Einlanzer.1627

Now that HoT is really not "the end game" anymore (Yes, I know it's still viable content and should remain so), should there be a tuning pass to make it more manageable for less populated maps and solo players? Not removing the metas or anything, but downgrading some of the champs to veterans, and improving accessibility to certain areas to make exploration less dependent on the state of the metas. Stuff like that.

I actually agree with the OP. I disagree with the reasoning that tuning them as regular skills would have some negative impact on the game. No, it would just make the game more interesting, and it serves very little purpose having intentionally undertuned skills.

IMO, it's totally fine if being an asura engineer carries some benefit that being a human engineer doesn't, and/or vice versa, as long as it isn't such a huge advantage that it became game breaking, in which case it would face balance iteration the way that normal skills and traits do.

The meta is more or less a non-issue. I actually kind of like the idea that character race could be factored into the meta, and I don't think it would have this tremendously bad impact on the game, because most people wouldn't care - they'd still play what they want to play. It's not like we don't have toxicity currently because people aren't already elitist about class. It's not like including race in that consideration would make toxicity worse, it would just make choices more interesting for people who aren't toxic.

Some of this revolves less around the level 80 boost and more just about how unusually bad Guild Wars 2 is at presenting its world and mechanics in a digestible way for new players. I've seen people quit in their first hour of playing just because a lot of stuff isn't intuitive and isn't explained well in-game, leading to a lot of frustration.

The issue with gating level 80 boosts is that it undermines their main benefit - getting your friends into the game and giving them an opportunity to play with you in new content while learning from you.

The main design mistake this game had was having 80 levels to begin with. Content doesn't properly fill it out, and it makes leveling seem overlong and shallow. If i could snap my fingers and redesign the whole game around 40-50 levels I would do so.

In addition to what's stated above, I also think a lot of the frustration on HoT's maps was too many champ mobs gating things like Hero challenges and mastery points, which they pretty much got rid of on the PoF maps. The bottom line with HoT in a lot of folks' opinions is that they erred too much on the side of making the maps too complex for how difficult they were, or vice versa.

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> Easy fight.

> Back to hero point ( i mean, use the hero point as wall ) and avoid being knocked out by aoe.

Yeah, I tried that several times. It didn't work.

Now that it isn't the "end game" any more, they really need to do a tuning pass on HoT and make it more manageable for solo players. Change some of the champs to veterans, and reduce the mob density, spawn rate, and aggro range.

Honestly, the best advice I can give is don't try to solo it. Take a least one friend with you, or, better yet, try to find a HP/mastery train in LFG. If you want to PM me I can work with you a bit in-game.

The other alternative you have is to do it out of order - work in PoF first, since it's more manageable, and the stuff you gain there (elites and mounts) will help out substantially with the HOT content.

> @Dawdler.8521 said:

> > @Boysenberry.1869 said:

> > I found him rather irritating. I try to stay at range, stability and dodge a lot. The worst part about falling is that the mobs below will keep you in combat preventing you from hopping back up there.

>

> Indeed, its an incredibly stupid design choice. This combined with a rather unannounced knockback (its not the obvious leap) on a very short cd make it almost as annoying as the dazing teleport ogre on DBL. _Almost_.

>

> That said 2 players will still make mincemeat of it because it doesnt have that much hp. IMO what it needs is an AoE indicator and a longer build for the knockback. Could even buff the hp then.

I honestly got angrier than I've been in a long time at this game trying to beat him. Then, just because I'm a masochist, I went back to the HoT maps and tried to finish some masteries. Needless to say, my day kind of snowballed downward because of that fight. Hahhah.

Seriously, is anyone else having problems with this guy? I have tried more than 5 times and cannot avoid getting knocked off the tower with a 10-20 seconds of the fight starting.

> @Feanor.2358 said:

> Because the idea of Staff is to stack your damage with Lava Font and Meteor Shower. And because a weapon where the auto is your best damage skill would be extremely boring and failed design.

A well-functioning auto attack is critical for a weapon to be generally usable. Weapons with bad auto attacks automatically become second-rate and highly situational in just about any PvE content, which is why so many Staff Eles camp Fire in most situations, which is actually what's boring. Not having useful autoattacks.

I find it ironic that you're calling effective autoattacks allowing you to properly attunement swap "boring" while suggesting that you should play Staff by camping Fire.

