Sobx.1758

> @"Aavataris.5720" said: > > @"radda.8920" said: > > For years I suggested mounts in forums, each time I was insulted and discredited with silly things ...now there are mounts and they work very well. Out of curiousity (and for the sake of you having some sort of credibility tbh), can you link your threads/posts about implementing mounts?

> @"Yggranya.5201" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said: > > > > @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said: > > > > I like it being it's own thing. HoT is focused around groups. PoF tried making it solo friendly. The game needs to make it work for both going forward. > > > > > >'cause otherwise you'll be stuck on whatever spot you dismounted at for 5 minutes. Everything in PoF was tedious. > > > > That's not a thing in most places of PoF maps tho, so how about not pretending it's true? > > If someone consistently is "stuck for 5 minutes whenever dismounted", then that's some solid l2p issue on their part, probably after skipping (or getting absolutely carried through) big chunks of what the game offers. I don't think the game should steeply decrease the difficulty level with new releases, that doesn't make sense to me. > > Of course it is a "learn to play" issue... > > Let me guess: I'm a "casual" and i'm ruining your "engaging elite challenge" of killing the same enemies 3 times in a row with turbo respawns and extra long aggro range which seems to home in on you as soon as you get within a hundred yards from them? Yeah, talk about dishonest. Doesn't happen everywhere? Well coulda fooled me as it does happen on any spot where you might have a reason to dismount on. See, you've made some obviously false and purposefully (at least that's how it seems to me, because I think you might have written something similar in another thread some time ago) generalized claim, got called out on it and what follows is you comming out with some randomized assumptions that change nothing about your claim being false. In what way did you even answer to my post here or even related to the initial false claim you've made before? The fact remains that if anyone has a general problem with PoF maps in the form of "not being able to re-mount for 5 minutes whenever they get dismounted" then there's some serious problem with their gameplay they didn't fix on the way to lategame content -be it in the area of some mechanical capabilities, having a decently thought-out build or simply decision making.

> @"Oxstar.7643" said: > It's like the game thinks it can just smooth over what just happened with some calming music. I don't want to be soothed, smoothed, or calmed, I want to get up, as you said, and take revenge. To me it's a musical way of saying "it's no big deal, relax". It is a big deal to me and I will NOT relax. Yep, might sound childish but that's how it is to me. Music is different to people. What it is to us is individual and hence it's "in your mind" for EVERYONE. Sure, but that's not somehow "condescending" by default. The music can be more energetic when you're in combat, why would it stay the same when you've died? :D It's not condescending, it's fitting the situation you're *currently* in. It would be pretty weird to have nothing changed after the huge dynamic change between fighting and... you know... *not fighting*, which is what you definitely do *while staying on the ground*. It's as if you had a problem with happy music in one of the main cities "because you've just finished fighting that huge monster and now the game pretends you didn't!". Nobody's pretending anything or being condescending, you're just in a different scenario. When you're dead, you're not in combat, so the change of theme is just fitting.

> @"Yggranya.5201" said: > > @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said: > > I like it being it's own thing. HoT is focused around groups. PoF tried making it solo friendly. The game needs to make it work for both going forward. > >'cause otherwise you'll be stuck on whatever spot you dismounted at for 5 minutes. Everything in PoF was tedious. That's not a thing in most places of PoF maps tho, so how about not pretending it's true? If someone consistently is "stuck for 5 minutes whenever dismounted", then that's some solid l2p issue on their part, probably after skipping (or getting absolutely carried through) big chunks of what the game offers. I don't think the game should steeply decrease the difficulty level with new releases, that doesn't make sense to me.

> @"Aavataris.5720" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > Say what you want, but you are still the one 10 seconds after the publication is made, I immediately look for the negative, looking badly at a new mode (which obviously has its flaws, but it is still good and fun) and blinded to being forcibly negative with it. I already answered to that in the post you're responding to (but actually NOT **responding to**): I see the initial biased statement that -in my eyes- is based on pretty much nothing, so I don't see the reason not to question it. If it's not based on nothing, then how exactly are they "a success" and how are they "working well"? Have you read the feedback threads about them? Or are you just closing off yourself from any comments that disagree with your opinion, so it's immediately "forcefully negative" and that's what you'll respond to every other post as well? Notice how you keep dodging and insulting anyone that has a view differentiating from yours. > shhhh, h@ter, don't try to victimize yourself ...how am I "trying to victimize myself"? Throwing out random buzz words doesn't really work as well as you apparently think. And you can try and provoke me with your insults however long you want, but that also won't work. :(

