draxynnic.3719

Honestly, what ticks me off is how the daily sales nowadays require you to check _every single day_ to see if the thing you want has come up. I had something I was waiting for the entire sale for, and then I missed it because it came up on the one day I didn't think to check. Guess ArenaNet isn't getting those gems until the next round... assuming I don't forget to check on the wrong day again.

> @"Dustfinger.9510" said:

> > @"Mars Balearicus.7138" said:

> > But is all of that confirmed? (Referring to both of your guys' posts)

>

> The book about the founding of lions arch did confirm that the mechanical engine was specifically invented by the charr to defeat humanity who only had sailboats and the rare magic powered boat but mainly depended on the rising tides to be able to launch their ships. Luckily, peace had begun to blossom by the time the engine was thoroughly tested.

The impression I got was that it was a combination of the port that the Charr were using also getting flooded, and by the time they recovered from that, Kryta had already lost most of its sea trade and coastal possessions _and_ getting from Ascalon to Kryta by sea required going past Orr. The idea of attacking Kryta from sea with a powered ship went from "this could be an effective way to hurt them and divert resources from Ascalon" to "this is no longer viable".

There was an attempt at a peace overture in the period covered by the book, but that was ruined by the protagonists unknowingly intercepting the peace offerings, and the war was back into full force later in the book. The war is largely presented as similar to the Hundred Years War in real-world history - there are periods of high-intensity conflict and there are periods where there are lulls between major campaigns where people might start thinking about peace before something stirs the pot yet again.

> @"Kodama.6453" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > The flamethrower is a hybrid weapon, not just condi (AA does ~ 2x the damage of the "power" rifle in the same amount of time I believe). I hope you're running vipers or similar, or it's gonna be really lackluster in PvE.

>

> The thing is: should it be a hybrid weapon?

> We already have grenade kit and bomb kit with hybrid damage, I think flamethrower would make sense as a pure condition damage weapon.

>

> Especially since they changed flamethrower 2 and cut all of it's power damage away and gave it burning stacks instead.

> The auto attack is the only skill left in the flamethrower kit that deals some power damage, everything else deals the majority in burning stacks. Maybe they should gut it's power damage as well and let it apply a short stack of burning with every tick. Would make sense thematically as well.

Yes, it should, until and unless Impact Savant gets to use condition damage as well.

You didn't, but other people _have._ And then you came into a discussion that as far as I can see you haven't been involved in before, trying to nitpick one specific thing another poster said, said other poster saying that you'd just been attacking them in another thread? And now you're attacking everyone who's engaged with you. Surely you can see how that's suspicious?

I commented on how I think it's unlikely that any one elite specialisation will be called "ritualist" and that ritualist themes will more likely be spread across several as a means of acknowledging that I agreed with your stated position on that point, despite disagreeing with you on the complete non-relevance of another point. It is possible to disagree with somebody in one aspect and agree with them in another. You're the one trying to turn that into a 'gotcha'.

Anyway, I'm done trying to engage with you.

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

>

> "Your suspicion" being what exactly? :D

That you're more interested in picking an argument than having a discussion. You're looking at people who seem to have similar positions to what you're advocating, and you're finding details to pick fights over.

To make one last attempt, though: the relevance of the observation comes from context that you might have missed. There is a claim floating around that ritualist themes should be piled exclusively onto the revenant, because revenants are ritualists (this is an oversimplification, but it's the general gist). This is not true: revenants are not ritualists, and in fact, revenants did not even exist in Guild Wars 1. Furthermore, there is precedent for ritualist elements being used by other professions, both in GW2, and in GW1 through secondary professions.

If you're _not_ taking the perspective that ritualists and revenants are the same thing, then this isn't relevant to you, and I don't see why you'd be making such a big deal about a point that isn't relevant to your position and which you don't seem to understand, unless your motivation is purely to pick a fight. Particularly given the aggressive fashion in which you're pursuing it.

