Seera.5916

I think some of the problem is most of keep bank expresses in our shared inventory spots and keep our spare gear there. So players got stuck with the weapons equipped since this is the first time ever we've been locked from our inventory. Coupled with the fact that this happened in the second half of a potentially long personal story instance depending on how long you take against Balthazar, and it becomes frustrating.

I'm a so so player and it took me about an hour to get through Balthazar. As a scepter/warhorn tempest. Running mostly a mix of exotic and ascended assassin's and Berzerker's gear. Scepter is legendary, though.

What made me frustrated with Eater of Souls was that I had already spent an hour with Balthazar and there wasn't anything showing what the mechanics were. It wasn't obvious for the fight that he would always try to do his health steal after the jump that's telegraphed.

I switched to an exotic staff of some stats after a try or two to try to range, but my ability to stay at range is horrible.

I then put hero points into Weaver since more conditions. Can't remember if I switched to scepter/dagger before or after the instance though as I do have a Clerics dagger in my inventory.

The fight wasn't hard, it was just frustrating after the Balthazar fight and not being able to leave to buy new equipment for new strategies.

> @notebene.3190 said:

> I don't feel I should say even 'why' I'm asking, because it might slightly spoil what happens, so I'm going to put the why inside spoilers, and if you've completed it, click away!

>

> >! Does what happens change based on what you've actually completed, or is it the same for everyone? What if you haven't done any LW3? Or HoT? Or LW2? Or (and this was awesome) LW1?

>

> Hmm, didn't preview the spoiler. Hope that worked.

I've got an answer since I've not done everything.

>! I didn't do much of LS1 and it showed me clips of LS1. Nor really any of LS3 as it was a bit too difficult for me to solo and I came back right on top of PoF's launch.

I just got that achievement last night. So it's not something that is bugged for everyone if it is bugged.

> @VaaCrow.3076 said:

> > @Seera.5916 said:

> > > @Malediktus.9250 said:

> > > It is frustrating to see how fast people always call for nerfs. If it is not done on first try it better be nerfed lmao

> >

> > Well, some people have posted reasonable reasons as to why it should be nerfed. One person has physical issues. Another doesn't have English as a first language. Whether those reasons are enough for ANet to nerf, I do not know.

> >

> > But I think a good compromise would be to allow it to be nerfed for the initial run through to get the Mastery. But make it repeatable like some Hero Challenges are repeatable. And the difficulty at that point is like how it is now. Higher difficulty because the Chef expects you to be better since you've done it once before :P.

>

> the issues are a problem for the individual to overcome, not for the game to kitten it self down to pander to.

Some issues players haven't aren't such that they can be overcome.

And if you read all of what I said, whether those reasons are enough to nerf is unknown.

> @pah.4931 said:

> Playing it pretty fast and loose with the word "literally" ... I just played for about 90 minutes without interruption. Haven't had a single issues since launch. :/

>

> Sorry you are having trouble, but you gotta keep perspective. You are one of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands). Most aren't having trouble, which makes it harder for Anet to track down and kill issues. Hang in there. You've got 2 years to enjoy this content. :D

Then you're probably on an NA server. For some reason the EU servers have been having a lot more stability issues than the NA ones with this launch. And if these issues go on for too long without improvement, getting some form of compensation wouldn't be out of the question. I don't think we've crossed that point yet.

> @Haishao.6851 said:

> > @Seera.5916 said:

> > Since some Mastery points are simply get to it and commune, difficulty isn't a definite requirement for Mastery.

> >

> > Have the initial run for the Mastery point nerfed some so that most people can get it within 5-10 tries.

> >

> > Then allow it to be repeatable at current difficulty for some currency that's earn-able in other areas but would be useful to have more of. Like how they've made some Hero Challenges repeatable.

>

> What tells you most people don't already get it within 5~10 tries though?

