MatyrGustav.6210

Golemancer I would prefer Engineer + Ranger instead. Toolbelt should be replaced with 1 customizable pet, a new style Golem. Weapon could be a staff like a tuning rod. Utilities could be support / Condition totems that you lay out. The totems would be a mixture of wells and banners. Technomancer If it was Engineer + Necromancer, id prefer Engi getting a Mech like suit instead of the toolbelt to be similar to Necro shroud.

> @"Sobx.1758" said: > Warriors are getting dual focus as fist weapons and it'll have some gap-closer/s because it'll be a warrior-teef styled crossover :D > I actually would prefer Staff fighting. 1 - 3 can be Staff strikes, 4 could be A Palm or fist attack, and 5 could be a round house kick.

With Balance in mind. They would just need to convert the water Spear animations for land, similar to what they already do for converting land skills to water. I don't see it being too much work.

> @"Yasai.3549" said: > Yu mean Bannerslave+ > > Support Warrior right now are already Banner slaves, so a spec which is full support will just be Banner slave redux. I dont think its fair that because the community decided to make Warrior a banner slave, That automatically suggests we shouldn't get a Support espec lol. Like think about it, every class has some support just like Warrior. If the community wants to place a magnifying glass on 1 of the 5 types of utilities Warrior has, that doesnt mean thats all a Warrior is, Its a balance issue. Also are we sure Warrior will be able to get away from being a Banner slave? 2 Especs in and they still are. A 3rd wont change that, balance will though :)

> @"Opopanax.1803" said: > I think one of the challenges will be: > > How do they make a support spec not be OP when combined with Tactics and Defense? > > Shout heal is not incredibly strong and can't run in pure pve as a heal support. But if you add another support line on top of it, would it be too much? > I dont think so. You can't equip them all. It would just be more customization/Variety for people who play support warrior > One good thing is that you'd have to slot shouts, so having some competition there would be one way to address. > > I do really hope we get some sort of kit to activate as the F1.. Would like something more unique than yet another final strike mechanic... A Weapon Master type Warrior with weapon kits assigned to F-1 - F-4 would be cool. Anet could even add a magical aspect to it by having the weapons conjured. If there is a magical aspect to warrior, i can see them Summoning weapons.

> @"Teratus.2859" said: > > @"MatyrGustav.6210" said: > > > @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said: > > > We are likely to get a third elite spec on all classes. After that I can see them avoiding new elite specs and maybe do universal abilities to avoid balance overload. > > > > Yes, and i also see them possibly adding new weapons for the 3 especs later on. So lets say we can unlock the Hammer for Reaper, or the Scepter for Druid etc. > > Reaper technically already has a Hammer :P > The Scythe you get while in Reaper Shroud is technically a Hammer and nets you Hammer kills for Hammer Mastery. That's interesting ?

> @"Lan Deathrider.5910" said: > Barbarian elite is called Berserker. > > Also no Heavy class has pistols. Warrior makes the most sense out of the three, so I say pistol/pistol. Im sure anet would figure a name out if they wanted to add a Great Axe. Or, they can add it as a secondary weapon for Berzerker down the line if they decided current especs would get secondary weapons I do like the idea of Pistols being a thing for Warrior.

> @"Tseison.4659" said: > Well, Warriors will almost 99.9% get Staff as their next weapon and will serve as a "lance" or "polearm" because if you've played through Champions in LS, you can see the Champion Watchknights that follow you, using a lance and a spinning ability with it. :/ So if anything you guys will probably get that weapon with aoe damage and mobility like utility skills. *shrugs* I'd hope that anet would just use the actual Spear if that's the case. It would feel odd to me if they pretend a staff as a spear, because it will always be called staff no matter what due to the item itself being a staff. They can only change how they fight with it. And not the item. Daredevil & Revenant used staff as a Bo staff, but its still a staff. Mesmer used Greatsword as a magical catalyst, but its still a Greatsword. Etc. They can only change the fighting style. It will always be a staff warrior, unless they allow them to use spears. But hey, who know, maybe we will get the Great Axe as a new weapon for Warrior :) Barbarian Elite Spec anyone?

> @"otto.5684" said: > I am expecting a staff based warrior with either 100% group uptime quickness or alacrity. It will be akin to FB. Not necessarily condo damage. Yes please, me too. I feel as though. Staff is the only good option at this point. I just can't wait for the Espec trailer.

