MarshallLaw.9260

Vengeance is actually one of the better skills IMO. It gives you a decent chance to completely turn things around since you can wait out just before the stomp, then _vengeance_, stun immediately and see if you can down your opponent.

I agree it's completely RNG on whether you stay alive after, but the 15 seconds of borrowed time/second life can be so useful. The baseline for rally on kill is 25% and increased to 50% if you trait it (https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Vengeful_Return) which I don't think anyone does.

For me, the best luck with this was 3(!!) vengeance rallies in a row while contesting a far point 2v1. People tend to drop their guard and forget about stability when they've downed you.

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> You forgot to add that it makes no sense... I wonder if there's any single competitive game out there that does anything remotely similar to this.

A previous MMO I played ranked each character separately. Granted there were many differences with the system in general, but each toon had it's own placement in rankings so you could potentially have several in the top 100/250 on the same account (if you were good enough). There was no character/class swapping permitted so the system made sense (also gear was a major factor in pvp arena and around the time I left the game they introduced a new "gear rating system" which contributed to how you were matched).

> @"Legatus.3608" said:

> > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > As others have noted, we can't do this without removing pre-match class swapping, which the community voted to keep. It would be too easy to manipulate. We do track profession MMR in case we decide to change things later.

>

> I'm curious as to why this can't be done without removing class swapping?

> If I were to try to manipulate the system under these rules, I would queue as a mesmer to tank my MMR to get on a better team, then switch to thief .

There's your answer. Once you are matched with the other 9 players, their MMR is locked in. If you change to a "higher MMR" character, you're throwing the teams out of balance since the system cannot adjust your opponents MMR or provide you with a tougher enemy. This would consistently be exploited since people can use a low MMR character to queue and switch to their main in the 60 seconds pre-match. Their "queuing alt" would never complete any matches so therefore would not increase it's MMR and they can continue to fight against lower tier people.

> @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > This might be a bug - or intended (I can't tell) but I've found the following:

> >

> > Once you use _Snipers Cover_ followed by _Deaths Retreat_ , you are stealthed regardless of the position of the smoke field.

> >

> > To put this another way - I was able to (consistently) use _Snipers Cover_ to place the "smoke wall" in front of my kneeling character, then cancel kneel, and _Deaths Retreat_ **backwards** - which would result in stealth every time.

> > .

> > If someone can verify if this is intended play (I'm not a thief main so limited testing).

>

> the combo field is larger then the wall and if your first DR is in it you can use as many DR as you want as long as the wall is up even use shadowstep to port further back in between and still make a combo.

That's what I thought - thanks for clarifying.

Still feels a little clunky to kneel->scover->un-kneel->DR, but it's probably a matter of practice but certainly good that regardless of where you place the cover, you can get the stealth out of it.

This might be a bug - or intended (I can't tell) but I've found the following:

Once you use _Snipers Cover_ followed by _Deaths Retreat_ , you are stealthed regardless of the position of the smoke field.

To put this another way - I was able to (consistently) use _Snipers Cover_ to place the "smoke wall" in front of my kneeling character, then cancel kneel, and _Deaths Retreat_ **backwards** - which would result in stealth every time.

.

If someone can verify if this is intended play (I'm not a thief main so limited testing).

> @"Bloadsoaked.6792" said:

> 1) The new arena is a little less than twice the size of the old one, thats good - still it gets too crowded. Larger pls!

It's not intended to be another map, just a waiting area - no need to expand. If you find it too crowded, you can always go to a private arena.

> 2) You put obstacles in it - bad implementation! Do 4 intact columns in the mid where it is relatively clear if you hit a shot or not. The other ramps, tree bits and stones - thats all unnecessary and makes the experience bad. Problems with teleports, evades, attacks, timing.

There is now a more realistic environment, similar to WvW and sPvP matches - great addition, so much more flavour.

> 3) GG DE - now the trolls have got the present of the year: a cliff that kills you. guardian, warrior, ele ... like everyone can push u off the cliff to end a fight or to troll. WHY is there a cliff - why?

