Sobx.1758

The only quick access that I think could be useful would be for things like traps (not the utility skills) in wvw.

> @"Svarty.8019" said: > > @"tippolit.3591" said: > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > @"tippolit.3591" said: > > > > > @"yoni.7015" said: > > > > > I enjoy WvW. if you don’t like it just don’t play it. It’s that simple. > > > > > > > > Fact is, WvW is geared to the lowest common denominator relative to skill. > > > > > > Skill? IMHO that shouldn't be regarded as something positive in a game - it should surely appeal to a broader audience than just the elite? As such, skill shouldn't be seen as something to be lauded or rewarded. I think the Arenanet who made the game might have known this. > > > > Skill shouldn't be lauded or rewarded?? I rest my case. Lolol. > > Absolutely it shouldn't. If you do this, you end up with one person having fun at the expense of many. That appeals to a minority = poor design values. If you don't want "skill" to be rewarding for the players, then switch the game to one that's fully/almost fully randomized. It's pretty funny to me, because literally even as a child I didn't like games like "war" (probably the most basic card game in existance?), where you have absolutely no influence on the outcome. It sounds like it's something you'd be interested in, because anything more than that would actually require you to show some kind of limited "skill" to win. I'm not saying you're wrong about liking games like that -to each their own. But if you don't want skill to influence the outcome then... pick the games accordingly instead of going for a fairly complex mmorpgs and then claiming that skill = bad design. Because no, it is not.