> @"ScottBroChill.3254" said:

> >

> You can't use playstyle similarities as an argument here because gw1 and gw2 have completely different playstyles. ele's play completely different in both games, but you wouldn't make the argument that gw2 elementalist isn't the same as gw1 elementalist. Because they both are channeling and attuning to the elements. Similarly, both rit and rev put on blindfolds to better commune with the spirit world and summon otherworldy energies from the mist. But even with playstyle similarities then renegade makes an attempt at being a spirit spammer. It literally summons named spirits, as well as having a spirit that dazes just like ritualist. it has both offensive and supportive spirits, just like ritualist. This is in contradiction to rangers who only have supportive spirits, and necromancers who only have offensive minions, a clear distinction that is stated in the description of ritualist from gw1. Hell, even when communing spirits like Shiro you hear shiro say "I demand that you release me!" because he is forceably bound to the revenant until the revenant releases him. Basically the same as how rit spirits are bound by chains. The only difference is most of legends are revenants channel are benevolent and are willing to help the revenant, so it seems almost as a mutual relationship.

> >

I think this is the core of the discussion.

Revenant is essentially to ritualist as guardian is to monk. They're drawing on basically the same energies, but they have a different focus on how they use that power, the most significant being that revenants and guardians are soldier professions that use magic mostly to augment and support their combat capabilities, while ritualists and monks are scholar professions.

Is it possible for a revenant to behave like a ritualist? Certainly. The point I've been making all along, though, is that _this is exactly what renegade is doing._ The very specialisation that you've used here to prove they _can_ do that is the one where they've _already_ done that. We don't need a second ritualist-esque elite specialisation for the revenant, at least not right after we've just had one - it'd be better for the third elite specialisation to be something different rather than a take two at attempting to appease the ritualist crowd. Furthermore, I don't think it's practical to attempt to get anything closer to a ritualist than ventari/kalla renegade already does while staying within the basic mechanics of revenant.

ArenaNet was quite upfront back in the day that the engineer was intended to be the "home" for ritualist playstyles in terms of mechanics. Revenant, meanwhile, it intended to be its own thing, not a ritualist substitute. It has a lot of thematic similarities, but it's not the same thing.

Meanwhile, there's not only nothing in the lore that prevents other professions from dabbling in ritualism, there's _precedent_ for it.

The closest you're likely to get to a ritualist (apart from turret engineer being adjusted back into something that could be specialised in) is probably going to be adding to one of the existing scholar professions. Elementalist and mesmer are both built around their own special mechanics that wouldn't really work well with the ritualist feel. Necromancer is therefore not only a thematically similar profession (both operate around death) but one where it's reasonably practical to overlay ritualist on top. (Again, though, it might not be called that... and one could say that scourge has already gone in this direction.)

> @"Jimbru.6014" said:

> Unfortunately, that victory made the Pact overconfident. They tried to Leeroy Jenkins Mordremoth head on, neglecting the facts that Mordremoth was NOT weakened like Zhaitan, and he had at least some inside help and advance knowledge, as demonstrated by the attacks on the Zephyrites and Pale Tree. The predictable result was that Mordremoth literally swatted the Pact fleet out of the sky with the help of the corrupted Sylvari, forcing the Pact into a costly, divisive, come-from-behind campaign that made the war against Zhaitan look like a cakewalk by comparison.

I'm not sure that was strictly overconfidence. Trahearne's strategy was based on the principle that a newly-awakened elder dragon was _already_ in a weakened state compared to Zhaitan at the height of his power, and that newly-awakened elder dragons tend to have a particularly destructive initial expansion to claim territory and additional magic to strengthen themselves (with Rata Sum and the Grove already disturbingly close to the current front lines). His goal was to strike while Mordremoth was still fairly weak and before Mordremoth could go on the offensive.

It turned out there was a factor he hadn't accounted for, but apart from that the strategy was largely sound. Mordremoth still being relatively weak was even demonstrated through the remnants of the Pact still being able to take him down.

In Jormag's case... Jormag did get put back into hibernation in S3, and it's questionable whether Jormag's actually fully awake even now, or whether Jormag's in a state similar to Mordremoth in season 1. Which would explain Jormag current behaviour - Jormag knows Jormag's the underdog, but if Jormag can turn a strong military leader, or even better, the force that has already killed three Elder Dragons, that would put Jormag in a much stronger position.

It's also possible that Jormag's limited use of magic outside the ice and persuasion spectrum could be that Jormag knows that absorbing too many forms of magic at once can be bad for a dragon's sanity. Jormag may still be a villain, but Jormag's approach would probably be compromised if Jormag went full Kralkatorrik.

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > @"draxynnic.3719" said:

> > ...wow. That escalated quickly. Suspiciously so.

