Sobx.1758

> @"battledrone.8315" said: > > @"sitarskee.5738" said: > > I don't see it as a problem especially having mounts. > > when you have to clear the same mobs over and over to get mounted again, then it just becomes a chore. and they will aggro so far away, and bring all their buddies too. Which spots are so problematic for you?

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > And what is that "inbetween solution" you're talking about? Changing the range so you can freely ignore everything to get free shinies, not even zooming past the threat on a mount, but also just walking up to any chest you see? That's not the point of this game when you enter the area that's clearly not meant to be a friendly one. Also that's hardly an "inbetween". > > > > > > Well, how about the way HoT handles it? It's arguably more challenging than PoF, yet the aggro radius is not expanded the way it is in PoF. Why is it fine in HoT and not in PoF? > > > > I already wrote in the previous post what's the difference between HoT and PoF, it seems pretty obvious why the mobs changed between these expansions. > > Sorry, I don't have the patience to dig through all the back-and-forth to find whatever point you may have had, but I'm going to guess it's the tried-and-not-so-true "mounts" excuse? > > If the purpose of increased aggro range was to act as an obstacle to mounted players, it was misguided. Walking past or flying over enemies is trivial. But there is no avoiding getting stuck in combat when dismounting and then having to clear a wide area before you can get out of combat and re-mount. Many players quite rightly find this annoying and unnecessary. It's not exactly an "excuse", it's a fact (a "fact" being that the mounts gave the players much more power to engage/avoid the fights; I'm not saying "it's a fact this is the reason", because there's no way for anyone other than anet to know that for sure). And most of the time you can clear the area while you're unmounting, so then you do whatever you wanted to do and easly re-mount. Seriously, I don't remember it being a major (or probably even just noticable) problem for me other than some individual cases of long lasting conditions keeping me "in fight" while I'm not really in fight, which is why I see it mostly as the problem of the players that don't want to interact with the mobs almost at all, which isn't exactly reasonable in this game. > Yet HoT exists as it always did even though purchasing PoF now also gives players access to HoT. Is the lower aggro range in HoT a problem? I certainly don't hear many players complaining that the combat has been trivialized by mounts. Wouldn't that make sense if the premise is that mounts make open world too easy because of their ability to bypass enemies? HoT has some more convoluted/crowded maps, while PoF maps have more open space for better/easier mount usage (also, thematically desert-ish design, whichever "came first"). At the moment of HoT release -surprise, I know!- we didn't have mounts in the game. Do you really think everything in the game should be redesigned from the base beacuse at later expansions we got mounts? And how would that work for the people that get into the game and play through it in the correct order, so they still initially go through HoT while not having mounts available? And yes, mounts did make those maps easier, still not sure how that's any kind of valid point here. You can't reasonably expect anet to change the maps backwards when playing chronologically people don't have mounts in those maps, which would simply force them to play out of order. That's nonsense.

> @"AliamRationem.5172" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > And what is that "inbetween solution" you're talking about? Changing the range so you can freely ignore everything to get free shinies, not even zooming past the threat on a mount, but also just walking up to any chest you see? That's not the point of this game when you enter the area that's clearly not meant to be a friendly one. Also that's hardly an "inbetween". > > Well, how about the way HoT handles it? It's arguably more challenging than PoF, yet the aggro radius is not expanded the way it is in PoF. Why is it fine in HoT and not in PoF? I already wrote in the previous post what's the difference between HoT and PoF, it seems pretty obvious why the mobs changed between these expansions.

> @"Jilora.9524" said: > That is a rant. Nah, it's not, it's a direct answer about something that pretends to be a valid argument while not being one. >That is not a direct answer as no question was asked. "Answering to post" doesn't require that post to be a question.

