Sobx.1758

> @"Virdo.1540" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Virdo.1540" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Virdo.1540" said: > > > > > > @"taara.3217" said: > > > > > > > @"Virdo.1540" said: > > > > > > > Its struggeling to compete with other classes in player-limited pve content. > > > > > > Herald don`t need to compete with any class in PVE content. It can do all content without any problem, helping other classes more than once. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every class can do almost every PvE content without any problem. > > > > > > > > > > In terms of raids ,fracs, even dungeons herald arent even taken into groups often ,simple cuz of them being counted as a joke due to bad support and dmg > > > > > > > > Again, only a problem if that's how _you decide_ to play. > > > > > > Also it doesnt matter how people decide to play, if its a herald ,then a big part of the community would just say "no" > > > > Nah, they wouldn't. > > Then try it out. I did. If you try to join some meta squads with non-meta builds then it's on you. If you want buffs because it's not-meta "so you totally get autokicked all the time" (but you don't), then good luck with that.

> @"Virdo.1540" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Virdo.1540" said: > > > > @"taara.3217" said: > > > > > @"Virdo.1540" said: > > > > > Its struggeling to compete with other classes in player-limited pve content. > > > > Herald don`t need to compete with any class in PVE content. It can do all content without any problem, helping other classes more than once. > > > > > > > > > > Every class can do almost every PvE content without any problem. > > > > > > In terms of raids ,fracs, even dungeons herald arent even taken into groups often ,simple cuz of them being counted as a joke due to bad support and dmg > > > > Again, only a problem if that's how _you decide_ to play. > > Also it doesnt matter how people decide to play, if its a herald ,then a big part of the community would just say "no" Nah, they wouldn't.

> @"Firebeard.1746" said: > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > I have 8 extra Icebrood Saga Mastery Points, and I surely have not done the metas more than, at most, 4 or 5 times, if that. > > Often, the Mastery Points are given on a lower tier than max. > > Glory to the Legions only took a few days. > > You may need to peruse the requirements for Mastery Points in the Hero Panel. > >And to those of you saying "they're not that bad" do you or do you not agree with me that the grindy ones suck? What we tolerate now will be a portent of what they're okay with later and I believe there's been far more grindy MPs this saga than ever before. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant, because they're not obligatory as already explained before. There's no reason to pretend they're in any way problematic because you can just skip them.

> @"Leonidrex.5649" said: > @"Sobx.1758" > I will explain it once again so even you can understand it. > Mesmers elite takes something away from mesmer, and then gives it back as a trait, to my knowledge, there is no other class that does this kitten. Yeah, that's TOTALLY what it does, it's not like it replaces a mecahnic with another one and then adds another on top of it actively feeding off its usage. Instead it really "just removes movement from dodge to add it later as a trait". :lol: (yup, had to copy-paste what I already wrote just so "even you can understand it") > All it does is leaves a dead trait. I dont get why is this so hard to grasp for you. ...probably because that's oversymplification that ignores the facts just because you want to pretend this is a dead trait instead of a mechanic swap that comes with its own "rewards". I already wrote that above, not sure why it's so hard to grasp for you.

There's more MP in the game than you need to unlock masteries. I don't like MP behind weapon collection gold sinks, so I don't do them. At the same time I don't have a problem with getting all MP I ever needed and I fail to see why they shouldn't be in the game when they're optional. I also think you're misrepresenting (or maybe misremembering?) core mastery point achievementes if you try to say they were just gained without focusing on them.