> @"Lacko.6572" said: > Just do it. Lol. I wish we had an updated version of the old heart of the Mists. I miss the forest style area vs this dark area we have. I also wish we could have a very large forest area with free for all PvP with the entrance somewhere in the Mists. The arena is too small.

> @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said: > We are likely to get a third elite spec on all classes. After that I can see them avoiding new elite specs and maybe do universal abilities to avoid balance overload. Yes, and i also see them possibly adding new weapons for the 3 especs later on. So lets say we can unlock the Hammer for Reaper, or the Scepter for Druid etc.

I agree that it would be difficult or near impossible to balance. What i could see happening along those lines is to at least be able use 1 weapon from another class the same way that class would use it. So if I wanted to be a Warrior and have a Fire Staff I could. Or, they can make it so we can equip one utility skill from another class. > @"RyuDragnier.9476" said: > I'm betting the new system will be updated underwater combat. They wouldn't add underwater capabilities to the Skimmer unless something was in the works. I agree. I'm hoping its underwater / Ocean Masteries with boats and such. I dunno, ive always enjoyed underwater combat, but maybe we will get underwater personal vessels that have weaponry?

> @"Custodio.6134" said: > Well, i wouldn´t instantly dislike the idea of bringing some "kind of PvE"-mechanics into the WvW. > --> as long as it results in something the PvP-aspect from WvW is profiting from it. > There would be various ways of implementing something like that. > Just as an example: An event, that occurs frequently on a specific/all maps, that any party can participate in. The winning of the 3 contesting sides gets some sort of advantage for a set amount of time, and/or the losing side (for example, the team whose home-bl the event currently takes place) gets some sort of disadvantage for a set amount of time. > The result will be the following: in basis, this event can technically occur automated and the event itself could lead the path how it goes on. In this case, even unorganized players ("clouds") are able to hold the line in the event. Of course, the team with better organization will mostly be victorious in the event, so there should be some kind of "twist"/downside here. What i am thinking of is, that for being successful in the event, you will have to gather your forces on said place. The downside could be, that you will need to weaken your defenses on other points, opening possibilities for the team with fewer participants to flip upgraded structures. > There are multiple possible scenarios on how the players will actually organize. > * They form one or more organized squads in order to complete the event > * They form multiple squads, to complete the event while doing other actions on other weakened defenses at the same time > * they don´t form any squad at all, but still compete in the event > * they completely ignore the event (and giving up the objective), allowing to act on other locations as well > > Of course: there should be some kind of reward in it, but that shouldnt affect the gameplay too much and/or not for a too long period of time. > Also, even though this should occur frequently, the times should be set very carefully (that´s the big problem with it, as servers play in different timezones and have different prime-/off-times). That would result in a very VERY difficult (if not impossible) task to balance and also requires a proper, working balancing system (especially population management) which tbh: doesn´t work at all in the current state of the game. > > Note: this is just a very very basic of an idea and neither worked out or completely thought through. There are way more relevant factors than i stated there, making this very difficult to create, if not making it impossible to do. i am aware of that. Yes exactly what i was thinking. If there are public events with the Objectives toward the Environment, and either other servers would have the same competing objective, or would need to try and prevent you from completing would be ideal. Escort missions, Battle for a main resource, assassinations, etc. PvEvP not just PvE

> @"ilMasa.2546" said: > You can have pvp mixed with pve content only if the game has an OPEN WORLD pvp system across all maps. > Im playing WvW to pvp,i dont wanna get stuck into pve events: to be very clear i already have problems with all those pve camps ( dredge,ogres,frogs). > So no way im going to play a pvevp with npc armies: if i want that kind of experience i go play total war. > > I dont like the Desert map: visually it is beautifull but it comes with all that pve kitten EotM was filled with,and noone liked .Thats why people asked to have back the Alpine bl,even tho it was dated. > > So in general, you want change. You want the next WvW zone to have no PvE? And would Possibly change the current WvW with less Pve?

> @"Kylden Ar.3724" said: > > @"joneirikb.7506" said: > > So let me get this straight, your poll is basically: > > > > * Yes if you want any change. > > * No if you don't want any change. > > > > If so, that would basically boil down to: > > > > Do you want to get rich? > > > > * Yes! > > * No! > > > > The poll itself becomes meaningless, and this should have been a thread just asking for what changes people want to see. > > Yep, why I voted no. Bad ideas, bad poll. The poll depicts an easy way to see how the majority feels whether they we change or not. If you just want to discuss, just discuss without voting. Some people on this forum really have trouble seeing reasoning beyond their own. Its sad.