>

>

The number of people agreeing with the OP and the fact the fact that even some who don't want it nerfed said it took them more than 5-10 times to do. It probably took me more than 10 tries to do it as well, but I wasn't counting time or number of attempts.

> @Malediktus.9250 said:

> It is frustrating to see how fast people always call for nerfs. If it is not done on first try it better be nerfed lmao

Well, some people have posted reasonable reasons as to why it should be nerfed. One person has physical issues. Another doesn't have English as a first language. Whether those reasons are enough for ANet to nerf, I do not know.

But I think a good compromise would be to allow it to be nerfed for the initial run through to get the Mastery. But make it repeatable like some Hero Challenges are repeatable. And the difficulty at that point is like how it is now. Higher difficulty because the Chef expects you to be better since you've done it once before :P.

Since some Mastery points are simply get to it and commune, difficulty isn't a definite requirement for Mastery.

Have the initial run for the Mastery point nerfed some so that most people can get it within 5-10 tries.

Then allow it to be repeatable at current difficulty for some currency that's earn-able in other areas but would be useful to have more of. Like how they've made some Hero Challenges repeatable.

Give it time. People will move on to do other things once the new has worn off. Bounties may not remain with as high of a participation as they do now.

You can play the game without buying either expansion pack: Heart of Thorns or Path of Fire.

Your account will not be marked as free to play because you bought the core game.

You are still on BG server.

> @"Darth Sylvanos.2496" said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > With that many keys, you probably got all or most of the Raptor minis, though. There's that. = )

>

> 0 cares about useless minis.

The Fire and Ice Raptor Mini's are fairly high in gold cost. I would calculate out how many more you would need + the unidentified dyes and see if you would make a profit. Then you would turn those useless minis into useful gold.

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @"Omega Mayhem.7163" said:

> > You haven't played online video games if you have never played one that didn't have dc's on the day of an expansion pack release.

>

> Well. Heart of Thorns release was fine so I don't understand why Path of Fire is so problematic

Because it's a different expansion. It has different code in it.

Personally, I take HoT as the exception to the norm since it's only 1 time. Now if PoF was the 5th expansion and the previous ones had all been stable then maybe there would be a question as to why it's different this time.

Tell your friend this:

Do not create anymore tickets. Each ticket you create slows down the progress of getting tickets resolved.

There has been a large increase in the number of tickets sent in to ANet support since the announcement of PoF and they haven't quite worked that back log down yet. And even during more normal times, the support staff had an expected turn around time of 72 hours. The only thing you can do is be patient and if you have more information to give to UPDATE your ticket by replying to the automated email sent to your email.

> @Henry.5713 said:

> > @Adamant.2543 said:

> > Basically title. I decide to try my hand at dungeons, so I start listing my own groups "P1,2,3, 80s". Every single time, some random people who are level 12 join up, and I have to vote kick every one of them. To add insult to injury, it's impossible to prevent them from rejoining, so they get kicked, and half a millisecond later they're back in the group. This is insane, and frankly, killing my desire to get anywhere near grouped content when it's so impossible to control who joins your own groups.

>

> The change was done back then to prevent people from abusing the power as the party leader. As well as to get people cooperate. A good thing if you ask me. It simply came with the bad side effects of taking all of the power from the party creator. The recent issues with people merging parties in squads to either troll them or to punish them is another effect of the party system change.

Actually, I think the primary reason for moving from having a party leader was due to the fact that the leader owned the instance and if the leader left the instance for whatever reason, it would boot everyone. Whether it was because they the leader left the instance, was kicked, or they lost internet.

> @nagr.1593 said:

> I think best reason that there no leader or 'owner' of a party/group anymore. So what this mean is that your importance as individual is on same priority as everyone else's. If someone else has friended an individual while you have them blocked instead, this person should still be able to join your group (and imo this is fine as it is). Same reasoning with squad formation i think - one individual whom 1-2 others in a 50man squad have blocked, shouldn't be prevent from joining just cos of this silly reason.