> >

> > I'm not going to express an opinion either way on which is "better", but at the bottom line, this discussion is centered on a Guild Wars 1 profession (the ritualist) and how that might be translated into GW2. References to how things worked in GW1 are, therefore, entirely relevant. Obviously, GW2 has its own mechanics and translations aren't going to be direct, but we are talking about two time periods in the same world here.

>

> Yeah, except for when you actually read what was said in the message I've quoted: "Revenant never existed in Guild Wars.". If that's a valid argumentation for you then the thread is over. But the ritualist fits multiple classes now and as such what was in gw1 is still irrelevant, anet can stretch whichever semi-related class into whatever they want. What is relevant is what the class did and which classes/specs **currently in gw2** have similar abilities and playstyle.

>

> But sure, since you share his views (while pretending you "won't express an opinion" for some reason?), then the thread is done. Revenant can't get it, "because there was no revenant in gw1".

> (nope, still not a valid argumentation, to be completely clear)

> ____________________________

>

> Anyways, I don't think a "ritualist" should be added, as it seems like it's already kind of 'splattered' between the classes, I'd rather see something new.

> Also... https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Conqueror#achievement2399 ...so much for revenant being unrelated, "because it didn't exist".

My actual thoughts are that they both have their strengths and weaknesses, with neither being objectively better than the other except in matters of graphics and technology (where GW2 generally has the advantage simply through being later)... but I didn't think going into such a discussion was either relevant or productive. Way to reinforce my suspicion by immediately jumping to the most aggressive conclusion.

The observation you're objecting to is accurate. Revenants and ritualists are not the same thing (any more than guardians and monks {edit: or paragons} are the same thing), the revenant profession did not exist in GW1. While there are certainly thematic similarities, they should not be a straitjacket to limit revenant to being ritualist-like (we just HAD a ritualist-like elite specialisation for revenant in renegade), nor should they restrict other professions from having ritualist-like elements.

In the wider context, one of the arguments put forward for why necromancers "can't" have a ritualist-like elite specialisation is the idea that ritualists hate necromancers, based on some lines from Professor Gai (a ritualist) in Factions. This can be rebutted by demonstrating that N/Rt was definitely a thing that you could do in GW1.

Ultimately, I'm inclined to think that _nobody's_ ever going to get an elite specialisation called "ritualist", but instead that elite specialisations _with ritualist themes_ are possible. Just like there's no elite specialisation called "dervish", but I could point at a few that certainly have dervish-like themes.

And necromancer is probably at the top of the list as a profession for which introducing ritualist themes would be highly appropriate.

While I suspect most of the Expansion 3 elite specs are likely to be Asian-influenced to at least some extent, I don't think it's likely to be something like "samurai" - that's a specifically Japanese thing, and Arenanet didn't have anything that specifically Japanese in Factions, nor have they done anything that's so specific to a single real-world nation in general. A samurai-influenced set of abilities and playstyle may well happen, but at the very least I doubt it would have that name.

Regarding a monk-oriented specialisation... guardian really does have the warrior/monk theme already nailed down for any 'monk' that bears any resemblance to the GW1 monk. Some form of support-oriented warrior specialisation may well come, and it might even have a staff, but I hope they'd be able to find something more imaginative for it than 'just add monk magic'. For instance, maybe it could be a kind of inverse Berserker that uses water magic, or it might pick up some ritualist-like abilities to support itself and allies.

...wow. That escalated quickly. Suspiciously so.

I'm not going to express an opinion either way on which is "better", but at the bottom line, this discussion is centered on a Guild Wars 1 profession (the ritualist) and how that might be translated into GW2. References to how things worked in GW1 are, therefore, entirely relevant. Obviously, GW2 has its own mechanics and translations aren't going to be direct, but we are talking about two time periods in the same world here.

It's something I've been saying for a while... people claiming that something is OP really should put their money where their mouth is and _play_ it if it's "easy wins". So many times I see a post and think "you don't actually play the profession and this is just sour grapes, isn't it?" It's a principle I generally try to follow, and more often than not it turns out to be a lot harder than it feels like when they're pulling it on you, or there's some counter to it that you don't see because the build you're playing is one that gets countered by them. There _have_ been cases where I've gone "yep, this feels OP when playing it, I should not be having this level of success with a build I've only just started using", but that's a distinct minority.

