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

> @"Teratus.2859" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > > > @"yoni.7015" said: > > > > > > > @"Zoid.2568" said: > > > > > > > > @"yoni.7015" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Zoid.2568" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"yoni.7015" said: > > > > > > > > > > No thanks, underwater combat is no fun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They can make it fun with a revamp. > > > > > > > > No, they can’t and they don’t have to. Just leave it like it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So leave ít boring when ít can be fixed?? > > > > > > > > > > > > It will stay boring and the majority of players don’t like underwater content. So why waste resources on something only a very small minority enjoys? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fair enough, then lets get rid of Raids, PvP, WvW, Fractals and Strike missions then because only a minority of players enjoy those as well. > > > > > 100% focus from here on out only on PvE story.. > > > > > Lets also get rid of the most underused/underpowered classes as well and stop making new specs for them.. since that's a waste of resources as well. > > > > > > > > ...but he didn't say "remove underwater combat", right? How is this even remotely valid comparison when you're suddenly talking about removing existing content? > > > > Now if you want to talk about raids, pvp, wvw, fractals and strike missions in context of "leaving it how it is" then... that's mostly what is actually happening. > > > > > > > > And I agree with yoni, I don't like underwater combat and don't want much/anything to do with it. Not even mentioning "underwater only especs" or mass underwater skill rework, while the regular skills AND traits still need the revamp. > > > > > > Already explained it in my last post in reference to what Yoni said was a "waste of resources" > > > > Didn't notice that before, but after reading that explanation -which I'm not sure I understood correctly- you've pretty much agreed that it's an irrelevant comparison ("*Removing the classes would be a waste though*" and removing IS what you were talking about), right? Ok then. > > > Yeah but only removing the classes part, the reason still stands for everything else I said to jokingly get rid of as they require resources to keep in the game.. server costs etc so their existence by the same logic Yoni was using is a waste of said resources because only a minority of players enjoy them. See... you seem to "admit it's different", but then circle right back into "it's the same logic" -the whole point is that it's by far NOT. ^^ It's irrelevant if it's played by minority or not, nobody brought up removal of anything, but you and that just doesn't stand as a comparison at all. > > > It's fine if you don't like underwater content, though if you don't mind answering, why don't you like it? > > > Do you just dislike the concept of it? or do you just not find it fun because of the lack of build diversity and skills and weapons you can use there?.. too restrictive etc. > > > > It feels bad, out of place and I don't see the reason for it in most cases other than some limited cheesy content that you might get into *once in a while* at best, for which current version of aquatic combat is enough. I doubt reworking traits/weapons/adding 5 *(<- random number :D )* more skills that are currently unavailable per class would change anything about that. > > A lot of why it feels bad though is because of how limited it is, how few weapons you can have and how a number of skills or even entire class mechanics are crippled and unusable there. I disagree. It feels bad, because it feels bad. If I had 5 different weapons and a few trap skills (oof) available to pick from, it wouldn't suddenly make that combat "feel better" for me. So no, as I said in my previous post, I don't think that's the issue and subsequentially the way to suddenly make me like it. > Another issue is the lack of big content there which is linked to the above problem.. can't exactly have big awesome world bosses and bounties etc there when the combat is so lacking compared to the land. Again, I disagree. "Having big content there" is not a way to make me like underwater combat. It's the way to make me **dislike that "big content there"**, which is also why I don't want that content. > > If people want to push for weapon/skill/trait reworks, then push for the land versions, because some of them are outdated, bugged, unusable or intentionally gutted to -maybe- wait for a rework. > > Why would you want or need aquatic combat? Just for that vertical movement that in reality changes nothing? > > Pushing for weapons and reworks benefits both land and water combat I don't think pushing for water combat revamp somehow begefits land combat tbh. Unless you mean removal of the skills that don't work underwater and in this way it influences the land combat, at which point... no, thanks. >one of the things many including myself have asked for is for more land weapons to become usable underwater which would greatly improve the combat there, if this ever became reality it would work in reverse as well with Spear and Trident becoming possible new land weapons. > People are always asking for more new weapons types like spears and polearms but it's impossible to start throwing whole new ones in at this point in the game, but making some water ones usable on land would be a way they could do that and have a wide array of skins available for them. Not much against some of the water weapons becoming available on land for some especs as a stylistycal choice, but I also don't see it as anything absolutely needed, seeing how I think anet already proved they can give any weapon any role/playstyle/mechanic/range they want (I'm also fine with that). So kind of "meh" either way here, but I know some warriors want land spear and who am I to be against that :D That said, making those available on land has nothing to do with revamping underwater combat. It would -probably- still be *a different spear with different skillset* in both environments. > As for me I like the atmosphere of underwater regions, it's different and a change of pace from always being stuck on land. That atmosphere is not enough for me to like a combat system -I'd even want that IF I wanted to go sightseeing underwater, the combat just gets in the way, but apparently it all comes down to personal preferentions, so to each their own :p > I like the combat there and as far as underwater content goes and by extent vertical combat in general there are no MMO's out there that do it anywhere near as good as Gw2 does. There was aion, I've played it and my opinion about the flying combat (slap wings on underwater combat, get rid of *water color filter* and you have flying btw) waas similar to underwater combat here. Just didn't like it (but also it might have been even slightly less reliable). I'm no the one to decide whether I'm correct or not, but it didn't seem like a lot of people valued vertical combat as well. For me it's an unneeded gimmick that adds pretty much nothing and has no actual value -whether you run/chase in a straight line or diagonally makes pretty much no difference for the practical ingame combat reasons. > Gw2 by far has the best underwater system in any MMO.. and it's painful to see that it doesn't take advantage of that. ...I don't know about that, I don't see anything exceptional in it? > No underwater world bosses.. Luckily! >a crippled build system and far too many pointless limitations.. it has so much potential but Anet have not brought it out. Again, I don't see that potential. Adding vertical movement just adds no value for me and that's about most of what underwater combat does. But maybe I'm still missing it, what exactly is that "potential" here? Second weapon/utility skillset? Meh. Add more (actually don't add, just rework *whatever aged badly*) to land battles where most people spend most of their time. > And considering the fact that one of this games main antagonists is a gigantic water dragon.. and we'll be going after it soon, it will be a major disappointment if the Water content continues to get so neglected. Well, hopefully it learns how to fly, because I don't want to go down there. ...or at least crawl out on a beach *or something*?