> @"Jilora.9524" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Jilora.9524" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > @"Pockethole.5031" said: > > > > > > > Imagine you take a stroll in a forest out there and you have to always do it from a tank. A tank. With shotguns and axes. Just for a stroll. In reality, when I go on a stroll in a forest I might bring backpack with me and thats that. I don't have to be afraid for my life because of trees about to whip my sorry kitten. > > > > > > So what exactly *would* you do if you meet a bear? > > > > > No, it's more like what would YOU do if you met 5 bears? They attack you and while you are trying to defend yourself they maul, stun or otherwise strike you with such force as to slow your reactions. You use every skill and tool available to you that you have with you and finally manage to defeat all five bears. Then, as you try to catch your breath and maybe even recover somewhat, 5 more bears appear. The cycle repeats. > > > > > > > > No, it's more like it's a pretty stupid and baseless comparison to begin with and people that compare mmorpgs to real life only do that in a very specific way to show what they want to show, but the game isn't real life and it's absolutely shouldn't ever be balanced about "what you do in real life". What kind of a stand-in pseudo-argument is that, I don't even know. (yes, I know you weren't the one who originally brought it up) > > > > Actually if you want to play "that game", you wouldn't "use every tool you have to defeat 5 bears", you would literally die to a single bear if that bear felt it doesn't want you anywhere nearby. So much for "but in real life". > > > > Actually the best that came out of this whole argument is what @"Dawdler.8521" wrote here: > > > > > > > > > > From the sounds of it, you dont want a forest. You want a park. There's one in the center of Divinitys Reach to stroll around in if thats your cup of tea. > > > > > No need to be so extreme. What I feel players like this poster want is to be able to actually stop and view the maps that Anet has spent so much time/effort in creating for us without engaging in what seems to be an endless combat scenario. > > > > > > > > It's not "extreme", it's a fact. In a fantasy mmorpg you simply *fight monsters*. If you want a walk in a park, go to a park. There are park equivalents in the game too. But you go to a hostile territory and then complain that it's hostile? Just... uh... > > > > > > Yeah then there's the guy that goes way too far and gets way to upset over a comparison. > > > > Feels like you're trying to direct it at me, but I fail to see at which point exactly I "took it too far" or where I'm "upset over a comparison". I just say the comparison he made doesn't make sense in relation to the game for the situation he's describing, because it doesn't. > > > > > Not even rl but I remember there was a chest after you took a jackal portal up under a bridge and your like ohhh a chest so you go towards it but the dumb af aggro radius of jacaranda you ended up vs 4 reg and 1 vet and you killed the reg and took forever vs the vet and the regs all respawned so ya that was bs. > > > > It's almost as if those mobs are there for a reason and you need to do something about them because that's how the game works... Again, you're in a fantasy mmorpg *killing monsters*. > > > > > There can be somewhere in between dawdlers suggestion and that experience and present a dangerous environment and not some unfun game exp > > > > And what is that "inbetween solution" you're talking about? Changing the range so you can freely ignore everything to get free shinies, not even zooming past the threat on a mount, but also just walking up to any chest you see? That's not the point of this game when you enter the area that's clearly not meant to be a friendly one. Also that's hardly an "inbetween". > > You went on a rant because some dude talked about tanks in a forest and bears It wasn't a rant, it was a direct answer related to the topic itself and to the pretty unreasonable argumentation someone tried using to push their opinion. Not everything you disagree with is somehow automatically an "upset rant" or whatever you keep repeating in an attempt to target me instead of actually targetting what is being said in this thread. Maybe when kharmin was talking about not needing to be disparaging to each other, he was actually talking about you -that would explain a bit. >then kharmin expanded on the silly comparison as it being 5 bears then after you kill the 5 bears you'd have to fight 5 more which is the crossover between rl bear and the games mechanic of respawning mobs. Every one knows it's a fantasy game and once in a while they try to appy rl to it which yes is silly Exactly, it was a silly irrelevant comparison that shouldn't be used as any kind of argument. And that's the point. >but again the went to far is going it's a pretty stupid and baseless comparison and the you upset is how serious you took this silly comparison of fantasy to rl so you seemed upset. Honestly I have no idea what you've tried to say in the first part of this sentence. And what I said in this thread still doesn't make me upset in any way, if he understands his comparison made no sense then he should stop trying to use it as an argument or validation for his opinion. Why? Because it makes no sense. Yup, that's it. > And if you can't see that there are absolutely no mobs in dawdlers park so that be dumb a map with chests and nodes but no mobs to the complete aggravation of jacaranda and white mantle and iboga when you have to fight half the map. The middle ground is almost every other kitten mob everywhere like spiders and harpys or 99 percent of mobs where yes you can avoid most of them while traversing the map and have to kill one or 2 once in a while if you were gathering etc. So the core zones designated for new-ish players where we had less power, mostly no top gear available and no new powerful engage/combat avoidance mechanics like mounts. Yup, that's what I'm talking about. This is not "middle ground" in any way. This is a tutorial-grade content.