This was how it was implemented originally. Avoid the cliff edge if you think you'll get pushed. Overall it's just another danger to look out for which really makes things more interesting.

.

Overall the new arena is a fantastic improvement. The new layout with flat ground, some elevation and obstacles provides more opportunities for different playstyles.

> @"Poelala.2830"

Couldn't you have just looked up one of the many "I can't handle P/P" threads and contributed there?

We get it, scourge get shafted by DE most of the time - that's why it's a counter.

However DE is susceptible to being destroyed by so many other builds and scourge in general has a greater impact on a wider variety classes.

Yet another thread to match all the others: "Thief/Soulbeast hits too hard", "FB/Druid sustains too well", "Spellbreaker OP", "Holo stuns too much", "Mesmer dodges everything", "Scourge applies too many condis", "Rev and Ele..... never mind".

.

.

Just so you know - this was the funniest line:

> I’m not just asking for the removal of p/p dead eye, I’m asking for the complete destruction of p/p.

Yes, I'm sure devs will get onto that straight away. :wink:

> @"Dimi Gravedancer.1463" said:

> I have a ton of characters. Most Level 80, two (or three?) still leveling. I have a three that are 100% map complete and most are not.

> Would it be possible to somehow put the Dailies in a panel at the Character Select screen? This way people with multiple characters would be able to see what they are and log in with appropriate character?

> For example, If I see a Daily of Orr Vista viewer, I know I only three characters that have been to Orr, So I would choose one of them. Ascalonian Lumberer, So I can choose a lower level toon and gain some Exp + get my daily.

>

> Just a Suggestion!

>

> Thanks

> Dimi

..... because changing character takes less than 10 seconds?

> @"Deaths.9165" said:

> I play since first release day gw1 and gw2. gw1 was a geniuouse game. And the video down describes it very well. GW2 is atm the most human and pro gamer MMO on the market. But it is just meh compared to gw1. Anet could have done way better.

>

>

Good post, apart from the fact that it's 100% subjective opinion and all you achieve is baiting yet another GW1 vs GW2 pointless debate because nobody's going to even think about changing the current game to be any more in line with the original.

Yet another "back in my day..." rose-tinted glasses view thread with a snarky dig at the game you still play probably.

Good post.

> @"phs.6089" said:

> Seriously Anet. What makes you believe a good/perfect necro (not hate to necros, add any othet class) would have same skills as ele or any other class for instance.

>

> We keep getting people on new for them professions in ranked, literally ( I won't say it's cus they farming legendary back pice https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Ascension, we know you Anet made that ridiculous achievements) ruining matches as they have no idea what to do with the class.

>

> Please consider changing something, keep pvp going.

There is one major issue with implementing profession-ranked MM - Class swapping.

If MM ratings were based on class then many people would queue with their weakest character and swap to their strongest when entering the arena.

Personally I am all for class swapping and as far as I can see, there is no indication devs will change this any time soon.

As long as this mechanic is in place, profession-rated MM could be easily exploited.

.

.

With regards to the back item, the quest requires only 3 professions to be used. I doesn't seem too demanding for a player to learn how to play just 2 classes other than their main.

.

Maybe the system should require people to finish/win 20-30 matches with a class in unranked before being able to use that class in ranked.

> @"Arkantos.7460" said:

> Traitline bound utilities for EVERYONE!

> Means you can ONLY equip heals/utilites/elite from traitline u have in your build!

> downsides for everyone and new build diversity with REAL pros and cons

> Every class should have the same downside and not be able to mix and match to get perma immunity with several skills that gain acces to dps mitigation skills from multiple traitlines you dont have equipped; a REAL DEAL

>

> for example Warrior:

> Strength- Physicals

> Arms- Signets

> Defense- Stances

> Tactics- Shouts

> Disciple- Banners

> So if you want your healing signet, you have to trait into Arms. ;P

> And we get punished thoose Meta builds and this horrible OP traitlines mixed with OP skills from other traitlines....

>

> cheers

I think it's already been mentioned - some builds will suffer far more than others.

Several meta builds would need to implement little to no change.

