AliamRationem.5172

> @"Alex.2908" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > If weaver is so easy, why are you worrying about reflect on earth 4 to counter ranger burst when you're in air/fire? Just rotate earth to proc protection (arcane), giving you access to the evade on earth 2 and the projectile hate on air 4. Then you still have the reflect on earth 4 on your next rotation into x/earth if you need more projectile hate. Being unable to access earth 4 on demand the way other builds can and instead finding a way to set yourself up with what you need not just now but 4 seconds from now is part of the challenge of playing weaver. > > You are right, there are some other ways to handle a ranger charge (like dodge twice and sh** like that) but that was not the point. > > The way i see things is that the weaver is a bit of YOLO, if is working is working, if is not working than you're ******. Thats why the most builds from pvp that work focus on spamming the rotation than running away if is not working, nothing impromptu, no change of tactics, no try again, no new tactics, just... tap that kitten then hit the gas. And thats exactly what i liked about the core ele, it can adapt to all kinds of situations. It is not perfect on any situation but was quite good for most of them, thats why celestial builds were so great and, whats the most important, it was fun... since Anet added the specializations the notion of fun was replaced with the nothin of win, and not any type of win but the win easy win. I think weaver is the best example of what an elite spec should be in terms of its impact on play style. It represents a dramatic change in feel relative to its core spec. Compare to tempest, which is pretty much just core ele with access to shouts and overloads. Central to that is this tradeoff. Being locked into your attunement choices with half of that choice predetermined by your previous swap, able to access only part of your kit from your current attunement configuration. Having said that, I completely understand that this "locked in" feel is not everyone's cup of tea. If you love core ele, you might not love weaver. That's just how it's going to be the more dramatic the departure is from the core design. That's also not an excuse for the various legitimate complaints players have regarding weaver and elementalist in general! Don't overlook the positives that come with the trade, however. Consider the previous example: I'm getting my face rapid fired by a ranger while in air/fire. What do I do? I could just dodge, rotate attunements, and cast air 4 for the projectile block. It's a 0.5s cast, but the barrier generated from dodge combined with passive signet healing should result in negligible damage. It would probably be best to rotate to earth regardless, as protection will reduce any damage that does land and the evade on earth 2 is there as well if I need it. However, I could also rotate to water and use riptide to evade, heal, and close distance. Or if they're close enough, polaric leap for the interrupt and gap close, rotate fire and attempt to land a gale -> pyrovortex to turn the tables! Compare to core/tempest. If I rotate to water or earth to use the skills I have there, I don't get to access those offhand air skills anymore. I do get to use the offhand skills of that attunement on demand, however. That's the tradeoff. Neither one is "better". They're very different, which I think is a good thing! I wish more elite specs felt this impactful.

> @"Opopanax.1803" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > I'm not clear on which game mode we're talking here, but since you mention Dire stats I'm going to assume open world/story solo play is the focus. > > > > I think herald, holosmith, or chronomancer (all with sword) would be good picks for melee power builds with a nice balance of damage and sustain. My personal favorite pick for all out melee aggression is weaver (also with sword), but the power variants have poor sustain, unfortunately. > > Ive played a Dire Tempest, but I havent had time to unlock Weaver yet. I suppose I should get around to that sometime soon! For a great open world melee build, I definitely recommend it! Here's a clip with build link in comments: That's the build I generally prefer for open world, but here's an alternative option I also recommend: http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PGgAw2lZwmYXMJmJOKPnvaA-zRJYkRD/YkoA6kA6nFfd2A-e