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > And what is that "inbetween solution" you're talking about? Changing the range so you can freely ignore everything to get free shinies, not even zooming past the threat on a mount, but also just walking up to any chest you see? That's not the point of this game when you enter the area that's clearly not meant to be a friendly one. Also that's hardly an "inbetween". > It seems to me that you're taking an extreme position here. No one is asking to change the range to the extent that you state. Despite me throwing something off the top of my head (also based on the fact that these complaints are basically complaints about *something aggroing on me at all*), that was a question. And still is: *And what is that "inbetween solution" you're talking about?* But now I have some additional ones: Then to what "extent" do you propose doing it to somehow make everyone happy? How do you decide on it? Why do you think you'll be able to determine that better, easier and with more accuracy than anet did/does?

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > It's not "extreme", it's a fact. In a fantasy mmorpg you simply *fight monsters*. If you want a walk in a park, go to a park. There are park equivalents in the game too. But you go to a hostile territory and then complain that it's hostile? Just... uh... > Some of us aren't asking for a walk in the park. Many of us aren't complaining about the difficulty of the enemies, either. Cool, but what you were answering to was commenting on this: "Imagine you take a stroll in a forest out there and you have to always do it from a tank. A tank. With shotguns and axes. Just for a stroll. In reality, when I go on a stroll in a forest I might bring backpack with me and thats that. I don't have to be afraid for my life because of trees about to whip my sorry kitten." So I still don't see how that answer was extreme considering the comparison that was made there (and you even expanded on it later). >One of the larger complaints centers on the aggro radius and respawn rate. A territory can still be hostile without these factors being tuned to the degree that they are in PoF. I think this is the point that is being missed or purposefully ignored to hammer away at players who find content more frustrating than others. And, to me, Anet got the hint as these factors were not as aggressive in later S4 maps. And I think you're purposefully ignoring the level of power (both in engaging the fight and the pure mobility making it easier to even avoid any) we got with the introduction of mounts. I don't see why the mobs/game would need to remain "as they always were", while the player constantly gets stronger. Do you think the changes to the mobs were somehow randomly decided by roilling a dice? To me they seem pretty reasonable. > Some of us would like PoF maps to be tuned down in a similar manner. Some of us would not. That doesn't mean that those opposed should be disparaging to each other. Disparaging? Who, where, how? It seems all of the previous answers were strictly answering to what was written before without some randomized insults.