Examples:

- Whereas Warriors may have to drop their precious _Heal Signet_, your typical Scourge would at worst lose _Plague Signet_ which can probably be replaced with a punishment/corruption skill.

- Firebrands predominantly use _Mantras_ and _Meditations_ - so there would be practically no change for them.

- Condi Mesmer would need a rehash.

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483"

The reporting system is loosely based on the one implemented in DOTA2 which does have all the "requested" features.

- there is a limit on reports to prevent spamming.

- there is a text box to assist the reader in ascertaining what has gone wrong and what to potentially look for.

- there is a feedback and refund system where-by a report found to be valid and dealt with, will result in the original "reporter" being sent an automated message as well as refunded their "report point".

I recognize that cross-game comparison isn't the most valid argument, but this is a system which worked and could have some potential on GW2.

Was there really a need to make 4 threads about this?


> @"Dante.1763" said:

> Ontop of that if anet doesnt think the report is punishable they wont punish the person being reported, so what harm does it do to have unlimited reports?

The aim of this proposition is to refine reporting to a point where it's more manageable and perhaps we will see a more effective system. At present, I feel there are more reports being put in than are warranted. I am personally guilty of doing this is the past where I've had poor PvP matches due to idle or uncooperative players and have sent 2-3 reports for the same person. I also often see others tilt during games and rant about reporting everyone so I imagine that's what they do.

Basically, they way I see it is that people are free to spam reports so some do. This seems to result in in influx which takes a while to resolve.

I'm not aware of how many gold sellers there are out there but I get a PM 2-3 times per month at most. I appreciate others may have a different experience.

Personally, least favorite map due to lack of elevation, lack of chokepoints. Also if you're playing a class without ports it's a pain to run round. Mechanics and buffs are interesting but lord is it annoying when a teammate picks going after _Sword of Reaping_ over helping an outnumbered team fight and then arrives late to be slaughtered immediately.

Forest has got to be my preferred. Skyhammer is significantly worse since jump-pad interaction was changed.

The fire traitline for ele is associated with both burning and power improvement. _Precision_ is considered as the complementary stat with _Power_.

Although I can see your point and the slight misalignment, there is also some synergy with fire traits which makes sense.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Burning_Precision

33% to burn on crit - so more crit chance is potentially more burn.

> @"nottsgman.8206" said:

> > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > * players have a limited number of reports per time period (week/month) - let's say 20 for example.

>

> so if I get spammed by 20 gold sellers in a week/month say, I can't report them and that one guy who's botting? bit ridiculous, don't you think? I do agree that there needs to be room for more info in reporting, but limiting a player's ability to report things isn't really the way to go.

There is probably the need for a refund-style system where-by any "positive" report which is found to be appropriate and required action is refunded. E.g. if the flagged gold seller is removed - you have your report point back.

Looking at the current "trending" topics on forums, we can all agree that it's often peppered with complaints about other players and the dissatisfaction of people about their experiences relating to co-op modes.

In particular this is prevalent in the PvP where people are unhappy to be matched with certain players based on previous interactions.

.

I could have put this in "PvP" only but in reality, this suggestions can be implemented game-wide if deemed suitable.

ANet, please put more resources into revising the matching and reporting systems.

Let's start with **reporting**.

The current version is outdated and in dire need of a review. The issues with the present reporting system:

* unlimited reporting

* limited categories

* lack of description input text box

* lack of feedback (even if it's automated)

I can only imagine how difficult it is to sift through a mountain of often spammed reports based only on a drop-down menu description so why not improve the system and make things easier for moderators as well as better for players. I don't like to compare GW2 to other games but in this case, other titles seem to have a better grasp over what works for this feature.

**Revised (suggested) version:**

* players have a limited number of reports per time period (week/month) - let's say 20 for example.

* in addition to a drop-down selection, have a limited-character text-box for a description.

* when reports are investigated, the original player receives and automated message with either positive feedback that the report has been dealt with or that the report was found to be invalid.

.

.

Now moving onto **blocking** and the related **party control**: (this is more PvP related)

Blocking works perfectly fine but the issues arise when the random match-making places you _on the same team_ as a player you have blocked.

