Bladezephyr.5714
-
Posts
48 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Bladezephyr.5714
-
-
Sorry, your original post said nothing of the sort. I missed the one sentence in your second post where you did say that as my eyes jumped right to the video. Your first post just said the skill bugged/failed... It didn't fail. You just didn't see the effect. Not really the same thing. You switched away from the combat log, but the bits of the video I watched which had the combat log showed:
* the skill triggered
* the damage effect triggered
* the burning effect triggered
* the weakness triggered
* no projectiles were evidently reflected, but neither did any hit you, that I saw at least
That seems to suggest that there were no projectiles to reflect, and other than the visual bug ollbertan mentioned, the skill is working... not failing. The only thing you're not getting is visual feedback that everything is working as intended. That's annoying, but doesn't seem to make the skill "unusable." Your original post--while didn't say so outright--strongly suggested the skill often wasn't working at all ("33% of the time it doesn't spawn at all (but still consumes ammo)"), but that's not the case.
-
> @"Ragnar.4257" said:
> Just to prove I'm not imagining things, here is a recording of ONE unranked game, in which out of 15 attempted uses of Shield, 13 of them failed/bugged. Only 2 worked properly.
Did you actually look at your combat log?
13:41 You hit Gwen Copperclaw for 355 using Shield of the Avenger
13:41 You hit Morticia Addams for 457 using Shield of the Avenger
...
13:41 You hit Morticia Addams for 529 using Shield of the Avenger
13:41 Gwen Copperclaw evaded your Sheild of the Avenger
Shield Fail Counter: 2
Actual shield failures: zero.
...
13:42 You hit Gwen Copperclaw for 351 using Shield of the Avenger
13:42 You critically hit Morticia Addams for 1,065 [i think, number not clear in vid] using Shield of the Avenger
13:42 You hit Flesh Golem for 329 using Shield of the Avenger
Shield Fail Counter: 3
Actual shield failures: zero
Looks like it's working fine to me. There are also numerous logs about burning being applied at the same time, but I didn't comment about that since it's hard/impossible to identify the source of burning. But they're happening at the same time so it seems right. So it does seem like this is just a visual bug, but it's working as intended.
-
> @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:
> That would be reality. Defense of towers is very difficult because you can rarely stand or place siege anywhere that isnt bomb-able from the ground outside, which is kinda ridiculous. In what scenario would a defender on a wall ever be at a disadvantage to those attacking?
One where magic exists. One like GW2.
-
Over the years, I've often heard players asking about guardian survivability. Often this comes in the form of, "I'm returning to the game and just starting [one of the expansions]... But I just keep dying. How do I make my guardian more survivable?" I'm sure some will say it's purely a LTP issue, but I think there definitely are things that a struggling player can do to improve their survivability while they adapt. So I set out to find a guardian build that would work well for such players. This is what I came up with:
Some assumptions are that the player is just staring expansion content, so will not have access to any expansion builds: no elite specs, no expansion stats (like marauder's), no ascended gear. For survivability, the video recommends using soldier's gear, but players should transition to DPS gear as soon as they feel comfortable to. I won't pretend to think this build is perfect, or that good players can't get better performance from other builds... but those players aren't the ones asking this question. ;-) I think this build will work better for a lot of people. I will say that I've been playing a bunch of different FB builds, and for me personally, none of them beat this build given the same set of (power) gear. If you're a guardian player struggling to live through fights in open world in the expansions, I hope you find this useful.
-
I solved this problem by dropping firebrand and going back to core guardian. I set up this build with inexperienced players transitioning from core Tyria to expansion content in mind, but TBH I haven't been able to beat it with any of the FB builds I've tried, and I have been trying...
That said, I do think FB offers tons of survivability... and yes, swapping into F2 and F3 is one way to get it. Trouble is you lose DPS when you do. I wouldn't be surprised if expert players can get more out of a good FB build than I can, but I think for the average player this build is going to work better (particularly for solo open-world content, which seems to be the OP's concern).
-
Dear ANet, tonight I tried to create a female warrior with the name "Jewel Pommel" (which I obviously thought was pretty clever). That name was rejected because it was offensive. This is obviously preposterous.