>

> The way it plays out is much different in game though, far from the ideal. What happens is these childish tiffs are actually encouraged - because the role of leader in a raid squad is clear cut, this person can do exactly what you are advocating for i.e. they can kick someone they had a personal history with, no matter how trivial or non-consequential. Its rather silly and yes you can deny someone from 10man group just cos you don't like them or because they have low ap or mastery points - this is a fact atm.

But sometimes two people just don't get along and keeping them separated is best for everyone involved, including the other members in the party who may not know either of them. If one of those 2 people starts an LFG, the one that joins should be the one kicked. Or preferably, not allowed to join in the first place - saving time for all parties involved.

Now it should only be you're not allowed join groups of people who blocked you. It's on you if you joined the group of someone you blocked (maybe you're giving them another chance, but don't want to take them off just in case).

Players who aren't gold sellers or spammers really should do some introspection if they find themselves on a large number of players' block lists. A handful and it's probably just personality conflicts that aren't anyone's fault. But if it becomes a large number, then there might be something on the player being blocked's end of the issue.

Support has been swamped with tickets ever since the announcement of PoF. I've seen many people posting that they've had to wait 7+ days for support to send them a response.

And support won't contact you at all, only your friend. The ticket being submitted anonymously does not have any bearing on how important they take the ticket.

Edit: The only thing your friend can do is be patient and do NOT submit new tickets. If he thinks of anything that would prove ownership before he gets a response, he can respond to the automated message he got after submitting the ticket.

The thing is without DPS meters, players will still try to figure out who is doing the most DPS and who is not. And in your situation, he would have still yelled at you. The party member list shows what element you're attuned to and everyone knows water has less DPS than fire or air.

At least with the DPS meter they can figure out who has the least DPS and go from there (some members may logistically have lower DPS depending on their role), so if they are going to just kick for lowest DPS and not try to give the player a chance to improve, at least they'll be kicking the one with the actual lowest DPS and not just their guess.

The players who are jerks with DPS meters were likely jerks before they were allowed to use DPS meters. They just used things like assuming the low DPS is the ranger or that it's not them (even in a situation where a DPS meter would show that they are the lowest DPS).

Here's an example of guessing DPS without the usage of DPS meters. I was running Fractals with my brother and some friends. Three of them were in Zerker gear. Me and one of the friends were in Clerics. The friend because he had a healing build, me so that I can heal my own self when I got in trouble (GW2 was my first MMO). We're fighting one of the bosses (I don't remember which one at the time) and due to the fact that none of us are elites, the zerkers end up dying. My brother, one of the zerkers, then made a comment on how non-existant the DPS of us Clerics was. I can't remember if we ended up wiping or just taking forever to finish or if one us Clerics kited while the other resurrected the Zerkers.

Weaver won't be useless in PvE. Just because it's complicated and the average player will likely not play it, doesn't make it useless.

No classes will be useless in PvE, actually. Or in any game mode. Some may not be meta, but a class or build is not useless if it's not meta.

> @WARIORSCHARGEING.2637 said:

> > @Wolfheart.7483 said:

> > > @WARIORSCHARGEING.2637 said:

> > > anet should and needs to remove all Jesus names and other names that have anything at all to do with religion

> >

> > Then they would have to entirely remove Abaddon from the game and lore.

>

> you as well miss my point of what i said . and i refer back to what i said and you need to reread what it is i did say and how i said it too. as what your saying does not have one thing at all to do with what i did say in the first place . and not only that it is part of the game of what your saying

You do realize that Abaddon is the name for one of the various realms of the dead in various religious texts, right? Greek mythology (the religion of the Greeks turned into Greek Mythology), Judaism, Christianity.

So if the game were to ban anything related to real world religions, they would have to remove Abaddon and any assorted lore. Or at least rename it. It's hypocritical is it not if you say members can't use those names, but ANet can.