I've made a couple of posts about this in the distant pass, but I just really don't understand why Fireball is the only autoattack worth a damn on Staff. Sure, water heals, but it sacrifices too much damage for the amount it heals, which only serves the purpose of making Water totally unusable when solo. Chain Lightning fails to compete with Fireball in all but the most unusual circumstances, and the rest of the utility on Air doesn't compensate. And don't even get me started on Stoning.

They're just all really bland, and all but Fireball are also really weak. Is there any chance we'll see these updated in the future?

Yeah, it's....... not great.

> @hourglass.2486 said:

> > @"Endless Soul.5178" said:

> > Good to hear! I mainly play asura but I do have a charr character, and I love them!

> >

> > I think a better question is, you're a human in real life, why would you choose to be one in this game when there are other, far more interesting possibilities?

>

> I know. I tend to play human in all MMO's/RPGs and don't really stray from that but may have to now.

Because for a lot of people, the character is essentially an avatar for them in the game world. They still experience all the other interesting races from the perspective of a human, as they would if it was real life.

> @costepj.5120 said:

> It's not going to happen. Fractals have replaced Dungeons as the small party instanced content going forward.

It will happen if demand is high enough. My opinion is that FoTM alone is not an adequate substitute for classic world dungeons. I feel like eventually Anet will realize this and re-prioritize dungeons.

> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > @Einlanzer.1627 said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > I can't vote, because the poll asks leading questions rather than a simple, "yes|no".

> >

> > The answers are basically a simple yes/no. No need to be pedantic.

>

> While I find Illconceived's response to be a bit rigid, he has a point. You might have gotten more Yes responses had you not biased your own survey with the use of "high priority" and "starved."

I don't think it was that biased. The question was specifically _should it be a priority_ (because asking if you'd like to see more dungeons given infinite resources is silly), and both responses gave a token reason - FoTM is good enough, and FoTM is not good enough.

> @Malthurius.6870 said:

> I'm of the opinion that raids were a mistake and they could have produced just as challenging and engaging content sticking to a 5-man format. So yes, but not sacrificing FotM on the alter... but raids.

I actually have always thought the same. 10 man content is needlessly prohibitive, IMO. At the very least, they should make them scale for 5 or 10 players.

> @Exqq.7451 said:

> Fractals are basically the same as every other MMO dungeon out there, not sure what you're looking for?

I don't quite agree. For one, they are more like mini-dungeons. For two, they have a theme that is largely disconnected from the world around them. Having dungeons out in the world that are set to the theme of the surrounding environment, it tends to do a much better job of creating immersion and a sense of adventure that MMOs need to thrive.

> @Justine.6351 said:

> Idk, sounds like boring play but that just me.

I think it would be ideal if their chosen legend impacted their weapon skills in some way. I'm not sure how that would work though. I just know that the existing design for revenant feels severely lacking in polish, which I can't really say about any other profession (and, yes, I've extensively played most of them).

Something about the Revenant has always not quite felt right. What would you do to change it?

I think I would remove weapon swap, since it was the original intention for it to be more like Ele and Engineer. Then, I would give them a 5th pseudo-legend tied to the Invocation line - probably comprised of generic mist-themed skills that are designed to hybridize and synergize with other legends. I would then let them swap between 3 out of 5 legends instead of the current 2 out of 4.

I think the real problem with the Renegade, which has been pointed out by a few people, is that it just intuitively feels more like stuff that should have gone to core Revenant rather than stuff that comprises an elite spec.

I think that mostly Anet has dropped the ball on making core Rev feel like a polished, well-balanced class. They've just let it be half-finished and mediocre for a long time. Revs need a 5th core legend or some extra utility skills to slot in for build variety at the very least. Personally, I'd remove their weapon swap and let them swap between 3 out of 5 legends instead of 2 out of 4.

The expansion is fantastic. It did almost everything right, and GW2 has never felt more immersive, which is something it's been lacking since launch. I give it a 10/10 for quality of the the content it does have.

However, I have to call out the disappointment of not getting any new weapon types or dungeons, when the game really, really needs to have some at this point. In particular, this was the perfect opportunity to have spears/polearms on land, and it kind of blows my mind that it wasn't done.