> @"Jilora.9524" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > @"Pockethole.5031" said: > > > > > Imagine you take a stroll in a forest out there and you have to always do it from a tank. A tank. With shotguns and axes. Just for a stroll. In reality, when I go on a stroll in a forest I might bring backpack with me and thats that. I don't have to be afraid for my life because of trees about to whip my sorry kitten. > > > > So what exactly *would* you do if you meet a bear? > > > No, it's more like what would YOU do if you met 5 bears? They attack you and while you are trying to defend yourself they maul, stun or otherwise strike you with such force as to slow your reactions. You use every skill and tool available to you that you have with you and finally manage to defeat all five bears. Then, as you try to catch your breath and maybe even recover somewhat, 5 more bears appear. The cycle repeats. > > > > No, it's more like it's a pretty stupid and baseless comparison to begin with and people that compare mmorpgs to real life only do that in a very specific way to show what they want to show, but the game isn't real life and it's absolutely shouldn't ever be balanced about "what you do in real life". What kind of a stand-in pseudo-argument is that, I don't even know. (yes, I know you weren't the one who originally brought it up) > > Actually if you want to play "that game", you wouldn't "use every tool you have to defeat 5 bears", you would literally die to a single bear if that bear felt it doesn't want you anywhere nearby. So much for "but in real life". > > Actually the best that came out of this whole argument is what @"Dawdler.8521" wrote here: > > > > > > From the sounds of it, you dont want a forest. You want a park. There's one in the center of Divinitys Reach to stroll around in if thats your cup of tea. > > > No need to be so extreme. What I feel players like this poster want is to be able to actually stop and view the maps that Anet has spent so much time/effort in creating for us without engaging in what seems to be an endless combat scenario. > > > > It's not "extreme", it's a fact. In a fantasy mmorpg you simply *fight monsters*. If you want a walk in a park, go to a park. There are park equivalents in the game too. But you go to a hostile territory and then complain that it's hostile? Just... uh... > > Yeah then there's the guy that goes way too far and gets way to upset over a comparison. Feels like you're trying to direct it at me, but I fail to see at which point exactly I "took it too far" or where I'm "upset over a comparison". I just say the comparison he made doesn't make sense in relation to the game for the situation he's describing, because it doesn't. > Not even rl but I remember there was a chest after you took a jackal portal up under a bridge and your like ohhh a chest so you go towards it but the dumb af aggro radius of jacaranda you ended up vs 4 reg and 1 vet and you killed the reg and took forever vs the vet and the regs all respawned so ya that was bs. It's almost as if those mobs are there for a reason and you need to do something about them because that's how the game works... Again, you're in a fantasy mmorpg *killing monsters*. > There can be somewhere in between dawdlers suggestion and that experience and present a dangerous environment and not some unfun game exp And what is that "inbetween solution" you're talking about? Changing the range so you can freely ignore everything to get free shinies, not even zooming past the threat on a mount, but also just walking up to any chest you see? That's not the point of this game when you enter the area that's clearly not meant to be a friendly one. Also that's hardly an "inbetween".

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > @"Pockethole.5031" said: > > > Imagine you take a stroll in a forest out there and you have to always do it from a tank. A tank. With shotguns and axes. Just for a stroll. In reality, when I go on a stroll in a forest I might bring backpack with me and thats that. I don't have to be afraid for my life because of trees about to whip my sorry kitten. > > So what exactly *would* you do if you meet a bear? > No, it's more like what would YOU do if you met 5 bears? They attack you and while you are trying to defend yourself they maul, stun or otherwise strike you with such force as to slow your reactions. You use every skill and tool available to you that you have with you and finally manage to defeat all five bears. Then, as you try to catch your breath and maybe even recover somewhat, 5 more bears appear. The cycle repeats. No, it's more like it's a pretty stupid and baseless comparison to begin with and people that compare mmorpgs to real life only do that in a very specific way to show what they want to show, but the game isn't real life and it's absolutely shouldn't ever be balanced about "what you do in real life". What kind of a stand-in pseudo-argument is that, I don't even know. (yes, I know you weren't the one who originally brought it up) Actually if you want to play "that game", you wouldn't "use every tool you have to defeat 5 bears", you would literally die to a single bear if that bear felt it doesn't want you anywhere nearby. So much for "but in real life". Actually the best that came out of this whole argument is what @"Dawdler.8521" wrote here: > > From the sounds of it, you dont want a forest. You want a park. There's one in the center of Divinitys Reach to stroll around in if thats your cup of tea. > No need to be so extreme. What I feel players like this poster want is to be able to actually stop and view the maps that Anet has spent so much time/effort in creating for us without engaging in what seems to be an endless combat scenario. It's not "extreme", it's a fact. In a fantasy mmorpg you simply *fight monsters*. If you want a walk in a park, go to a park. There are park equivalents in the game too. But you go to a hostile territory and then complain that it's hostile? Just... uh...