> @"Aavataris.5720" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > And faced with a new mode (which, yes, it can come with its defects, but still they work and can work better) you choose to see the negative side > ...even more, comment negative, at 10 seconds of the publication and without reading the rest, just for being negative. > > Yes, it is forcibly negative, and annoying ¬¬ I see the initial biased statement that -in my eyes- is based on pretty much nothing, so I don't see the reason not to question it. If it's not based on nothing, then how exactly are they "a success" and how are they "working well"? Have you read the feedback threads about them? Or are you just closing off yourself from any comments that disagree with your opinion, so it's immediately "forcefully negative" and that's what you'll respond to every other post as well? You want pvp zones to fight over? How about entering wvw? You want something similar with progressively capturing further/deeper zones in pve against mobs? Then... you know... drizzlewood? DS? Instead this thread pretends that taking existing content, making it instanced and more limited in regards of who can enter it is the direction this game should go in. Highly doubt it is.

> @"Aavataris.5720" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > wow, 10 seconds to answer and forcefully ask negatively ¬¬ > Yes, they work, at least "well" This is not "forcefully asking negatively", it's just that there's quite a bit that's wrong with DRMs, you can read up on this in multiple places on this forum if you care enough. Suddenly claiming that they were a success is nothing more than your opinion. And so is mine that they're not a success.

> @"Aavataris.5720" said: > Good day. > Seeing that the **Draconic Response missions work very well** ...but do they?

I don't see how that music is "condescending"? It might just be something you decided it sounds like in your mind (yup, seriously). Also if you don't like the music, stop lying on the ground and get up ;p

> @"Arheundel.6451" said: > > @"Greg.7086" said: > > @"Arheundel.6451" In my humble opinion I'm 99% certain Anet will not give us any info at all until either very, very near or the day before release day, for the same old reason in MMO Life: " In case they fail to deliver what they say they will and then get burnt hard by the Community for not delivering it ". > > > > I've kind of adopted the approach with Anet now that I will just enjoy the game here and now, and play it as it is. If and when something big, and game-chaning happens then great, but I'm certainly not going to get my hopes up for it or get sucked into any hype for EoD: Only sets you up for disappointment if things don't meet your expectations. I'm not a big fan of the IceBrood Saga story-telling ( solo-esque stuff ), would way prefer some big over-haul / update on Group play game-modes: WvW, sPvP, Raids or re-work of current Dungeons with boosted bosses & rewards ( DRM's are just awful: Recycled terrible content ): But sadly i cannot see Anet investing resources in WvW & sPvP as I don't think in general the players in these game modes bring in much revenue for them. > > These are the kind of errors you'd expect from an indie developer who relies on fund raising...not a triple A company with a multibillion publisher behind them And yet it constatly happens for many/most companies with multibillion publishers behind them despite you trying to paint it as some kind of anet-only exception. Apparently you must know something those companies don't.

Who cares, they'll give us info when they're ready. You keep getting LS episodes, but somehow that doesn't matter, what matters is that they didn't tell you about the especs for the expansion you don't even have a release date set for. I get it, you're curious, but nobody cares what square enix does 2 years earlier, it changes nothing and that knowledge -if you had it so far ahead of time- is something you don't really need. Detailed locations? Monsterpedia? Elites? The sooner you learn about them, the more it will settle in and be a less meaningful experience when you actually play through it in the game. I don't see why you'd claim you need to know about everything RIGHT NOW.

> @"Reaper X.6305" said: > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > @"Reaper X.6305" said: > > > Please remove the need to use transmutation charges to change your gear's appearance, and put in-game barber shops in all of the capitol cities so that we can change our hair! It would be such a gesture of good will towards your player base. We all know Fashion Wars is a big selling point of this game, so please don't restrict it! > > > > For a buy-to-play game with no pay-to-win, GW2 garners it's sustenance from cosmetic-only items. > > > > As such, doesn't it behoove the company to leave them as-is? > > > > No. It doesn't. They probably make most of their gem store money off of the gem to gold conversion anyway. , > @"Lonami.2987" said: > > @"Reaper X.6305" said: > > Please remove the need to use transmutation charges to change your gear's appearance, and put in-game barber shops in all of the capitol cities so that we can change our hair! It would be such a gesture of good will towards your player base. We all know Fashion Wars is a big selling point of this game, so please don't restrict it! Just have it cost silver in game if it must cost something. You can make up for the 'lost revenue' that this good will gesture would cause by adding other customization things, like player housing and furniture! You'll probably get a ton of good press (which means new players) for this move too. Please ANet, it's the right thing to do! > > 100% agree, transmutation charges hurt their backline, people would purchase more gem store skins if they were easier to use. > > Also, hairstyles would make more money if they were free to apply, but also sold individually in the gem store, just as weapon and armor skins. ITT: people try to push their opinions by pretending they have access to the information they very clearly don't have access to. Also the infamous "*give me more free stuff and then I'll start spending more money!*" -no, you won't :lol: All I can say is that not ONCE have I ever had any problem with existance of transmutation charges or hairstyle kits. This is a made up problem pushed by forced comparison to games with monthly fees by people that don't want to pay for anything in the game. Like someone said earlier in this thread: if you like monthly sub so much, then spend money on gems monthly and you'll be stacked. ...or just play the game and you'll be stacked anyways.