-
> > Everyone's taste is different... I found Tybalt kind of annoying and was actually a bit glad when he died. TBH I like playing through as whispers but I really wish there was an option to have a different mentor than Tybalt. But, Taimi is awesome and must never die. :smiley:
> >
> Oh my. I never thought someone would hate Tybalt. When I played through the Vigil story, I hated my mentor dying because there was so much in his back story they barely touched on which really would have impacted the death. The first time through, I didn't even pick up on it until rewatching his death and think oh, I see why now. Tybalt's needing that constant self assurance also dovetailed into his death. I personally like more of everything usually but games just don't lend themselves to story easily. Its rather hard to determine how a character is going to feel if that character is out of your control like our PC.
I didn't *hate* him... I just found him annoying. People toss that word around way, way too much these days. :/ TBH since he's supposed to be your mentor in the Whispers, and it's a spy organization, I would have strongly preferred someone more like a retired James Bond or Cate Archer (No One Lives Forever) type. Someone like Doern Velasquez or Reil Darkwater... I found Tybalt... disappointing. In fact my first play-through, I'd sort of imagined that I was being groomed to take over as Master of Whispers, so being trained by the current master would've been *awesome*. But, obviously the story went a different way. ;-)
-
> @"StinVec.3621" said:
> > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:
> > He’s saying that he no longer has that phone number. He can’t log on because he can’t get the authorization. He has to contact support to remove the phone number and they aren’t taking his HoT serial number.
>
> Oh, I was not aware you needed to have access to the old phone number in order to remove it as an authentication method. That's just silly. Why provide a method to unlink your old phone number due to getting a new one, if you need to still have the old number in order to unlink it from your account? If you have a new phone number, obviously you wouldn't have the old one any longer...
>
> Thanks for the clarification and pointing this out to me. I'll be sure to never use SMS in the future due to how they have it absurdly configured that would cause issues in the event I get a new number.
This is exactly why I keep ignoring ANet's prompt to start using my phone. Phones get lost, phone numbers can change. 2-factor authentication is great for corporate networks (or those of other large entities) which have a helpdesk for you to walk over to when it fails. It should probably be use more by banks (ironically a lot of banks still don't use it--they need better security a lot more than ANet does). But it's mostly just a pointless annoyance for other situations. It's most frustrating of all when the game you're trying to log into has no compelling reason to even need to log in on line (single player games)... At least with MMOs you don't have that irritation.
-
> @"Aodlop.1907" said:
> It would have an impact, it's a really liked character, much like Tybalt.
Everyone's taste is different... I found Tybalt kind of annoying and was actually a bit glad when he died. TBH I like playing through as whispers but I really wish there was an option to have a different mentor than Tybalt. But, Taimi is awesome and must never die. :smiley:
-
For what it's worth I like the UI--it's clean and fairly minimal and doesn't get in the way...most of the time. Aside from the minimap, the only other thing I wish they'd do is allow you to turn off effects from players who are not in your party in PvE. Group events are ridiculous... can't see a thing that's happening.
-
> @"Zoe.8310" said:
> > @Cleopatra.4068 said:
> > The entire UI is too small in 4K. I had to set mine to play in 1080p on my 4K screen. Changing the resolution prevents me from playing in windowed full screen, or at least it won't let me switch to it in the options interface. So when the game crashes, it tends to crash my entire computer. I hate fullscreen. :p
> >
> > The game itself looks absolutely beautiful in 4K. The ui is about 3 pixels high though. This makes me sad.
>
> I assume you already tried at least setting the UI scale to "Larger?"
>
> They really need to decouple the Mini-Map from that setting, though :-(
I just posted in the Support forum about this very thing. 4K looks amazing, but the minimap becomes absolutely useless. You're basically forced to set the UI to "larger" or zoom in so far that the minimap only displays the area immediately around you, which you hardly need the minimap for anyway since you can already see it.
My suggestion was that the minimap be separately scalable, OR when you decrease the size of the UI, the maximum size of the minimap should SCALE UP so that it can occupy the same amount of space on your screen as it would if you had selected the "larger" UI size. Then you can just zoom in to make the view a suitable size.