> @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > I'm not "assuming" any more than you are -average player being bad is a fact. Downstate as a great safety net for bad players is a fact (which doesn't mean it's limited to strictly this reasoning for every player that wants to keep the downstate, in case you think I'm somehow trying to insult you here or w/e). Actually if we use *what you did* as a proof for anything (polls), then *most players/average player* wants the downstate to remain unchanged: > > > > > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97040/new-balance-patch-time-to-change-downstate > > > > > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/75626/no-downstate-poll-please-read-post-first/p1 > > > > > > > It's not an opt in. Skill is irrelevant, downstate is always there. I'd love to know how many times the absolute best players in WvW has been ressed. But maybe they are secretly bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it's not. Of course anyone uses it *beacuse they have no choice* and if you get that soft cushon to fall on then why would you not use it while others do? But that still doesn't change anything about what I've said and what I said was never anything like "good players don't use it", which you seem to be answering to for some reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also for those votes, want to bet that *almost all* of the unchanged voters would still agree to a compromise if you argued with them? > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't matter what you "want to bet on". You were talking about polls as a proof for *whatever claim*, now that the poll shows against what you've said, you suddenly don't care about what they show, but instead *want to bet*. Cool. But you're also doing exactly what I said -these limited polls are only relevant when they show what I (in this case: *you*) want them to show. So it's clear what and why you're doing right now. Again, your "bets" don't change anything about what I've said in my previous posts, but they sure show that you'll try to use double standards when taking those ""undeniable proofs"" as actual proofs based pretty much solely on the fact whether or not they confirm *your opinion*. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Leaving it unchanged is probably mostly a knee-jerk reaction to delete being in the poll. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, these things are not equivalent -not even close. > > > > > > > Oh but they are eqvivalent and they are close. Just like when people say "well downstate is a little OP" and the knee-jerk reaction is "dElEtE DowNsTaTe!1!!", so has pretty much any argument with thief and its... lets just say liberal use of... stealth been. Delete the thief. Problem solved. If you consider deleting downstate a valid point then there are no ifs or buts. I can **easily** argue that combat stealth gameplay has no place in competitive PvP. So delete thief, it's a crutch for bad players that is a fact. Because *obviously*. Other classes have it too, true. Delete them too then. Its not possible to go *too* far, is it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course that would be stupid. Because despite what "problems" it has, the thief is a part of the game and it offers a unique playstyle unlike any other class because, well its the thief. I'm sure many people love playing the thief. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Downed state is a core gameplay element of GW2 and offers a unique playstyle unlike most other games, it's one of the reasons many people like playing GW2. It adds another tactical element to combat - sometimes for good, sometimes for bad - and plays on the human emotions of wanting to help people in need and if you can help them, they may return the favor and help you when you need it. Just what a true MMO should do rather than just skill clicking muscle memory to kill the enemy dead with boomboom and pewpew. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, not even close to being equivalent and I (as well as many other people) don't even "say *well downstate is a little OP*". Really, that it NOT what many people, including me said, so not sure why would I even read the rest when your initial claim about what I say is straight up false. And no, for me it's not a "knee jerk reaction", no matter how many times you'll try to claim it is just because it's an "easy out" for you. Just like before literally the only reason you try to claim it surely is a "kNeE jErK rEaCtIoN!1!!!" is because you want to claim that the average people have the same opinion like you, which is as baseless as it was above. > > > > > > > > > > > > tl;dr of your key points from 2 last responses to me: > > > > > > Someone has an opinion that's different than mine? WELL, THEY ARE *JUST MAKING UP OPPOSING ARGUMENT* AND *IT WAS A KNEE JERK REACTION*! > > > > > > [yup, actual quotes] > > > > > Something something people willing to compromise trying to argue with people that will never compromise. > > > > > > > > You're not *willing to compromise*, you're literally just repeating your opinion and sticking to it while picking and choosing when the same argument is relevant or not based solely on the fact whether or not it supports your opinion ("*according to polls/majority/average player I'm correct*" ..."*well, if the polls show I'm not correct, then it means that the voters didn't understand what they vote for and now my unchanged opinion is a compromise*"). This is not what a "compromise" is and nobody says there always needs to be one. > > > > > > > > Nice try at pretending you're taking into consideration anything that anyone else says though. > > > What does deleting downstate compromise with those that want to keep it? > > > > How is your long-held opinion suddenly a compromise with anything else? It's not, it's unchanged since the beginning. > > > > > But yeah I admit defeat. It's pointless unless you can answer that question. > > > > It's pointless when you're pretending you're going for a compromise, when you're clearly not, but it's an easy out for you to disregard anything that was written before, including the obvious double standards about accepting "proof" for anything based on whether or not it shows what you want it to show. > > > > And again: I'm not sure where that idea that everything needs/should end in a compromise came from, but it's not a general truth and not some kind of *the best solution for any case*. > The compromise is to nerf downstate, to the point I even suggest to fully delete a part of it (rally). Something I think most people will find acceptable because it doesnt change the core aspect of downstate, it has less impact on smallscale and more impact on large scale and it also remove a "toxic" aspect, ie just leaving the downed or complaining that they rally the enemy. We are talking about an existing part of the game that we have had for 8 years. Again: > > **What does deleting downstate compromise with those that want to keep it?** What exactly don't you understand about what I wrote in my previous posts? From what I know there are 3 prevaling "general" options in regards to downstate: a) leave it b) nerf it c) delete it. "nerf it" COULD be called a compromise between the option "a" and "c", but you've always held an opinion "b", at which point stop pretending you're "wishing to compromise", because you're not. Just because it seems that your opinion might be a compromise between the other options does nothing for you "being willingful to compromise with others", so stop pretending you are just because you got called out on your double standards. Not only that, but claiming that "compromise" is the best option, because it "kind of could make everyone happy" is false and by far isn't an overall rule. Many times those "compromises" aren't even close to actual good/optimal solutions, so stop pretending you're taking this stance for the overal wellbeing of the playerbase *or whatever*, because as I've already wrote multiple times above **-which btw you keep constantly dodging-** "most players" (something you were trying to use to speak against *one of the options you didn't like*) wanted the downstate to remain **unchanged**. To which the only thing you were able to say is a pretty hilarious response that claimed "*those players didn't know what they were voting for* aaaand *that must have been a knee-jerk reaction*". Don't come up with new questions when you're constantly dodging the facts about what you've done in this thread multiple times already, beacuse what you're writing here about "willingness to compromise" is pretty clearly dishonest. Semi-related: can someone remind me if downstate got nerfed after the february patch?