> @"cyberzombie.7348" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"cyberzombie.7348" The "logic" behind that is the same as other skills having less charges, less dmg, lower duration, higher cost and otherwise weaker effects -because in competitive modes you play **against** other players and skills generally shouldn't be too powerful to make room for some counterplay. In pve you play **with** other players and mobs don't care, so the effects can be stronger. If you'll want consistency, then there's nothing standing in the way of them nerfing pve versions of the skills to the level of wvw/pvp, but somehow I don't think it will be welcomed by you, me or, well... anyone. > > My main take is that boon rip abilities should be buffed in pvp and slightly more in wvw because unless you're running deadeye with mercy, ripping 2 per steal isn't going to phase an organized groups that's nigh unkillable by spamming boons and heals indefinitely with corruptions from necromancers and aoe rips/negation from spellbreakers the only 2 realistic options for counters rn. ...but it shouldn't and if a single trait from a single person would be supposed to "phase an organized group" then that would be pretty stupidly strong, right? So I understood "your point", the problem I had with it was that -imo- it's... bad (the idea along with its justification, not the trait itself).

You don't even need to put anything in lfg -just click on an arrow on the left side of the screen and then "create squad", you're in your own 1-man squad and can enter the training area right away. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/2/25/Squad_creation.jpg

> @"Chips.7968" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > Ah yes, buffing already strong trait in already strong spec is the way to go. Even moreso "because of the name of the trait". This forum never changes I guess :D > > > > @"cyberzombie.7348" The "logic" behind that is the same as other skills having less charges, less dmg, lower duration, higher cost and otherwise weaker effects -because in competitive modes you play **against** other players and skills generally shouldn't be too powerful to make room for some counterplay. In pve you play **with** other players and mobs don't care, so the effects can be stronger. If you'll want consistency, then there's nothing standing in the way of them nerfing pve versions of the skills to the level of wvw/pvp, but somehow I don't think it will be welcomed by you, me or, well... anyone. > > His point is that ambient pve nearly nothing has boons to rip anyway, so it's amusing to "split" the skill from the boon rip perspective. Yeah and my point is that "*nearly nothing* =/= *nothing*", with the potential "solution" here being just nerfing the pve version for no reason other then some self made "it would be more logical to have it weaker in pve", when there's no actual reason to even care/bother. (and it's not even "more logical" for the reason I wrote in the post you've just answered to) > Oh, and as for counter play - there is a counter play. I hear it every time anyone complains about anything so why not add it here. > > Learn to dodge >.< Nice meme. Bottom line is that it really doesn't need nor deserves to be stronger in competitive mode. To put it lightly, it's already used more often than it's not (while being a part of pretty much must-have spec) and no amount of *dodging that fact* will change it. What might change it is an actual valid argument for having it buffed, but neither "because it's named like that!" nor "because then it would be stronger!" is a valid one.

