Einlanzer.1627

> @Osu.6307 said:

> Anet, when people said they hated meta events because they were grindy/boring/repetitive, etc., what they really meant was "WE WANT MORE META EVENTS!!!"

The metas don't matter. It's just about what there is to work toward. People complained about metas because they required too much coordination. They were right. But, now, we don't have much that's enjoyable to work toward in PoF. I think part of the problem is that they made it so you gain mastery XP really fast when it was really slow in HoT. Part of it is that they put too much stuff in the gem store.

> @Nikal.4921 said:

> Nothing going on in PoF zones this morning, so I logged. This has become an all-too-common occurrence. What's the point of playing PoF zones if all the rewards are in the gem shop?

>

> I can't even bear just getting out and exploring, what with hordes of insta-respawn mobs tailing me every foot of the way. I just, I'm just really disappointed.

Yeah, I have to second this. It was really great for the first couple of weeks, but they just didn't do a good enough job of making it attractive for the longer term. I also agree that they are just putting too many "rewards" in the gem store as opposed to in-game at this point. Anyone smart should realize that repeated cash grabs don't really work and only drive away people. If you make a high quality, immersive game, people will spend money on it.

Just like with HoT before it, we needed a lot more than we got with this expansion - new weapons, new dungeons, and attractive, repeatable content. Mike calling it a "content-focused expansion" to set it apart from HoT was a false advertisement. My only hope is that LW 4 will move forward very soon and that we'll get all of these things as part of that that act to fill out the world that PoF started.

For a pure damage auto, it's really weak and makes it so that Air is rarely competitive with Fire on Staff. Arguably, Stoning and Water Blast could use one also so those attunements could be usable when solo.

I agree Rev needs more skills, but my preferred approach would be to revise the way the class works rather than just adding a new skill to each legend. I'd keep the current skills for each legend as-is, but then add a non-legend mode with about 10 new generic skills that can be customized on the bar. Then you could swap into and out of invocation mode with legends. You could then build a loadout that synergizes with whatever legend(s) you have equipped.

I know this is a feature everyone really wants, but, honestly, for me, the biggest bang for buck as part of build templates would be for the game to just remember your equipped traits when you swap around specializations. I'm really surprised this wasn't done from the beginning.

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> I do really hope we won't.

> Mounts are skills related, and more beasts could mean more skills.

> Also i want to be able to recognize what kind of mount ( and what skill ) a determined players can use with the mount he's riding.

>

> At last, game was already ruined enough by flashy colours, auras and gliders.

> I feel no need for dragon mounts ( since dragons are mostly enemies and rare beings ) and so on.

If they go this route, but my suspicion is if we don't get new species via skins, we won't get new species period. Maybe one solution is to provide a "basic" mount with no skills that can have more variable skins (horses, etc.) that doesn't require any mastery or anything.

Whatever happens with the mount skins in the future, are we going to get skins that change the species of mounts? Because, if not, that was incredibly shortsighted.

I haven't had a chance to play around with this yet, but one of the reasons it conceptually bothers me is that core Rev does not have access to shield, so having oh sword be a hybrid defense/utility weapon makes more sense than having it be a second offensive weapon comparable to oh axe.`OH Axe works well as an offensive weapon for both condition and power builds, which is why it made more sense for OH Sword to be more utility/defense.

On the other hand, it does fit the "assassin" theme better.

As usual, too myopic, not big picture enough. Arenanet needs to get their act together.

Desert highlands is the best, with Elonian Riverlands being second. The oasis is a little meh, and Desolation and Vabbi are just a little too mob-crazy and not particularly fun to explore.

> @BrokenGlass.9356 said:

> After reading this, I just have to sum this up with no particular emphasis.

>

> Disclaimer: I assume this post makes it to the balance team, "I love your game, but I don't care about your feelings. Listen up."

>

> The overwhelming majority of people posting here are unhappy with three things.

>

> -the timing of the new pvp season, and the balance patch.

>

> -the frequency of the balance patches. (possibly due to allocation of funding inside arenanet, or some other unforseen explanation.)