> @"joneirikb.7506" said: > So let me get this straight, your poll is basically: > > * Yes if you want any change. > * No if you don't want any change. > > If so, that would basically boil down to: > > Do you want to get rich? > > * Yes! > * No! > > The poll itself becomes meaningless, and this should have been a thread just asking for what changes people want to see. I dont see it that way. Yes, change or No change, very meaningful in my eyes. > Do you want to get rich? Youll be surprised what people would say on these forums lol

> @"draxynnic.3719" said: > > @"MatyrGustav.6210" said: > > @"Kodama.6453" > > > > Everytime Anet has given a melee style class a staff it was used as a Bo Staff kinda like Revenant as well. I just cant really see them adding it as a Spear since we already have spears in the game, and most of the staff skins wouldnt look right if one used it as a Spear. Same with banner because most skins wouldn't have a banner on it. > > > > I mean they wouldnt need to fight with it in a kung fu martial arts way, but what meant is it should be melee oriented and not magical. Stick fighting basically. > > Playing devil's advocate somewhat, having a staff skin with 'wave the banner' type skills could probably be handled by having the banner be part of the skill animation, rather than the weapon itself. > That's interesting to have the banner part of the animation. It could even be a permanent addition to the weapon when you attach the Espec. The banner style / effect could change based on F2 - F5 buttons and anyone near you will recieve the effect. But i don't know how people would further feel being even more of a banner slave with the new espec and all core banner skills becomimg meta.

> @"Scykosix.7836" said: > > @"MatyrGustav.6210" said: > > I think it would be awesome to have shields as a Necro. Also would be amazing to summon Stationary Bone Walls to hide behind. just some thoughts. > > I also would hope more weapons are being added to the classes outside the elite specs. For Necro I think The Main hand sword as a base weapon would be amazing as well. > > The last thing a necro with 30K hp and 20k hp shroud needs, is a sustain build through shield. Maybe they won't have a shroud if it's based on defense. Maybe they would use their life force to summon a powerful Skeleton. The life force could drain slowly while the Skeleton is summoned

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said: > No, for three important groundlaying reasons: > > **A)** **What you are suggesting is not updates to WvW, it is entirely different game modes.** **WvW certainly needs updates but it needs updates that exists within the concept of what WvW is** (a three-sided, perpetual content mode). That doesn't mean that, over time, more could be done with the confines of the mode or within the confines of the mode. I have spoken multiple times about how smart use of existing mechanics could fix problems in WvW and be applied to create new mechanics and forms of content (using structure control [and flagging] to create ownership permanence for a Risk-like mode that can be expanded into giving guilds tools to create "arenas" simply with WvW structures and ownership control etc.,). However, none of that ever leaves the root of WvW being WvW. Most ideas that come in when we have some happy-go-lucky PvE tourists always seem to take the route of how they can come in and explore, to go on a safari from a personal perspective and that is always naive and quite frankly daft. There's never any replayability, perpetuality or other players in mind there. It is just some fling of egoistic want. > What i am suggesting is an opinion of mine for any future WvW maps, but thats not what should to be focused on. What im asking is "Do we need to update WvW, or add War variance to any potential new zones?" Do we need to update WvW, - Meaning to update current Conquest WvW maps. So you would Vote YES, and explain what you want to update / improve current WvW, and explain what specifically in your post. Or Add Variance to any potential new Zones? - Meaning you want something different than the original style Conquest WvW. So you would vote YES, and explain that you want something different in your post. The idea is that you would Vote YES if you want some sort of change / Update in general, and Vote NO, if you want to keep it the same, and have more of the same. That being said, i do like the ideas you have here. > **B )** **What you are suggesting is experimental and ArenaNet have already experimented with offshoots for WvW enough**, in fact, they have done nothing but experiment and have either not come to implementation or the implementation has come as a beta or completely off the pulse of what the mode is about. For example, Shaman released a datamine on how they had developed a "Caravan capture" mode on a grand map. EotM can be seen as a beta that has never left the beta phase. Strongholds can be seen as what the game got instead of GvG arena / larger sPvP map (which is still an ongoing project with cycles over 6 years) and Alliances has been in production in at least three cycles by now, the last and current one marching on 3 years for as long as that. > Honestly i feel like something experimental will attract new players. if the next Zone is more of the same, to me, thats not really helping since we can already do that in the current zones. I want something different, i want to fight a new type of War that's not conquest. > **C)** **What you suggest is not reasonable given what we know of the studio's, game's and mode's history** or what we can speculate ArenaNet have the resources and gumption for now. We exist in what can be compared to a maslowian stair (google it). To see the game mode branch out into new submodes and wild ideas is a luxury we can't afford when the mode is crawling at the bottom and fighting for survival. There are so many other things that the mode really needs and requires before we can even dream of things at the level where you are now. It is just so disconnected from where we are or have ever been. The mode is crawling at the bottom for a reason, more of the same would be something they cannot afford, in all honesty. We need a map that's maybe similar to what modern games are offering. We already have current Conquest with like 5 maps, and something new would only benefit the game in my eyes. Honestly a Constant WvW War where its a 3 Server Team Deathmatch competing for kill score for the month would be amazing, and cater to the players that like to roam around. I vote YES, we need some update to current WvW or a completely different style of WvW War for the next map. I want new ways to compete with other servers, and not just conquest for every map. maybe its just me.