> @"Svarty.8019" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > > > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > > > > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I'm to be frank > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, Frank. > > > > > > What would be the point of superior siege if guild varieties were just as plentiful? > > > > > > > > > > What's the point in vanilla siege now that superior siege is ubiquitous? > > > > > > > > What's the point of common gear when pretty much nobody should be really using it regardless of character level anyways? > > > > Beacuse it's an option, it's there, you can use it for whatever reason, but you absolutely don't need to use it. In case you're using it, the mere fact that's "it there" is irrelevant to anyone, so what's the point of asking this question? Don't want/need to use it? Then don't. Someone might want to -who cares. > > > > > > Those things aren't the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence > > > > How are they not close enough in this comparison? They're in the game, there exist better versions of them and you pretty much don't need to use the weakest version at any point of the game. Just because you've linked "false equivalence" as a *cheap way out of answering* doesn't make it an actual false equivalence. The principle around existance of weakest version in both cases is pretty much the same. If you don't want to use them, then it's perfectly fine, but it's also irrelevant to those items existing in the game. > > I admit it, I cheaped out on the answer and I also think _some_ equivalence, but not as much as you're making out. The best gear doesn't get removed from the system when you use it, but guild siege does - although there is minor time-gating on the crafting side. It's just a messy analogy. ...so if the siege bprints *get removed from the system per use*, isn't there even more of a reason for lower versions to exist? > The time-gating/tedious nature of the queuing system is what the OP is unhappy about. > I suspect they could > * make the window bigger and add more slots, OR, > * make it instantly add them to guild decoration storage - (like racetrack parts do? But they're bought from a vendor and aren't crafted - so the bottleneck is where?). It might be tedious, but due to the existance of weaker versions you still have a choice to make. If the stronger version isn't worth price/time, then use the weaker ones. If it is, then... you know... pretty much *deal with it*. Right?

> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > > But let me continue on this: not as much in sPvP and WvW, but I think in the PvE endgame, DPS is actually one of your biggest pillars you should balance around, cause it's the absolute most important factor to complete endgame content. > > > > The biggest pillars are knowing the encounter and knowing how to play the build you have because it doesn't matter HOW much DPS you have if you don't have those two things ... but if you have those two things, you only just need to meet the threshold of DPS to complete endgame content. > > > > There is much evidence that shows that threshold is far below that of meta builds and team compositions. For instance, the fact that highly capable players are short manning and finishing raids WELL within the timer is evidence. The fact that people don't need to take optimal builds and be successful is also evidence. Why? because the game is NOT designed around big DPS pillars that you claim it should be balanced around; it's balanced around allowing people to play how they want. > > > > The only reason you think DPS should be the big balance pillar is because you dislike the DPS range that exists over the classes DESPITE the fact that it doesn't impact players being successful. > > > My god, you even give the example yourself in your own post. Short-manning raids is a real thing. It happens all the time for instance when people are selling raids! The person(s) buying the raids can (and probably will) die the very first few seconds a raid starts. And at the end is still **successful**. HOW has this anything to do with balance??? Or how should ANet balance their game around facts like that??? Really, enlighten me! > And when you answer that question: bear in mind: this is a thread about balance updates. With your reasoning, ANet might as well stop balancing because they've achieved perfect balance! Everyone can be successful in this game, so why balance at all? For that to not ever be the thing, the game would need to be balanced around strict dps values. But it's not and it shouldn't be because it's pretty casual -*even* in raids. It's balanced around you (and your squad) not constatnly failing the mechanics -if you (and most impotantly: anet) don't want the mechanics to be skippable by dps, then there are obviously ways to do it without touching dps. This is also why you have freedom of builds you choose to use in those encounters. And what do you mean "what does it have to do with balance"? EVERYTHING. Pretty clearly this IS the way it's balanced. Just because you don't like that way, doesn't make it any less relevant.

> @"Svarty.8019" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > > > > > > If I'm to be frank > > > > > > > > Well, Frank. > > > > What would be the point of superior siege if guild varieties were just as plentiful? > > > > > > What's the point in vanilla siege now that superior siege is ubiquitous? > > > > What's the point of common gear when pretty much nobody should be really using it regardless of character level anyways? > > Beacuse it's an option, it's there, you can use it for whatever reason, but you absolutely don't need to use it. In case you're using it, the mere fact that's "it there" is irrelevant to anyone, so what's the point of asking this question? Don't want/need to use it? Then don't. Someone might want to -who cares. > > Those things aren't the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence How are they not close enough in this comparison? They're in the game, there exist better versions of them and you pretty much don't need to use the weakest version at any point of the game. Just because you've linked "false equivalence" as a *cheap way out of answering* doesn't make it an actual false equivalence. The principle around existance of weakest version in both cases is pretty much the same. If you don't want to use them, then it's perfectly fine, but it's also irrelevant to those items existing in the game.