>

> -the lack of communication from the balance team.

>

>

> What this means. Changing the behavior that lead to these complaints will feel like eating crow and admitting fault. Sorry... But you're going to have to suck up that part and trust that our gratitude at the fact of the change will outweigh people upset with you guys.

>

> A developer live stream after each more frequent patch will result in more hype. Which means more returning players. Which means more gem store purchases, because returning players don't want to grind.

>

> More frequent patches will prevent the toxicity of the pvp community from clumping at the top or bottom. Pvp is toxic. Welcome to a game mode where there's always a looser. Hence always salt. Hence always toxic. So frequently patch it... In order to constantly keep the toxicity from settling. (you already split pvp and pve traits... Embrace this and patch pvp more frequently)

>

>

>

> Just saying. I mean.... What the community wants is clear. The fact that we don't get it... Makes us wonder why you aren't listening. The fact that you aren't listening makes us wonder if you care. The face that we don't know if you care makes us resent you.

>

>

> How do you fix a relationship where resentment has taken root? Begin a new, as though from the beginning.

>

>

> So Anet, any takers?

>

Great post.

> > @"Teofa Tsavo.9863" said:

> > > @Carighan.6758 said:

> > > Well, the annoyed minority are always the loud ones. That is because happy people don't take to the forum to violently yell about how incredibly satisfied they are. Just doesn't happen. They're busy playing.

> >

> > Always a good laugh, since John Smedley, head of SOE at the time, said basically this during the SWG NGE fiasco which was one of the biggest disasters in MMO history (actually covered by the Wall Street Journal). He freely admits now that not listening to players then was one of the worst mistakes he ever made.

> >

> > I also remember a protracted forum war here over "perceived loot issues" early in the game where Champions seemed to be on the same loot table as common trash.

> > We were called the "annoyed minority", chronic complainers, told that "happy people don't do forums" and all of the other boilerplate responses, as well as people stubbornly insisting the loot tables were "fine". We persisted, posted proofs, continued and that "annoyed minority" is one reason champs drop Chests now instead of a single porous bone. At times the "troublemakers" have a point.

>

> > @"Teofa Tsavo.9863" said:

> > > @Carighan.6758 said:

> > > Well, the annoyed minority are always the loud ones. That is because happy people don't take to the forum to violently yell about how incredibly satisfied they are. Just doesn't happen. They're busy playing.

> >

> > Always a good laugh, since , head of SOE at the time, said basically this during the SWG NGE fiasco which was one of the biggest disasters in MMO history (actually covered by the Wall Street Journal). He freely admits now that not listening to players then was one of the worst mistakes he ever made.

> >

> > I also remember a protracted forum war here over "perceived loot issues" early in the game where Champions seemed to be on the same loot table as common trash.

> > We were called the "annoyed minority", chronic complainers, told that "happy people don't do forums" and all of the other boilerplate responses, as well as people stubbornly insisting the loot tables were "fine". We persisted, posted proofs, continued and that "annoyed minority" is one reason champs drop Chests now instead of a single porous bone. At times the "troublemakers" have a point.

>

> One example out of thousands of complaints. Seem legit.

> > @"Teofa Tsavo.9863" said:

> > > @Vayne.8563 said:

> > > > @"Teofa Tsavo.9863" said:

> > > > > @Carighan.6758 said:

> > > > > Well, the annoyed minority are always the loud ones. That is because happy people don't take to the forum to violently yell about how incredibly satisfied they are. Just doesn't happen. They're busy playing.

> > > >

> > > > Always a good laugh, since John Smedley, head of SOE at the time, said basically this during the SWG NGE fiasco which was one of the biggest disasters in MMO history (actually covered by the Wall Street Journal). He freely admits now that not listening to players then was one of the worst mistakes he ever made.

> > > >

> > > > I also remember a protracted forum war here over "perceived loot issues" early in the game where Champions seemed to be on the same loot table as common trash.

> > > > We were called the "annoyed minority", chronic complainers, told that "happy people don't do forums" and all of the other boilerplate responses, as well as people stubbornly insisting the loot tables were "fine". We persisted, posted proofs, continued and that "annoyed minority" is one reason champs drop Chests now instead of a single porous bone. At times the "troublemakers" have a point.