> @"Lily.1935" said: > > @"SinisterSlay.6973" said: > > I like open world PvE unbalanced. More fun that way when you can switch characters and have completely different builds, play styles, and challenges. > > I do that a lot. You've literally said that you "keep tackling new content with the same exact build you've been using for 4 years", so not sure how suddenly you're "doing it a lot". >Some issues arise though. As what experimentation is available is limited still. I do some neat builds like Drunk scrapper and Dread chillreaper. But in comparison to what's effective they tend to lack heavily. Can't really do open world on my own as a healer either. That's limited to Strikes, Raids and Fractals. There's still quite a lot of builds *per class* that easly go through open world. If you keep wanting to play "the most effective" builds in pve, it's not exactly game's fault, but your attitude's. > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > Tackling new content with the same exact build I've been using for 4 years leads to long periods of fatigue with the game and short bursts of interest. > > > > Then... Change the build? Or maybe even a class if you feel especially daring. > > "I'm not changing my build and then I get bored of my build" -um.. ok. :D > > This comment falls in the exact same category as people who ask for more challenging content, you'd respond with, just wear yellow (rare) gear instead of ascended/legendary ... No, it's really not. I'm not asking anyone to juggle his equipment to intentionally make everything difficult for himself. But when someone complains about build variety **in pve** then the game isn't exactly at fault, there's plenty of builds -again, *per class*-that are doing perfectly fine in that content. Sure, "the more the better", I agree, that's why we have a lot more trait/skill choices than slots to use them -but it doesn't seem that's what op is asking for, what op seems to be asking for is some kind of pve meta ferris wheel, which is pretty absurd as any kind of "solution" for... anything, really. Swapping FOTMs also doesn't magically make the number of available/viable buids go up.

> @"Lily.1935" said: > Tackling new content with the same exact build I've been using for 4 years leads to long periods of fatigue with the game and short bursts of interest. Then... Change the build? Or maybe even a class if you feel especially daring. "I'm not changing my build and then I get bored of my build" -um.. ok. :D

> @"Burnfall.9573" said: > > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > every nerf in pvp should be in wvw, especially damage ones. even more so for dmg since the stats are way higher in wvw. cd increases too usually. i DON'T think dmg nerfs in wvw should be in pvp obviously. > I will continue to warn Anet, whatever you do to one, you must also do to the other. There Should Not Be Found Of Any Favoritism Amongst The Game Modes. Nah, this is not favoritism, these modes have different rules and in a lot of cases just play differently. > -PvP, WvW, PvE Community, we all share similar common interests, common goals, common struggles, similar stories....what we all have in common? we all play different game modes yet come together as a group to share our experiences- ...and I wasn't even talking about PvE, because for that there's rarely a reason to share the nerfs with more competitive modes. > -_until Anet understand this, the Community will continue to take matters into their hands by walking away and telling your competitors how you are dividing them_- And here I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

> @"Lilwil.6529" said: > Do you think there will be away for less talented players to experience the stories of the raids? Yes, you can do it at any given moment through the magic of youtube.

> @"Yasai.3549" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > "It shouldn't be a main focus, but it needs to be an important aspect"? I don't know how to understand that. What does "important aspect" (while not making it a "main focus") mean? Isn't the minions being one of the utility skills category alongside with multiple supporting them traits important enough? I think it is. And if it's not, then again I don't understand what you mean by that. > > It's not "one of the four elements of elementalist" the same way it's not "the equivalent of ranger's pet". Because these are profesison mechanics. And profession mechanics seem to be more or less "main focus" of the class. But you said you're not saying minions should be the main focus? I'm lost in your way of grading what's "main" or "important". It's like you try to say you don't want it to be the main profession mechanic but you also do. > > Yur overthinking what I mean. > > I'm saying that Minions should be more important on the level of 1 of the 4 elements because I feel that Minions need to take a more active role in Necro's identity. Am I overthinking it? I just don't understand what you mean by that (and apparently maybe neither do you). "1 of 4 elements" is 1/4th of a profession mechanic, I don't understand your comparison at all, especially in the light of you claiming "you're not saying it should be a main necro focus", while you constantly try to compare/equalize it with profession-specific main mechanics. > I get that Gw2 is a different sort of game, but a loss of identity can cause at the least confusion for people looking at a Profession and going "I want to play this". But they can easly "play this", what's the confusion? That minions aren't an auto-winning zerg?