> @"Alex.2908" said: > Anet please stop blaming ele, the problem is not the ele, the problem is the game itself. The elementalist was a hard class but if you played it well you had great results. I said that it was because the weaver is easy to play, is all about spamming and rotation, no more tactical thinking, no more adapting to the situation, just spamming, try to defend against a ranger burst with skill 4 from earth if you are attuned on air/fire. Now the elementalist (without weaver) is still a hard class but other classes, that are easy to use, have greater or the same performance. I see this as a intentional dumb down, how come someone engi who is using just the skill 1 from the flame thrower can kill a elementalist that is using 20 weapon skills? how come a perma invisible deadeye can kill a elementalist with 2 shoots and the only protection for the ele are 3 seconds of reflect? perma invisible vs 3 seconds of reflect, rofl... how come a warrior can burst on a ele while totally invulnerable but the ele cant use Obsidian Flesh to defend anymore? warrior would outrun you anyway, much faster, easier to use, almost perma invincible and all you have are 3 seconds of pointless invincible running, Obsidian Flesh had its purpose but some small minds just wanted to wreck it. Why do i have to use rune of speed or air traits on an elementalist to be able to run from almost any other class? why only tank builds with mega low dps work on WvW (fresh air full zerk will die from retaliation from the zerg)? why do i have to use > > So why do i have to use 25 skills to do the same thing that other classes do with 6 but a lot worst? So the problem is not the elementalist, is the direction that this game is going to, to be made easy to play for as many people as possible. If weaver is so easy, why are you worrying about reflect on earth 4 to counter ranger burst when you're in air/fire? Just rotate earth to proc protection (arcane), giving you access to the evade on earth 2 and the projectile hate on air 4. Then you still have the reflect on earth 4 on your next rotation into x/earth if you need more projectile hate. Being unable to access earth 4 on demand the way other builds can and instead finding a way to set yourself up with what you need not just now but 4 seconds from now is part of the challenge of playing weaver. Not that I am supporting elementalist's position in the meta. It was really irresponsible of them to drop this bomb on competitive modes and then walk away after promising they wouldn't do that. Unfortunately, elementalist didn't come out ahead in that deal and there doesn't appear to be any relief on the horizon with EoD being the focus for the foreseeable future.

I've found I enjoy some JPs more than others. I am not usually much of a fan of the jump puzzles which are more puzzle and less jumping (e.g. Silverwastes). Technically difficult JPs like Not So Secret don't bother me, but I would prefer not to have death on failure with no checkpoints if given the choice. The Wintersday JP is a good example of the sort of JP I enjoy. Failure isn't a painful annoyance. You just respawn at the start, ready for another attempt. I especially enjoyed the melting snowflake platforms forcing the pace and the competitive element that introduces when other players are present. I wouldn't mind seeing more of that kind of JP in the game. In fact, random thought here: Wouldn't it be cool if we had a modular JP that rearranges itself so it isn't exactly the same each time you enter? Toss in some fun mechanics like those disappearing platforms and multiple difficulty paths like Wintersday has and I could see myself going back to it on a regular basis, especially if it had daily rewards!

Try abyssal sea dye. It can be used in place of shadow abyss on some channels that require a deep black and it won't show that gray textured look. However, it does have hints of teal that are a little bit more pronounced than the reds that sometimes show with shadow abyss. Why do dyes change from one channel to the next? I don't really know. But I love the variation it creates!

Staff Mirage is the build you're looking for (I mean, as an alternative to druid). You don't need any skill, timing, or knowledge at all to play this build. Just push 1 and dodge over and over and you win. If that's not a perfect fit, it even has a purple butterfly theme (which I happen to prefer over the dark necro theme myself!)! Here's an old video clip of a dead simple version of staff mirage where I've replaced all my utility slots with signet passives and deliberately play like a complete potato (standing in fire, pushing buttons off cooldown, making no attempt at timing anything, etc.) just to demonstrate that the build wins effortlessly even against enemies that normally give less skilled players trouble like multiple veteran hydras, forged raiding party events, and even a bounty champion! If you want to spice it up a bit use viper, trailblazer, or rabid gear for better damage and feel free to add a weapon swap (I like axe!) and some better utility options.

I'm not clear on which game mode we're talking here, but since you mention Dire stats I'm going to assume open world/story solo play is the focus. I think herald, holosmith, or chronomancer (all with sword) would be good picks for melee power builds with a nice balance of damage and sustain. My personal favorite pick for all out melee aggression is weaver (also with sword), but the power variants have poor sustain, unfortunately.

Through feedback from other players and my own testing, I've increasingly recommended a fire/earth version of the build. It deals better damage as well as having stronger passive mitigation. With a longer attunement swap cooldown and less reliance on dodging, it should be a little bit easier to play than the fire/arcane build I use in most of my videos. Here's a sample clip demonstrating burst with fire/earth. I'm able to ramp up burning to over 20k in 4 seconds, peaking at 28k on a build with nearly 3.5k armor. Here's a link to the build: [Fire/Earth build](http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PGgAw2lZwmYXMJmJOKPnvaA-zRJYkRD/YkoA6kA6nFfd2A-e) If you're just starting out and trailblazer isn't on the menu, try this [inexpensive variant](http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PGgAw2lZwmYXMJmJOKPnvaA-zxIU8ohfQYz5SgEFgjZhKpN-e).