If you haven't done so... then sure, you can say that it's _annoying_ to play as, but can you really say it's OP? You rarely figure out what the weaknesses of something is until you try it yourself. Sure, you might have _some_ idea of what works on them and what doesn't, but when you haven't played something yourself, you tend to get an inflated idea of its strengths when they're coming at you, while missing its weaknesses that you either haven't figured out yet, or haven't got a build that can exploit them.

If everyone gets obsessed with wanting to buff their own profession and nerf everything else, sooner or later everything's going to get nerfed to death, because any given profession is always going to have more people calling for nerfs than defending it. Which is... a kind of balance, I guess, but a competition to push everyone else to the bottom probably won't be satisfying to anyone in as it approaches its (il)logical final conclusion.

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> > @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> ~SNIP~

> > With the way we are pushing **class design will become all about homogenization **and that will literally end this game; We need to have our classes be unique and not some cookie-cutter aesthetic of some such dribble like "Rev is just an edgier warrior, and guardian is blue warrior." No. Bad. Stop it. We don't want that please don't push them to do this, can we for ONCE come together as a community and at least preserve portions of our class identities before they are completely gutted from us.

> >

> ~SNIP~

>

> I selected one section for you to read what you wrote again...that's what they want, they don't want unique classes, then anyone can play anything and each class can do everything...that was the original intent, there wasn't supposed to be any specialization, yet people screamed for it and they came out with E-specs.

>

That's... a bit of a misrepresentation of what the intent was. The intent was that every profession could fulfill every _role,_ but they did so in different ways and had different playstyles. YMMV on how well they succeeded on either count (and the PvE balance at the time was basically "all you need is power DPS"), but a berzerker guardian definitely had a different playstyle to a berserker warrior, which was very different to a berzerker thief, or a berzerker elementalist, or berzerker mesmer, or whatever.

Even now, you can still see it in the healing specialisations. Firebrand, renegade, druid, tempest, and scourge can all work as healers, and I may be missing some... but they all do their healing in different ways. Which unfortunately does present the potential for some to be objectively better than others for specific content, because of how the different modes of healing interact with mechanics, but that's probably something that can't really be helped.

One possibility that could help there is to have some things like minions just not count for the AoE cap. Mind you, that might create a weird interaction where minions are really resistant to AoE in PvE, and then melt to it in WvW. (Mind you, I don't think discouraging pet builds, with the exception of ranger pets, in WvW zergs would really be a bad thing...)

> @"Kulvar.1239" said:

> > @"Avatar.3568" said:

> > Stop saying that we have that already, we have no shooter class with forced action camera, no class has something like a mp or assault rifle or a ammunition Magazin.

> > We have somethings that are like somethings of the commando but no real commando class

>

> No class will ever be forced to use action camera

This.

Plus, in all honesty, the closest thing to the commando we had in GW1 would be engineer with mace/shield. :p

Honestly, every time I see this sort of discussion, I want to ask "if it's so broken, why don't you try it yourself?"

That's the principle I try to take, and four times out of five, it turns out that pulling off what was done to you is actually quite complicated, or the build that you were screaming about hardcounters your build but is hardcountered in turn by something else, or when you try it and find out what it actually takes to succeed with that you have to admit that you were simply outplayed. There are a couple of times I've tried something and gone "yeah, I am _far_ too powerful with this build I've just picked up for the first time ever" (cough_scourge_cough) but usually it turns out to be harder then the person who's probably practiced it for hours makes it look.

Mesmers... I generally haven't felt to be that problematic. They have their counters, like everyone else (denying them clones and illusions tends to reduce their strength). They have their factors that make them annoying, but so does everyone else. They tend to be particularly effective against builds that are designed around singling out a single opponent and which don't have stealth, but I think it's reasonable to have a profession that can out-duel those builds while generally being weak against strong AoE builds.

I have a vague feeling that there used to be a trait that allowed you to throw turrets, but that got removed along with the ranger trait that allowed you to throw traps (that one I really miss). That said, turrets do feel as if they're still a reasonable fit for engineer gameplay - most turrets are fairly long-range, and for those that aren't, engineer is already a profession that's intended to get into close range occasionally.