Plus, several religious names are popular names for regular folk. Do you have problems with people who name their humans: Matthew, Paul, John, Sarah, Ruth? And my display name is the phonetic spelling of the Japanese pronunciation of my name: Sarah. So you're saying I should be banned for life because of my real life legal name?

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Seera.5916 said:

> >I wouldn't have a problem with your suggestion being put in, but you need to not make claims that will not be achievable or that the current situation is any way bad for the specialization. It's not bad for it to be complicated and take skill and dedication to master. Sure, it will attract a different subset of the population, but that's not a bad thing either.

>

> "Bad" and "good," is subjective, obviously, but I think that overall, it's best to give classes the potential to appeal to the widest possible spectrum of players as possible. After all, we only get one new spec per class, per 2-3 years. There are some people around here who seem to take a view "so long as a given spec is good at doing one very tiny portion of the game, that's fine." I disagree. I think that every spec should be good in every mode, and that every player who likes the general _concept_ of the spec should have away of playing it that they enjoy, _within reason._ Basically I think that anyone who wants to play a Weaver should be able to play a Weaver, regardless of skill level or _interest_ in skill level.

> Now, _within_ each spec I think it's fine to have sub-specs, trait and build combinations that are specific to a certain portion, like only useful in PvP, or only useful in Raiding, or only useful for very high skill players, but this should only be _one_ way to go within each build.

>

> Sure, you can design a spec to only be suited to a very small portion of the players, but why would you do that when instead it could appeal to a much larger audience? Why shouldn't lower "fiddly" Eles have anything new to do with their class between now and the next expansion?

>

> >How is the ability to improve oneself not a benefit? Do you mean it's up to the player to take advantage of that benefit?

>

> This is a very subjective benefit. Many players value having fun in the game over getting better at playing it, and might see "improving how you play a game" as a bit of a waste of their time and energy when they could be improving practical aspects of their lives, and just playing the game for entertainment and relaxation. To each their own.

>

> >And adding it in as a trait means one of the other traits Weaver currently has has to go. Which trait should be removed?

>

> I'm very flexible on that, which do you think should be removed? Keep in mind that the actual effects of it could be juggled over to a different trait, or if it were something particularly suited to the existing methods, it could just take over that option. Just off the top of my head though, I might mix and match a few existing traits. Maybe combine Elemental Pursuit and Swift Revenge into a single Adept or Master trait, and make this new control system, "Antipode Wielder" into the remaining slot. Or shift Invigorating Strikes to Major instead, and put Antipode Wielder into a GM slot. Whichever.

>

> > Because theoretically 1/3 of all Weavers would have that trait you removed. 1/3 of a subset isn't something to just casually toss aside because of another group of unknown size.

>

> Rather than speak in hypotheticals, it would be worth trying to determine the relative sizes of these groups before making any decisions. I am confident that a compromise could be reached that would please more people than it upset, but either way it's worth trying to determine those numbers. I'm sure ANet will be able to compile numbers of Weaver users verses other Ele specs and other PoF specs, how many of them choose which traits, things like that.

Attracting another subset of players when you don't push away others from a game (there are other less complicated specs out there) is not a subjective usage of "not a bad thing". It would be entirely different if all of the other specs in the game were complicated but Weaver wasn't and someone wanted to make Weaver complicated. Then that would be a subjective usage. Right now we're at mostly all uncomplicated with Weaver being added as a complicated one.

Yea, Weaver is a sub-spec of Elementalist. It's one of the options you can pick when you want to delve into a complicated spec. I'd be more upset if the only way to get a complicated spec is to pick a certain series of traits. Because then that's boring. One would not be able to shake things up without making it uncomplicated. It will have some metas for complicated raid builds, complicated WvW builds, complicated Fractal builds, complicated PvP builds, complicated open world builds.

