Tails.9372

I agree, IMO the only reason the ini cost of DT/TRB was raised is because people complained about "TRB spam" even tho IMO Skirmisher's Shot was always the superior option.

> @"ASP.8093" said:

> someone's going to read this thread and decide to nerf skirmisher's shot

^ this

> @"jgeezz.7832" said:

> The range of the rifle is bull kitten any way, a ranger can out range a gun LOL but it can.

Outrangeing a gun isn't an issue, I'm fine with LB outrangeing a pistol. The issue is that the LB is outrangeing a sniper rifle which really shouldn't be a thing. DE rifle doesn't make you feel like you're actually sniping, especially the need to constantly jumping around for Silent Scope is stupid. But if an NPC has a SR he instantly gets what feels like 30k+ range. The only time in game where it actually feels like you're sniping is during the sidequests in FS...

> @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > > Btw for anyone doing these collections, some of the skins they require can be had from the WvW Reward Tracks which bypasses the "Mastery" collections entirely, saving you from doing 20+ achievements repeatedly.

> > Which is almost a slap in the face of PvE players considering that they're pretty much the main gameplay part for certain legendary collections. It's like as if the latest LS map would award you with WvW rank EXP and WvW Skirmish Claim Tickets.

>

> I'm conflicted on this because I play multiple game modes and like having a break from excessive PvE grinding sometimes.

Oh I personally don't have an issue with it but there is some valid criticism here. If sPvP and WvW players can skip the main grind part for Aurora and Vision by playing in their preferred game mode then why shouldn't PvE players also be able to skip the main sPvP/WvW gameplay grind for Conflux and Transcendence by playing PvE events?

> @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> Btw for anyone doing these collections, some of the skins they require can be had from the WvW Reward Tracks which bypasses the "Mastery" collections entirely, saving you from doing 20+ achievements repeatedly.

Which is almost a slap in the face of PvE players considering that they're pretty much the main gameplay part for certain legendary collections. It's like as if the latest LS map would award you with WvW rank EXP and WvW Skirmish Claim Tickets.

> @"rune.9572" said:

> I can only guess how bad it is in public squads

When I'm going to play FS in public PuGs I'm more worried about whether or not ~50% of the players are going to do the BB during the bossfight then I am about one or two leeches.

Depends on meta structure and how rewarding the content is.

> @"Fueki.4753" said:

> > @"Yasai.3549" said:

> > It seems to me with the new LW map, people are really more interested and attracted to large map wide metas as well as the promise of loot and mountains of bags or rewards.

> >

> > And seeing as how many HoT maps are still having meta trains to this day kinda solidifies this fact to be honest.

>

> Many (if not even most) people are much more interested in JUST getting the loot, than they are interested in the events though.

> If you gave them the same loot for playing _Mad King says_ for the same period of time, they would just do that.

Yes and no, it's actually a combination of both:

content people like (gameplay wise) + low rewards = "dead content"

but also:

content people despise (gameplay wise) + rewards people want to have = "dead content"

Both have to be on an at least exaptable level for people to play it.

Limiting the bulk of the rewards to "once a day" also has a negative impact on player participation.

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> You say that, but then we have a ton of Condi on Crit effects.

For completely different classes which are more based on around these kinds of playstyles.

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> Since you then end up with 3 traits that do the same thing and you then just pick the 1 that is objectively the best.

Which is mostly build dependent and what you're after. Take the example I gave earlier, even for the build in question Twin Fangs would still be the superior option for raw damage but with the proposed change Signets of Power would offer a massive QoL improvement so I could see people going for both depending on what they value more.

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> Which stifles the spec when it is used not to mention stifles overall build diversity because it means you only have 4 (Or less) specs to choose from if you're playing builds that don't fit that exact build the spec is hyper focused

Being specific ≠ being the same. The term "specialisation" already implies that things get more specific. Also, people are always going for the optimum, having the most important traits you want for your build being spread between multiple specialisations also limits build diversity as you might have to miss out on specialisation C because you have to take specialisation B because specialisation A doesn't cover something important you need for your build.

