvP ended up leaving; A-net would feel it more than people really know. (inb4 a-net removes this post)

> @"Supreme.3164" said: > There is no best way to describe the current situation than using a **famous quote** >  "Well 1. It's a stupid saying because it doesn't account for other variables, look at slot machines. And 2... That implies everything is not ALREADY INSANE!" -Freeman's mind I slightly agree with your premise and ya; we have stagnated hard. However I disagree with the specific claims: This game has NEVER been balanced on the idea of a "fair fight". Perhaps for 5v5, maybe; but only by the loosest definition. But I'd argue if balance was closer to a fighting game and we didn't double, triple, and quadruple down on 5v5 prior to HoT we'd maybe still have ESL support.

> @"Kuma.1503" said: > Few people listened. Now here we are Sounds about right.

Right side. Bangs are infinitely cuter than no bangs.