> @"Leonidrex.5649" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Leonidrex.5649" said: > > > > @"Yoci.2481" said: > > > > Mirage Cloak's Speed of Sand does not cover more ground than a dodge. A dodge covers 300 units. Speed of Sand grants 66% movement speed for 0.75 seconds. Base movement speed in combat is 210 units per second. > > > > 210u/s * 1.66 * 0.75s = 261.45 units. That's a lot less than the 300 units from a normal dodge. Speed of Sand is also affected by movement impairing conditions like chill or cripple. In that case it covers even less ground. And it only works in the forward direction, not sideways or backwards. > > > > > > > > All of that combines into a pretty reasonable trade-off. > > > > > > > > edit: And you can't dodge jump. > > > > > > and to top it off speed of sand is a TRAIT. > > > so not only it covers less ground but also occupies a trait slot that other classes get some of their OP kitten. > > > holo gets lasers edge for example in that slot. > > > > It's a TRAIT, but it's a MINOR one, so it's not like you need to pick it IN PLACE OF SOMETHING ELSE and instead it's just ALWAYS THERE when you pick the spec and it's not different from many other minor traits like this which are meant to actually refine the PLAYSTYLE of especs and their mechanics. Not sure why you're trying to pretend it being "a [minor] trait" is something that actually matters here. > > Not sure how "can't dodge jump" is such a huge deal in most cases. And it can be used while immobilized. And it doesn't break your actions. \ > > > > > @"Salt Mode.3780" said: > > > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > > > @"Yoci.2481" said: > > > > > Mirage Cloak's Speed of Sand does not cover more ground than a dodge. A dodge covers 300 units. Speed of Sand grants 66% movement speed for 0.75 seconds. Base movement speed in combat is 210 units per second. > > > > > 210u/s * 1.66 * 0.75s = 261.45 units. That's a lot less than the 300 units from a normal dodge. Speed of Sand is also affected by movement impairing conditions like chill or cripple. In that case it covers even less ground. And it only works in the forward direction, not sideways or backwards. > > > > > > > > > > All of that combines into a pretty reasonable trade-off. > > > > > > > > > > edit: And you can't dodge jump. > > > > > > > > Keeping it 100% > > > > > > on top of tht the actual dodge itself is lower then a normal dodge just the visual effects dont line up so people think its longer then it actually is > > > > And pretty sure this is wrong. Maybe you're confused, because before it got nerfed, it actually had longer evade than the regular dodge and now that it's the same, you somehow think it's lower? > > some minor traits boost damage by 10%, some by 15%, some by more, some remove boons or whatever. Some do, some don't, some add, some take, it's irreleavnt. They still mostly do what I said they do and trying to pretend that *periodical additional speed of espec is somehow worse, because it takes minor trait* is just misrepresenting the facts to pretend you're in a worse position than you really are. >Mirage cloak removes your movement from dodge and gives it back as a trait. Yeah, that's TOTALLY what it does, it's not like it replaces a mecahnic with another one and then adds another on top of it actively feeding off its usage. Instead it really "just removes movement from dodge to add it later as a trait". :lol: > Its not about being a huge deal or not. Yes, it is, because minor traits in a lot of cases just put a frame on especs playstyle and its related mechanics. This is nothing out of ordinary or negative opposed to how you've tried to present it. >what you get from elite should be kitten good. Said who? You and your bias? Seeing how optimally especs aren't even supposed to be direct upgrades over the core, the above claim is just false. It's perfectly fine to "*give some take some*" and it is the case here whether you like it or not. >OFC mirage cloak dodging when stuned,casting,immob is good but its supposed to be good. See, this is what you do here. We gain something? GREAT! We lose a bit in return? WHAT?! THIS IS NOT WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE! Again: since when? >You dont see me complaining that SPB gets OP full-counter and loses nothing in return. He takes entire traitline to make it work and its supposed to be kitten good. Gimping the base mechanic is no way to balance things. Well, this is just false. :D > BTW I looked what some of the other elites get in its slot. > DRD gets 0,5 dodge every time they land steal ( drd steal has what, 16s cd ? ) following your logic we should remove this trait from the game, make swipe BLOCKABLE and introduce MINOR trait that makes steal unblockable **ItS meant to actually refine the PLAYSTYLE of especs and their mechanics after all** Buddy, not only nothing about what you said here ""follows my logic"" (because how **exactly** does it follow it? Are you sure you've understand what I wrote? Because it seems you didn't), but you also clearly keep talking about skills and traits you don't understand or know (and you've only tried bringing up 2 isolated elements of 2 classes for now) . If all I'm here for is to correct what you don't know about ~~the game~~ basic skill facts then it's a waste of time. Play other classes and then start pretending you know what you're talking about, oof. Actually not only that, but also on the way here you've apparently lost some context of what you or I wrote before and as much as previously you've *just* tried to pretend "*added speed doesn't count because it's a minor trait!*", now you somehow try to claim that any other class' minor trait that *adds something* is unfair? This victim mentality is getting hilarious.