> @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > I'm not "assuming" any more than you are -average player being bad is a fact. Downstate as a great safety net for bad players is a fact (which doesn't mean it's limited to strictly this reasoning for every player that wants to keep the downstate, in case you think I'm somehow trying to insult you here or w/e). Actually if we use *what you did* as a proof for anything (polls), then *most players/average player* wants the downstate to remain unchanged: > > > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97040/new-balance-patch-time-to-change-downstate > > > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/75626/no-downstate-poll-please-read-post-first/p1 > > > > > It's not an opt in. Skill is irrelevant, downstate is always there. I'd love to know how many times the absolute best players in WvW has been ressed. But maybe they are secretly bad. > > > > > > > > Of course it's not. Of course anyone uses it *beacuse they have no choice* and if you get that soft cushon to fall on then why would you not use it while others do? But that still doesn't change anything about what I've said and what I said was never anything like "good players don't use it", which you seem to be answering to for some reason. > > > > > > > > > Also for those votes, want to bet that *almost all* of the unchanged voters would still agree to a compromise if you argued with them? > > > > > > > > It doesn't matter what you "want to bet on". You were talking about polls as a proof for *whatever claim*, now that the poll shows against what you've said, you suddenly don't care about what they show, but instead *want to bet*. Cool. But you're also doing exactly what I said -these limited polls are only relevant when they show what I (in this case: *you*) want them to show. So it's clear what and why you're doing right now. Again, your "bets" don't change anything about what I've said in my previous posts, but they sure show that you'll try to use double standards when taking those ""undeniable proofs"" as actual proofs based pretty much solely on the fact whether or not they confirm *your opinion*. > > > > > > > > >Leaving it unchanged is probably mostly a knee-jerk reaction to delete being in the poll. > > > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > > > > > No, these things are not equivalent -not even close. > > > > > Oh but they are eqvivalent and they are close. Just like when people say "well downstate is a little OP" and the knee-jerk reaction is "dElEtE DowNsTaTe!1!!", so has pretty much any argument with thief and its... lets just say liberal use of... stealth been. Delete the thief. Problem solved. If you consider deleting downstate a valid point then there are no ifs or buts. I can **easily** argue that combat stealth gameplay has no place in competitive PvP. So delete thief, it's a crutch for bad players that is a fact. Because *obviously*. Other classes have it too, true. Delete them too then. Its not possible to go *too* far, is it. > > > > > > > > > > Of course that would be stupid. Because despite what "problems" it has, the thief is a part of the game and it offers a unique playstyle unlike any other class because, well its the thief. I'm sure many people love playing the thief. > > > > > > > > > > Downed state is a core gameplay element of GW2 and offers a unique playstyle unlike most other games, it's one of the reasons many people like playing GW2. It adds another tactical element to combat - sometimes for good, sometimes for bad - and plays on the human emotions of wanting to help people in need and if you can help them, they may return the favor and help you when you need it. Just what a true MMO should do rather than just skill clicking muscle memory to kill the enemy dead with boomboom and pewpew. > > > > > > > > Nope, not even close to being equivalent and I (as well as many other people) don't even "say *well downstate is a little OP*". Really, that it NOT what many people, including me said, so not sure why would I even read the rest when your initial claim about what I say is straight up false. And no, for me it's not a "knee jerk reaction", no matter how many times you'll try to claim it is just because it's an "easy out" for you. Just like before literally the only reason you try to claim it surely is a "kNeE jErK rEaCtIoN!1!!!" is because you want to claim that the average people have the same opinion like you, which is as baseless as it was above. > > > > > > > > tl;dr of your key points from 2 last responses to me: > > > > Someone has an opinion that's different than mine? WELL, THEY ARE *JUST MAKING UP OPPOSING ARGUMENT* AND *IT WAS A KNEE JERK REACTION*! > > > > [yup, actual quotes] > > > Something something people willing to compromise trying to argue with people that will never compromise. > > > > You're not *willing to compromise*, you're literally just repeating your opinion and sticking to it while picking and choosing when the same argument is relevant or not based solely on the fact whether or not it supports your opinion ("*according to polls/majority/average player I'm correct*" ..."*well, if the polls show I'm not correct, then it means that the voters didn't understand what they vote for and now my unchanged opinion is a compromise*"). This is not what a "compromise" is and nobody says there always needs to be one. > > > > Nice try at pretending you're taking into consideration anything that anyone else says though. > What does deleting downstate compromise with those that want to keep it? How is your long-held opinion suddenly a compromise with anything else? It's not, it's unchanged since the beginning. > But yeah I admit defeat. It's pointless unless you can answer that question. It's pointless when you're pretending you're going for a compromise, when you're clearly not, but it's an easy out for you to disregard anything that was written before, including the obvious double standards about accepting "proof" for anything based on whether or not it shows what you want it to show. And again: I'm not sure where that idea that everything needs/should end in a compromise came from, but it's not a general truth and not some kind of *the best solution for any case*.