> @"mindcircus.1506" said: > > @"Irensaga.6935" said: > > Step 3: Finish the personal story. You may need help to down Mordremoth. I sure did on my Elementalist main. Being part of a guild who will come to your rescue when asked is helpful here. > While I agree with pretty much everything you said and find this an excellent post I do need to take issue with the above quote. > Hearts and Minds is a soloable encounter on any class as long as you don't choose the challenge mote. > I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone it's an easy encounter. It's not. > However finishing this encounter by improving your play, making any needed changes to gearing or adapting your build can be a very important step to a player's progression in this game. Calling in people to rescue you and provide a carry reinforces a bubble that many players of this game never break out of. > If you can finish Hearts and Minds, then other missions that a number of players struggle with such as Night of Fires, Confessor's End, the climax of PoF or Scruffy 2,0 become markedly easier. > Yes finish the story. But if you've gotten this far on your own, understand that the final mission is every bit as soloable as everything before it. if you're going to call in guildies to help, play the migraine mode, don't just call in a few people to kill the boss for you. Doing so robs yourself of one of the few good teaching moments this game offers. If they need to be "carried" through the normal mode, what makes you think they're going to learn anything useful in the challenge mode? There is such a thing as being in over your head! I don't see a problem with warning new players that this encounter is a step up from most of what you've seen before. It's long. It has some mechanics. It even has some persistent bugs. Frustration over these things is common from new players and bringing friends can help to avoid some of it.

The question doesn't make much sense. First, why only one weapon when most classes can (and should!) use a weapon swap? But more importantly, it's difficult to make any sort of recommendation when we don't know the specifics of the builds in question. Weapons generally break down into power or condi, but it's not like I could say "Oh, you're a warrior using berserker gear? Okay, greatsword. Good to go!" without knowing more about your build.

As a former WoW player myself, I know how you feel. It makes no sense! How can you play a game like this if you aren't playing for stat upgrades? I guess what I found out is that playing a game purely for stat upgrades doesn't make any more or less sense than playing a game for mastery skill unlocks and cosmetics. What matters is if I enjoy the gameplay. On the living world chapters you don't have to buy them all at once. I advise playing through them one at a time. There are plenty of achievements, skins, and masteries to unlock in these episodes so by the time you dig into that you should earn enough gold to convert to gems and buy the next episode. I guess the question is do you find it worthwhile? Or is not having that stat upgrade to keep you going a deal-breaker for you?

> @"melandru.3876" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > @"melandru.3876" said: > > > why is everyone on every thread suggesting trailblazer to new players???? > > > > > > because maguma lillies are so super common and not expensive? > > > because you want to bully people in full defensive builds making them unwanted in instanced content? > > > because you deem them to bad to survive without million health and armor? > > > > > > > > > makes..no..sense > > > > You're welcome to suggest whatever build you prefer. However, I would like to point out that the OP appears to be asking for a one-size-fits-all build. Tanky condi builds are a legitimate choice for that purpose. This is particularly true for players who struggle to be effective in glass meta builds (the OP also mentioned dying too often on ele in PoF). > > > > That's why I suggested the weaver build that I did. It's an ele build that is anything but squishy yet has strong enough damage to be perform adequately in any content. I don't want to clog the entire thread with endless video clips, but you're welcome to look at what I have on my channel. For reference, 32.5k T4 subject 6 burn in Dire gear (you don't have to do trailblazer!). I've also run CMs with this build without issue. 25-30k range on golem benchmark. I have burst demos, champion and legendary solos, PvP duels against top rank players, WvW roaming. I've even tested glass stats and have video of that to compare to my performance in tanky stats. It's all there to prove that this one-size-fits-all build works well enough to do whatever I want to do while playing the class and playstyle I love. > > > > I get that this does not qualify me for snowcrows, but I perform well enough that it's never been an issue for me in terms of other players giving me a hard time regarding my performance. I thought that might be helpful to the OP, given what they were asking for. > > > > 25-30k range on golem benchmarks is scourge level (even below scourge actually) > a class that has barrier for days and 19.2k health by default. > so it's not really that impressive. > > i stand by my first post, guardian or revenant if he/she wants to do all roles I don't disagree. This is not a raid build and I don't raid with it (you can't really use toughness gear in raids anyway!). But if I can benchmark 25-30k in dire gear, I'm sure a Viper version could perform adequately. Not optimally. Adequately. If the same build can easily be adapted to everything else you want to do and is also more forgiving to play when you're struggling even in open world, it might be a better option than the raid meta build for this class. Guardian is obviously the best choice. It does everything, much of it better than everything else! But ele was on the list as well, so I offer an alternative.