> @"Leonidrex.5649" said: > > @"Yoci.2481" said: > > Mirage Cloak's Speed of Sand does not cover more ground than a dodge. A dodge covers 300 units. Speed of Sand grants 66% movement speed for 0.75 seconds. Base movement speed in combat is 210 units per second. > > 210u/s * 1.66 * 0.75s = 261.45 units. That's a lot less than the 300 units from a normal dodge. Speed of Sand is also affected by movement impairing conditions like chill or cripple. In that case it covers even less ground. And it only works in the forward direction, not sideways or backwards. > > > > All of that combines into a pretty reasonable trade-off. > > > > edit: And you can't dodge jump. > > and to top it off speed of sand is a TRAIT. > so not only it covers less ground but also occupies a trait slot that other classes get some of their OP kitten. > holo gets lasers edge for example in that slot. It's a TRAIT, but it's a MINOR one, so it's not like you need to pick it IN PLACE OF SOMETHING ELSE and instead it's just ALWAYS THERE when you pick the spec and it's not different from many other minor traits like this which are meant to actually refine the PLAYSTYLE of especs and their mechanics. Not sure why you're trying to pretend it being "a [minor] trait" is something that actually matters here. Not sure how "can't dodge jump" is such a huge deal in most cases. And it can be used while immobilized. And it doesn't break your actions. \ > @"Salt Mode.3780" said: > > @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > > @"Yoci.2481" said: > > > Mirage Cloak's Speed of Sand does not cover more ground than a dodge. A dodge covers 300 units. Speed of Sand grants 66% movement speed for 0.75 seconds. Base movement speed in combat is 210 units per second. > > > 210u/s * 1.66 * 0.75s = 261.45 units. That's a lot less than the 300 units from a normal dodge. Speed of Sand is also affected by movement impairing conditions like chill or cripple. In that case it covers even less ground. And it only works in the forward direction, not sideways or backwards. > > > > > > All of that combines into a pretty reasonable trade-off. > > > > > > edit: And you can't dodge jump. > > > > Keeping it 100% > > on top of tht the actual dodge itself is lower then a normal dodge just the visual effects dont line up so people think its longer then it actually is And pretty sure this is wrong. Maybe you're confused, because before it got nerfed, it actually had longer evade than the regular dodge and now that it's the same, you somehow think it's lower?

> @"Filip.7463" said: > Go pve, necro has lowest mobility in game You're missing the point, lmao Edit: apparently a lot of people missed the point :lol:

> @"Balthazzarr.1349" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said: > > > > > > @"Phatt Dude.7538" said: > > > > > > One of the greatest injustices yet to be corrected. Its age discrimination I tell you! Just because my characters are piling up birthday presents, doesn't mean they have stopped achieving!! Are new player skins soooo thin that they will be intimidated by the vast achievements of people who have religiously logged in and participated...or will they be impressed that a game has done such a fine job holding our interest for so long? I agree with Balthazzarr! Set our AP free!! > > > > > > > > > > Yesssss. See this is our punishment for being wvw lifers. Now in order to get bigger achievement chests we are forced to do pve. Lol guess I’ll be staying at this level perm. > > > > > > > > "I can't have the same amount of *achievement points* as players going through wider range of content while I play a single mode, SO unfair!" > > > > Makes perfect sense to me tbh. > > > > > > Nope I didn’t really say that. I did say that since this is the case there’s no real point in doing dailies, for me anyway, and they Anet should not display a message saying I for achievement points that I didn’t get. > > > > > > Frankly I don’t understand the need for you to be rude. ah well > > > > I don't see how I'm rude here. > > ...and didn't you say that? This is what you've wrote: "*See this is our punishment for being wvw lifers. Now in order to get bigger achievement chests we are forced to do pve*". I don't know how else I should have interpreted that. > > haaaa. k you got me there. bam! > > It was kind of tongue in cheek but ya... Cool. Claiming what I wrote was somehow "rude" must have also been tongue in cheek and not just you disliking getting called out on what you said, I guess. ;) Anyways, while playing wvw you complete a lot of those dialies pretty passively as long as you're somewhat active in the mode. Those dialies aren't useless and there is a point to complete them, because the ap isn't the only reward they offer. I don't see anything unfair about that, but sure -maybe they should communicate better on the fact that the player no longer receives the points for the dailies. And that's about it.

