Lilyanna.9361

You know half of those skills are not even used in one build? And half of those skills are connected to soulbeast, which, do not run an immobile version unless they want to play the subpar version of a build that druid cleaned up. Ranger is not in a stellar spot, but listing all the immobilize skills they have doesn't do anything. A lot of those skills you don't see on one Ranger, but a variety of rangers, so that's not solving anything. The biggest issue is Anet allowing immobilize to STACK. If it didn't stack, the build wouldn't be an issue and it would have a higher ceiling of gameplay.

> @"UNOwen.7132" said: > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said: > > I literally don't get the baby rage with thief rn. There literally get stopped at every point no matter if it is their condi build or power build. Hell, I was even stomping them with dumb decap druid and that build isn't supposed to have much killing potential 1v1 ever. > > > > Not surprising, thief has no 1v1 potential. Thats kinda the norm. > > > What is really the issue here with this class???? > > They move around the map faster than anyone else. So they can decap and +1 faster, and can dictate the pace of the game if their team is good. But I can do that on ranger. I basically have perma swiftness on ranger and can sprint after thieves that can +1, or try to rotate to other nodes to backcap. In fact, if I see a thief in the enemy team and I notice we have no roamer I often swap to core/druid just to make sure I make a thief's life a living nightmare for the whole match. So tell me again why thief is a problem? I'm not advocating for thief in any manner but, we can't say they are the best at something when Ranger has/had/ did take thief's job away from them when they have their ridiculously overpowered moments.

I literally don't get the baby rage with thief rn. There literally get stopped at every point no matter if it is their condi build or power build. Hell, I was even stomping them with dumb decap druid and that build isn't supposed to have much killing potential 1v1 ever. What is really the issue here with this class????

> @"felix.2386" said: > > @"CutesySylveon.8290" said: > > > @"felix.2386" said: > > > > @"CutesySylveon.8290" said: > > > > > @"mes.4607" said: > > > > > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said: > > > > > > > @"mes.4607" said: > > > > > > > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said: > > > > > > > > They removed ANOTHER amulet. This pvp is falling further into the dumpster. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cele amulet should have never came back > > > > > > > > > > > > And this is why the game is like this and several more people left. Nice job bud. > > > > > > > > > > The amulet did too much by design unfortunately > > > > > > > > Oh please, it had a lower stat value and still did too much? That's a sign we've got crappy options if Cele is too strong. What used it besides Renegade? > > > > > > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said: > > > > > @"mes.4607" said: > > > > > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said: > > > > > > > @"mes.4607" said: > > > > > > > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said: > > > > > > > > They removed ANOTHER amulet. This pvp is falling further into the dumpster. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cele amulet should have never came back > > > > > > > > > > > > And this is why the game is like this and several more people left. Nice job bud. > > > > > > > > > > The amulet did too much by design unfortunately > > > > > > > > ?? Did you not read the stats on that thing. It overall had LOWER stat values then ALL of the amulets currently within the game. Are you PURPOSEFULLY choosing to ignore that fact. When you picked celestial your RUNE mattered more because of how low the value was. Are you serious rn?? > > > > > > it's you guys who don't read the stats, celestial had higher vitality and toughness then paladin and did more damage then paladin with the combination of power/condition damage/precision/ferocity on top of having healing power > > > > > > i like how only noob with no idea complains about removal of these amulets. you are really just getting carried by builds really.. > > > > Two minor stats have a lower total than Cele, big whoop. It's 60 points, and Paladin is a trash amulet to begin with. I don't use Cele builds but I'm also not so bad I thought they were busted. If we had better stat options then Cele would be even less relevant, but idiots that like taking amulets away don't realize this. > > you realize what you saying make no sense right? > > you realize there's barely any stats with toughness, and paladin was supposed to be the tanky double defense stats, yet celestial not only has more defense stats, also does more damage if you build for hybrid. that's what we call busted. > > also celestial even nerfed, will only serve noobs to play cancer braindead build which will build toxicity to the game. > > and " If we had better stat options then Cele would be even less relevant" what does it even mean, are you asking for more busted stat, are you saying you don't care about balance, because this is what it sounds like, > > and yes you are skill less. Says the one who complained about thief for ages and then has the nuts to say people are getting build carried. Actual ape LOL.