Furthermore I wouldn't call a focus on one of the overarching damage types "hyper specific", you can still divide things even further into e.g. burst vs. sustainable DPS or dmg vs. utility.

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> In addition some of the issues with core specs is that they **are** too focused.

I don't mind things being more specific as long as they work for what it is intended e.g. I don't think critical strikes needs to offer something for condi builds as the name already implies a focus on power damage. I also wouldn't mind some traits getting some changes even if that means that they have to be made "too focused" on one specific playstyle to work e.g. I would make Signets of Power "on crit" procs for pistols and harpoon guns only because it would on one hand solve some mayor issues without having to redesign the whole thing but I also think that it would be too much of a buff for other weapon sets and some kind of compromised version just wouldn't have the intended effect.

They should also be previewable and dyeable.

I would love to have something like a "Signet of Theft" as a thief elite skill for signets.

> @"Taril.8619" said:

> As far as the creation of redundancy, that's simply because ANet won't update the core specializations, so many of them are stuck being utter trash, especially when compared to E-Specs.

That's because e-specs have more focus. They are developed with a certain gameplay in mind that the weapon, the skills and the traits support. Regular specs don't have that kind of luxury. Take pistol, signets and critical strikes for example, there is little to no synergy here unless you play P/P and even then there is no underlying play style here. Signets don't even have an elite skill, this would be unthinkable for an e-spec. Why are the bonus effects of Signets of Power not "on crit" procs? I agree, core specs and the things they are related to should get an "update" or in some cases more of an overhaul.

> @"zaekeon.5128" said:

> How unrealistic is this concern

Very unrealistic, the average casual isn't going to play sPvP, he isn't going to play WvW and he is not going to raid / play fractals which means he has pretty much no path to get: leg armor/backpack/amulet/rings. He might be able to get a leg weapon from the TP if he saves up cash long enough but that's pretty much it.

I'd like to see Holomancer as a thief spec: "a scepter wielding thief that uses holograms to deceive their target" would actually fit perfectly with the overacting theme of the "profession".

I'd also like to see an e-spec based on dual pistol. A typical western themed gunslinger bandit would fit perfectly with the theme of the profession. P/P as a weapon set also needs an overhaul so that would be the IMO (second) best way to go about it.

> Raid like content is puggable in other games.

Ikr, the endgame in PSO2 for example pretty much entirely consists of PuG raid / SM like content while the combat system is even more impacted by player skill than the "action combat" of this game (GW2 by comparison feels like as if the game puts an anchor on you) and you don't have any problem finding a group for these quests, at all.

The most noticeable difference here is that the main focus lies in the presentation while the content itself is incredibly easy, so much so that players who know what they're doing can effortlessly solo it and thats just the thing. Make content easy and rewarding and people are going to play it to the dissatisfaction of those seeking a challenge.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> So to answer your question, complaints for content are based on both difficulty AND being instanced simultaneously, remove either part of the equation and you get very little complaints (unless it's about break bars).

Yes and why does removing the "instanced" part leads to less complaints? Because tagging along a 50 man zerg trivializes the difficulty. If the instanced content is easy you generally don't get complains, at least not in regards to accessibility but on the other hand if the OW content it to hard people do complain e.g. HoT maps on release which shows that the core of the issue for most people seems to boil down to difficulty rather than content structure.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> the most recent one the complaints about the Whisper in the Dark meta requiring Strike Missions for completion. In the same threads on that subject you'll find quite a lot of players saying that "I won't do this, regardless of how easy it is, just because it's a Strike Mission" so there is precedent of having complaints for the simple fact that some content was instanced.