> @"Balthazzarr.1349" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said: > > > > @"Phatt Dude.7538" said: > > > > One of the greatest injustices yet to be corrected. Its age discrimination I tell you! Just because my characters are piling up birthday presents, doesn't mean they have stopped achieving!! Are new player skins soooo thin that they will be intimidated by the vast achievements of people who have religiously logged in and participated...or will they be impressed that a game has done such a fine job holding our interest for so long? I agree with Balthazzarr! Set our AP free!! > > > > > > Yesssss. See this is our punishment for being wvw lifers. Now in order to get bigger achievement chests we are forced to do pve. Lol guess I’ll be staying at this level perm. > > > > "I can't have the same amount of *achievement points* as players going through wider range of content while I play a single mode, SO unfair!" > > Makes perfect sense to me tbh. > > Nope I didn’t really say that. I did say that since this is the case there’s no real point in doing dailies, for me anyway, and they Anet should not display a message saying I for achievement points that I didn’t get. > > Frankly I don’t understand the need for you to be rude. ah well I don't see how I'm rude here. ...and didn't you say that? This is what you've wrote: "*See this is our punishment for being wvw lifers. Now in order to get bigger achievement chests we are forced to do pve*". I don't know how else I should have interpreted that.

> @"Balthazzarr.1349" said: > > @"Phatt Dude.7538" said: > > One of the greatest injustices yet to be corrected. Its age discrimination I tell you! Just because my characters are piling up birthday presents, doesn't mean they have stopped achieving!! Are new player skins soooo thin that they will be intimidated by the vast achievements of people who have religiously logged in and participated...or will they be impressed that a game has done such a fine job holding our interest for so long? I agree with Balthazzarr! Set our AP free!! > > Yesssss. See this is our punishment for being wvw lifers. Now in order to get bigger achievement chests we are forced to do pve. Lol guess I’ll be staying at this level perm. "I can't have the same amount of *achievement points* as players going through wider range of content while I play a single mode, SO unfair!" Makes perfect sense to me tbh.

> @"Arsenal.5043" said: > A bit more info. The longer I'm in the game the more it happens. When I first log in, press W to run and let go it gives the little "skid" animation and stops right away. The longer I'm on the worse it gets. First the skid animation stops. Then it goes 1 then 2 then 3 steps past where I let go of W to the point where it doesn't stop at all. It will be running on it's own with no hands on keyboard or mouse and no auto-run mapped. That is consistent by the way. Starts off fine and gets progressively worse. Old laptop? Part of your keyboard might just be dying. Connect any other keyboard to check if it still happens with one that is functional without any doubts. Also you didn't say if you've actually tried remapping w into another key, so if you didn't then try that.

Yeah, there's no reason to do this.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > And they probably didn't like that some items ended up getting priced above the trade cap. > > Maybe the posts about increasing the cap will stop now, as it's rather clear Anet doesn't want it. What was the initial drop rate? What is the drop rate now? Did the price change at all? Will it change? Will it change below the tp cap? How many people stopped consistently farming the infusion metas (or stopped playing the game altogether), which lowered the actual drop number despite it having the same drop chance since the introduction of those events? So how much of this change is possibly just a cushion for the possible loss of interest in said metas over the time instead of an actual "effort to tangibly lower the price"? If anet REALLY "clearly" didn't want for items to be valued above the price cap then why did they wait for years with this change? What exactly are you trying to say is "clear" here? Because for now all I see are blind guesses and wishful thinking.