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > That's why it's next to impossible to see the breakbar broken ina normal, pug attempt. You generally only see that when there's enough discord-coordinated players involved to take care of that part of mechanic. What's with people claiming you need discord for everything? As I said a few posts above -all that was needed was a commander that told people they want to go for the achievement and then maybe writing "now" in case you want to be extra-safe with people knowing when to bomb the bar.

> @"Svarty.8019" said: > Press B ... Sending a new player to wvw while they don't understand the game yet is just an awfully bad idea.

> @"Svarty.8019" said: > > @"Threather.9354" said: > > People just lack passion for the game. Playing the game all day just isn't fun anymore: balance is terrible, relinks are terrible, commanding is terrible, fighting meta is terrible. As a result, pugs are also terrible. You can't even siege/defend objectives and get lasting fights from it because it will always devolve into clouding. > > That's only because zergs are so big that everything blows up in a microsecond. The zergs/guilds are way too big because that's the way to optimise. It's just a case of commanders taking advantage of mechanics - mechanics which SHOULD be altered for the health of the mode. I play solo/small scale in wvw, so I don't see the reason for you not to do the same. Nothing about this "SHOULD be altered" just because other people have an option to play how you don't want them to play. >The secondary problem is that when things weren't as EASY for the giant zergs/guilds, there was a considerable amount of lobbying taking place on the forum in order to push the mode to it's current position. At this form this is an empty statement, elaborate?

I'm curious, how many of the people that complain about "market manipulation" also sold their MCs to get some ez gold? :D

> @"Teratus.2859" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > @"yoni.7015" said: > > > > > @"Zoid.2568" said: > > > > > > @"yoni.7015" said: > > > > > > > @"Zoid.2568" said: > > > > > > > > @"yoni.7015" said: > > > > > > > > No thanks, underwater combat is no fun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They can make it fun with a revamp. > > > > > > No, they can’t and they don’t have to. Just leave it like it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So leave ít boring when ít can be fixed?? > > > > > > > > It will stay boring and the majority of players don’t like underwater content. So why waste resources on something only a very small minority enjoys? > > > > > > > > > > Fair enough, then lets get rid of Raids, PvP, WvW, Fractals and Strike missions then because only a minority of players enjoy those as well. > > > 100% focus from here on out only on PvE story.. > > > Lets also get rid of the most underused/underpowered classes as well and stop making new specs for them.. since that's a waste of resources as well. > > > > ...but he didn't say "remove underwater combat", right? How is this even remotely valid comparison when you're suddenly talking about removing existing content? > > Now if you want to talk about raids, pvp, wvw, fractals and strike missions in context of "leaving it how it is" then... that's mostly what is actually happening. > > > > And I agree with yoni, I don't like underwater combat and don't want much/anything to do with it. Not even mentioning "underwater only especs" or mass underwater skill rework, while the regular skills AND traits still need the revamp. > > Already explained it in my last post in reference to what Yoni said was a "waste of resources" Didn't notice that before, but after reading that explanation -which I'm not sure I understood correctly- you've pretty much agreed that it's an irrelevant comparison ("*Removing the classes would be a waste though*" and removing IS what you were talking about), right? Ok then. > It's fine if you don't like underwater content, though if you don't mind answering, why don't you like it? > Do you just dislike the concept of it? or do you just not find it fun because of the lack of build diversity and skills and weapons you can use there?.. too restrictive etc. It feels bad, out of place and I don't see the reason for it in most cases other than some limited cheesy content that you might get into *once in a while* at best, for which current version of aquatic combat is enough. I doubt reworking traits/weapons/adding 5 *(<- random number :D )* more skills that are currently unavailable per class would change anything about that. If people want to push for weapon/skill/trait reworks, then push for the land versions, because some of them are outdated, bugged, unusable or intentionally gutted to -maybe- wait for a rework. Why would you want or need aquatic combat? Just for that vertical movement that in reality changes nothing?