Lastly, Revenants still feel incomplete and unpolished from their release last expansion and really need to get some core fixes. This is largely why the Renegade was rated so poorly compared to other elites. It's a concept problem with the design of the core class. I'd remove weapon swap and give them a 5th "legend" comprising generalized mist-themed skills that they always have access to in addition to the two chosen legends, which would be used to create better synergy between their other legend lines and their weapons.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> I can't vote, because the poll asks leading questions rather than a simple, "yes|no".

The answers are basically a simple yes/no. No need to be pedantic.

There's probably a bit of a material challenge presented by the dye structure. I'd love to see at least one more dye channel, but I want that less than I don't want mounts to be so colorful that it's immersion breaking. If they can find a way to add at least one other dye channel, but heavily mute it to where whatever color you select looks more natural, that would be ideal.

Alternatively, they could have a "skin color" option that's separate from dyes for the mounts, and would have a limited range of selections. Basically, instead of using standard dyes, they could have skin, hair, eye, and accessory color similar to character creation.

> @Pixlboy.5296 said:

> Ok maybe it might seems like OP has overreacted a little bit but I totally get his point.

> The fact that we now have a fast almost flying mount will for sure affect development of the game.

> From now on maps have to be designed with this sometimes gamebreaking mount in mind.

> Rest of the mounts and gliding feel like they're supposed to be helping in overcome obstacles in your journey.

> Griphon feels like it's just avoiding and skipping them altogether.

> Sure, not so many people got him, but it will change in time.

I honestly fail to see how the griffon is substantially different from gliding in what it allows you to do in the game. Gliding doesn't ruin the PoF experience; I'm not sure why the Griffon has to ruin future map experiences.

I see enough differentiation that I don't think gliding is obsolete, nor do I think the griffon makes other mounts obsolete, which IMO was WoW's biggest problem. Being able to glide in combat is a huge advantage, and it will still see use just for that reason. Mounting up also requires some room and requires a click and sometimes isn't worth it even when out of combat - especially if you're doing a lot of precision falling or jumping from ledge to ledge hopping. Also, because of the masteries tied to gliding like the updraft and ley line gliding, it will always see plenty of use in HoT maps at the very least.

I think they did the griffon right, and I'm kind of excited to get it. I'll still buy glider skins I like :) I'll also buy griffon skins I like when they inevitably start releasing them.

> @Panda.1967 said:

> a.) most condi cleanses already do only remove a certain number of stacks or certain conditions, there are very few that remove all active conditions.

>

> b.) I agree, regen should stack in intensity, its rather useless as a duration stack.

>

> c.) That would be terrible... HP stats like Vitality are important for any MMO that has even a remotely freeform build system, which GW2 does. Toughness shouldn't be split off from armor either, all you'd accomplish there is making a reliance on everyone to stack toughness to counter conditions and it'd be impossible to build high damage resistance builds since everyone in every armor class would have the same armor values. Instead, we should get 50% benefit of armor+toughness to condition damage. Some might try to reason "how will armor reduce the damage you take from a condition" well, lets look at bleeding as an example. If you get cut through armor, the cut isn't going to be as deep, the armor absorbed part of the impact and saved you from a more devastating injury, as a result you're bleeding less. If that's too strong, they could work it out to have them translate into reduced duration of incoming conditions.

Some of your comments on c. don't hold a lot of water, IMO. The vitality comment in particular doesn't really make sense, since dodging and damage mitigation would already be variable - health doesn't really need to be as well. I actually think the system would work better if Health wasn't variable simply because it would give more weight to healing, which is kind of needed in the game. Although, you could still have Vitality affect Health pools by a smaller amount than they do currently with this change if Anet wanted.

In any case, everything you're talking about is just a matter of numbers tuning. Conceptually, having Vitality counter burst (through improving dodge) and Toughness counter sustain (through passive mitigation of all damage sources) makes way more sense than what we have currently, where both defensive stats are kind of half-ass and there's no attribute tied to dodging when that's the most important defensive tool you have. It's a major flaw and why offensive stats dominate the game from beginning to end - because offensive stats actually do more for your defense than defensive stats do in most cases.

My suggestion of not using armor for condi damage was mostly arbitrary; it doesn't matter that much whether they do or not. The important point was that toughness/armor should reduce both physical damage and condition damage.