> > >

> > > > @"Teofa Tsavo.9863" said:

> > > > > @Carighan.6758 said:

> > > > > Well, the annoyed minority are always the loud ones. That is because happy people don't take to the forum to violently yell about how incredibly satisfied they are. Just doesn't happen. They're busy playing.

> > > >

> > > > Always a good laugh, since John Smedley, head of SOE at the time, said basically this during the SWG NGE fiasco which was one of the biggest disasters in MMO history (actually covered by the Wall Street Journal). He freely admits now that not listening to players then was one of the worst mistakes he ever made.

> > > >

> > > > I also remember a protracted forum war here over "perceived loot issues" early in the game where Champions seemed to be on the same loot table as common trash.

> > > > We were called the "annoyed minority", chronic complainers, told that "happy people don't do forums" and all of the other boilerplate responses, as well as people stubbornly insisting the loot tables were "fine". We persisted, posted proofs, continued and that "annoyed minority" is one reason champs drop Chests now instead of a single porous bone. At times the "troublemakers" have a point.

> > >

> > > One example out of thousands of complaints. Seem legit.

> >

> > Ah, Vayne. I'm sure that "your guild and everyone you know" feels the same. Yes, it is a single example, not a list. Are you maintaining that no other valid issues brought up on the forums ever resulted in change? It wouldn't surprise me. And now I will return to simply not responding to you. Have a nice day.

>

> I'm saying that it's perfectly valid to assume more people complain than come to sing praises on any forum of any game. This is a valid belief. And it's possible if a bunch of people complain that they are a majority, but it's just as possible that they're a minority. Finally, listening to the playerbase is virtually impossible, since the playbase is so divided about so many things. It's very hard to find issues where the entire player base is in agreement, so listening to one side of the playerbase, in most cases, would denote not listening to other players.

>

> Even with mounts, the vocal player base was largely against them, Anet did them anyway and now the player base is largely behind them. Everyone in my guild is not really relevant to this conversation All you need is basic, simple logic to see that listening to the playerbase is hardly possible in most cases, and the most vocal complaints aren't always valid or accurate.

Your mount example is faulty. Mounts were a divisive topic, but always had plenty of support within the player base, which was apparent when you read any thread about them before they were announced. In fact, anyone with a brain new the game would benefit from having them, and the opposition to them was universally shallow, which can be seen by the fact that nobody is really complaining about them now.

Mounts were inevitably going to come at some point because there's no way the scale wasn't going to tip in their favor eventually due to the fact that the arguments in favor of having them were way more rational than the arguments opposing them. I was always surprised the game didn't launch with them, frankly.

Yes, players are divided, and they often don't really know what they want and ask for things without understanding them, but there's still responsibility on Arenanet's (or whomever's) part to listen to the player base and respond to feedback, especially when that feedback becomes monolithic due to widespread feelings on a particular topic. It's also important for players to be kept aware of the direction the game is headed in so the player base at large can provide feedback in such a way that the game company can react to it properly, which his SWG example shows.

Given how much VA there is and will continue to be in the game, it's not at all realistic to ask them to provide different voice actors across all sexes and races for additional options, however, it would be cool if they could add a voice tuner, allowing the player to tweak things like pitch and speed (within reason) to simulate older/younger/brawny/skinny types and whatnot.

> @Frozen.1347 said:

> That's no answer to my question, but whatever, didn't expect anything else.

>

> So, viper dps = berserker dps = balance? Well, nobody disagrees. But how big the difference between viper and berserker dps is, depends highly on the class and situation you are looking at. There is no general "viper builds deal x% more dmg than berserker builds" rule, so nerfing all condi dmg by x% isn't going to achieve balance.

>

> And the difference between PvE and PvP IS huge. There is zero correlation between a class' condi and power performance in PvE and PvP. Completely different builds are used, nobody cares about dps in PvP content. And you don't only have to factor in cleanses, resistance and heals, but also the ability of players to avoid skills (well, at least on paper human players should be doing better at avoiding damage than kitten AI ...).