> @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > I'm not "assuming" any more than you are -average player being bad is a fact. Downstate as a great safety net for bad players is a fact (which doesn't mean it's limited to strictly this reasoning for every player that wants to keep the downstate, in case you think I'm somehow trying to insult you here or w/e). Actually if we use *what you did* as a proof for anything (polls), then *most players/average player* wants the downstate to remain unchanged: > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97040/new-balance-patch-time-to-change-downstate > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/75626/no-downstate-poll-please-read-post-first/p1 > > > It's not an opt in. Skill is irrelevant, downstate is always there. I'd love to know how many times the absolute best players in WvW has been ressed. But maybe they are secretly bad. > > > > Of course it's not. Of course anyone uses it *beacuse they have no choice* and if you get that soft cushon to fall on then why would you not use it while others do? But that still doesn't change anything about what I've said and what I said was never anything like "good players don't use it", which you seem to be answering to for some reason. > > > > > Also for those votes, want to bet that *almost all* of the unchanged voters would still agree to a compromise if you argued with them? > > > > It doesn't matter what you "want to bet on". You were talking about polls as a proof for *whatever claim*, now that the poll shows against what you've said, you suddenly don't care about what they show, but instead *want to bet*. Cool. But you're also doing exactly what I said -these limited polls are only relevant when they show what I (in this case: *you*) want them to show. So it's clear what and why you're doing right now. Again, your "bets" don't change anything about what I've said in my previous posts, but they sure show that you'll try to use double standards when taking those ""undeniable proofs"" as actual proofs based pretty much solely on the fact whether or not they confirm *your opinion*. > > > > >Leaving it unchanged is probably mostly a knee-jerk reaction to delete being in the poll. > > > > Nope. > > > > > > No, these things are not equivalent -not even close. > > > Oh but they are eqvivalent and they are close. Just like when people say "well downstate is a little OP" and the knee-jerk reaction is "dElEtE DowNsTaTe!1!!", so has pretty much any argument with thief and its... lets just say liberal use of... stealth been. Delete the thief. Problem solved. If you consider deleting downstate a valid point then there are no ifs or buts. I can **easily** argue that combat stealth gameplay has no place in competitive PvP. So delete thief, it's a crutch for bad players that is a fact. Because *obviously*. Other classes have it too, true. Delete them too then. Its not possible to go *too* far, is it. > > > > > > Of course that would be stupid. Because despite what "problems" it has, the thief is a part of the game and it offers a unique playstyle unlike any other class because, well its the thief. I'm sure many people love playing the thief. > > > > > > Downed state is a core gameplay element of GW2 and offers a unique playstyle unlike most other games, it's one of the reasons many people like playing GW2. It adds another tactical element to combat - sometimes for good, sometimes for bad - and plays on the human emotions of wanting to help people in need and if you can help them, they may return the favor and help you when you need it. Just what a true MMO should do rather than just skill clicking muscle memory to kill the enemy dead with boomboom and pewpew. > > > > Nope, not even close to being equivalent and I (as well as many other people) don't even "say *well downstate is a little OP*". Really, that it NOT what many people, including me said, so not sure why would I even read the rest when your initial claim about what I say is straight up false. And no, for me it's not a "knee jerk reaction", no matter how many times you'll try to claim it is just because it's an "easy out" for you. Just like before literally the only reason you try to claim it surely is a "kNeE jErK rEaCtIoN!1!!!" is because you want to claim that the average people have the same opinion like you, which is as baseless as it was above. > > > > tl;dr of your key points from 2 last responses to me: > > Someone has an opinion that's different than mine? WELL, THEY ARE *JUST MAKING UP OPPOSING ARGUMENT* AND *IT WAS A KNEE JERK REACTION*! > > [yup, actual quotes] > Something something people willing to compromise trying to argue with people that will never compromise. You're not *willing to compromise*, you're literally just repeating your opinion and sticking to it while picking and choosing when the same argument is relevant or not based solely on the fact whether or not it supports your opinion ("*according to polls/majority/average player I'm correct*" ..."*well, if the polls show I'm not correct, then it means that the voters didn't understand what they vote for and now my unchanged opinion is a compromise*"). This is not what a "compromise" is and nobody says there always needs to be one. Nice try at pretending you're taking into consideration anything that anyone else says though.