The thing is, I don't bock many people but the ones I do, I wouldn't want to play with; this may be for a number of reasons - perhaps they were toxic, or difficult to co-operate with, maybe they intentionally tried to sabotage your efforts or you simply don't like their playstyle. I feel that nobody should be forced to put up with this if they've made the choice to block someone.

.

The **"new"** (suggested) version:

* players can block a limited number of people at any one time (20? 30?)

* blocks expires in 14/28 days

* if either player has the other blocked, neither can be on the same team when matched through pvp MM

* blocked players can appear on opposing teams as this has nothing to do with co-op play.

.

**Additional implementation in PVE**

If you have a player on your block list, they cannot join your **party** in PvE (and vice versa) until the block is removed. This will help tackle any minor issues in other game modes like FotM where disruptive people chose to continuously join your group and remove/rename your LFG.

.

.

_I completely understand the are probably ways which players may find to manipulate the system, so for anyone with suggestions of what flaws there might be and how to address them- please contribute._

> @"Angelweave.1856" said:

> I've lost what 40 of the last 60 games, I don't care about the rank just the ascended shards and it's getting annoying to farm, cause of the inordinate amount of losses lately :)

You seem to be playing the mode not for the primary objective of rising in rank but for the secondary objective of gathering rewards. Although I in no way disapprove of your actions, you should also take that into consideration. Ranked was initially intended to be played for prestige and rewards were an extra incentive to somewhat offset the time lost which could be utilized to obtain PvE rewards.

> Or maybe allow us to get shards somewhere we have more control over the outcome... like 3v3??

I would be in complete support of extra modes such as 3v3 etc. but with an adjusted reward structure. Perhaps not shards, but a new currency for different armor/weapons.

> @"kahzee.6042" said:

> It is almost always a guaranteed loss!

Completely situational.

As far as I can see, most people are used to a setup with 1 roamer (thief in this case) and can find it difficult to adapt when there are 2 or more of them. In addition, the thief players can often be confused as they may not be accustomed to playing in that composition either. It takes some figuring out, but players need to be flexible and adjust their strategy to maximize the potential of their composition.

If people try to stick to their preferred tactic regardless of their team mates, then, I agree it's not likely to be a great outcome.

Personally I've been in matches where the higher mobility teams have dominated due to higher burst potential, the element of surprise and the ability to out-rotate and out-pace a more standard composition. On the flipside of that, when you have players trying to take on the roles of other classes (like a thief trying to team-fight rather than +1 or cap/decap), you also see things falling apart.

> @"Apolo.5942" said:

> Conditions need to be NORMALIZED.

>

> - SINGLE player conditions stack on DURATION.

> - MULTIPLE players conditions stack on INTENSITY.

> - REBALANCE duration, damage and aplication.

>

> And reevaluate from there.

If this was the mechanic, condis would have to be scaled up massively so be vaguely viable. Imagine running as the only condi player on a team of 5 - even if you manage to apply burn, poison. bleed, torment and confusion to a target - it would barely tickle them at 1 stack. Duration would make little difference since there are so many condi-clear/transfer skills currently accessible.

> @"Andrew Man.7239" said:

> This happens to me quite a lot...

How often is "a lot" and why is this thread pushing three pages without any evidence? For all we know it might have been 2 lines from the Bible, 40 pages from the Torah or anything in between. Perhaps people used it as a quote, maybe it's an individual with no motive and nothing better to do.

.

People can say anything they like as long as it's not offensive or incites.... etc, etc (you've seen the TOS) and by now most people should recognize that - believe it or not - not everyone agrees on various topics. If you don't like talking to another player, block them. If you seriously think it breaks TOS, report them and ANet will make a decision (at some point).

> @"Nelson.7485" said:

> I suggest if you want to play ranked with the class you don’t know. You have to go to play unranked for more than 5 times with the class you are playing.

.

>**5 times**

Probably better to implement a victory minimum if possible - i.e. cannot use a class in ranked until you're able to achieve 40 unranked victories with it.

