InsaneQR.7412

There is probably still an equivalent but i think shatters should be replaced by something new. Similarly how scourge got something new but still kept some functionality of suroud.

@"Lonami.2987" nope. I stopped working on it due to IRL occupation and new project revolving arround Gw2 tabletop. But i really like your suggestions. Solid ideas, lots of streamlining and way easier to function with E-specs.

Great work. Fantastic illustrations. Love the themes. Not a fan of the AA replacement but overall a very intriguing design.

@"Trianox.3486" well the sneak attack could come back as soon as you are no longer revealed. And revealed would be procced as normal when you activate your sneak attack but it wont end the effect of the shadow armor. This would still provide counterplay with reveal skills but it wont strip the thief form all its defenses.

I kinda do tbh. I wish they would replace stealth with something like shadow armor that increased your defenses drastically. And is not removed on attacks but keeps you visible (tradeoff). This buff can easily be shared and can be enhanced to buff allies more, grant resistance, stab, prot whatver. As a second weapon i wish for offhand sword. That would give so many more skills to choose form with all the dualwield skills. Especially if they add skills taht canon into eachother. Further i would like an ambush like skill on the dualwield skills and the one form the auto attack gets removed. This could bring so many more options. One trait row could focus on power damage, one on condition damage and one on support while the columns are centered arround dualwield skills, ambushes and shadow armor respectively.

Only thing i would want is a race based traitline that would only be toggled on in oPvE or a mastery that would allow to give more weapon skills (not a full elite but rather something that chahges core weapons into something different.)

In all honesty: get over it For defensive purposes it was a slight nerf. But overall the mobility and engagement potential increased and made the weapon feel way more fluent and useful than before.

> @"Becky.8045" said: > Wow, that is an ambitious project. I think you are doing great! > Without actually playtesting the class I can't say much about balancing (and balancing would need others for comparison of course)... I am going to bookmark this thread. ;) Well i already revamped already parts of the warrior at this point. Thx btw. I am currently a bit busy IRL but i actually have a more or less streamlined design for all classes (necro is a bit struggle tbh). I am gonna update this thread as soon as i finish all heavies. If able i also add the combofield system but dont count on that. Happy to see more ppl to eagerly await the resource. I have to say though that it may wait sometime until i finish my degree. Maybe arround summer i will get some of it done.

> @"VocalThought.9835" said: > > @"InsaneQR.7412" said: > > > @"Lonami.2987" said: > > > I think it should be this way: > > > > > > * **High:** Necromancer, Engineer, Warrior. > > > * **Medium:** Elementalist, Ranger, Guardian. > > > * **Low:** Mesmer, Thief, Revenant. > > > > > > For reference, here is the current setup: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Health > > > > I would agree with that line up. > > It would balance out some problems with guardian, elementalist buildcraft and mesmers would be a bit more squishy. > > High health engineer could be problematic though. > > So how about > * **High:** Necromancer, Ranger, Warrior. > * **Medium:** Elementalist, Elem., Guardian. > * **Low:** Mesmer, Thief, Revenant. > ? Ranger has also quite the sustain plus a pet, it is not a better candidate in those regards sadly. Without hampering other aspects of survivability it is quite problematic to give rangers a health buff for just symmetry.

> @"Lonami.2987" said: > I think it should be this way: > > * **High:** Necromancer, Engineer, Warrior. > * **Medium:** Elementalist, Ranger, Guardian. > * **Low:** Mesmer, Thief, Revenant. > > For reference, here is the current setup: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Health I would agree with that line up. It would balance out some problems with guardian, elementalist buildcraft and mesmers would be a bit more squishy. High health engineer could be problematic though.

Yes Yes I doubt it

Tbh both are good. I am a ranger main and played a fair amount of rev recently. For open PvE both are really good. Ranger is better against one big enemy while rev shines against groups. For endgame both are desired toons. For wvw: zerging go rev and for roaming id say ranger. For PvP rev has more builds afaik but both perform decently well. So its up to you

Tbh i rather would want them to be like kits and function like an additional element swap. So axe would count as fire, hammer as air etc. So semi-yes. But only if they finally change them fundamentally.

I would love a modernization of core.ualso PvE reward tracks would be cool. I would play it more often.

Unironically i would say buy a new pc for gaming. There isnt much you can do about it. If you love games PC is the way to go tbh (outside of consoles)

> @"Tukaram.8256" said: > It started out so strong. The Prologue was the most fun I have since GW2 launched. The prologue was almost as good as GW pre-searing! > Then each release just got worse. Well, not sure about the latest, I have not even bothered looking at the latest one. I quite frankly do not care to go wherever it went... My hypothesis is that the prologue got produce mainly pre lay offs. The lay offs had a big impact on the release quality as far as i can see.