> @"Ailuro.2780" said: > > Is the purpose of this suggestion to make everyone a min-maxer, so that all content released becomes 10x-higher in difficulty? Is the goal to have another Wildstar? It seems that game didn't go over that well. > > No, the purpose of it is to make new-game content more in-depth and provide players the opportunity to be more prepared for all content. This means just being able to start and understand it. Most game mechanics and systems that are relevant to creating a build are already explained to the player during the leveling process. Then the only thing that stands in the way of the player to actually craft a reasonably coherent build is their ability to read skill/trait descriptions with understanding. If they can't do that, it's not exactly the game's problem. Your idea seems to be boiled down to forcing players into one of just a few builds **you** want them to play, which just doesn't make sense and goes against the very idea of current trait/skill system in the first place.

> @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > I'm not "assuming" any more than you are -average player being bad is a fact. Downstate as a great safety net for bad players is a fact (which doesn't mean it's limited to strictly this reasoning for every player that wants to keep the downstate, in case you think I'm somehow trying to insult you here or w/e). Actually if we use *what you did* as a proof for anything (polls), then *most players/average player* wants the downstate to remain unchanged: > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97040/new-balance-patch-time-to-change-downstate > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/75626/no-downstate-poll-please-read-post-first/p1 > It's not an opt in. Skill is irrelevant, downstate is always there. I'd love to know how many times the absolute best players in WvW has been ressed. But maybe they are secretly bad. Of course it's not. Of course anyone uses it *beacuse they have no choice* and if you get that soft cushon to fall on then why would you not use it while others do? But that still doesn't change anything about what I've said and what I said was never anything like "good players don't use it", which you seem to be answering to for some reason. > Also for those votes, want to bet that *almost all* of the unchanged voters would still agree to a compromise if you argued with them? It doesn't matter what you "want to bet on". You were talking about polls as a proof for *whatever claim*, now that the poll shows against what you've said, you suddenly don't care about what they show, but instead *want to bet*. Cool. But you're also doing exactly what I said -these limited polls are only relevant when they show what I (in this case: *you*) want them to show. So it's clear what and why you're doing right now. Again, your "bets" don't change anything about what I've said in my previous posts, but they sure show that you'll try to use double standards when taking those ""undeniable proofs"" as actual proofs based pretty much solely on the fact whether or not they confirm *your opinion*. >Leaving it unchanged is probably mostly a knee-jerk reaction to delete being in the poll. Nope. > > No, these things are not equivalent -not even close. > Oh but they are eqvivalent and they are close. Just like when people say "well downstate is a little OP" and the knee-jerk reaction is "dElEtE DowNsTaTe!1!!", so has pretty much any argument with thief and its... lets just say liberal use of... stealth been. Delete the thief. Problem solved. If you consider deleting downstate a valid point then there are no ifs or buts. I can **easily** argue that combat stealth gameplay has no place in competitive PvP. So delete thief, it's a crutch for bad players that is a fact. Because *obviously*. Other classes have it too, true. Delete them too then. Its not possible to go *too* far, is it. > > Of course that would be stupid. Because despite what "problems" it has, the thief is a part of the game and it offers a unique playstyle unlike any other class because, well its the thief. I'm sure many people love playing the thief. > > Downed state is a core gameplay element of GW2 and offers a unique playstyle unlike most other games, it's one of the reasons many people like playing GW2. It adds another tactical element to combat - sometimes for good, sometimes for bad - and plays on the human emotions of wanting to help people in need and if you can help them, they may return the favor and help you when you need it. Just what a true MMO should do rather than just skill clicking muscle memory to kill the enemy dead with boomboom and pewpew. Nope, not even close to being equivalent and I (as well as many other people) don't even "say *well downstate is a little OP*". Really, that it NOT what many people, including me said, so not sure why would I even read the rest when your initial claim about what I say is straight up false. And no, for me it's not a "knee jerk reaction", no matter how many times you'll try to claim it is just because it's an "easy out" for you. Just like before literally the only reason you try to claim it surely is a "kNeE jErK rEaCtIoN!1!!!" is because you want to claim that the average people have the same opinion like you, which is as baseless as it was above. tl;dr of your key points from 2 last responses to me: Someone has an opinion that's different than mine? WELL, THEY ARE *JUST MAKING UP OPPOSING ARGUMENT* AND *IT WAS A KNEE JERK REACTION*! [yup, actual quotes]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > As poll after poll after poll has showed, **the community want downstate to remain**. Yet again we land in the stupid scenario where people that can compromise have to argue with people that completely refuse to compromise. > > > > A forum poll is a small subset of overall playerbase and isn't "what the community wants" btw. > > I mean obviously it is, when it shows what I want it to show and only then, but I'm pretty sure you know it works exactly the same for you :D > > > > Ah and lets not forget that *the average player* wants downstate to remain **unchanged**, because *the average player* is, well, bad and downstate is what saves their butts when they hug their groups and fail ^^ > The *average player* describes a vast majority of the players. I understand what *average player* means and how *averages* work, thanks :D >But you are assuming they see downed state as black and white as fervent deleters see it. They dont, I think most can agree on nerfs. I'm not "assuming" any more than you are -average player being bad is a fact. Downstate as a great safety net for bad players is a fact (which doesn't mean it's limited to strictly this reasoning for every player that wants to keep the downstate, in case you think I'm somehow trying to insult you here or w/e). Actually if we use *what you did* as a proof for anything (polls), then *most players/average player* wants the downstate to remain unchanged: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97040/new-balance-patch-time-to-change-downstate https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/75626/no-downstate-poll-please-read-post-first/p1 >Not everyone can agree on the *same* nerfs (as evidenced by these forums over the years) but still, I have seen few argue it should remain unchanged just for the sake of it. You're just making up an opposing argument. No, I'm not. Just because you think your opinion is automatically the norm/average/majority doesn't make it such. Links included above btw (hey, like I said: *those random polls are only relevant when they show what I want them to show* ;) ). > At the end of the day, deleting downstate is just as silly as deleting thief because people rant about stealth. It doesnt stop anyone from saying delete the thief. Its just that no one listens to it, as the suggestion rightly deserves. No, these things are not equivalent -not even close. And the same can be said about you wanting to nerf the downstate and just about 95% threads about *nerfing anything in existance in gw2*, so I guess it also applies to your opinion as most of those threads are just ignored like they should be, eh? Remove the downstate, thanks.