Strike Missions are already contaminated with stigma thanks to them being "associated" with raids so these kinds of responses had to be expected. That being said you always get someone complaining about [you name it] but given that most instanced based main story content is rather popular with the average casual player I'd argue that the number of players which take a "never instanced" stance is rather miniscule, especially given that many LS maps require you to play instanced content to unlock and you just don't see a considerable number of complaints about it unless it's about difficulty.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > If content being instanced was a problem then we would be seeing complains about the main story being inaccesible because of it which just isn't a thing.

>

> Do you include expansions and LS story instances being "inaccessible"? Because we've had loads upon loads of complaints about Mordremoth, Caudecus, Balthazar, the Eater of Souls, Scruffy 2.0 and so on.

Which were based on what? Their difficulty or the sheer fact that the content was instanced? Cause every time I remember people complain about the accessibility of story content it was always based on the former.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> My point is: there were complaints about the story requiring instanced content even before players tried the content.

The story always requires you to play instanced content, that by itself has never been a complaint.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Most did not even know Forging Steel could be soloed or scaled down to 1 player.

Which still requires players to do the mechanics so it doesn't really matter for the average casual player.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>The aversion to have to group was huge.

Of course it was, instanced group content has always had increased difficulty compared to the average OW / story content so it amounted enough of a stigma that every other reaction would have actually been rather suprising.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Pair that with the huge distaste with having to do "easy" instanced content for meta rewards, and it paints a very clear picture. No?

Yeah, that people actually want to play easy content and not this "easy" content they get fed in SM, T1 Fractals and FS. If content being instanced was a problem then we would be seeing complains about the main story being inaccesible because of it which just isn't a thing.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > > Which poses an interesting hypothetical: How big would the outrage have been if the devs had announced: "Oh by the way, we are now reducing the open world teams by 1 so we can have more people work on instanced content."

> > > > That depends. The core of the issue was never "open world vs. instanced" content but "easy vs. hard" content. Most people are not going to care that much if e.g. the next expansion instead of open world is focusing more on instanced content as long as the content itself is as difficult / rewarding as you would expect from an OW map.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I would disagree. While the current "regular" open world releases are on time. Past vocal forum presence has shown that delay of new open world content was never met with eagerness or approval.

> > >

> > > On top of which there is a strong aversion to instanced content in a large open world part of the community, at least from those active on the forums.

> > >

> > > I'd also assume that delays in new content releases would also have an effect on the revenue generated from returning players and the gem store for those story beats. Which has been cycling and offering more and more items lately to obviously increase revenue.

> > Again, it's not about "open world" but about content actually aimed at the more general casual audience which in this game currently only exists in the form of open world and story content (which has a lot of instanced content but with little to no replay value), both of which are played by the majority of the playerbase. You're vastly overestimating how much the average casual cares about the content being "open world", people are going to be happy as long as they feel like the release fits the scope of a LW episode with content that is engaging while also offering some replay value.

>

> Want me to link to the by now merged threads about the Strike mission being the first step of the Visions story episode?

Your point? As I said earlier neither strike missions nor Forging Steel are at a difficulty level the average casual players are compatible with which means that all complains levied against them are irrelevant for the argument at hand.

But on the other hand I do remember casuals in HoT complaining about missing out on story for it being "locked behind meta events" because the open world content was perceived to be harder as the otherwise instanced story missions showing that if anything the actual issue here is the difficulty (even if it's in some cases just perceived), like I was saying.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > Which poses an interesting hypothetical: How big would the outrage have been if the devs had announced: "Oh by the way, we are now reducing the open world teams by 1 so we can have more people work on instanced content."

> > That depends. The core of the issue was never "open world vs. instanced" content but "easy vs. hard" content. Most people are not going to care that much if e.g. the next expansion instead of open world is focusing more on instanced content as long as the content itself is as difficult / rewarding as you would expect from an OW map.

> >

>

> I would disagree. While the current "regular" open world releases are on time. Past vocal forum presence has shown that delay of new open world content was never met with eagerness or approval.