-
I spent some dough and bought myself a 4K display and a snazzy new graphics card to power it. Naturally this has a big impact on the interface... but it turns out it mostly doesn't. I still want ALMOST all of the interface to be as small as it can be, so I select small interface size from the graphics options. Everything is perfect, except one thing: the minimap is now useless. The icons on it are so small that you need a microscope to see them. :angry:
There needs to be an option to scale the minimap separately, or alternatively, the maximum size of the minimap should automatically scale up as you decrease the interface size, so that i can occupy the same screen space as it would if the interface size "larger" was selected, and then you can just zoom in a little to make the icons a suitable size.
Please, please, please fix this.
-
> @"Chorne.8195" said:
> When you see a female human elementalist in-game wearing a bra, you immediately know it's a guy. If you see a guy in in-game, you know it's a guy. I'm afraid that if I join a guild or something and appear as a male, all my other characters will become redundant and I'll be mistaken as a creepy dude who solely plays girls. Which is why I dress all my light armors in the Seer's coat and give all my heavy-armors giant helmets with face covers. I play mostly Sylvari so the skin showing will become less obvious.
Don't get sucked into this kind of immature nonsense... the only effect these kinds of stereotypes can really have in your life is to prevent you from experiencing things or people that may enhance your life. So don't let them. Life is full of these narrow viewpoints--learn to spot them and reject them. It's really easy: Anything that is presented to you as some kind of rule, about any particular class of people, is wrong. People are individuals and have different likes, goals, and skills. Assuming that someone is X because they did Y, or that if they aren't good at X then they also aren't good at Y, and all similar types of things, only does both you and them a disservice.
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:
> > I don't have to make it stick; Chris Lee of Hawaii and other legislators are going to make it stick for me. What the SWB case demonstrates is that people already think the same way I'm explaining it. Not everyone, certainly, but you can't even get everyone to agree that the Earth isn't flat. =)
>
> And once they make it stick, we can discuss that scenario. Until then, stick to current facts and given legislation without mixing your personal opinion in as fact or given.
You're arguing semantics; I gave you an example where an authority of a sort used the same semantics I did. That's valid and factual.
I'm officially signing off this thread. It's sucked up way too much of my time.
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> and you are wrong again:
By the way, you do realize that the ESRB is made up of game companies, right? **Of course** they don't think it's gambling, it's in the entire industry's best interest for it not to be. But whether or not it's gambling was still never the point--only that the currency used was considered real money.
-
> @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:
> Ah cute avoiding my post above because it shuts down your argument?
No, that's not the reason I ignored your post.
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
>
> and you are wrong again:
> > “ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling. While there’s an element of chance in these mechanics, the player is always guaranteed to receive in-game content (even if the player unfortunately receives something they don’t want). We think of it as a similar principle to collectible card games: Sometimes you’ll open a pack and get a brand new holographic card you’ve had your eye on for a while. But other times you’ll end up with a pack of cards you already have.”
Did you miss the title of the article, and all of the exposition that follows your quote? Forbes agrees with me. And so will LOTS of other people. The article also goes on to talk about the addiction gaming model I mentioned in my summary post.
Here's a quote that you decided NOT to post:
"The fact that [star Wars] Battlefront II is going to be Teen rated and yet has an in-game real money gambling system blows my mind. How are they possibly getting away with that?."
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> Here is your problem: you think yourself so smart that you dispute or dismiss technicalities which are actually quite significant.
> If you want to buy gems with money, you are free to do so under simple contract law (as you are for SW:Battlefront 2 credits as much as it pains me to say so since I dislike EA). This has nothing to do with the current loot box dilemma no matter how often you try to make it stick.
I don't have to make it stick; Chris Lee of Hawaii and other legislators are going to make it stick for me. What the SWB case demonstrates is that people already think the same way I'm explaining it. Not everyone, certainly, but you can't even get everyone to agree that the Earth isn't flat. =)
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:
> > - The fee for currency exchange is exorbitant and undisclosed by the UI, and is not appropriate for transactions involving real money (gems are cash equivalent since dollars are exchanged for them at a fixed rate)
>
> Untrue. For this to be the case there needs to be a possibility to exchange gems to cash, which there is not.
It's technically true that they don't satisfy the legal definition of cash equivalent, but they do satisfy the natural language definition: they serve as a cash substitute for ANet's store. But the distinction is irrelevant for the reasons I've already stated... The people who matter (legislators), and most people in general, will consider it using real money to buy in game junk. Because it is, and that was always the intent. If you want to buy gold with dollars, ANet wants you giving THEM your money instead of some third party.