> @"Yasai.3549" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > Sure you can, but just because a trait line is usable without strictly using one set of utility skills doesn't suddenly make those utility skills lackluster by default. That's a pretty weird reasoning and I don't really see the relevance here. > > While I can see Engi being related to Turrets as abit of a stretch, but Necromancer as an archetype (I'm not talking about Gw2's Necro atm) is kinda one which plays which practices magic relating to the dead to raise as minions or summon spirits as a primary identity. > I just feel it strange that Necromancer in Gw2 just decides to leave Minions as is for so long, which is kinda why we often have newer players popping up with the age old "Is MM viable? I feel like Minions are weak" It really doesn't matter what you think a class should be based on other games/media, it matters what it is in this particular game and how its traits/skills (as that's what we were talking about above) work in relation to other classes. And pretty sure "necromancers" primary theme is using death magic and contacting the dead, not "swarming everyone with undead armies". "minions are weak" = I can't build tanky and let minions carry me with their free dmg. I think it's ok to have expectations based on own imagination or previous games someone played, but then there comes the time to confront those expectations with the reality and how any given class/mechanic works in the game you're playing. > Even in Gw1, they have a whole slew of Minion skills, and have an entire arsenal of supportive abilities to aid in supporting Minion attacks and such. 1. Different game 2. Honestly pretty much all I see in this sentence is something along the lines: "the devs tried it in the previous game and didn't like it, so it's not included in this one". If they decide to include it in the future, then it's still their choice, but currently repeating "but in that game it works like that!" doesn't make much sense and doesn't exactly serve as a valid argument imo. It's just not the same game and I don't think it should try being the same. > I'm not saying we should make Minions the main focus of Necromancer, but it should be an important aspect, just as much as one of the four elements is important to Elementalist, Minions should be more important as well. "It shouldn't be a main focus, but it needs to be an important aspect"? I don't know how to understand that. What does "important aspect" (while not making it a "main focus") mean? Isn't the minions being one of the utility skills category alongside with multiple supporting them traits important enough? I think it is. And if it's not, then again I don't understand what you mean by that. It's not "one of the four elements of elementalist" the same way it's not "the equivalent of ranger's pet". Because these are profesison mechanics. And profession mechanics seem to be more or less "main focus" of the class. But you said you're not saying minions should be the main focus? I'm lost in your way of grading what's "main" or "important". It's like you try to say you don't want it to be the main profession mechanic but you also do.

> @"Yasai.3549" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > Well, I think that MM IS part of the problem with the mundane/lacklustre aspect of Core necro ... improving it could make it MORE mundane/lacklustre. Put it this way ... you think Core necro is mundane/lacklustre because MM isn't good enough? I think that's highly questionable. > > What? No? > > I'm saying MM is a lacklustre part of Core Necro because it's never really expanded on. > I mean, just look at DM : Even though it does support MM play, yu could essentially pick DM just for defensive traits and ignore Minions anyway. Sure you can, but just because a trait line is usable without strictly using one set of utility skills doesn't suddenly make those utility skills lackluster by default. That's a pretty weird reasoning and I don't really see the relevance here. > If we can have Ranger having an entire traitline, Beastmastery, to support extensive Pet play, why can't Necro (and Engi) have a Espec, or at least a spec, which properly expands on Minion (or Turret) play? Pet is ranger's mechanic and its inherent part, while minions/turrets are utility spells. Not really the same thing.

> @"The Boz.2038" said: > ...and? > You're acting as if a Reaper switching away from GS/Shroud isn't already going into a massive DPS decrease. > (also, condi reaper, lol) ...and you're acting as if nothing other than pure dps matters in terms of class balancing and proposed changes. "lol" indeed.

@ many answers that I got pinged by, but couldn't be bothered to answer one-by-one: I've said raid's gph isn't bad at all and that's true, now with someone else sort-of-calculating said gph above. Repeatability of content has nothing to do with what I said.

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > If they’re rich then it certainly wasn’t from doing raids. The rewards in this game are inversely proportional to the challenge to obtain them. The most brain dead content in the game is the most rewarding while the most challenging content is the least rewarding. Nah, apparently the theoretical gph of raids isn't bad at all.

> @"nellone.5836" said: > ok, if fluctuates.... but it's slowly growing! 3 years ago gems were half the price! >  > > The more we go further and more new players will be in a big disadvantage. No, they're not in a big disadvantage. There's more gold in the game now, current content gives more gold than it did in the past, people are willing to pay "more" for certain mats and so on.

The price fluctuates, nothing out of ordinary about it.