Regardless of what the history may have been, I agree about the mobility issue. At the time, they were good if you were reliably fighting in one location for a while, not so good when there was any mobility required. Nowadays, they're technically more suited for mobility (since overcharge happens only once when deployed, they're stronger in the first few seconds after deployment than they would be later), but they're still largely balanced as something that could be sitting there shooting for minutes at a time. A shorter duration could mean that they have more of an impact during that duration, but aren't going to be a constant presence.

Surprised nobody's brought up Reef Lurkers. Until now!

> @"doogal.9368" said:

> > @"Altaiz.3570" said:

> > I would like to see Phoenix, Some form of dragon, a giant bear/wolf like creature much like the new war claw mount the 2k gems one

>

> What sort of dragons come from Cantha areas? (I never finished the campaign back in the day)

> Is wyvern a dragon species?

On the topic of Canthan dragons: [Here's something I prepared earlier.](https://www.guildmag.com/the-dragons-of-cantha/) Quite a bit earlier - some of the GW2 references I put in that are a little out of date, but the GW1 stuff hasn't changed.

Wyverns are... hard to say. From a mythology perspective, I'd say that absolutely, yes, wyverns _are_ dragons... but so are drakes from that perspective. In a Guild Wars context, I'd probably say that wyverns have a status similar to drakes - related to dragons (possibly more so than drakes) but not actually the same.

Similar observations would probably apply to a lot of the Canthan dragons, however. Saltsprays might technically be wyverns, and Rockhides are dragon tortoises.

> @"Jheuloh.4109" said:

> Ultimately I'll play whatever is most effective, but thematically I'd be most interested in more plausible looking creatures. The bristlebacks, smokescales, fanged ibogas, wyverns, etc, of HoT & PoF are all nifty creatures on their own but they're very much fantasy monsters. In Cora Tyria, even Drakes still look like something that could happen under the right circumstances, sans breath weapon.

Aside from the plantimals, most of those are pretty close to things that have existed. Bristlebacks are based on armoured dinosaurs, although they probably didn't have the ability to shoot spines (but then, neither do scorpions or spiders). Take those ridiculous head-horns off the Smokescale and it would probably fit well among therapsid predators of the Permian. Wyverns aren't that far off long-tailed pterosaurs, although pterosaurs would have much lighter bodies and larger wings.

It is a bit silly that in PoF even relatively normal animals like cats and antelopes were fantasy'd up, though.

Pretty sure it wasn't P1, but P2 or P3. In 2v2 - it was a relatively recent video.

The majority generally follows the herd, sometimes without really thinking about exactly what makes those builds good. Usually, they focus on the "best" builds, but this means that a relatively small dip in potency means a large dip in the number of players playing it. Which can often mean such builds benefit from the "the other team wasn't expecting that" effect.

Ultimately, I'd take opinions of people who actually engage in buildcrafting themselves over what the Metabattle herd is doing.

And in that respect - I have your opinion. I also have a dissenting opinion. I can also see the reasoning why Vallun set up a build that way, just as I can see your reasoning. However, your reasoning seems to be carrying the assumption of traits being bad because they're superfluous with the meta builds, without considering that they might be useful with a different build. For example, is Hunter's Fortification a bad (or, possibly more accurately, redundant) fit for a valor+meditations DH? Sure. But what if you're _not_ running valor+meditations? Then you might be looking for an alternative source of condition removal. For a condi build, the ability to take Radiance or Zeal while still having decent condi cleanse might well be worth giving up Big Game Hunter, which is mainly a _power_ damage boost when using a skill you might not actually want to use on a burn build.

Just because something isn't a good fit for the meta builds doesn't mean it's bad. It's just that it's not a good fit for the builds which are in vogue at the moment.

> @"Buran.3796" said:

> > @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

>

> > I can't believe how un-fun it is to play shiro now, on any level and in any mode he is just not fun to play right now outside of PvE. (But really who cares, we knew PvE rev would be fine, its not like any major changes outside of out-right removal of trait lines would kill them there).

>

> Honestly I don't think that power Rev is that much hotter in PvE either (at least in open world content). If you try to do something like the Dragon Stand meta event with power you will get a lot less revenue than doing it with a shortbow Renegade: if you run the typical mele power Shiro you'll find that a lot of enemies will melt due ranged attacks from your fellows before you can even touch them, and if you run the hammer the ultra slow cast of the AoE skills can't compete with the shortbow + citadel bombardment. But something similar happens to the Firebrands: Dragon Hunter with lowbow and traps is better than FB with scepter + tomes at farming large mob groups.