> @"Psientist.6437" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though: **PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS**. > > > > > > > > > > How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry. > > > > > > > > > > I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's the **intentions** and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money. > > > > > > In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply. > > > > In a market economy they have the same outcome but the argument is not about outcome; it's about intention. One poster made the claim that the change was to reduce price and treated it as if it were a fact. Changes can be made to drop rates to encourage a more rewarding experience through gameplay. Anet has done this numerous times in the past. The desire to adjust drop rates and to adjust the price of items are not strictly mutually inclusive. > > > > The analogy was to highlight this but it looks like it failed because you're focusing so much on how it's different. You're not going to have an analogy that is 100% the same as what it's being compared to. This is one of the reasons that I almost always regret using analogies because this always kitten happens. Apparently it's difficult to take an analogy in the context of what it because discussed. > > So in a market economy they have the same outcome but it shouldn't be considered the intention? Analogies are difficult and perhaps you are right about your ability to build them. This is a high fidelity analogy for your premise. Someone (without safety equipment to prevent falling) jumps off a building without expecting to fall. You lack quite a bit of information about those changes and other ingame stats to make any definitive claim about it.

"I wanted to play perma evade mirage build, but it got nerfed in pvp, anyone knows why?" ...really? :p

> @"Psientist.6437" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > > > Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though: **PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS**. > > > > > > > > > > How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry. > > > > > > > > > > I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's the **intentions** and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money. > > > > > > In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply. > > > > Yeah, it's totally "the same in market economy" if you completely forget what the previous posts were talking about. We're talking about intention of reaching a specific goal in the realm of the game. And in this case it is not the same. > > We don't have an in game market economy? These changes aren't completely focused on that market economy? > > The outcome of increasing drop rates is an increase in supply and a decrease in market price. That is the studio's goal. What other goal can be accomplished? Please do not respond with the "making them more obtainable." It is "six" to my "half dozen." Ah so you'll continue ignoring what was written before just for the sake of repeating "market economy" as if that's the be-all end-all phrase to make you correct about anything you say? Or did you just not read previous posts and want me to repeat why *just vaguely increasing drop rate* doesn't need to lower the price, let alone lower it below certain point (being the tp price cap)?

> @"Psientist.6437" said: > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > @"Psientist.6437" said: > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > > > > Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though: **PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS**. > > > > > > How do you lower the price without raising the drop rate? How do you make something more obtainable without also lowering the price? Your distinction isn't real, it's nonsensical pedantry. > > > > > > I can't stand the attitude that the studio's motivations are beyond our ability to understand. I know you don't represent everyone who makes this claim but I must ask, why? From my perspective, I only see it used to cost signal fandom or as a weak attempt at undermining a rational argument. > > > > > > > It's the **intentions** and not the effects. You're treating lowering the price and making it more obtainable as a drop as one of the same when they're not. People make choices that have effects that were not the reasons for making their choice. Assuming that those effects are now part of their reason by association is irrational. I can give $10 do a homeless person with the intention they spend it on food. If they instead spend it on something else, that something else doesn't suddenly become one of the reasons that I gave them the money. > > In a market economy they are the same. The work to obtain a drop is equivalent to its market value. Your analogy is useless. The homeless person has infinitely more degrees of freedom in spending the $10 than the market has in responding to an increase in supply. Yeah, it's totally "the same in market economy" if you completely forget what the previous posts were talking about. We're talking about intention of reaching a specific goal in the realm of the game. In this case it is not the same and one doesn't automatically achieve the other.

Nah, unneeded. You don't need to know the exact population (which can dynamically change and has the potential to lower the growth of fresh instances as people seeing low number might be more likely to seek for jumping the instance), you can see if people do the events you want them to do and that's pretty much enough. If you want to start new instance, you start a group and see if people join/go to your instance through lfg.

> @"TheAgedGnome.7520" said: > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > Emails are addressed to the last logged in character, I believe. > > It seems to me that it wouldn't be difficult to write even a slightly more involved query than "SELECT TOP1 LAST_LOGGED_IN FROM...." It doesn't matter what level your character is, it matters that it's the same account and that's the character you've decided to log into after the patch. It's an information for the player about the new content accessibility. Character's age is irrelevant and I don't think it should be relevant, because it's information for you, not for the specific character. >A trivial gripe, to be sure True.