> @"Dawdler.8521" said: > As poll after poll after poll has showed, **the community want downstate to remain**. Yet again we land in the stupid scenario where people that can compromise have to argue with people that completely refuse to compromise. A forum poll is a small subset of overall playerbase and isn't "what the community wants" btw. I mean obviously it is, when it shows what I want it to show and only then, but I'm pretty sure you know it works exactly the same for you :D Ah and lets not forget that *the average player* wants downstate to remain **unchanged**, because *the average player* is, well, bad and downstate is what saves their butts when they hug their groups and fail ^^

What even is this ridiculous, clearly "super well thought out" thread? tl;dr: 1. Here's what can be nerfed: Anything I want to get nerfed *because I said so*. 2. Here's what can be buffed: Anything I want to get buffed *because I said so*. 3. Also here are 2 classes I think are fine in melee, because they have mobility (TOTALLY just these 2 classes, right? Unbiased, valid information all around), but ~~*since I play one of them*,~~ one of those classes doesn't need buffs at all and the other does because logic and nice avatar. Solid. _________________ > **There are many melee weapons that needs some buff only in wvw:** > - elementalist: sword,dagger(s) By what logic? > - warrior:greatsword,axe(s),sword(s) Again (maybe other than sword, but that'd still probably need to be a revamp/update more than a "buff") -by what logic? > - ranger: greatsword,sword, dagger(s) This one just has to be a meme, I assume? > - revenant: mace,staff By what logic? > - necromancer: greatsword, dagger By what logic? > - mesmer: axe,sword By what logic? > - guardian: greatsword,sword By what logic? > - engineer: hammer, sword, melee engineering kits(flamethrower, bombs) By what logic? > - for thief nothing as thief has easy solutions to always start fight from melee range You got one right I guess. > (This is just feedback from some player who play's wvw for many years and tried so many classes, builds, both plays in zerg and as roamer....) lmao, ok. Too bad that "buff this, nerf that because I said so" isn't how you "give feedback". Giving some blanket justification for mass change of many different weapons (with different *roles* they have) of many different classes (with different capabilities) just doesn't really work and if you can't be bothered to actually make a case for each of them, then maybe don't pretend you want to *give feedback*.