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > > > @"voltaicbore.8012" said: > > > > > @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > > > >You can only stunbreak when you're stunned but there's nothing against being knocked on the ground as far as i know. So once you're insta kncocked down, you're dead. > > > > > > > > This is very, very wrong. Any stunbreak recovers from knockdown/stun/daze, basically any condition that is indicated bu the purple debuff icon and lays your character out on the ground. The whole list of things that stunbreak solves is at the wiki page [here](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Stun_break). > > > > > > > > I'm not sure at this point if we need to look at the game's design, or individual players, when it comes to figuring out how so many people can make it so far into the game without learning important information like this. For me, stun breaks are among the first abilities I make sure to hotkey on every class for every game I play, and I very quickly found out that abilities marked as stun breaks got rid of all hard cc's. This also taught me the utility of soft cc's like cripple, chill, and immobilize - I knew that I could throw those at targets in pvp who were using stability and stunbreaks, and find ways to pin them down regardless. > > > > > > > > EDIT: oops had this page open for too long, didn't see that someone basically made the same response already. > > > > > > > > > > Then let me repeat myself. If all my skills go on cooldown, what do i use then? Doesn't happen with "normal" stuns, but some enemy abilities knock me on the ground, all my skills 1-0 get on a 5 second cooldown so how am i supposed to "use a stunbreak" then? > > > > > > I know what sutns are, i use them every day in WvW, and i know how to get out of them. > > > But you can't get out of some stuns and CC effects. Especially if they don't have a tell like some mobs do. > > > > > > Besides, i don't know why you're all arguing with me, if you read my post (thouruogly this time), you'll see that i have no problem with this. don't just read the first thing i said and have a kneejerk reaction, read and understand the whole post. > > > > People aren't "arguing" with you. You've made a false claim about stunbreaks not working on knockdown, so people are correcting you so you don't spread information that's not true. > > > > I would also like to address this part: > > > @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > >So far i know which mobs do that and i approach them differently so that problem kinda fixes itself. I still think it's an oversight that shouldn't happen, but you CAN deal with it. > > > > If you can play around it, then I don't see how that's oversight. Having a need to actually approach certain mobs differently seems like something that's desirable, so the mobs don't feel like just reskins of the same thing with same skills and effects. > > I can actually explain this. There is a very small number of enemy skills in the game that completely bypass all stun breaks. These skills, however, are quite rare. The only one I can think of that does this off the top of my head is the Icebrood Trolls in Bitterfrost Frontier. They have an AoE stun that locks you in place for 5 seconds, and it puts stun breaks on cooldown. To extrapolate this to be the norm, however, is incredibly misleading. However I digress. I know that, but that isn't an equivalent to "stunbreaks don't work on knockdowns", which is what he said and what's not true, which was also the point of people correcting him (and not "arguing" with him). Is this clear?

> @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > @"voltaicbore.8012" said: > > > @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > >You can only stunbreak when you're stunned but there's nothing against being knocked on the ground as far as i know. So once you're insta kncocked down, you're dead. > > > > This is very, very wrong. Any stunbreak recovers from knockdown/stun/daze, basically any condition that is indicated bu the purple debuff icon and lays your character out on the ground. The whole list of things that stunbreak solves is at the wiki page [here](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Stun_break). > > > > I'm not sure at this point if we need to look at the game's design, or individual players, when it comes to figuring out how so many people can make it so far into the game without learning important information like this. For me, stun breaks are among the first abilities I make sure to hotkey on every class for every game I play, and I very quickly found out that abilities marked as stun breaks got rid of all hard cc's. This also taught me the utility of soft cc's like cripple, chill, and immobilize - I knew that I could throw those at targets in pvp who were using stability and stunbreaks, and find ways to pin them down regardless. > > > > EDIT: oops had this page open for too long, didn't see that someone basically made the same response already. > > > > Then let me repeat myself. If all my skills go on cooldown, what do i use then? Doesn't happen with "normal" stuns, but some enemy abilities knock me on the ground, all my skills 1-0 get on a 5 second cooldown so how am i supposed to "use a stunbreak" then? > > I know what sutns are, i use them every day in WvW, and i know how to get out of them. > But you can't get out of some stuns and CC effects. Especially if they don't have a tell like some mobs do. > > Besides, i don't know why you're all arguing with me, if you read my post (thouruogly this time), you'll see that i have no problem with this. don't just read the first thing i said and have a kneejerk reaction, read and understand the whole post. People aren't "arguing" with you. You've made a false claim about stunbreaks not working on knockdown, so people are correcting you so you don't spread information that's not true. I would also like to address this part: > @"Veprovina.4876" said: >So far i know which mobs do that and i approach them differently so that problem kinda fixes itself. I still think it's an oversight that shouldn't happen, but you CAN deal with it. If you can play around it, then I don't see how that's oversight. Having a need to actually approach certain mobs differently seems like something that's desirable, so the mobs don't feel like just reskins of the same thing with same skills and effects.

What mode? What class/build are you using?