> @"mes.4607" said: > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said: > > > @"mes.4607" said: > > > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said: > > > > They removed ANOTHER amulet. This pvp is falling further into the dumpster. > > > > > > Cele amulet should have never came back > > > > And this is why the game is like this and several more people left. Nice job bud. > > The amulet did too much by design unfortunately ?? Did you not read the stats on that thing. It overall had LOWER stat values then ALL of the amulets currently within the game. Are you PURPOSEFULLY choosing to ignore that fact. When you picked celestial your RUNE mattered more because of how low the value was. Are you serious rn??

> @"Sajuuk Khar.1509" said: > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > lol. what number does the publisher look at, when granting that budget?...yea > They look at trends within the game over years, and the current playerbase numbers. > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > >Actually, dungeons were very popular at the point they released Aetherpath. Sure, they were not being done by a majority of players, but enough players did them to make their further development worthwhile. It's just that Aetherpath was met with dislike. And Anet, instead of trying to reason why it was so, decided it meant all dungeon development should be cancelled. > Again, popular among a relatively small group of people =/= successful, or actually popular. Stop trying to move goalposts. Also, Aetherpath was made using the common criticisms of the other dungeons to try to make them more popular. The fact that it failed is why they canned future dungeons. They already listened when making Aetherpath, the majority didn't care. > >They still had some hope people will go into raids. They simply wanted raids to succeed. But they never really tried to improve on raids at all, they just kept repeating the same stuff over and over again until they had to admit to themselves it wasn't working. And then they simply cancelled it. > Except they very obviously did try to improve upon raids. Later raids made some changes to bosses and enemy encounter design to try to make them more palatable to the majority. The problem with raids is that the majority literally doesn't care about hard content like raids. The only way to make them more popular would be to water them down into Living World levels of difficulty, which defeats the point of raids in the first place. > >Content need not be run by a majority of the playerbase to be popular or worth developing further. Less than half the active players finish each LS story chapter. Does that mean LS should be cancelled, since majority is not even finishing it? Or should that rather mean devs should look into it and decide to improve things to get a better ratio next time around? > >Also, if you really want to go that way - the majority of GW2 players are no longer playing the game. According to your reasoning they should have cancelled this game even before HoT. Because a majority was no longer playing it. > Content DOES need to be run by the majority to be worth developing for. If you are a game developer, and you ave a decision between putting more money to > A. More living world content that the majority of your playerbase will play > B. A raid maybe 15%-20% of the playerbase will play > The former will always win out since its a better investment of time and money. This is how games work in general. Hell, this is the cited reason in every MMO as to why the devs stopped doing X, Y, and Z, at some point. Also, thats a horrible argument. Devs use the active playerbase, not the number of people who bought the game. > >Repeating something over and over again without iterative attempts to fix the initial problems is not "successive attempts to make them more desirable". Also, the earlier strikes were doing quite fine. It's the Boneskinner that was a problem (and for more than one reason). > Except there were changes made each time to try to make them more desirable. Also, its rather ironic you say earlier strikes were fine, when the whole point of strikes was that they were supposed prep people for raids, and early strikes were massively criticized by the raiders for being WAY too easy compared to raids. The whole point of the Boneskinner was that they had already thrown easier strikes at you, now its time for a harder one to bring it closer to raid difficulty. People complained because most people who play games don't want raid-like difficulty at all, which is why dungeons, fractals, and raids, all failed in the first place. > >You said "Its a sign that they stopping making things that weren't liked.". Dungeons were liked. They had to actively chase people away from them. > Being liked by a small minority =/= being liked by the playerbase. > >That's not a failure. 