> @"Touchme.1097" said: > > @"Linken.6345" said: > > > @"Touchme.1097" said: > > > Dear ArenaNet, I am a Mac OSX user and it's currently impossible for me to install third party programs using the GW2 API since they use the .dll extension. > > > It would be a quality improvement if Mac users could get some of the most popular Addons built in the Mac client because Addons are all built around the Windows client. > > > Since Mac users are a minority of your customers and my idea wouldn't be a huge impact on the whole community, could you please release a built in dps meter for the Mac client? > > > I want to constantly improve my dps but without a meter I am not able to progress any further. > > > Regards. > > > > Good news you can improve your dps useing the raid training golem area. > > It gives the dps meter you want. > > Then use that muscle memory to replicate it were ever you like. > > I have to disagree with you because the training Golem doesn't behave like a raid boss, it just stands still and takes all the damage, it doesn't have combat mechanics and it won't be effective in improving my raid damage. It's a way to calculate the damage output but not an accurate way to improve raid performances. Ok, so you get your dps meter, you see your dps is lower than on a golem or whatever and then... How exactly do you use that information to improve your raid performance?

> @"Touchme.1097" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > Espec doesn't need to do everything, it's part of a class, not a new class of its own. You want cleave, then build for cleave. DE's single target is doing fine and I didn't have trouble with finding a spot in raid squads for a dps spot. So no, it's not in need of a serious rework. If you want "weaver-like rotations", then play weaver. Thief is based on a different mechanic and it should be obvious why it doesn't really have a rotation you're aiming for. Saying "I like that class, so make this class like that one" is pretty ridiculous, we can choose between different classes and their playstyles for a reason. > > Aaaand dj definitely shouldn't have its cast time reduced, there's simply no need for that in any mode. > > You are not following my argument, I don't want every class to be like a Weaver, I want Deadeye to have a decent interactive rotation that would make most of its abilities useful. But that's what I answered to: due to the mechanic that thief uses (initiative instead of cooldown), it's 100% expected for this class to not have "your regular rotation that makes use of all skills" in pve, because it will just keep using the most efficient/efective one in any given pve situation. If you don't want that then you don't want thief. If you play thief and then come to forum to "change the class so it can have regular rotation in pve" then you're trying to change the class into another one. That's not "DE issue", that's how thief in general works and that's not a reason for an espec rework. >Just because you don't have an issue finding a raid spot doesn't mean the class itself is fine, this is a flawed assumption that leads to no valid point. Why? You say it's bad in pve, but it's not. It's a solid single target deeps, me having no problems with finding a raid spot to fill dps role supports that, not sure how it's flawed assumption, but I'm open for an explanation. >DJ should have its cast time reduced because in raids a lot of mechanics require a fast reaction time to be dodged and the cast time is unnecessary, not only because it's an empowered autoattack but because it requires previous casting of other abilities with a casting time, so it requires 2x casting times. No, it really shouldn't. You shouldn't really have a problem with any mechanic while using dj and if you do, learn the encounter and delay your dj once in a while. Usually that's still not needed in the current form. And no, it doesn't "require 2 x casting times", what even is this idea lol (yes, I understand what you're trying to say, but that's just false). > Since Thief can only do Damage, Deadeye needs enough changes to bring this elite spec back to the meta. No, not really. Your assumption that a class needs to be the best in something (which is when it joines "the meta") to be valid/good/sufficient/worthly/whatever is just false and pretty short sighted imo. Not to mention nearly impossible.

Espec doesn't need to do everything, it's part of a class, not a new class of its own. You want cleave, then build for cleave. DE's single target is doing fine and I didn't have trouble with finding a spot in raid squads for a dps spot. So no, it's not in need of a serious rework. If you want "weaver-like rotations", then play weaver. Thief is based on a different mechanic and it should be obvious why it doesn't really have a rotation you're aiming for. Saying "I like that class, so make this class like that one" is pretty ridiculous, we can choose between different classes and their playstyles for a reason. Aaaand dj definitely shouldn't have its cast time reduced, there's simply no need for that in any mode.

You don't even need a single player kill to raise/keep your participation and semi-afk farm reward track. If on one map you have "a thief camping you", then move maps, you have 3 more available. If you think team chat is "so toxic" and you don't want to "have to put with it", then turn the team chat off. Tbh these are all pretty much non-issues.