Ah yes, buffing already strong trait in already strong spec is the way to go. Even moreso "because of the name of the trait". This forum never changes I guess :D @"cyberzombie.7348" The "logic" behind that is the same as other skills having less charges, less dmg, lower duration, higher cost and otherwise weaker effects -because in competitive modes you play **against** other players and skills generally shouldn't be too powerful to make room for some counterplay. In pve you play **with** other players and mobs don't care, so the effects can be stronger. If you'll want consistency, then there's nothing standing in the way of them nerfing pve versions of the skills to the level of wvw/pvp, but somehow I don't think it will be welcomed by you, me or, well... anyone.

> @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > same 3 trait line limit, but more choices in each section. 3 is kitten. Yes, but also kind of pointless while we pretty much have "placeholder traits" for a year now. Fix first, add later. Or fix and add at the same time. Don't just add and leave placeholders or I'll cry. > @"Fueki.4753" said: > > @"Tseison.4659" said: > > Oh of course it would be strong but as I stated and I'm sure Anet aren't naive, they'd definitely have to adjust/balance existing traits so builds aren't too strong... > > They can't even handle balancing what already is possible and you expect them to balance something with even more options? True.

> @"Svarty.8019" said: > > @"LetoII.3782" said: > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > > If I'm to be frank > > > > Well, Frank. > > What would be the point of superior siege if guild varieties were just as plentiful? > > What's the point in vanilla siege now that superior siege is ubiquitous? What's the point of common gear when pretty much nobody should be really using it regardless of character level anyways? Beacuse it's an option, it's there, you can use it for whatever reason, but you absolutely don't need to use it. In case you're using it, the mere fact that's "it there" is irrelevant to anyone, so what's the point of asking this question? Don't want/need to use it? Then don't. Someone might want to -who cares.