> @"JDub.1530" said:

> Yes, specific mount keybinds solves this issue. But clearly the OP was not aware of them before now. So this would be a QoL upgrade for people who are also unaware that ANet added new keybind options with PoF.

Surely the solution is really for people to "discover" keybinding options rather than give them an underlying system which makes choices for them.

Like I said, I'm not in favor of automating more processes and this general idea is further perpetuating a more passive gamplay.

I'd be surprised if devs implemented this.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > @"Lexi.1398" said:

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > > Same for griffon in the air, it should be possible to make the mount button use skimmer automatically when the player is in "swimming on the surface", and mount the griffon when in "falling in the air" mode without having to use their specific mount keys.

> >

> > definitely not for griffon- gliding in HoT + a lot of ls3 map stuff is achieved by part glide part fall.

> > EDIT: perhaps as an option in settings though, but automatically turned off (and thus needs to be checked to turn on)?

>

> You are not getting what OP asks here.

>

> They are not asking for automatic mounting, but to automatically change the mount that would be used based on context regardless of the currently selected mount in the mount skill slot.

> So using the mount skill on the surface of water would always mount skimmer, and using the mount skill while falling in the air would mount griffon, without having to use specific mount keys or change the current mount.

>

> That would definitely not affect gliding absolutely at all in any way whatsoever.

This seems clunky and unnecessary.

* Firstly, you can't activate any mount in mid air apart from Griffon (it's in the Griffon mastery track).

* Secondly that would mean creating rules for areas separating where land, water or air start/end. These rules would for mounts only but seems like a waste of resource.

* Thirdly, what's the default for land? all mounts are able to travel across this terrain.

All in all, keybinding was created for ease of access for mounts. I feel players should be more into active play rather than automatic mount selection - sounds like more passive mechanics.

> @"Sors Immani.8429" said:

> The budget gamer in me has serious reservations.

>

> First, a little backstory:

>

> I played GW1 extensively through the original 3 campaigns + EN. Took a break when GW2 was announced.

>

> Got invited to the GW2 beta, played extensively again at launch and through LW s2. Got burned badly after seeing the company do a 180 on their "no expacs ever/ 2 week cadence" press release when HoT was announced.

>

> Been away since (2013, I believe? perhaps 2014?).

>

> I've been rehashing my adventures through Tyria, Cantha, and Elona on GW1 lately, and it's making me want to give GW2 a shot. I have no problems with buying the newest expansion.

>

> I do, however, wonder why HoT has not been included with the base game yet. $60 US is a bit of a hurdle to clear to get back into 8 yr old game and enjoy new-ish content. Nostalgia is strong, but not that strong. Even just making the expansions purchasable in the gem shop (instead of just an upgrade to deluxe) would be a nice addition.

>

> Yes, I am aware that _the_ other major MMO on the market, _the one which folds in all previous expansions to the base game so that customers need only purchase the most recent expansion_, uses a subscription model which GW2 does not. I would kindly direct your attention that _that_ particular game also allows you to exchange in-game gold for IRL currency, which can be used in their in-game shop to purchase expansions for _that_ game or any other they offer. I would also kindly inform you that as of 2015, I have been able to meet all of my purchasing needs with said game (and their company) -including "subscription"- via this currency exchange.

>

> But that is neither here nor now. It is not my place to give ANet marketing advice, or any other for that matter, in regards of how to run their company. Speaking for myself, when they decide to fold in all but the most recent expansion into the base game, perhaps then I'll answer the call to nostalgia and bring my necromancer out of retirement.

>

> Until then, cheers, and thank you for making a most beautiful & stylish game.

You can buy HoT for around £10 (which google converts to about $13.50).

It's a tonne of content but if you think it's too expensive, that's your loss.

EDIT:

> @"Sors Immani.8429" said:

> I do, however, wonder why HoT has not been included with the base game yet. $60 US is a bit of a hurdle to clear to get back into 8 yr old game

GW2 was released 28th August 2012 - that's not even 6 years. HoT was released October 23rd 2015 (less than 3 years ago) so what you are paying for isn't even 3 year old content.