Tails.9372

[Well while you can find some summaries on Youtube](

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> Maybe if the content in question already had some kind of "proofing" we wouldn't be in this situation.

Isn't the cloak thing basically just that? Also, some strikes have like 0 DPS requirements. An average DPS of 1625 per player can get the job done and for some of them 4875 DPS per player is enough to get all the rewards. And if you really want to put up non raid requirements just ask for some of the single player titles, everyone with "The Blazing Light" should be able to do well enough.

I usually don't use thief for underwater content, at least not if it involves fighting. I just switch to my Holosmith as they can still use Photon Forge underwater which beats pretty much everything else for underwater combat no contest.

> @"Besetment.9187" said:

> The only people who genuinely don't care ... are the people who ... were never emotionally invested enough to play wvw for any reason except the mystic clovers.

So basically everyone whos playing for rewards as, like I said, taking things over is generally more rewarding as defending and you can't take things over if your team already controls the map.

> @"Nokomis.5076" said:

> But... don't forget, that the Asura did not build Rata Sum.

> ...

> they arrived at the ruins of some previous civilization, **setting up geomystical generators for power**

> ...

I'd argue that the power supply is the most impressive thing about the whole structure. Also, they clearly know how to rebuild the whole thing given that Rata Primus seems to be just that. I'd also argue that Rata Sum was indeed build by the asura, just not by the ones who currently inhabit it. The Uncategorized Fractal shows an ancient asuran structure which seems to have been build in the same general style. I wouldn't be surprised if "our" asura aren't the only ones out there especially given all the asuran structures which can be found in the mists.

Personally I don't but many people seem to, otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point in defending anything (except for doing it just cause) as taking something over seems to generally be more rewarding.

What I use depends on what I need. The beetle is fun but it deserves to get some proper race tracks which currently do not exist. Generally whenever I see something useful being added to the game I make unlocking it my top priority. That being said I have never bothered to unlock the skyscale and probably won't until I decide to go after Vision since unlocking it is one of the requirements for it. I used it in Dragonfall and it felt extremely clunky to use, then I looked at the masteries and didn't saw anything capable of solving the issues I had with it which pretty much killed off my interest for getting it completely.

Until they introduce other ways to fly the best flying experience you can get is still the griffon in low gravity.

> @"frareanselm.1925" said:

> The gw2 community is really egotistical **since the game doesnt require cooperation**.

This would make things even worse. Cooperation should be encouraged, not required.

The charr would get one of their tanks and the asura would get something like this:

![](https://i.imgur.com/AbDY6LO.jpg"")

> @"LadyKitty.6120" said:

> Some of them like to think they're superior with their war technology.

They might have the biggest army but as Air Drop shows that by itself means nothing.

Yes, constantly having to change certain settings if I want to go from PvE to WvW and back is incredibly annoying.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> I'd rather have the ability to save different key binds for each character

Not just different characters. I'd also like to be able to set up different keybinds for different weapon sets.

For the same reason people say "frogs" instead of "toads": because the one who came up with the term obviously wasn't an asura.

I'd love to have the bloodstone fen glider upgrades as the default. I think it would only be fair given that the glider is basically the mount equivalent for HoT which is already a lot more situational than them.

> @"hugo.4705" said:

> Would also like to use FTT turrets everywhere, having them limited to kourna is dumb.

Sure, but only if they remove the "Spare Parts" requirement and as a permanent gizmo like the Prototype Position Rewinder.

Legendary effects and infusion auras could use a general overhaul. The option to turn them of is one thing but I'd also like to have the option to dye them and some of them could use some size adjustments (especially on asura).

Rage attacks not doing damage when you attack the target from "the wrong direction" despite it being in rage and nothing blocking the way e.g. vs. Tequatl's Fingers when defending the west battery.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> It's exactly due to that gap this can be true. Remember, if 100% is average difficulty, then 500% would be insane difficulty... but it also would be laughably easy and "not a challenge" to the 1000%-ers. So, the same content, at the same time is impossible for one, but ridiculously easy for another. Which makes both claims to be equally true. And, **which makes balancing any content a nightmare**.

Only if you're trying to appeal to everyone at once.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> If for content to be considered good

That by itself is highly subjective and you will never find a universal consensus on what is considered "good".

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> you need to design it to ignore large parts of the build and combat design

Except you can design content in a way that still utilizes the core combat mechanics without it penalizing the players or the group as a whole.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> it may suggest that maybe, just maybe, it's those build and combat systems that are a problem.

Oh there are some problems here but not for the reasons you're referring to.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> And not the types of content that are built to fully utilize them.

Except no one takes issue with "content fully utilizing combat mechanics". It's the fact that certain types of content are catered exclusively to certain subgroups of the playerbase what people have an problem with. The lack of choice is the main issue here which goes both ways btw.