> @"melandru.3876" said: > why is everyone on every thread suggesting trailblazer to new players???? > > because maguma lillies are so super common and not expensive? > because you want to bully people in full defensive builds making them unwanted in instanced content? > because you deem them to bad to survive without million health and armor? > > > makes..no..sense You're welcome to suggest whatever build you prefer. However, I would like to point out that the OP appears to be asking for a one-size-fits-all build. Tanky condi builds are a legitimate choice for that purpose. This is particularly true for players who struggle to be effective in glass meta builds (the OP also mentioned dying too often on ele in PoF). That's why I suggested the weaver build that I did. It's an ele build that is anything but squishy yet has strong enough damage to be perform adequately in any content. I don't want to clog the entire thread with endless video clips, but you're welcome to look at what I have on my channel. For reference, 32.5k T4 subject 6 burn in Dire gear (you don't have to do trailblazer!). I've also run CMs with this build without issue. 25-30k range on golem benchmark. I have burst demos, champion and legendary solos, PvP duels against top rank players, WvW roaming. I've even tested glass stats and have video of that to compare to my performance in tanky stats. It's all there to prove that this one-size-fits-all build works well enough to do whatever I want to do while playing the class and playstyle I love. I get that this does not qualify me for snowcrows, but I perform well enough that it's never been an issue for me in terms of other players giving me a hard time regarding my performance. I thought that might be helpful to the OP, given what they were asking for.

> @"Lucio.4190" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > @"Gorkus.7496" said: > > > May I suggest Weaver. The thing is, it is the most complicated class to play. At least that's what everyone says. It may be due to the fact that the weaver class has more skills than any other, 26! For me, the (sword/dagger) weaver (human female, light armour) is the most aesthetically pleasing of all the classes. Everything she does is done with flair and a lot of colorful special effects. Her sustain is unreal. And though she doesn't do max dps, she ends up resurrecting many zerg players who do. To me, the advantage is that as a Weaver, you are a melee magic user. How cool is that? Then when necessary, switch to staff and have the biggest dps in the game. Another aesthetically pleasing class is the Holosmith. They do lots of dps and armed with a rifle, can be deadly both in close combat and at range. It's an ideal killing machine. My build is all out attack, so I need a friendly weaver to res me once in a while. > > > > I'll second weaver! It sounds like it's been giving you some trouble, so it may be a bad fit or maybe you need a different build? If you want something that has a really good balance of damage and sustain, try condi weaver with fire/earth sword/focus and trailblazer stats. Switch to Viper for raid/fractal. Swap earth for arcane for PvP/roaming. Firebrand is probably the better pick, but if you like weaver it's hard to find anything that feels quite like it! > > > > Here's a clip of my Asuran female weaver battling the champion avatar of Balthazar in Auric Basin. She's looking fierce and futuristic (not to mention cute!) while she goes toe-to-toe with the big guy and shows him who the God of Fire _really_ is! I'm using a PvP-style fire/arcane variant that's just my personal preference, but if you want something more forgiving try fire/earth with trailblazer stats. It's stronger on passive sustain and damage. You can adapt this build with different stats/traits/utilities to any game mode, although it is not meta for fractals (it still works fine by most player standards, though!). > > > > > > > > > > Dude! 14k-15k?!? You pulverized that avatar in less than 1 minute? I'm really impressed! > I have to struggle to get anything close to 4500 on a critical hit.. I must be doing something wrong with my mesmer. Balthazar moves around more than is ideal depending upon your positioning and he hits quite hard, making him fairly disruptive. Peak burn tick for this build in solo play is up to 30k and you can ramp up to 20k+ in as little as 4 seconds by stacking utility cooldowns. Here's a quick demo of bursting with the fire/earth build I would probably recommend for open world play on weaver. It ramps to over 20k burn in 4 seconds, 25k in 5 seconds, and peaks at 28k burn tick. This build has a surprising amount of punch for also having nearly 3.5k armor!