Tbh the story is good and the first few maps have a lot to do. Overall i am not fan of the champion releases but i do like DRM more than i liked strike missions. The ability to do stuff solo but also in groups without making stuff to easy is kinda nice. Overall i am luke warm on the whole shtick but i dont hate it.

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said: > > @"InsaneQR.7412" said: > > > @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said: > > > Pets aren't cosmetics, they are part of a ranger's skill set and as such it is important that pets and their skills can be identified by other players without any issues. With different skins and other customisation options this wouldn't be the case anymore, so that's a no go. Period. What should be done instead is improve balance so there are more viable pets than just a handful. That would also improve "visual" diversity. > > > > There is already the option to give players a default character model option, this can easily be applied to pets. > > > > Additionally the skins would probably just be interchangable in between the pet family which is already 75% of the pet. > > > > I can definetaly understand the worries but i wouldn't call that a period no go. It just has a small caveat to it which should be implemented in the options. > > But customizing your pet would be fantastic for rangers. This is still a RPG afterall. > > > > There are some crucial differences between pets within the same family, so just knowing that's a cat or wolf or bird isn't enough. Standard models are not a solution, because they are bad in WvW (make it much harder to identify players). And imagine the mess if other classes also start to demand customizable skills (which would only be fair after all). For the cosmetic and roleplay aspect we have mini pets. Well while roaming i think standard models should work fine like in PvP. While zerging it doesnt actually matter because its always a visual fustercluck. So i cant understand that argument.

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said: > Pets aren't cosmetics, they are part of a ranger's skill set and as such it is important that pets and their skills can be identified by other players without any issues. With different skins and other customisation options this wouldn't be the case anymore, so that's a no go. Period. What should be done instead is improve balance so there are more viable pets than just a handful. That would also improve "visual" diversity. There is already the option to give players a default character model option, this can easily be applied to pets. Additionally the skins would probably just be interchangable in between the pet family which is already 75% of the pet. I can definetaly understand the worries but i wouldn't call that a period no go. It just has a small caveat to it which should be implemented in the options. But customizing your pet would be fantastic for rangers. This is still a RPG afterall.

> @"anduriell.6280" said: > > @"InsaneQR.7412" said: > > Approve weapon and role. > > > > I would choose concecrations as a skill for more AoE. > > And as a class mechanic i would rather want something like a ventari tablet mechanic for the pet. So you can transform your pet into a totem you can use to cast spells. The totem type can be determined by choosing one. So the tradeoff would be to lose a second pet completely. > > > > The downside of the totem would be that you would need to constantly give it positioning orders but ofc this can be mitigated by petswap into the pet. > > That idea could work too, I personally don't like the micromanage of the totem that is the worst and most painful aspect of the tablet. If they make the totem to follow you like a pet in passive mode i think that could be an interesting design too so have it close until you send it away like the ventary tablet does. > > The Totem could be chosen using F1-F4 while in Totem form. > > And then what would the totem do? Would it replace your utility skill bar? How would you balance the access to 20 new different skills? > I think you misunderstood the mechanic. I want the totem to replace 1 pet. So you either have the passive positioning of the pet of your choice and the access to its skills or you have a totem you can position like the tablet and have access to totem skills on f1-f3. The totem itself can have a passive effect and an active effect depending on the archetype you choose for the totem. To swap between totem and pet you use the petswap. They are independend from eachother like two different pets would be but it would emphasize on a more swap heavy playstyle. Maybe even with a reduced swap time or more buffs when swapping etc. I think the placement of the totem should be reminiscent of scourge shades in tell and speed. Maybe even include a teleport. The totem would be a casting tool so it can be used for CC, buffs, area damage or condi clear.

Approve weapon and role. I would choose concecrations as a skill for more AoE. And as a class mechanic i would rather want something like a ventari tablet mechanic for the pet. So you can transform your pet into a totem you can use to cast spells. The totem type can be determined by choosing one. So the tradeoff would be to lose a second pet completely. The downside of the totem would be that you would need to constantly give it positioning orders but ofc this can be mitigated by petswap into the pet.

Oh god i want that ventari tablet changes so bad.

> @"Hannelore.8153" said: > What you suggest: A well-thought-out skinning system that players have wanted for a long time. > What the devs will see: Oh, you want 1,200 gem pet skin? So what? I mean ppl would finally have a skin system and Anet wouldmhave a chance on some profit. Tbh that sounds like a win-win to me. .

Full ascended 1, full exotic 9

I know ppl using them in raids and thats it. A wish they would utilize them better. I would even like a tlme treatment. Scrapping them completely and adding them to a e-spec instead.