15-20% is actually pretty good. In a MMORPG with a population of 1 mil that would be 150-200k players. That's some massive numbers. Numbers you'd really not want to lose. > >If you decided to abandon any part of the game as long as its popularity drops below 50%, you would end with nothing left. Lose 15% of your playerbase 4 times, and you're left with only 44% (a minority) of your original player number. > >You simply can't get the player counts for an AAA size MMORPG with very uniform playerbase that all plays only the same kind of content and all want the same things. > That's actually really bad, and I've seen entire features stop getting development when even up to 1/3 of the playerbase used them, because that simply isn't enough. > > You also make the blunder of equating people who play that kind of content with people who play the game ONLY for that kind of content. The majority of people who play things like dungeons, raids, strikes, etc. don't play the game simply for those things. And while they may be sad to see them go, they would still keep playing for the game's other content. You would only actually loose a very small % of that playerbase group because only a minority of the minority hinges their investment into a game based on one limited game type. > >Problem is, the devs don't seem to know what the playerbase wants as well. They are just throwing stuff at the wall blindly, trying to find something that sticks. And, surprise surprise, the more they do it, the more new people decide to just not come in. Because, you know, they can see all the walls that are covered in kitten all over. > Its ironic you say this when they very clearly do seem to know what the playerbase wants. > * They stopped making dungeons, raids, and to a lesser extent fractals and strikes, because the playerbase very clearly showed they didn't want them > * They kept making more living world/open world content because that is what most players wanted > > Even when it comes to these Champions releases > * People have been asking for more LWS1 style content. > * But they also asked that it doesn't go away once over. > * They want bosses harder then normal open world bosses. > * But not near the difficulty of raid or strike mission bosses. > * They asked for older maps to get reused/new content added to them. > * But to not do so where its permanently alters the map like Tower of Nightmares did. > * They have also asked for something that actually feels like the dragons are attacking the world. > * But in a way that doesn't actually cause any permanent damage for the same reasons as the Tower of Nightmare situation I mentioned above. > > And what did we get with Champions? > * LWS1 style content > * That doesn't go away once the story is over > * With bosses harder then normal open world bosses > * But not as hard as raid/strike bosses > * That uses older maps > * But doesn't change them permanently > * That involved the dragons actually attacking the world > * But in a way that doesn't actually cause any permanent damage to the world > > The "unpopular" Champions Dragon Response Mission format is, quite literally, Anet doing everything people have been asking for on the forums for years. It is, quite literally, a bullet point "here is everything you've asked for" content format. Funny how open world is the most popular, yet people ALL over the forums complain about open world. The problem is, is Anet bothering to listen to these forums because this is probably the most toxic thing I have witnessed in my years of mmos. If anything, Anet should be examining gameplay within the game itself because, let's be real, forum writers can never be unbiased without putting their much not needed opinion in. Facts is what matters, not opinion. Throwing numbers out means nothing without hard data. Saying FRACTALS or DUNGEONS was attracting a small percent of the population is a flat lie. That dungeon community was so big you never saw the same person twice. Never. In open world I see the same people over and over and over again. Stop being biased. And Anet needs to stop paying attention to people like this.

> @"mes.4607" said: > > @"Lilyanna.9361" said: > > They removed ANOTHER amulet. This pvp is falling further into the dumpster. > > Cele amulet should have never came back And this is why the game is like this and several more people left. Nice job bud.

They removed ANOTHER amulet. This pvp is falling further into the dumpster.

If it helps, Anet pretty much gutted PvP so, for us it's pretty much dead. Same people see each other for weeks at a time. If that doesn't say small population in that category, idk what does.

That's what happens when you delete Firebrand from the meta, dumb crappy builds like this start popping up. People never seem to understand this and keep making the same dumb mistake. If you try to completely nerf a build into nothing another cheesey one will pop up to take its place.