> @"Gorkus.7496" said: > May I suggest Weaver. The thing is, it is the most complicated class to play. At least that's what everyone says. It may be due to the fact that the weaver class has more skills than any other, 26! For me, the (sword/dagger) weaver (human female, light armour) is the most aesthetically pleasing of all the classes. Everything she does is done with flair and a lot of colorful special effects. Her sustain is unreal. And though she doesn't do max dps, she ends up resurrecting many zerg players who do. To me, the advantage is that as a Weaver, you are a melee magic user. How cool is that? Then when necessary, switch to staff and have the biggest dps in the game. Another aesthetically pleasing class is the Holosmith. They do lots of dps and armed with a rifle, can be deadly both in close combat and at range. It's an ideal killing machine. My build is all out attack, so I need a friendly weaver to res me once in a while. I'll second weaver! It sounds like it's been giving you some trouble, so it may be a bad fit or maybe you need a different build? If you want something that has a really good balance of damage and sustain, try condi weaver with fire/earth sword/focus and trailblazer stats. Switch to Viper for raid/fractal. Swap earth for arcane for PvP/roaming. Firebrand is probably the better pick, but if you like weaver it's hard to find anything that feels quite like it! Here's a clip of my Asuran female weaver battling the champion avatar of Balthazar in Auric Basin. She's looking fierce and futuristic (not to mention cute!) while she goes toe-to-toe with the big guy and shows him who the God of Fire _really_ is! I'm using a PvP-style fire/arcane variant that's just my personal preference, but if you want something more forgiving try fire/earth with trailblazer stats. It's stronger on passive sustain and damage. You can adapt this build with different stats/traits/utilities to any game mode, although it is not meta for fractals (it still works fine by most player standards, though!).

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > > > > > > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. > > > > > > In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. > > > > > > > > > > Outside of any case-specific context, that is completely meaningless. Every patch changes things. Yet very little of it meet your arbitrary standard of "need". ANet's intent means everything until they change it and it doesn't. There are some facts for you. > > Really? So the fact that Anet already decided to_ intentionally_ increase the aggro range in PoF is completely meaningless in a discussion about if Anet needs to reduce the aggro range in PoF? Oh OK ... lol. Again, the discussion is not about what ANet "needs" to do. We don't get to decide that. My point was that ANets original intent (which I will also point out is not known to us!) is irrelevant with regard to whether or not they may or may not change something. Obviously, any time they change anything (aside from new content and bug fixes!) they deviate from the design intent. There are numerous reasons why they may do so, but again, that's beyond the scope of this discussion because we have no say in that. If you'd like an explanation of my position on PoF aggro range from the perspective of what I presume is at least part of ANet's design intent, here's a copy from several pages ago in this thread: _"I'm sure they were probably thinking... Okay, we're giving you mounts. You can get around much easier than before and we don't want all these enemies to become little more than scenery in the game. Why don't we just increase the aggro range so you get hit a little more as you're flying past? While that's perfectly sensible, I don't think they considered the impact on player perception. As I said before, **there is now a greater difference between movement speed in-combat vs. out-of-combat due to the addition of mounts. Increasing aggro range to a level appropriate to hassle mounted players has the side-effect of locking unmounted players into combat much more frequently and for longer periods of time than in pre-PoF content**. So now not only do I really want to get out of combat so I can mount up and get moving again, but I'm also finding myself stuck in combat more often because enemies aggro from further away whether I'm mounted or not. While this is not specifically a complaint about difficulty, a reduction in aggro ranges to something more similar to HoT would likely go a long way toward improving quality of life for those who do struggle. So, while I disagree with some of the specific complaints being made here, arguing them back and forth is a waste of time as what I want is likely also what they want. However, to those who disagree that this is a problem requiring a solution, I'd like to hear your thoughts. How would you feel about a reduction in aggro range to pre-PoF levels? Would this trivialize navigation in PoF? Has that been the result for you in HoT?"_

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > > > > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? > > > > Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. > > In addition to the fact that Anet _intentionally_ increased the range in PoF and that Anet can't design the game to cater to people's individual feelings. > > Outside of any case-specific context, that is completely meaningless. Every patch changes things. Yet very little of it meet your arbitrary standard of "need". ANet's intent means everything until they change it and it doesn't. There are some facts for you.