> @"Mungrul.9358" said: > Has anyone mentioned that another reason the Steam wallet appeals is that you can generate cash in it by playing other games and selling trading cards or things like hats from Team Fortress 2? > That cash can then be spent on anything else on Steam. So effectively, you could sell a hat you got from playing TF2 or a gun skin from CS:GO and spend the resulting funds on gems for GW2. Sure, that is a theoretical possibility, but I'd like to see how many people grind skins to sell them for miniscule amounts of money to then make significant purchases in gw2 or other games. At this point you might as well (or probably easier/faster/better) grind away gold in gw2 and turn it into gems. Unless your true goal is to play other games because you enjoy them more (I guess?), then sell whatever you grind in games you enjoy, buy tons of stuff in gw2 and... I guess go back to playing what you enjoy more anyways? That reasoning seems *a bit* forced to me, but maybe I'm wrong about something here and grinding tf2 skins is somehow better/more efficient than grinding gold in gw2, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

> @"Teratus.2859" said: > > @"yoni.7015" said: > > > @"Zoid.2568" said: > > > > @"yoni.7015" said: > > > > > @"Zoid.2568" said: > > > > > > @"yoni.7015" said: > > > > > > No thanks, underwater combat is no fun. > > > > > > > > > > They can make it fun with a revamp. > > > > No, they can’t and they don’t have to. Just leave it like it is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So leave ít boring when ít can be fixed?? > > > > It will stay boring and the majority of players don’t like underwater content. So why waste resources on something only a very small minority enjoys? > > > > Fair enough, then lets get rid of Raids, PvP, WvW, Fractals and Strike missions then because only a minority of players enjoy those as well. > 100% focus from here on out only on PvE story.. > Lets also get rid of the most underused/underpowered classes as well and stop making new specs for them.. since that's a waste of resources as well. ...but he didn't say "remove underwater combat", right? How is this even remotely valid comparison when you're suddenly talking about removing existing content? Now if you want to talk about raids, pvp, wvw, fractals and strike missions in context of "leaving it how it is" then... that's mostly what is actually happening. And I agree with yoni, I don't like underwater combat and don't want much/anything to do with it. Not even mentioning "underwater only especs" or mass underwater skill rework, while the regular skills AND traits still need the revamp.

> @"Ailuro.2780" said: > Furthermore, if not to solidify my stance, there is a recent post: > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/124305/how-to-start-a-new-player#latest > > Which mentions extra things I have yet to cover, the need for knowledge on how important collections can be, how important is to learn how to navigate the achievements panel and the priority to the things within the achievements panel is non-existent. The lack of information on how someone gets started on fractals, and then progresses. The list of absent information for preparing the new player to end game content just goes on and on. But that thread has nothing to do with what you're talking about in yours. That thread is about the veteran player trying to drag the new one through content asap to get "this that and something else". It has nothing to do with the game not being able to give new players instructions. How is this even an example for anything here? > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > And yes, there _is_ a problem. If we get back to how many people have "succesfully learned and played this game", i need to remind you of the efficiency gap between the **average** player and a top one (10x dps). This should tell you something about how "succesfully" said average players have learned things here. I'd say that it's quite clear that the current approach of letting players learn on their own, when applied to the combat and build systems, contrary to your optimistic opinion, is _not_ working all that well. The main difference between those players is how much they care about minmaxing, not sure what this argument is supposed to be? There are literally builds with rotations available to anyone that wants to play ""optimally"", but people still play what they want because that's how they want to play. If anything, I'd say it shows that it's not about some lack of information available to the players, because it IS available and people still don't use it if they don't want to. Then what is the solution here? Removing the choice of weapons, skills and traits, so the players HAVE to play those specific top builds? The game already explains to the players every part of "making the build" while they're leveling up, the rest (mixing-matching, min-maxing IF THEY WANT TO, reading descriptions and choosing what fits well with what etc) is up to said players and noone else.

> @"Hesione.9412" said: > Given that I still haven't got the achievement https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Shatterer_(achievements)#No-fly_Zone I'm not sure that players understand breaking the defiance bar is needed. I've also seen this failure on other NPCs: matriarch and PoF bounties to name a few. _Even when a waystation has been placed._ _Even when "cc" has been called out._ People might just not know the encounter, not know about the achievement or simply... not care, because breaking that bar is not obligatory to succeed (but yeah, some might not know what break bar even is at that stage of the game). I randomly joined some late night world boss squad for shatterer ~3 days ago because I needed it for collection and the cc phase succeeded every time simply because the commander explained they'll be trying to go for the achievement. Sometimes all that's needed is a little communication and coordination. Pretty much a single person did that because they cared enough to coordinate the "randoms" (to be clear, he didn't explain what cc or bb is, he told a group of people to stay near the platform and be ready to glide>use bombs/pulse when needed).