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> The main problem as far as loot crates are concerned is exactly that, you never actually have a chance of gaining any money out of it, and digital goods are not yet considered material. Since you essentially have no prize (according to gambling law as it stands now) loot boxes do not fall under current gambling definitions. A technicality some might say, but that's exactly where high payed lawyers will make their stand.
You're still missing the point.
> Next time, read up on what you are talking about before going all gun-ho and citing politicians without understanding what issue they are actually tackling
I'm well-versed and completely understood. You're just not connecting the dots. The argument wasn't ever about whether it was technically gambling, but whether gems were considered real money. They are, for the same reason that SWB crystals are in the gambling case. As I've said 3 times now, if the in game junk wasn't considered to have been bought with real money, absolutely no one would care.
-
Yeah, whatever...
-
> @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:
> @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:
> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:
> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:
> > > C. exchanging real world cash for an in game currency is in no way related to randomness inherent in loot boxes and constitutes a completely different transaction. If you were actually interested in protecting the customer you'd be against volatility. Which you some how are all for in the other parts of your argument.
> >
> > I didn't say it was. The crux of both issues, though, is that real money is used to buy an in-game currency (gems, in gw2, "crystals" in SWB), which are then in turn used to buy something else in the game (gold or items in gw2, loot boxes in SWB). In the SWB case, this is considered using real money to gamble (by at least some--the debate goes on), which is the issue with SWB. What I am saying, quite correctly, is that the in-game currency serves as a cash equivalent, as the SWB case illustrates. If there was no real money involved, **NO ONE WOULD CARE.**
>
> Loot crates were gambling the results of the crates were not guaranteed ie gambling... not a hard concept. Gems are a product purchased that are used to get specific items that are guaranteed not gambling... again not a hard concept.
Gambling has been present in video games since just about the beginning of video games. That is not what makes it illegal. It's the use of real money that makes it illegal. But the loot boxes are bought with crystals, not dollars... Except the crystals were bought with dollars, so actually yes, it's gambling with real money. Not a hard concept, but the one you seem to be repeatedly missing, and the one that is absolutely essential to this issue.
-
> @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said:
> He said the reason loot crates are being looked at is because and I quote “the main issue in the loot box controversy is how protected minors need to be from predatory practices.”
> So you agreed with him. Reading comp.
The part you missed is where he is using this as an argument that gems (or rather crystals, in Star Wars Battlefront) are not a cash equivalent, which is false since the legislators involved wouldn't care at all if this wasn't considered using real money to gamble.
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > @"Bladezephyr.5714" said:
> C. exchanging real world cash for an in game currency is in no way related to randomness inherent in loot boxes and constitutes a completely different transaction. If you were actually interested in protecting the customer you'd be against volatility. Which you some how are all for in the other parts of your argument.
I didn't say it was. The crux of both issues, though, is that real money is used to buy an in-game currency (gems, in gw2, "crystals" in SWB), which are then in turn used to buy something else in the game (gold or items in gw2, loot boxes in SWB). In the SWB case, this is considered using real money to gamble (by at least some--the debate goes on), which is the issue with SWB. What I am saying, quite correctly, is that the in-game currency serves as a cash equivalent, as the SWB case illustrates. If there was no real money involved, **NO ONE WOULD CARE.**
My Core Guardian Build
in Guardian
Posted
If this is for PvE, it's basically a slightly more defensive version of the usual Power DPS core build on metabattle. (https://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Guardian_-_Power_DPS) You probably don't really need the extra defense.
If I went virtues I'd rather take permeating wrath for the AoE passive burn to tag mobs and proc Fiery Wrath and Radian Power, use the virtue of justice active for short fights against a single target or before whirling wrath, or to blind harder-hitting mobs. Use the passive in other situations.
The rest of your choices I commented on extensively in my video about my own similar build with Honor instead of Virtues. Since a lot of your damage will come from your symbols, and Honor buffs symbols considerably (50% longer duration and a wider radius, plus a bit of extra healing) you might find this actually works better for you:
Note in PvP the radius is nerfed.