> @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > > > > > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > > > > > > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. > > > > > > As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. > > > > > > In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that. > > > > I'm not here to debate people's opinions ... that's a worthless exercise. With the game history and factual information, it's evident that aggro range doesn't need to decrease in PoF. Maybe you believe that 'opinions' matter more than game intent and mechanics in this case ... if that was true, you have to ask yourself why Anet increased aggro range in PoF regardless of 'opinions'. > > Do you have any facts in the form of statements or statistics to back up your 'facts'? Obtena's central argument is that only things which prevent players from completing content "need" to change. PoF aggro range does not meet this standard and therefore does not need to change, strictly speaking. That's certainly a fact! The problem, of course, is that it isn't up to players to determine what needs to change. That's up to the developers, naturally. But this is not the standard by which the developers themselves determine what needs to change either. The question you should be asking is why we're debating the question of whether or not this is a "need" when that should go without saying. The answer? Apparently, so we can win the internet. Yay!

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > > > > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > > > > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > > > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > > > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > > > > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. > > > It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? > > The point is simple: the three facts I presented are evidence this doesn't need to change. As you yourself noted previously, it isn't up to players to determine what "needs" to change. Having said that, one purpose of the forum is to communicate player feedback. So, your opinion is noted (as little or as much as anyone else's!), but has no intrinsic value above that of any other person's opinion on this matter. The metric you've chosen to support your claim is arbitrary and meaningless, just as that of the rest of us, again because it is not up to us to determine what needs to change. We're simply sharing our opinions. In my opinion, the increased aggro range of PoF is annoying and I would prefer HoT aggro ranges. I am in no way suggesting that it "must" change or that I have the power to facilitate that change beyond providing player feedback. So, here I am doing just that.

I don't really know anything about condi tempest, but SC has this build: https://snowcrows.com/raids/builds/elementalist/tempest/condition/ In my experience, you can usually take a condi-based raid build, slap on trailblazer gear, tweak traits/utilities/runes/sigils to taste and make a solid open world build.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > Because I'm not giving my opinion. > > > > I would argue that the following are opinions. As valid as anyone else's, but opinions even so. > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > >but that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's just a different approach you have to take to play that part of the game. > > > > > Right ... and 'annoying' isn't a reason to get it changed ... > > > > You're not following the conversation here. Yes, THAT is an opinion ... but I have presented certain facts that make it evident aggro range doesn't need to change. > > Aggro range doesn't prevent people from completing content. > Players disliking something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed. > Anet set the Aggro range of mobs intentionally in PoF > > I'm continually presenting these factual statements as the reason range aggro doesn't need to change; some people think pointing out opinions invalidate those facts ... it doesn't. Hey, if you have some FACTS that shows it should change, let's hear them. Otherwise, telling me things I said that are my opinion is just a big nothing. Supporting your position with facts does not alter the fact that your position is, in fact, an opinion. It's true that aggro range does not prevent people from completing content. But who chose this as the metric by which we determine whether or not something is problematic or needs to be fixed? ANet does a lot of things. They also change a lot of things. What's your point? So, you see, your opinion is no more fact-based than anyone else's. I can support my argument with facts as well (and I have multiple times in this thread). It doesn't make my opinion "better" than yours, although logically supporting it the way I do probably makes it more persuasive than your preferred style of using weak logical fallacy to proclaim yourself the victor of any argument.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > @"Fuchslein.8639" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > Interesting thread ... I like the part where many people think the game caters specifically to them. PoF map mobs and their distribution are hard/annoying/frustrating or not? Not really relevant. The game isn't designed to be everything to everyone. If we are going to argue PoF is different than HoT or core, there is no debate there ... YES ... and it's intended for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is if Anet should change it (otherwise, what's the point of the thread?) Based on the age of the content and the 'challenge' it presents most players ... I would say no. If you don't like it ... well, that's not a problem ... name me a single MMO where you love everything in it ... then tell me why you aren't playing it right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the strongest points here is aggro range. I really don't get why that's a problem OTHER than the fact that we are accustomed to the relatively low ranges from other maps. Can someone actually describe why bigger aggro ranges are a problem? Of course, absurdly large ones where _unseen_ mobs aggro you ... YES, that's an issue but we aren't talking about THAT far away in PoF. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here in the thread there are some reasons why this is a problem. Do we need to break it all down again for 'your specifically needs'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Large aggro range has NEVER prevented people from completing content in this game ... so it's not really the problem people want to say it is. Again, what you find annoying/frustrating is simply a matter of personal preference and since the game doesn't cater to individuals, it's irrelevant. If large aggro ranges prevented people from playing the game ... that WOULD be a problem worth discussing ... but they don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's pretty funny that people don't see the increased aggro range as _intentionally_ preventing people from avoiding trash mobs in OW ... yet somehow those people argue it's a problem that needs to be fixed ... I think Anet already give you the answer to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > And how do you know it doesn't stop people from playing POF maps? > > > > > > > > > > Because there is no mechanic that prevents people from playing PoF maps due to aggro range. Just like there is no mechanic ANYWHERE in the game that prevents people from playing ANY map due to aggro range. > > > > > > > > > > > > > True, however, for my valuable play-time, I almost never go into PoF maps because of this annoyance. It's not "preventing" me, but it isn't encouraging me either. > > > > > > That's fair ... and there are lots of other maps where people don't go into for various other reasons as well. I mean, sure we want Anet to encourage players to go to all the maps ... but they can't possibly do that by catering to subpopulations desires for specific game parameters, especially if there are other options other subpopulations want as well. The game can't be everything to everyone ... that's why we have variety, even in maps. > > > > And how do you know that only one subgroup has this problem? > > Actually, to be honest ... NO subgroup has a problem with it because it doesn't prevent you from playing the game and completing content. Anet INTENTIONALLY made the aggro range larger in PoF ... and you are intentionally unwilling to understand that to portray aggro range in PoF as a problem that needs to be fixed. > I'm having a hard time understanding why your opinion is better than everyone else's. You disagree that this is annoying or that it should be changed? Noted. Anything else you wanted to add?