Can you make this gif a little smaller? I can almost see anything.

> @"XenesisII.1540" said: > Classes should have never been given downed skills based on the class. Classes should have never been given downed state in competitive modes. > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > **There should be 1:1 healing restriction** *<- delete power res* > **Rally should be removed** *<- delete rally botting, more teamwork to res* > **Downed penalty should be upped to 33% (ie 3 states with 66% HP start, instead of 4 with 75% HP start)** *<- harder penalties, more time to stomp* > **Downed penalty timer should be 3x longer per state** *<- harder penalties* But something like this would still be an improvement.

> @"KelyNeli.4516" said: > I have read a ton of comments and information on the internet and it seems like the class is OVERNERFED horribly and that Arenanet has some stupid vendetta against this fun to play profession, why? It looks like you enjoy spreading some false information and play a victim by claiming "anet targets your class to be useless" or w/e (you're not alone in that, it seems to be fairly prevalent on this forum in respective profession subforums), which is as true as it is for any other class -so not at all. All/most your recent complaints about "ele having no dmg and dying in one hit" seem to be nothing else than an "l2p issue". > The might changes, the many many different condi build nerfs, that just doesnt make sense. I barely see anyone playing elementalist today Interesting, I see them all the time. And while I'm not exactly constantly grinding ele myself, I don't have a problem playing it and having fun every now and then while definitely being *efficient enough* to not struggle with content. Make sure to pick a build that fits your playstyle preferences, understand it and keep improving it (or look at online sources / get help from better ele players). If you think it's too hard or just doesn't fit your expectations then... play a different profession. > To clarify im only talking about PVE content here, solo, dungeons, fractals you name it, in all of them this profession struggle. No, not really. > Poor newbie players who find themselves unable to progress the story because how garbage this class is, this kitten is what drive players away from this game. I mean if you even fail to progress the story and you think it's specifically because the class is too bad for it then... oof.

> @"Joote.4081" said: > You know with your generic mmo you have health, strength, intelligence, etc: How do they match up with GW2 power, condition damage, etc: > I think I have a rough idea but want to make sure. I don't know why A-net had to change what is the universal language. Press "H" to open hero panel (the one with items your character has equipped), then put your cursor over each stat on the right side and it'll tell you what they do.

> @"sorudo.9054" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"sorudo.9054" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"sorudo.9054" said: > > > > > the start should always be core easiness > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > It's not like you're starting a new game every time you go into a new expansion. Not only you know more about the game and its mechanics (well, at least you should), but also you're getting new tools at your disposal with expansions. Suddenly reverting to the initial difficulty despite all of that doesn't make sense to me. So why do you think it should always start like that? > > > > > > because not everyone started out playing 8 years ago, some ppl play when EoD launches, that's why. > > > > It's irrelevant, you didn't need to start playing 8 years ago, you still should go through the available content/expantions. If you skip riiight into the latest parts of the game before completing previous ones then... you know, it's your choice and *it's on you*. Right? > > > wrong, you can't expect any new player to just buy all of the expansions in order to play the new one. > you should not have to go trough all of it, you should be able to go straight to EoD without any previous experience. Currently buying PoF gives you HoT for free. I'm not even talking about pricing until we know it, but it's cool you somehow already can, so you can firmly determine what I said is automatically "wrong". Still -putting the unknown aside, if someone doesn't want to buy the expansions to play through them then it's their decision. Then again, even if they make that decision, then I fail to see how it's relevant when *the core version* with *the core difficulty* is available to them anyways? They don't need to go "*from core to core difficulty*" between expansions seeing **how nobody else did** during HoT and PoF releases. Also catching up to people while -possibly- not having a mount will be super fun I assume. And here we circle back to: if you choose to skip even the core part of the game then you're not exactly entitled to claim that you need core experience in later phases of the game, *because you don't*. You have the core experience in core. >WoW No, thanks