Tails.9372

> @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

> You need PoF to get it so anyone else who hasn't bought in will never be able to go to the maps or access any of the content THIS INCLUDES E-SPECS if they are introduced for free.

If you have to buy PoF then they're by definition not free.

> @"Thornwolf.9721" said:

>This is not pay to win, again if you believe this is pay to win then you have never seen pay to win.

P2W simply means that something which gives you a competitive advantage has to be bought with real money. If you have to buy PoF in order to get them then yes, it would be P2W. It's just not as bad as the stuff you see in many asian games where they also throw some RNG mechanics into the mix.

Don't know if she's still an employee but:


Seems like stuff like the mist sections in the Jahai Bluffs are all we're going to get until A-Net changes their design philosophy.

But then again: unlikely ≠ impossible so I guess we have to wait and see but I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> I'm not sure why everyone is dissing P/P here.

Well performance wise it is nothing but an inferior rifle. Rifle has:

- more range

- better mobility

- better CC

- more damage (both DPS & burst)

- better sustainability

- better access to and synergy with stealth

- an AoE (weapon skill)

- doesn't draw as much attention to its user (especially if you're using the Pop Gun Skin)

The only thing P/P has going for it is that it has better QoL for OW farming but that's about it.

.

.

.

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> The only thing bad about it is it has no built in multitarget at all, but it's a very viable set.

The only thing bad about it (if we're ignoring that it's completely overshadowed by rifle) is that P/P as a weapon set is completely dysfunctional. Most weapon skills either have no synergy with each other, are "eating" each other or are redundant. The reason why it's even playable is because thief has various traits which have good synergy with unload.

> @"UNOwen.7132" said:

> They do. You cannot have dual attacks be inconsistent between weaponsets. Either all of them only change 3, or all of them change 2-4. You cant pistol change 2-4 and the others dont.

Of course you can have different weapon combos with different amounts of dual skills, there are no technical restrictions which would prevent something like that. Your whole issue seems to be solely based on keeping irrelevant consistencies but it ultimately doesn't matter whether or not a weapon set has one or five dual skills. What's most important for a weapon set is that skills synergize well together and provide a solid gameplay experience. This is relatively easy to archive when designing 2H weapons but 1H weapon combos have a bit of an issue here which is something that luckily can be addressed pretty well by using dual skills.

> @"Curennos.9307" said:

> I would love to see more duel/flip skills (if that's what your referring to - things like pistol-dagger 3, right, where if one lands another skill becomes available?)

>

> There's definitely nothing preventing more flip skills as long as the new flip skill available retains the original skill's purpose - that is, flipping body shot to a dedicated power or condi damage skill would make things difficult for either p/p or p/d users, but if it just flipped to a skill that helped lock down mor and more, that'd be cool. Same for headshot - flipping to a high power damage skill would be meh, but having it flip to a stun + vuln on successful interrupt (for example) would be excellent.

Pretty much, the most important thing is to create a working weapon set with a decent amount of synergy between the skills. If weapon combos lack this synergy then adding more dual/flip skills to them is probably the best way to address these issues without causing collateral damage to other sets. For example this is what they could to to P/P:

On weapon skill 1:

Vital Shot is replaced with Unload (both the ini cost and the ini refound are removed fom the skill, maybe add X seconds of Revealed to the skill if they want to add a penalty to it)

On weapon skill 2:

Body Shot is replaced with a new dual skill which moves the player towards the enemy.

On weapon skill 3:

Repeater is replaced a with small scale AoE attack which utilizes both pistols

On weapon skill 4:

Headshot can stay as it is

On weapon skill 5:

Black Powder is replaced with a new dual skill that puts some distance between you and the enemy

.

> @"UNOwen.7132" said:

> There is something. The fact that you have to do it A, on all weaponsets, and B, would as a result kitten up said weaponsets. Too much collateral.

Except they don't, there is no point in changing up weapon sets which already have a good amount of synergy between their skills unless one skill is underperforming and turning it into a flip skill would solve the issue. Of course if there are other weapon sets which suffer from synergy issues they should also be adressed accordingly.

> @"UNOwen.7132" said:

> The problem is you cant just go "oh, more dual skills".

Except I can, there is nothing that would prevent them from expanding the Dual Wield system to more than one skill if the situation calls for it. The main problem here is getting them to take action in the first place but that's not really an argument as the same thing can be said about pretty much any issue.

> @"UNOwen.7132" said:

> The thing is, turning it into a condi-skill wont change the fast-paced run n gun gameplay. Ranger Shortbow is that kinda gameplay and its entirely condi. It will change the build, and the dynamic with, say, condi clears, but not much beyond that.

Actually it would, traits like Invigorating Precision require power damage which would be a huge hit to it's survivability and general QoL which is something I know many people would have an issue with. Also, there is still no point in changing it up to condi. Your initial issue was that you don't want to change the other builds which would be taken care of by using more dual skills and if we ever get access to a torch which isn't to unlikely then we pretty much have another mid ranged condi weapon and being overshadowed by another e-spec weapon set (again) is the last thing P/P needs.