You're assuming that shortbow renegade can't be power. Shortbow taken as a whole is really more hybrid than condi, and it has both means of quickly building up Battle Scars stacks (skill 5, spirits) and consuming them (skills 2 and 3).

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> **Turrets**

> Turrets used to be extremely dominant in PvP bunker type builds to my knowledge but were never that great in PvE. After the nerf that made them vulnerable to conditions they dropped off hard. It was like arena net had banned them from competitive formats. But even if they didn't the highly mobile chaotic pace of both PvE and WvW prevents them from seeing much play.

What I think actually killed them in PvP was the removal of a trait that used to exist which allowed turrets to self-repair. Turret engineers were basically the original point bunkers, sitting on a point (ideally mid or far) and defending it and not moving much. Without that trait (and taking tool kit so you can repair them that way makes it hard to actually be a turret build) you tend to be in a bit of a catch-22 when your turrets are damaged in a fight - you can trade them out now and risk being attacked while they're still on cooldown, or you can leave them and then risk being without them soon into a fight as they get destroyed.

(I must admit, though, I do wonder how well the old turret engineer would have fared in the current, let alone preceding, meta. I suspect "not well".)

The proposal to rebalance them as relatively short-term creations (justifiable by the presumption that they have limited ammunition) is probably a good approach. IIRC, that's how ARPGs work with them - the 'turrets' in such games are generally something that sits there for a few seconds pumping out attacks, not something that you expect to be fighting around for minutes.

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> I disagree with that. Pets stats should stay their own and shouldn't be influenced by the player's stats.

> Now if there are some traits that make the minion master sacrifice something in order to significantly strengthen the minion's stats, I kinda agree, but the player's gear shouldn't ever have an impact on minion's stats. On this point I fully support ANet.

I see where you're coming from, but... pretty much every time that pets have ended up being broken has been because it was possible to make the summoner extremely tough while the pet dished out the damage. That's what happened with engineer turret builds, and it's what happened with druids. MM necromancer probably survives - as much as it does - in part because making the minions really effective requires spending multiple major traits, often directly competing with durability traits.

Nerfing the pets so that they're in line with durability builds often means nerfing them so they're no longer a significant boost for DPS builds.

As a result, pets and summons having independent stats may well be a sacred cow that needs to be made into hamburgers. Possibly not universally, at least not right away, but with turrets already being something that is generally only taken for the toolbelt skill and _maybe_ the player will actually think to drop the turret itself occasionally, I think ArenaNet can afford to use them as a testing ground. Linking their stats to the engineer's would mean that it becomes possible to get good damage out of them, but only if the engineer commits - you can't have high-DPS turrets and an engineer that is nearly impossible to kill.

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> As for engineer, like yasai said, the turret need more utility on it's active skill/toolbelt skill and less damage. Net turret is to focused on immobilising (it's impressive to see that necromancer's _rigor mortis_ get a 50 second CD where net turret immobilize for roughly the same duration automatically every 10 seconds... and have 2 active skills that immobilise on demand...), Riffle and rocket turrets need different tool belt skill that put something else on the table (just like thumper turret does).

Rifle turret's toolbelt skill is fine. In fact, rifle turret is pretty much the _only_ turret outside of healing turret that sees common use, entirely because Surprise Shot is a significant DPS boost even without Static Discharge. Rocket turret's toolbelt skill... yeah, that's pretty weak. Could probably do with a flatter trajectory and a more impressive impact (whether in terms of more damage or applying some form of CC) if you do get it to land on target.

> @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> so I took rev out into pvp with the purpose of testing power myself and honestly without empty vessel its trash, the whole thing becomes a ping-pong match and once you try to use a cc-break you're right back to being cc'd.

Glaring Resolve is pretty much essential, but the problem with that is that it's competing with Cleansing Channel and power rev needs all the condi cleanse it can get. Makes me wonder if part of the reason why condi revs are doing well is because they can have condition management _and_ Glaring Resolve.

1) Platinum or higher.

2) One of the players who actually makes builds that other people copy rather than copying builds off Metabattle or wherever.