> @"ArthurDent.9538" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"ArthurDent.9538" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Virdo.1540" said: > > > > > Imo the Shiro-Abilities could use a slight buff too in PvE. > > > > > > > > > > I mean the damage of phase traversal, enchanted daggers and jade winds ,even impossible odds. > > > > > If there is a battle that has at least 50% of the fight more than 1 target, then shiro does less damage with Impossible odds than Jalis with the hammers. > > > > > Imp.Odds is even a "one target only" skill, that isnt that much better than the aoe-vengeful hammers, if theres only 1 enemy involved. > > > > > > > > > > Enchanted daggers is mediocre healing and not really good damage. > > > > > And Phase Traversal&Jade winds are both Energy-Pool blowing skills. Outside of pvp/wvw, not really useful > > > > > > > > That's because shiro is supposed to be compatibile with assassin playstyle, which usually isn't exactly aoe focused by design (right?). Seems you just want "everything rev can pick to do everything all-around". I disagree with that justification for buffs. No, not just for rev, but for other classes in general as well. > > > > > > You missed the point which is that if shiro is focused on single target damage, why is it's single target damage barely higher than the single target damage of Jalis (the tanky + aoe damage legend). Shiro is failing to fill the single target damage roll hence why dps power revenant builds have always been bottom tier with only pseudo support builds being competitive. Personally I would rather anet gut all the other dps builds down to be on par with power herald's 32k benchmark than bringing power herald up to their level, but either would be better than maintaining the rediculous gap in damage potential we have currently. > > > > Cool, but we also know how rev works, right? So what's the solution here? Buff shiro's single target dmg slightly and nerf other stances it can be paired with? One way or the other, I don't think the solution should be to "let everything do more". > > No, you don't nerf anything on glint shiro damage wise because it is already under performing in general. This isn't a case of "everything do more", this is just bringing up a heavily outclassed spec closer to the performance level of all the other power dps builds which all do way more damage than power herald often with just as good or better team support and utility. That is balance. This was his argument: "If there is a battle that has at least 50% of the fight more than 1 target, then shiro does less damage with Impossible odds than Jalis with the hammers." So don't tell me "it wasn't about this", when it was about this. And yeah, I guess nerf the dmg of a stance that's supposed to be tanky so it doesn't outperform the dps ones.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > Yes, I do understand they increased the drop rate, but vaguely decreasing rarity isn't equivalent of decreasing the price to under tp limit. So yes, without more information (or time to see if there will be **any** consequences of this at all) for me it's still a leap. If they noticed there's one drop every x months and DOUBLED the drop rate so now we have 2 drops every x months, it sure "significantly" decreases rarity, but is it enough to decrease the price below the tp limit? Don't really think so. Without more information, it's a leap. > Oh, sure, we don't know how much the price is going to be affected after this change. We know however that Anet intended to lower this price at least. Also, the mere action of touching droprates for those high-end items was sure to cause some violent reaction from some players that either feel the need for ultra-rare items to exist, or invested a lot of gold into them already, and Anet is unlikely not to realize that. As such, i doubt they would be willing to adjust those droprates if their intention was to create only a relatively minimal change (especially since, in such a case, they would not need to mention it in the patchnotes at all - with small enough adjustment noone would even notice). > > > >they made this adjustment with intention of it doing nothing > > > > Not only that's not what I said, but also it wouldn't be the first time when a change did pretty much nothing. > It's not about what they did. It's about what they _intended_. I just doubt they would be willing to even touch such a sensitive issue (and much less inform us about it) if they did not intend to make a _significant_ change. What do you mean "it's not about what they did, it's about what they intended"? No, it's not. If what you say was true, then apparently they never *intended* for any item to go above tp cap, so... I guess they totally didn't know about that issue and just suddenly opened tp/the data available to them for the first time after few years and JUST realized this is happening? *They didn't intend for this to happen*, but raising drop rate was such a mind-blowingly hard solution that they've just... wanted to wait a few more years? If that's not what they intended, then why exactly was this the reality for so long? The whole purpose of the thread you've recently bumped after this patch was to find a solution, not exactly an intention. As long as those infusions are valued above tp cap (whatever it would be), people not willing to risk getting scammed by out-of-tp trades by trading through mails (for ingame items/currency) will keep getting effectively scammed by the tp limitations, because people stacking buy orders at cap will just resell/trade (again: for ingame currency/items) them for higher price. If that doesn't change, then intention are irrelevant as absolutely nothing happens. > @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > Intending to lower the price and intending to increase the odds are not the same thing. Anet could have increased the drop rates to make them more obtainable from their events, to lower prices, or both. Here’s the thing though: **PLAYERS DO NOT KNOW THEIR REASONS**. Yup.