It doesn't depend nearly as much as you imply it does. Viper condi builds beat berserker power builds almost universally, with only a couple of exceptions. This is an indication that whatever balancing paradigm they are using for conditions isn't working well. Obviously, it affects some builds more than others, and more tuning than just "nerf condi by x%" is needed; you have no reason whatsoever to imply I suggested otherwise.

The difference between PvE and PvP is not that huge, or at least shouldn't be. The only difference is that players have less health, evade attacks more, and typically have better access to resistance and immunity (which shouldn't really be the case). The reason no one cares about DPS is because fights are too quick for it to matter, which is exactly why condition damage has to be balanced around armor rating and way less around fight duration.

Ranger and Necro are great for solo open world play. Warrior and Guardian are decent options also.

I will agree with the general consensus that there is way too much stuff that is poorly explained in the game, and much of it isn't intuitive. This is true with both in combat and out of combat systems.

> @Frozen.1347 said:

> Why would you need gear with power to prove that condition damage is overperforming? Wouldn't that show the opposite (no good dps without power)?

> (Aside from this, carrion won't beat berserker)

>

> Now what might be interesting to test is trailblazer, because it offers the same condi damage + duration as viper minus crit and power. On some classes (certainly not on all) it could be close to berserker. Unbalanced? On paper yes, but well, who cares about defensive stats in PvE?

>

> And PvP is a whole different story, where a lot more has to be factored in.

>

> General across the board changes aren't going to work in either content.

Because all condition builds also deal physical damage, which is affected by power. If conditions were not overtuned, we would expect power major with precision/ferocity minor to be pretty equivalent in DPS on a power build to condi major with power/precision/expertise minor with a condition build.

PvP is not as much different as people make it out to be. The main difference is in the duration of most fights, and the availability of condi cleanse/immunity in PvP. The first is the reason why balancing condi primarily on fight duration doesn't make sense (if it's "Fine" in pvp, it will be OP in PvE, if it's "fine" in PvE it will be underpowered in PVP), and the second is something that needs to be scaled back alongside a retooling of condition damage.

> @jheryn.8390 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

> > > > @jheryn.8390 said:

> > > > > @bantern.7205 said:

> > > >

> > > > > Bruh. It's gambling.

> > > > > If Gems aren't money, then what you spend them on isn't a purchased product. Therefore, by their own legal definition, spending money on BLK to open BLC wouldn't be considered gambling, because no money is involved. JUST BECAUSE IT'S LEGAL DOESN'T MEAN IT'S MORAL. It's still definitely gambling by common sense standards.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > It's not. Legally it is not gambling just as I have said and just as you have written above. If it were truly gambling, they would be shut down. Not. Gambling. You may look at it that way, but those of us who deal with business law and finance do not. The real common sense is not doing anything illegal. Call it what you want. In the eyes of the law, it is not gambling.

> > > >

> > > > As far as morality, in this case it is subjective. I accept how you and some others see it, but some like me do not. Those kinds of perceptions are personal.

> > >

> > > Dude, the law is arbitrary. We aren't talking about what is and isn't gambling from the perspective of the American legal system.

> >

> > This.

> >

> > Particularly when the definition of the word gamble, according to oxford, cambridge, and merriam webster, all cover the current implementation of the BLC.

>

> Yes and I explained why those definitions do not work, but since you apparently know more than 99.99% of all legal systems in the world, believe what you want.

That doesn't even make sense. Legal systems don't work like science.

> @jheryn.8390 said:

> > @bantern.7205 said:

>

> > Bruh. It's gambling.

> > If Gems aren't money, then what you spend them on isn't a purchased product. Therefore, by their own legal definition, spending money on BLK to open BLC wouldn't be considered gambling, because no money is involved. JUST BECAUSE IT'S LEGAL DOESN'T MEAN IT'S MORAL. It's still definitely gambling by common sense standards.