Sustained mid ranged power dps is a niche other weapon sets are most likely not going to cater to anymore which makes it the pect fit for the weapon set especially since that's how most people are already playing this set anyway.

Is there any chance that these templates are going to be weapon slot specific? E.g.: if I use D/P on my thief it loads in the build I set for slot 1 and when I switch to rifle (and vice versa) it loads in another build I set up for slot 2. Having to go out of combat in order to switch up my build every time I want to switch to a different weapon set is really annoying. Also, can we have weapon slot specific key bindings?

> @"UNOwen.7132" said:

> I dont see a way to change the main or offhand skills without hurting 2 already functional and fun builds

Then don't change the main and off-hand skills, just replace them with more dual skills if necessary. There is nothing stopping them from doing so as it wouldn't affect any other set.

> @"UNOwen.7132" said:

> so my suggestion would be, change unload. Make it a condi-skill.

Lol no, the vast majority of players who play P/P are using a power build because they like the fast paced run n gun gameplay unload provides and A-Net clearly understands that which is why they used a P/P thief as the icon for Be Quick or Be Killed which is a trait solely focused on increasing power damage. Turning it into a condi set just wouldn't fit here.

> @"fluffdragon.1523" said:

> The big problem to address, and will be illustrated below, is the poor damage of most of Pistol's skills. Oddly enough, I can find no fault in the dual-wielding skills, which complement their builds well -- even Unload, in theory, which itself sees good synergy and holds parity with Rifle's kneeling Spotter's Shot in terms of damage output. That and it's just fun to use.

The thing with Unload is that it is more of a "baseline skill" like Double Strike. The reason why D/P (as a weapon set in terms of synergy) works so well is also the the reason why P/P does not. Both Double Strike and Unload fill essentially the same role as the main source of sustainable damage for the set, the difference here is that the rest of the weapon set on D/P does a good job supporting Double Strike while most skills on P/P are either redundant or work against Unload. The reason for this is the initiative cost on Unload which makes you choose between attacking and utility. Double Strike on the other hand is cost free meaning your utility skills can be used to support Double Strike. Just imagine ArenaNet slapping a 3 ini cost on Double Strike, the set would be almost unplayable without the player heavily investing into ini regen and even then you would still suffer from the same problems P/P is suffering from rn.

Another problem for P/P are redundant skills like Vital Shot, we already have Unload as our "AA" (which is also a much better fit for the weapon set thematically) so there is not much use for it other than resetting our malice count on DE.

Like Sir Vincent III said at this point it would be for the best if they just give you 5 dual skills if you equip 2 pistols. Make unload the cost free AA it should have been from the start and compliment it with 4 other skills e.g.: an engagement skill, a disengagement, a small scale AoE skill and some CC. If they think that would be "to OP" with all the stealth skills thief has access to then they could just make unload apply the Revealed debuff to the player. P/P isn't supposed to be stealthy anyway, that's what rifle is there for.

> @"LucianDK.8615" said:

> The skysscale is far from useless as already said.

It's not useless but it's too situational to be useful ~99% of the time.

> @"LucianDK.8615" said:

> You just havent given it enough time to see what it can do.

People know exactly what it can do, these things are just not as useful.

The problem is that most utility options are straight up useless thanks to how overy situational they are. Let's just look at the Superior Rune of Vampirism, 10% HP every time you kill a foe is pretty much useless most of the time. It does nothing vs. boss type enemies and your auto regen kicks in anyway once you're done with a group of trash mobs. An always active "recover HP equal to 10% of damage dealt" or something like that would have been more practical here.

> @"Dalec.9853" said:

> I mean general use, springer and griffon seem better/faster in every way.

Indeed, at its current state it's far too limited to be useful exept for the niche it's supposed to fill but this "stop and go" gameplay makes it feel very clunky. Removing these pointless limits would at least make it more beareble in that regard. But it's just the turret system from episode 3 all over again: good idea, bad implementation.

I wouldn't mind if they remove them once you get 100% map completion (including all the associated achievements).

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Last I checked, the griffon is the best map traversal mount and the bunny remains the best strait up horizontal traversal mount but I guess making up facts is the way to go to prove a point.

What exactly is the "fact" I'm making up here, last time I checked the given example was getting from chak gerent to chak gerent.

.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> I guess we have to agree to disagree, with the slight difference that the developers seem to side with the opinion that permanent flight is not desired or beneficial for the game. As well as the vast majority of the forums active player base. Reason enough to keep the status quo.

Oh I never argued for giving the mount free flight, I merely stated that I wouldn't mind it and continued to point out the faulty reasoning some people use. If someone sais "I don't want free flight cause l don't want others to have their fun" then I don't have a problem with that cause at least that person isn't claiming objectivity to back up his opinion.