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> The main reason for the phenomenon is the _ridiculous_ difference (up to 1000% effectiveness) between highly skilled and _average_ play the game's design offers. Frankly, this is too much of a penalty for not optimizing.

Yes but that's mostly the fault of the content, Forging Steel for example doesn't realy penalize you for not optimizing your build but mostly for not doing the mechanics during the last part which can turn the fight into a drag.

> @"WolfOwl.3968" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> >The game doesn't have any kind of instanced content which is aimed to the casual part of the playerbase

>

> In my experience T1 fractals and dungeons are very casual friendly, as meeting the requirements to enter those instances is easy to do and the mechanics are more forgiving. And dungeons are almost trivialized in their difficulty making them near completely abandoned content by the players as well as the devs.

Even T1 fractals are noticily more difficult than like 99% of the dynamic events in OW. Instanced content aimed towards this part of the playerbase like how the OW content is simply doesn't exist (again outside of the story mode which has no real replay value), the closest thing to casual friendly group content we have rn would probably be Forging Steel which screws up on the last part thanks to the BB mechanic.

> @"WolfOwl.3968" said:

> But honestly any sort of instance content specifically aimed at a casual audience is likely to be boring

Only for those seeking a challenge which is something the average casual doesn't seem to care about.

> @"WolfOwl.3968" said:

> in the case of raids have to work to improve their skills within a group. The content would be meaningless if it were trivial.

A-Net trivializing the difficulty of raids wouldn't make the content meaningless, it would just change the target audience from a small "hardcore" one to a bigger more "casual" one and IMO implementing low difficulty instanced content (not changing the existing one) wouldn't even be a bad thing. The game doesn't have any kind of instanced content which is aimed to the casual part of the playerbase like OW dynamic events are aside from story missions (and even some of them are questionable).

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> What I find truly sucky is medium armor: most of them are either **buttcapes**

That's because the design team for some reason constantly puts textures which are supposed to be part of the leg armor on the chest armor.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > Furthermore, there are some cases where your build doesn't affect your DPS at all. Take the Ancient Forgeman for example, all people would have to do to kill him is get into the tank, break this BB and spam 1. The NPCs even scream what you have to do but in public pugs most of the time > 50% of the party fails to do so.

> If all everyone'll do is jump into tank and spam 1, then the same thing happens, because the tank will get broken (and thus unable to be used until repaired... and then broken again right away) due to noone clearing adds. From you comment i can only assume you might have not noticed the group doing that for you, though.

Add damage during that phase is pretty much neglectable unless no one was clearing adds beforehand at all. The main amount of damage the tank usualy takes comes from the Ancient Forgeman himself and if the ~3 "less casual" players you usually get would prepare to heal the tank before jumping into it then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

Also GZ on ignoring the point and using baseless assumptions to be dismissive, from you of all people I would have expected better.

> @"Kulvar.1239" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > @"Kulvar.1239" said:

> > > So you want to

> > Don't make assertions and read again.

>

> Since when a question is an assertion ?

Your right, the first part of your sentence was not necessarily an assertion. But depending on how you read it you either have an assertion with an assumptive question or an assumptive question based on an assertion. Either way it's still a loaded question so what I said still applies.

> @"Kulvar.1239" said:

> So you want to

Don't make assertions and read again.

That alone wouldn't change much, there are also multiple design issues with some of the weapons sets which can't just be addressed by changing some numbers. Furthermore, there are some cases where your build doesn't affect your DPS at all. Take the Ancient Forgeman for example, all people would have to do to kill him is get into the tank, break this BB and spam 1. The NPCs even scream what you have to do but in public pugs most of the time > 50% of the party fails to do so. The issue here is that many people just don't care about changing up their preferred playstyle, becoming "better at the game" is just not something they care about and there is nothing that can be done about this except for fixing what can be fixed (even if it takes some effort to do so) and design content with the behavior of the target audience in mind.

> @"yann.1946" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

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

> > > > > @"yoni.7015" said:

> > > > > It doesn’t work against these goals.

> > > > Like it or not but if it discourages people to go for them then yes, it does work against these goals.

> > > No, it discourages SOME people.

> > Meaning it still: "does work against these goals"

> Not really, it depends on how much game play is added by adding this requirement vs how much game playtime is lost by discouraging players by this req.

No, the more accurate question would be: how many people are discouraged from going after them by having these requirements vs. how many people would be discouraged from going after them by not having these requirements.

And with that in mind I've only seen two valid points against it being brought up which however don't apply fully or can be addressed by other means and don't require universality:

1st: "It would bring down the prices which in turn discourages other players from making them."

^ which only applies to gen 1 leg weapons which, like I said, I personally wouldn't change.

and 2nd: "requiring to go into other game modes adds replay value to these modes"

^ issue here is that there are other ways to increase their appeal and I also mentioned that having some legendaries which can only be acquired by going into another game modes wouldn't be an issue as long as there are other alternatives for those who are put off by this.