Again, you're confusing something being a benefit and someone taking advantage of a benefit. Many places of employment have benefit packages including things like health care. There's also an option to turn parts of that package down and not take advantage of it. Doesn't mean that their company didn't offer the benefit of health care. Just that they didn't take advantage of it. Complicated specs give players the benefit of being able to improve their play. Whether or not they take advantage of it is entirely up to them.

I'd say all players do *want* to get better a game. Who wouldn't want to get better at something (short of illegal things)? Some players may just not care how fast they get better at the game and don't care if they've plateaued for long periods of time. Some players are annoyed by any length of time they aren't getting better at a game. Some also really would rather get better but accept that they aren't going to as fast as they want or have limitations that prevent them from doing so.

I don't know what trait to remove. Builds aren't my strong suit in the game. I'd love to improve on that, but I've got more important things in my life than theory crafting builds. That's why I punted it to you since you're the one who suggested it. You should put in the work to figure out just how they should change the game to fit in your trait.

And if I can't use words that indicate how many players are in a group, neither can you. So you can't say many more would prefer your set up to the one that's currently in place.

My option isn't there: did not have a preference either way.

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Seera.5916 said:

> > More complicated professions give players the ability to improve themselves. So even the hardest profession out there offers something to players.

>

> That's up to players whether they see that as a benefit or not. If players want to take advantage of that "feature," then great. If they see that as something they don't care about, then it might be better for _them_ to have alternatives. To each their own.

I wouldn't have a problem with your suggestion being put in, but you need to not make claims that will not be achievable or that the current situation is any way bad for the specialization. It's not bad for it to be complicated and take skill and dedication to master. Sure, it will attract a different subset of the population, but that's not a bad thing either.

How is the ability to improve oneself not a benefit? Do you mean it's up to the player to take advantage of that benefit? And adding it in as a trait means one of the other traits Weaver currently has has to go. Which trait should be removed? What do you tell the people who had that trait as part of their build who wouldn't want to use your trait? Why does the group you're arguing for trump that other group? Because theoretically 1/3 of all Weavers would have that trait you removed. 1/3 of a subset isn't something to just casually toss aside because of another group of unknown size.

More complicated professions give players the ability to improve themselves. So even the hardest profession out there offers something to players.

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Razor.6392 said:

> > I think there are already pleeeeeeeenty of easy-mode specs as it is. If anything, there's a shortage of complex ones. Why should every spec cater to casual players? Leave some for those that love a challenge too! There's beauty in variety.

>

> It's not about quantity. 100% of specs should be fun and playable by 100% of players. Again though, the original complicated version could still be available for those that prefer it, this would just be an alternative. For players who are good enough to make the most out of the existing method, this should be balanced out to be the absolute best version to use. The simplified method would be balanced out to be equivalent in performance to a more casual player half-kittening his way through the current version.

>

> > @Ulion.5476 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 That is why A-net has suggested using **Unravel** when you are learning how to play the weaver. You are giving up a utility for it but most spec have a free utility slot for whatever. The rotations really matter for pvp/wvw more than pve/raider, since its about burst and timing for your survival.

>

> I haven't spent enough time on Weaver yet, but from what I understand, Unravel not only takes up a Utility slot, but also disables Dual powers, which is the entire point of the spec. I mean, what advantage is there to playing a Weaver with Unravel on over a vanilla Ele? The method I suggested would allow players to fully use the dual-attack options, just in a way that is more direct than the standard Weaver method.

Weaver is currently playable to all. Fun is subjective and ANet can't make every class fun for everyone, it's impossible.

Not all classes or specializations need to be easy for everyone to master. There should be some really easy ones for the players who can't or don't want to get better at the game. There should conversely be some complicated ones for the players who enjoy the challenge.

The balance should be in that and not making all classes and all specializations able to be mastered by the lowest common denominator.

If they do your suggestion it should be a trait. A player who chooses to lose the cool down to swap attunement positions, should give up something else.

Report in game or submit a support ticket.

But in the meantime, remove the player's name from your post. It's against the rules to name and shame.