> @"Murshid.9854" said:

> It seems to me that some people have in their mind that ranger is the noobs class (we have a lot of noobs indeed) so when they get rekt by good ranger they start to assume that the class is OP cause the ranger (noob in their mind) can't defeat and outplay them except if they play an OP class/e-spec so therefore they go crying all over asking for nerfs and unfortunately mostly it happen and baaam we get a new ranger nerf.

Probably a large part of it. I tend to take a 'don't call anything OP unless you've found it to be OP _while playing it yourself_' approach - just because you get killed by something doesn't mean it was OP, you might have been hard countered by something that has its own hard counters, or simply outplayed. You generally can't really get a feel for what a build's weaknesses are or how complex it actually is to run until and unless you play it yourself. A lot of people clearly don't share that principle, though.

> @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> > @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > > Everything was nerfed and SB with it's large multipliers was mostly untouched. This was coming for a long time. Doesn't have to be OP by the definition of most people, the fact you can stack high multipliers on top of high scaling when everything in this game got nerfed is stupid.

> >

> > > @"Valar Dotalis.6409" said:

> > > Screenshot of a damage log I took on March 14.

> > >

> > > 

> >

> > -Takes 36,000 damage

> > -Still alive

> >

> > uh what?

> >

> > More to the point, if I can lay down that kind of damage willy nilly then why am I told to reroll when I bring a ranger into a zerg?

> >

> > Surely being able to instagib 5 people in mere seconds should make us top pick

> >

> > Something's just not adding up

>

> There has, and always will be ranger hate. Its stupid, but it exists... sadly I doubt highly that will ever change

Which is also true if you replace "ranger" with any other profession. Except _possibly_ warrior.

Could be like the Roman gladius, which is worn on the right and drawn with the hand on the same side? Probably not practical with a full-length arming sword, though.

More seriously, the Logan case was probably a glitch.

I feel like a lot of what you're saying should have a big "in my opinion" disclaimer. For instance, I know at least one top-end player and buildcrafter who _does_ have a burn DH build running Hunter's Fortification and Fragments of Faith.

The balance team has been pretty upfront that the intent is to replace the passive traits. The five-minute cooldown is a boonsmiting - it serves to get them out of the PvP meta immediately. Making a _new_ trait requires a bit more work and they haven't had the opportunity to do that yet. Have a little patience.

> @"Lily.1935" said:

> > @"draxynnic.3719" said:

> > Similar comments can be made for guardian. It's a property of the heavy armour class in general that you _can_ play range with them, but they're really designed for getting stuck in.

> >

> > Mind you, I don't think it's as bad as you imply. Ventari can be fairly stand-off, albeit as a stand-off support. Mallyx can blow his energy on spamming Banish Enchantment. Shiro can do the same with Impossible Odds, and while on a ranged weapon he's not likely to be teleporting into melee, Riposting Shadows is still useful for maintaining a gap.

> >

> > At the bottom line, though, like guardian and warrior, it's an implicit assumption of playing revenant that you'll go into melee. Just a question of whether you have the option to hang back when needed or if you're fully committed to melee.

>

> You don't have very good options for a full commitment for range. Guardian I would argue does. And honestly, mechanically, Ritualist probably wouldn't be a terrible fit onto guardian. In terms of their lore? Not quite. All of the Light armored classes are extremely good in pure range. We can't say the same for all the melee classes. Which is okay.

Sure, guardian can go staff/scepter (or longbow for one of those if DH) and pick utilities oriented towards supporting a ranged group. So can warrior, technically, except the weapons are longbow and rifle. Similar principle - the professions _can_ go ranged, but they're not really designed to.

Conversely, scholars when originally designed had mostly ranged options and a token melee (or melee-_like_) option, although the realities of the game mean that they often tend to end up going melee anyway.

Similar comments can be made for guardian. It's a property of the heavy armour class in general that you _can_ play range with them, but they're really designed for getting stuck in.

Mind you, I don't think it's as bad as you imply. Ventari can be fairly stand-off, albeit as a stand-off support. Mallyx can blow his energy on spamming Banish Enchantment. Shiro can do the same with Impossible Odds, and while on a ranged weapon he's not likely to be teleporting into melee, Riposting Shadows is still useful for maintaining a gap.

At the bottom line, though, like guardian and warrior, it's an implicit assumption of playing revenant that you'll go into melee. Just a question of whether you have the option to hang back when needed or if you're fully committed to melee.