Also, forum polls are not representative for the entirety of the playerbase. And as for the devs, I wouldn't mind them saying "we're not going to implement unrestricted flight cause we don't like it" but that's not what they're doing. It's them making unfounded claims of objectivity I'm criticising here. "giving the skyscale unlimited flight would make the other mounts pointless" how? Not a single person (dev. or player) was capable of articulating this point thus far. Some people tried but they always ignored or understated the advantages of the other mounts (their speed in particular).

> @"Ashantara.8731" said:

> > @"Drecien.4508" said:

> > I dont get why mount skill 1 for Griffin dives and for skyscale it dodges makes you have to setup 2 separate keybinds

>

> Indeed! Been contemplating the same thing for days. So illogical.

I have a similar issue with Weapon sets. I'd love to see mount / weapon set specific key bindings but I doubt that they're going to implement something like that.

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

>

> > Which seems to be rather unfounded as they too failed to back up this claim.

>

> I would suggest you apply for a job at Anet, to finally show them the error of their ways with your superior dev skills then. It might take a while, since I don't think they are looking after February, but with enough patience and dedication you might get your chance.

Translation: you're trying to distract from the argument because you don't have a rebuttal to what I just said

.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Go ahead, name some and how the content in those games was designed to work with unlimited flight.

> Are you for real? The Skyscale already bypasses terrain and is superior in certain situations as long as it has energy. Have you even unlocked the mount and used it?

I can name some but what's the point if the game design vastly differs from GW2? Like I said: apples and oranges. Just because it doesn't work for one game doesn't mean that it wouldn't work for another and vice verca which is why I asked you to explain how it applies to GW2 (I even gave you a practical example to work with) which you again failed to do. All you guys are doing just echoing the notion that it would somehow become "the superior default choice" and how obvious it supposedly is but when pressed on practical examples you got nothing otherwise you would have properly addressed the examples I brought up earlier.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> I'll add to that though that EVERY MMO that has unchecked flying (via mounts or in other ways) has run into the same issues. That might not be a GW2 issue right now, it will be if an unlimited flying mount gets added. You can deny and argue all you want, unchecked flying has caused serious disconnects in EVERY MMO where it was introduced to.

Actually no, that's not the case at all. There are several MMOs with unrestricted flight which don't have this kind of problem. It all depends on how the content is designed, all you do is making assumptions based on games with a vastly different content structure but that's about it. And no, I'm not "denying what it did to other games" or whatever you want to make up here. I'm saying that it's irrelevant what it did to other vastly different games if you can't show how it also applies to GW2 which is something you guys constantly failed to do. But go ahead, explain to me how a skyscale with unrestricted flight would be "the superior default choice" if I want to get to another lane asap after the chak gerent on my lane died. A skyscale with unlimited flight would be "the superior choice" for sightseeing and "getting up a cliff" but that's about it. Everything else is a trade-off.

.

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> Ok, I'll bite and let you in on a _secret_ that most of humanity knows for a few centuries already. Traversing **above** obstacles is always more efficient than traversing **through** them. Raptor is the fastest mount in the game. And yet, if it went against a scale with free flight, it would be a supercar stuck in traffic against an average helicopter. It would have to go through hills ,cliffs, water, quicksand,mob aggro and a myriad of other things, while the scale merrily flies above all that.

>

> And now that you caught up to this shocking fact of life, feel free to keep arguing about the water not being wet. Although, I get the feeling you are the one pretending to be ignorant, since it doesn't serve your argument. Just be honest and say you want an OP mount to justify all that grind.

Nice try but you're still ignoring that the other mounts would be significantly faster despite the fact that they have to deal with obstacles along the way.

.

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> Well it's a good thing then, that the developers of **this** game, not WoW, claim that skyscale with free flight would invalidate all other mounts.

Which seems to be rather unfounded as they too failed to back up this claim.

I doubt we're going to get a new mount for non PoF players. Every major meta event has a waypoint nearby and with the end of season 4 new maps are not going to be desined with mounts in mind anymore.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> That is strait up incorrect. Base flying mounts in WoW were slower than epic ground mounts.

By how much? 5%? 20%? 50%? 75%? If the epic ground mount would be able to complete tasks considerably faster than the "Base flying mounts" then they wouldn't be "superior in every regard" now would they? The only reason why a slow free flying mount would still be "better for the job" is if it's able to get across stuff like gigantic canyons which the other mounts can't. But that's not really a problem in GW2. This game is not WoW both mount and map design are completely different, the "WoW argument" doesn't hold up because you're comparing apples to oranges here.

The effect for vision should have looked more like what you can see in the mini icon:


but I like what they did when you have both of them equipped at the same time. I wonder if they add more legendary trinkets to make it "evolve" even further.

Be grateful that it's not 6 Stellar weapons.

The beetle one is easy so don't worry about that.

> @"godofcows.2451" said:

> I wanted to vote yes but that will break alot of things in this game.

Such as?

.

> @"Naxos.2503" said:

> A complete flight mount should be the -Last- mount

Well then, PoF is over. This is the last mount.

For anybody wondering, this is what the small icon looks like:


.

> @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:

> but...what is this trinket? amulet? ring? accessory?

accessory