> @"lare.5129" said: > pvp is pvp. Not color of grass .. Huh? I don't understand. Exactly why we are discussing pvp and not grass.

> @"TheQuickFox.3826" said: > Yes, an updated graphics rendering engine with better multicore support and DX11/DX12 and/or Vulkan. > No, not an entirely different art style. I don't want my game to look like a painting or a cartoon. I prefer the more realistic style we have now. It doesn't have to look entirely different. They could just turn the stylized aspect a bit higher then what it already is. To make the game look more realistic would be more work for the devs and heavier on our pc's. I mean, yes please if what youre suggesting can be accomplished, id prefer that. If not i'd settle for a more stylized approach.

> @"Dante.1508" said: > I don't get it, why would you want something more graphically heavy on your system and servers when its already pretty bad in game daily.. Its not like Anet does a lot to fix serious stuff so making even more issues for our selves seems counter productive in my opinion. I personally wouldnt want something more graphically heavy. I'd prefer a stylized approach. This could be achieved with current graphics, and would ultimately improve performance since it will smooth out textures. Yes, id want better lighting and such, but thats an optional feature if added with DX12. So basically, overall it will improve everything, and those with good PC's can enable the higher end features WoW started using a stylized approach and everything looked and performed better. If this game is going to appeal to a larger audience and last for the next decade and beyond i think it would be a good move. Stylized games can be beautiful.

> @"Psykewne.3025" said: > > @"MatyrGustav.6210" said: > > Everytime i try to introduce the game to a friend they end up not playing because of the graphics. > > I'm curious, do they play any of the other mmos in the video because if so it seems like their threshold on graphics is pretty tight. > > > They actually played all 4. They all think FFXIV graphics look amazing, and feel like WoW and ESO look good. Most agree that Guild Wars 2 looks dated in the sense of it looking washed out and low textures. I asked them specifically on WoW, and they stated that the game looks crisp with high textures. The fact that WoW is more stylized now really helped it look up to date. They all feel like the old areas need some love though. Edit Below i used GeForce Freestyle. You can make it look how you want. I prefer a slight cartoony look since i hate seeing low res textures. Im also getting solid 60 frames

> @"Psykewne.3025" said: > I actually think your screen shots have made the game look objectively worse and kinda grainy. I actually don't see how people think GW2 looks worse than FF14 or WoW. The only reason i see to do anything to the engine/graphics are if it actually benefits the gameplay significantly. > > i found this video showing the 4 most popular mmos and thought it showed pretty clearly that none of them looks signifcantly better or worse than the other really. That's subjective. I wanted to make it look painted as a personal preference. Ill update some screenshots with just stylized sharp images to compare. The game doesn't look bad, but compared to other MMOs GW2 needs help with the lighting and texture department. Gw2 needs some more stylization like wows new areas. For me it need to not just look ok, i want to look at it and be impressed. Everytime i try to introduce the game to a friend they end up not playing because of the graphics.

> @"YuiRS.8129" said: > No. Warrior is already a support class. Core warrior support options are banners and Traited Healing Shouts. Everything else is not support. Most classes have support options too. Core warrior has defense, offense, and support builds and anything in-between. Warrior has Spellbreaker, a Defensive Espec & Berserker, an Offensive Espec. Defense and Offense has their Espec, why can't Support have an Espec? We would just need a Warrior / Berzerker Patch to make other builds viable