> @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully some day they fix this necro issue, since its a specific issue to do with mechanics which nerf necromancers suffer efficiency wise compared to other classes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except this isn't an issue in PVE because the game isn't designed around needing the highest efficiency builds to be successful. Hopefully, Anet continue to ignore these constant requests to 'fix' issues that would result in the content dictating what builds are needed, resulting in fewer people being able to play the builds they want. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It becomes a issue if that extra damage delays the death of a raid boss and gives it more time to use techs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that's not an issue. You can be successful if that happens. In fact, the game is DESIGNED to allow that 'delay' so people can choose to play how they want. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is though because it gives a reason for folks to pass over necro. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That just depends on how you play and who you play with. In otherwords ... it's an issue you encounter because of choices _you_ make. It's not an issue that requires Anet to solve with game changes because the game design already addresses that issue. The game is designed so that people can choose to play how they want and be successful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lol, is there any game (especially MMORPG's) out there that doesnt give you that choice? I mean, I'd love to see an MMORPG that tells you on the "create your character screen", please don't pick this class, you wont be able to complete the game with it ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, your arguments are completely moot! They're all just givens and don't contribute to _any_ game discussion, really! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why you need proper balance in pve. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if you can do content with lower DPS, if you give foilks a reason to pass you on being brought to a group then there is a good chance they will becasue something is better. A lot of people are obsessed with numbers and statistics as what gets the best results. If its a small numeral difference and your at the bottom its not so bad, but if its quite noticeable between classes, then it shows there is a problem. Necromancer is particularly problematic, because it has tools that don't fit pve well and are better suited for PVP. Some of its CC have minimal effect and although boon corrupt works in fractals at higher tiers, lower tier fractals enemies have minimal buffs and minimal amount of condis to corrupt, and barrier i heard fits more practice groups for raids or casual runs with bad players. I haven't seen these kind of severe limitations on other classes, and perhaps i'm wrong since i'm not able to play scourge, i do have experience with core and reaper, as i play a lot of those. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These things i said ring true, because In the past of GW and recently, we had classes who's support was underwhelming and others that were outright required for raid( mesmer and guardians) This proves it was poorly adjusted. I'm not saying mesmers and guardians shouldn't be good at what they do, but there should be possibility of at least some options of others who can fill in said role. > > > > > > > > > I'm fortunate that my guild allows me to run scourge, and I've attempted to play other classes and specs though none as as enjoyable to me which makes it tough to get into them. Engineer being my off day choice since I find condi holo fun when I don't want to plan out every skill use on an internal mental timer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To your point. Each DPS shouldn't be 40% difference from each other. That's insane. There can be a difference in potency but at that high it does create a very negative experience and prevents new people from entering the raiding format. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The difference in dps between the classes isn't stopping new players form entering the raiding format, not sure what that random claim is, but that's just not true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully some day they fix this necro issue, since its a specific issue to do with mechanics which nerf necromancers suffer efficiency wise compared to other classes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except this isn't an issue in PVE because the game isn't designed around needing the highest efficiency builds to be successful. Hopefully, Anet continue to ignore these constant requests to 'fix' issues that would result in the content dictating what builds are needed, resulting in fewer people being able to play the builds they want. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It becomes a issue if that extra damage delays the death of a raid boss and gives it more time to use techs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, that's not an issue. You can be successful if that happens. In fact, the game is DESIGNED to allow that 'delay' so people can choose to play how they want. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is though because it gives a reason for folks to pass over necro. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That just depends on how you play and who you play with. In otherwords ... it's an issue you encounter because of choices _you_ make. It's not an issue that requires Anet to solve with game changes because the game design already addresses that issue. The game is designed so that people can choose to play how they want and be successful. > > > > > > > > > > >please don't pick this class, you wont be able to complete the game with it ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But that's not true in this game and in this case, what are you even talking about right now? If you're suggesting that you can't complete it with necro (or that it's even remotely hard), then that's just false. If that's not what you're suggesting, then I don't understand what point you're trying to make by typing something like this out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, read my comment again. Your missing the point completely. I'm saying that @"Obtena.7952" and you (= @"Sobx.1758" ) (as well) are coming up with arguments that doesn't add anything to this discussion. Of course you can complete the game (and raids) with **any** class. But so you can in any other (MMORPG) game out there. These arguments are non-arguments and don't add to any discussion! It's the same as telling anyone in real life that they're not allowed to complain about anything, cause they're still breathing. Kind of an essential part of _life_, isn't it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, arguments like: the game is designed this way that anyone and any class can complete raids and such, don't say anything. The game wouldn't exist if this wouldn't be the case. And hopefully, now we get that out of our way, we can actually contribute to this discussion on _how_ we can improve classes that fall significantly short in certain gamemodes and maybe nerf the classes that are outperforming. Because the gap is quite big (especially in the PvE endgame)! That's for sure! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't bring any less to the discussion than your (= @"Agrippa Oculus.3726" ), @"Axl.8924" or @"Lily.1935"'s made up arguments about classes being unusable(/not worth using) if they're not the best at something OR necro somehow being something that's stopping people from entering raids. If what we're saying doesn't add anything then neither any of these (on top of them simply not even being true), but you don't mind that because it pushes your "buff my class" request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, _these_ people you're talking about actually come with real numbers, statistics and benchmarks which you can find on several websites (from snowcrows to discretize to even in the older days: gw2raidar!), yours ... well where is your proof? In numbers I mean? Not just the hunch you have, or the anecdotal: _this one time ...._ stories. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Benchmark numbers" do absolutely nothing to support their claims and what I wrote about, how is this even relevant? It *would* be relevant *if* I questioned existance of dps/class performance differences, but that's not what I'm doing. Seriously, don't you understand you're talking about one thing and then claim that "there's proof for it!" while *proving* something else (which, again, was never anything I argued against)? > > > > > I don't care what _you_ are talking or arguing about. This is a thread about **balance**! > > > > > Let me make it really simple: Balance in GW2 = BAD; Benchmarks, statistics = proof; gamedesign **101**/for dummies ≠ (is not) proof and has nothing to do with balance, it only has to do with if a game can simply exist or not! > > > > > > > > Yup and **balance!** > > > **No** it doesn't! Let me bring your argumentation to its extreme, and then you hopefully figure out that it **doesn't** have to do anything with balance. What if ANet would design a class tomorrow that literally can't do anything except for standing in a corner. It has a max of 0 DPS, 0 HPS, 0% support, no mobility, etc. It can only stand in a corner, and can die ... really quickly. With your flawless argumentation, you'd say that would still be balanced, cause you can 9-man raids! That you can complete raids anyway you like and with any class you like has nothing to do with balance! It's that simple. > > > > Wow, nice strawman you've got there. You can keep trying to "bring my argumentation to its extreme" all you want, but it has nothing to do with what I've said. You can literally fill dps spots with necros and still easly complete most/all raids. Your EXTREME! example has nothing to do with what is being said in this thread > Exactly, it has nothing to do with this thread, What I (and, for example, Obtena) wrote has everything to do with this thread and balancing in this game. You trying to overblow what others are saying in an attempt to dismiss it doesn't work and is a pretty sad, hopeless effort. When I wrote "it has nothing to do with what was written in this thread" I was **very obviously** talking about your awful overexaggeration and I even explained why. You can twist the other people words all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you're incorrect and simply try to dodge what others write. >and so is your argumentation that: > > You can literally fill dps spots with necros and still easly complete most/all raids. > It has nothing to do with this thread! Because it has _nothing_ to do with balance!!! ? It has everything to do with this thread and balance. This is how this game IS balanced. This is WHY this game CAN be balanced why it is. Your awful attempt at disregarding what was written based on a wrong overblown comparison has nothing to do with what was written above. You keep trying to dodge, but it just doesn't work. Start answering to what is actually written or stop pretending you're responding, while all you do is twist the words you're quoting. > And now that's confirmed, let's talk about balance: > > Sure, I want more frequent balance patches too > I wholeheartedly agree with you! Cool, but frequency of patch release has little to do with actual *ingame* balancing. Also you've already managed to write this thing 3 times back-to-back after having a whole other discussion in an attempt to dodge what was being said, because you know you have nothing to respond to it. You can keep typing "I want more frequent balance patches", but don't pretend it's in any way productive or relevant. > > but it's irrelevant to suddenly bring it up now in this comment chain and pretend it was EVER part of it. > Why? This thread is about balance updates. Why can't I bring it back on-topic (it was actually going really off-topic: with people going on and on about things that has nothing to do with balance) and in this case mention the _frequency_ of balance updates as of late? Which again, is **imo** _the_ most troubling issue of the whole balance system in this game. Definitely as of late! For me, it's the elephant in the room. It's been FAR too long since a _real_ balance update has hit this game. Why? I already explained it -because you kept talking about something else for 2 pages and suddenly when you have nothing relevant to respond you run from the previous comment chain and *suddenly* try to pretend this is not what this thread is about -but it was for a few pages before up to the moment you've read something you dislike and have nothing relevant to respond with. Which is fine, but stop pretending that's not the reason you're running away from what is being written in this thread. Seriously, it's a bit too transparent to work for you. And if that's all you have to say here then you're pretty much done with the thread and there's no reason for you to keep "pinging" (by quoting their nicknames) people just to repeat "I want more frequent patches!" -cool, everyone else knows that already, you're not adding anything to the topic that was being discussed by repeating this *one unrelated line*. If that's still not clear for you... welp, good luck. > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > You still don't understand that benchmarks have nothing to do with being a proof for anything that's being said here, because nobody tries disputing the differences in dps and benchmarks are **literally** only proving that singular thing, while it does nothing for the incorrect claims from this thread that I've quoted earlier. You might dislike facts that go against your opinions, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of what people wrote here -including you- is just made up. > > > Read my comment of the beginning of this post. DPS **is** a factor in balance, I would even say one of the biggest if you look at the PvE endgame. It kills opponents (being your main objective in Raids), speeds things up so you get your rewards earlier, literally breaks mechanics, even makes things easier if you consider "exhaustion factors" in longer fights (your dodges are getting depleted more often, strong heals/cleanses etc. get in cooldown, etc.), and last but not least, the timers set by ANet for a reason are literal DPS checks! > > > So I'd say: YES, DPS is a factor to which you should balance to! > > > But hey, let me repeat myself one more time: that you can complete a raid anyway you like (even by lying on the ground for the full duration of the fight) is definitely NOT a factor ANet should take into consideration when balancing the game! > > > > You seem to not understand what I wrote there. I never said dps isn't a factor in balance. > Now again, I completely agree with you, and I'm sorry if I missed some posts back from you in this huge thread, but sometimes it's just really hard to read through all that off-topic stuff and filter stuff like this out of it! > But let me continue on this: not as much in sPvP and WvW, but I think in the PvE endgame, DPS is actually one of your biggest pillars you should balance around, cause it's the absolute most important factor to complete endgame content. I mentioned it before, but it literally breaks mechanics and does much more things to ease your playthrough. If you don't balance the classes around your biggest pillar in the PvE endgame, well, your fundament will crumble at some stage, as we can already see in many people losing interest in the game. And again, big disclaimer here: there's not 100% correlation between bad balance and decline in player numbers, but _imo_ there definitely is a portion of it that ANet shouldn't underestimate! Cool, I've linked what you can re-read and you don't need to pretend you've "missed some posts from me in this huge thread", because I'm literally talking about the posts you were responding to. You didn't miss it, you were responding to it up until you've decided you have no arguments, at which point you've suddenly decided it's not about balance (but it is) and started repeating "more frequent balance!" as if it's constructive or related to last x pages of this thread (which was still about balancing despite you trying to claim otherwise). Again, what you're doing here (*dodging when you have nothing to respond with*) is too transparent to work for you. o/