> >

>

> It's not. Legally it is not gambling just as I have said and just as you have written above. If it were truly gambling, they would be shut down. Not. Gambling. You may look at it that way, but those of us who deal with business law and finance do not. The real common sense is not doing anything illegal. Call it what you want. In the eyes of the law, it is not gambling.

>

> As far as morality, in this case it is subjective. I accept how you and some others see it, but some like me do not. Those kinds of perceptions are personal.

Dude, the law is arbitrary. We aren't talking about what is and isn't gambling from the perspective of the American legal system.

> @Darkened.4076 said:

> This discussion has derailed somewhat.

> It really isn't a discussion whether conditions are out of control or not at this point. They are - and Anet and the other people riding the favour of the month need to accept it. Its seen in PVE and WVW [can't talk for SPVP].

>

> The games damage needs tuning, as does its survivability stats. I have already said [and have said for years] that its ridiculous that condition damage [to do its maximum damage] only requires 'condition damage' and 'condition duration' [condition duration not even really needed in WvW], whilst power builds have to balance three stats [and they are mitigated by armor]. The number of condition applications, corrupts and cleans are also out of control. Combat use to feel more like a tug of war where skill mattered.

What I really want to see is mass DPS test/comparison against the target golems using Berserker vs Carrion builds. I previously suggested Dire or Rabid, but I think Carrion is probably the better way to confirm since Rabid and Dire lack power, which is important in a lot of condi builds.

We should expect Berserker to outdamage Carrion pretty easily, with the possible exception of a target with an armor rating in the 3000 range. But I'd be willing to bet Carrion matches or beats Berserker, which right away tells us condition damage is overtuned.

My only complaint about PoF is what we didn't get, not what we did. Although, mobs need to be tuned down in some areas.

> @Sigfodr.9576 said:

> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

> > **low armor** - physical has advantage right out of the gate and never loses it, no matter how long the fight lasts

> > **mid-range armor** - physical has advantage at first, but swings slightly in favor of condition damage probably starting at around the 6 second mark.

> > **high armor** - condi has the advantage by the 2-3 second mark and maintains it from there.

>

> Not sure about the 6 sec, and the 2-3 sec marks. But besides that you are lucky. This is ganerally what we have now. No condi build can burst 40-50k dps on a low armor target like power builds can atm. And on high armour targets condi out preform power build fairly fast after the first burst

>

>

No, this isn't correct, because DPS benchmarks are usually done against the target golems, who have about 2600 armor. In player terms, this is a moderate defense - something a warrior would have with about 400 extra toughness. Against this target, we would expect condi DPS to maybe slightly outperform (10% or so) power DPS after about 6-10 seconds. But that's rare - condi builds typically outperform power builds much more significantly than that.

> @takatsu.9416 said:

> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

> > The problem with buffing Toughness and Vitality is that will impact direct damage more than it impacts condition damage, and that's the opposite of what needs to happen. I think the only real solution is to just go through every class and nerf various sources of condition damage. There are some that are fine - someone mentioned Thief SB above, and that's hardly overpowered as a condition weapon - but more of them are OP than are not. However, I would not be opposed to a buff to base health and would actually make the case that it would benefit PvE as well.

> >

>

> I think a good starting change could be the buff to vitality - that still helps for both all power and condi bursts after all

The problem with buffing Vitality is that it is already the more useful of the two defensive attributes, in large part because of how conditions work now. I think the proper solution is granting a moderate increase to base health as opposed to Vitality, and then scaling back both condition damage and access to immunity/cleanse, so that vitality and toughness both get an indirect buff. A lot of people complain about bunkers, but the main reason bunkers are a problem is because of their access to immunity and cleanse, not because of their passive defense or health pools. Making these two changes would reduce the survival time of bunker builds and increase the survival time of non-bunker builds - a win-win for the game overall.

Honestly, if I was in charge, I would seriously consider changing Vitality altogether to grant endurance regeneration instead of health. Health % bonuses could still come from sigils and food, as endurance regen does now.

> @jheryn.8390 said:

> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

> > > @jheryn.8390 said:

> > > > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

> > >

> > > > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gambling

> > >

> > > Both definitions are true.

> > >

> > > 1. the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.