I'm not opposed to underutilized weapons getting some love, but I think it's working as intended if melee weapons deal better damage than ranged weapons in general. Higher risk should equal higher reward.

Marauder is a great choice, but it also depends on how comfortable you are. Thief is capable of healing rapidly on offense with the health return on crit from crit strikes. You can even double down on that with the healing signet. At the same time, they're very evasive and you can deal significant damage without providing much opportunity to be attacked in return with traits like bounding dodger and weapons like staff or pistols which either evade on attack or allow you to burst from range. The extra vitality might be wasted if you are constantly topping off your health between evades.

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > Then they decided to announce maintenance mode when they should have been working on another expansion all along. > > > When was maintenance mode announced? > > > > My choice of words was a criticism of their decision not to work on another expansion (i.e. their failure to invest in this game's future). Was that not clear in the context of my statement? Or do you really want to engage in an argument over the strict definition of "maintenance mode"? I know it's a popular subject and all. I'm just not sure it would be productive. > > There already exists enough panic on the forums about the demise of ANet and GW2. You have seen the threads, I'm sure. Some might take your comment at face-value. > > Besides, prior to the expansion announcement, how do we know that Anet was failing to invest in the game's future? > > I get it. You're frustrated and disappointed. Many are. In my opinion, that isn't reason enough to add to the existing FUD with claims which have no basis. Now you want to argue the definition of "failure to invest", too? We're talking past tense here. It's likely the "panic" and talk of "maintenance mode" were factors in the decision to move on another expansion. It signals to players that they are continuing to invest in this game's future. We can argue semantics, but that's what this is ultimately about. Unfortunately, that decision did not come free from consequence and does not resolve every issue caused by the mistake it seeks to address. If they had remained committed all along, they would have been working on this expansion from the moment PoF released. For whatever reason (I have my theories on the matter!) that didn't happen. As a result they don't have the luxury of taking their time, but expectations are high. They need a win on this. I don't feel it's alarmist to make that observation. However, I'm concerned that, in their rush to push out the next expansion, they're providing too little support to the game we're playing right now (see promised PvP balance and subsequent admissions that they lack the resources to do it as well as arguably low-effort story releases). If player feedback means anything at all, I see some value in making these opinions known.