> @"ArthurDent.9538" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Virdo.1540" said: > > > Imo the Shiro-Abilities could use a slight buff too in PvE. > > > > > > I mean the damage of phase traversal, enchanted daggers and jade winds ,even impossible odds. > > > If there is a battle that has at least 50% of the fight more than 1 target, then shiro does less damage with Impossible odds than Jalis with the hammers. > > > Imp.Odds is even a "one target only" skill, that isnt that much better than the aoe-vengeful hammers, if theres only 1 enemy involved. > > > > > > Enchanted daggers is mediocre healing and not really good damage. > > > And Phase Traversal&Jade winds are both Energy-Pool blowing skills. Outside of pvp/wvw, not really useful > > > > That's because shiro is supposed to be compatibile with assassin playstyle, which usually isn't exactly aoe focused by design (right?). Seems you just want "everything rev can pick to do everything all-around". I disagree with that justification for buffs. No, not just for rev, but for other classes in general as well. > > You missed the point which is that if shiro is focused on single target damage, why is it's single target damage barely higher than the single target damage of Jalis (the tanky + aoe damage legend). Shiro is failing to fill the single target damage roll hence why dps power revenant builds have always been bottom tier with only pseudo support builds being competitive. Personally I would rather anet gut all the other dps builds down to be on par with power herald's 32k benchmark than bringing power herald up to their level, but either would be better than maintaining the rediculous gap in damage potential we have currently. Cool, but we also know how rev works, right? So what's the solution here? Buff shiro's single target dmg slightly and nerf other stances it can be paired with? One way or the other, I don't think the solution should be to "let everything do more".

> @"Virdo.1540" said: > Imo the Shiro-Abilities could use a slight buff too in PvE. > > I mean the damage of phase traversal, enchanted daggers and jade winds ,even impossible odds. > If there is a battle that has at least 50% of the fight more than 1 target, then shiro does less damage with Impossible odds than Jalis with the hammers. > Imp.Odds is even a "one target only" skill, that isnt that much better than the aoe-vengeful hammers, if theres only 1 enemy involved. > > Enchanted daggers is mediocre healing and not really good damage. > And Phase Traversal&Jade winds are both Energy-Pool blowing skills. Outside of pvp/wvw, not really useful That's because shiro is supposed to be compatibile with assassin playstyle, which usually isn't exactly aoe focused by design (right?). Seems you just want "everything rev can pick to do everything all-around". I disagree with that justification for buffs. No, not just for rev, but for other classes in general as well.

> @"Randulf.7614" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > I didn't like DRMs before and I still don't like them now (even though it's great they changed some of the annoyances people complained about, got to give some credit here). The only reason I'm not exactly disappointed with this release is because I've expected "more of the same[DRMs]" and that's exactly what we've got. Can't be disappointed when I expect/already know I won't enjoy that type of content. > > > > But I've enjoyed the content before DRMs, so lets just hope next release will be something else that will actually be interesting for me again. I kind of accept these drms as an effort to release content for broader audience. > > And with that in mind... What's left now? WvW :grimace: (because LUL conquest, who cares :p ) > > Next release is more DRMs. > > The one after - the finale, should be where something different will happen. Yeah, by "next release" I've meant "after they are done with their DRM episode cut into multiple pieces". I don't even remember how many of them there were supposed to be, because I'm just not interested in them, so thanks for the clarification. :p