> > >

> > > BLC are not a "game of chance". They are a grab bag. Also, when you purchase keys you are not pulling a lever or buying currency equivalents. You are buying an item. You cannot redeem them for anything other than opening a BLC. You cannot trade them with any other person, they are solely yours. You can keep them as they are or use them. You buy them to open a digital item you get in a game that has contents that all players are aware of that are randomly generated. You are guaranteed to get at least three things out of each these items. There is no risk of not getting anything.

> > >

> > > If you want to take a simple minded and literal interpretation of the #1 definition above. Playing GW or any game is gambling because loot is randomly generated. Driving your car to a place is gambling because you have no definitive guarantee of getting there safely.

> > >

> > > However, you keep equating BLC to monetary gambling which they are not. You never, not once, exchange currency for a chance at money, money equivalency or other stakes. You are buying digital items that you can use on other digital items.

> > >

> > > 2. the act or practice of risking the loss of something important by taking a chance or acting recklessly:

> > >

> > > Like buying BL keys when you think all you will get is junk out of another item. That's gambling. Or risking embarrassment trying to defend something you want to believe is something when it is not. That is gambling.

> > >

> > > And again, there is no risk of loss.

> > >

> > > Nice attempt, but no.

> >

> > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/game-of-chance

> >

> > I mean, really, do you not realize how absurd your argument is getting? The BLC system is a game of chance, and it is also considered gambling because it involves an input of currency that is either real money or some equivalent digital currency.

> >

> > You just keep on digging in deeper.

>

> LOL. It's funny, you haven't been able to refute anything I have said.

>

> You cannot prove that it is a game of chance, which it is not. Proof? Hint: Ya got none.

>

> The only thing that you can defend your position with is "I wanna be right, therefore I am."

>

> The only absurd thing is that you keep trying to defend yourself with the same ridiculous position. Give up while you are behind.

I'm the only one that has refuted anything; you have done nothing but provide baseless arguments that contradict easy-to-confirm definitions of existing terms. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever had in my entire life..

I mean, let's take a look at this line:

"You cannot prove that it is a game of chance, which it is not"

lolwut? Pay money to get a key to open a chest with randomized loot is not a game of chance? Even if I were to concede that it wasn't gambling (it is), it would still be a game of chance. I'm like dying laughing as I type this.

> @jheryn.8390 said:

> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

>

> > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gambling

>

> Both definitions are true.

>

> 1. the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.

>

> BLC are not a "game of chance". They are a grab bag. Also, when you purchase keys you are not pulling a lever or buying currency equivalents. You are buying an item. You cannot redeem them for anything other than opening a BLC. You cannot trade them with any other person, they are solely yours. You can keep them as they are or use them. You buy them to open a digital item you get in a game that has contents that all players are aware of that are randomly generated. You are guaranteed to get at least three things out of each these items. There is no risk of not getting anything.

>

> If you want to take a simple minded and literal interpretation of the #1 definition above. Playing GW or any game is gambling because loot is randomly generated. Driving your car to a place is gambling because you have no definitive guarantee of getting there safely.

>

> However, you keep equating BLC to monetary gambling which they are not. You never, not once, exchange currency for a chance at money, money equivalency or other stakes. You are buying digital items that you can use on other digital items.

>

> 2. the act or practice of risking the loss of something important by taking a chance or acting recklessly:

>

> Like buying BL keys when you think all you will get is junk out of another item. That's gambling. Or risking embarrassment trying to defend something you want to believe is something when it is not. That is gambling.

>

> And again, there is no risk of loss.

>

> Nice attempt, but no.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/game-of-chance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_chance

I mean, really, do you not realize how absurd your argument is getting? The BLC system is a game of chance, and it is also considered gambling because it involves an input of currency that is either real money or some equivalent digital currency. You're hung up on the idea of it not being gambling because you can't get nothing, but, not only is that a pedantic technicality that takes us away from the original discussion, it's also not even sufficient reasoning for something to not be considered gambling.

If you set up a raffle with an entry fee and a guaranteed payout, but the size of the payout varied by some RNG-type system - would that not be gambling?