>

> On top of which there is a strong aversion to instanced content in a large open world part of the community, at least from those active on the forums.

>

> I'd also assume that delays in new content releases would also have an effect on the revenue generated from returning players and the gem store for those story beats. Which has been cycling and offering more and more items lately to obviously increase revenue.

Again, it's not about "open world" but about content actually aimed at the more general casual audience which in this game currently only exists in the form of open world and story content (which has a lot of instanced content but with little to no replay value), both of which are played by the majority of the playerbase. You're vastly overestimating how much the average casual cares about the content being "open world", people are going to be happy as long as they feel like the release fits the scope of a LW episode with content that is engaging while also offering some replay value.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Which poses an interesting hypothetical: How big would the outrage have been if the devs had announced: "Oh by the way, we are now reducing the open world teams by 1 so we can have more people work on instanced content."

That depends. The core of the issue was never "open world vs. instanced" content but "easy vs. hard" content. Most people are not going to care that much if e.g. the next expansion instead of open world is focusing more on instanced content as long as the content itself is as difficult / rewarding as you would expect from an OW map.

> @"Raknar.4735" said:

> I agree, instanced content aimed towards the more general casual players could work. That's why Anet is exactly trying that with Strike Missions and Forging Steel.

I'd argue that strike missions are less aimed at the more general casual players but at those who already want to get into raids as bridge content.

Forging Steel gets close but screws up at the finish line so I wouldn't count that one either. The issue here is the BB at the end which is easily able to turn the last part into a mess if not enough players do the mechanic (which most casuals don't). If this was your average OW meta boss then breaking his BB would have stunned him but he wouldn't have his Hardened Shell "buff" which is why, while I do think that Forging Steel was aimed at the more casual part of the player base, they missed the mark on that one (but only slightly).

> @"Raknar.4735" said:

> Instanced group content just doesn't seem to be popular here

That's because there is no instanced group content outside of (most) story dungeons which is aimed towards the more general casual player base. It simply doesn't exist.

But there is nothing about the structure of that content which turns away these kinds of players. The issue is that whenever the Devs. want to design instanced content they somehow seem to take an increase in difficulty as a requirement when it really shouldn't be.

I remember the Devs. of another game releasing a reworked version of one of the outdated raids for an event aimed at casuals and I often times saw people in the chat writing stuff like "I wish actual raids would be like that" so a general interest to play this kind of content was there even among those who usually wouldn't go anywhere near it and I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same for GW2.

I think the game should have some instanced content for both 1-5 and 5-10 player groups aimed at the casual part of the playerbase just like I'd also like to see some OW maps where the difficulty of the events is on paar with your average raid content, I think there is a lot of untaped potential here.

> @"Moradorin.6217" said:

> give rank levels like fractals and give people a bonus reward at the end if they group with x number of lower tier people. This would make it more rewarding for experienced people willing to take the time which seems likely to help people who are learning. Win Win. Heck then I bet people wouldn't care anyway about some groups asking for KP.

As long as the higher difficulties are more rewarding people are going to flock towards them, creating the same issues we have rn for other content except for those who only care about progressing towards a specific goal given that it can be accomplished by playing the lower difficulties. If you really want to address the issue more effectively you need to have multiple difficulties aimed towards the more general player subgroups which all give out the same rewards making the difficulty more of a choice of gameplay preference than anything else. This way players who don't want to play easier content because they find it boring would have less to worry about some "leeches" dragging down their party while the more casual players wouldn't be "gated" out of the content by these so called "elitists".

> what do you see people?

I see people complaining about other people complaining about other people.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> They already did add multiple difficulty options by making Strikes of different difficulty levels. That the community is not taking advantage of that is quite puzzling.

You're right, if you don't care for the experience of playing the content then (iirc) there is nothing you can get from strikes which requires you to play a specific one. I suspect that this however is going to change with the end of the current season.