Swagger.1459

A dev will read your complaint and see that YOU do not want to adjust YOUR build, although there ARE counters. Evidence of “I shouldn't have to re-spec every time I run into a druid in WvW just because they're insanely broken” clearly shows YOU are not willing to adapt despite the "tools" available. You just want the devs to nerf something you struggle with, because you can't be inconvenienced to build craft, or merely swap a build. And a players unwillingness to make an effort isn't a rational reason to change anything.

“I shouldn't have to re-spec every time I run into a druid in WvW just because they're insanely broken” Sorry, but that’s how the game goes. If you are expecting a super god build that can counter every other build then that’s your faulty thinking. Also, again, you’re getting outplayed. And if you want to complain about immobilized, then let’s also have a discussion about that constant barrier build that you run too... ya know, for balance reasons of course.

> @"zorokai.1486" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > "The biggest blow was the limit to 5 people for the damage." > > > > Nah, it's a good choice for several reasons that have been discussed for years. > > you say that but warrior GS only hits 3 people............. > > er balance please? Then make a post asking the devs to increase targets on the skill you feel should be 5 target.

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" Regarding your comment to @"fuzzyp.6295" of "You're just completely wrong."... I play heal tempest. You are completely wrong with this type of reaction... "Tempest officially gutted".

@"otto.5684" Well, you may be on to something! Maybe we get rid of everything except for Celestial?

> @"BeepBoopBop.5403" said: > 0/10 horrible kitten change. How is a skill balanced for 8 years then suddenly it's too good? HOW? Gotta look at the bright side! At least they didn't impose a 300 second recharge timer on it!

I think we need to cut down to 4 amulets only. 1 for power, 1 for condi, 1 for defense, and 1 for support. That's it. Would be perfect!

Don’t worry, in a few months it will be changed back. Then a few months after that it will be changed to the recent change. Then we may go back to the original design, then on and on in circles.

“In daoc... I have been in blobs that were decimated by 8 people...” I’m sure that’s a whole lot of fun for some! And if you really wish for that type of gameplay, then I want stuff like my deadeye to be able to blow up 10 people easily with rifle when I pop out if stealth! And I want to rush in on groups of 10 with a dagger/dagger soulbeast and rip em up to shreds!

Ok, well, if you increase attack target caps then your small group of higher target attackers will then face off against blobs that have bigger target attackers plus more boons and heals. You’ll lose anyway due to numbers and stats. There will be more lag. Devs already stated that as a reason why player skills have caps. You increase number of targets on skills then there will be even more AoEs, because to fight AoEs you will need more AoEs to counter. There are enough AoEs being flung around wvw as is, and I don’t think we need to double that.

> @"Mrgreen.8623" said: > It learns placement, movement, it's just different. But it can permit more. > And yes it's harder. But like I said: it's good when it's harder. (but it's better for the blob....) > > Like you said and like I said it's a topic that is discussed for a too long time. > But games without it exist and it works so... Ok, let's do this... You want to fight big blobs with less numbers and think that raising the target for attacks will help achieve that, right? How many targets do you want a skill to hit for? 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 or higher?

"The biggest blow was the limit to 5 people for the damage." Nah, it's a good choice for several reasons that have been discussed for years.

The trait change is fine. No big deal. Tempest still playable.

Here is your “something”! Enjoy! https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/119171/update-regarding-world-linking-for-eu-and-na-11-27

@"Magnuzone.8395" said: > lol they don't even care to respond. Amazing They did respond. You’re just not paying attention... https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/119171/eu-world-linking-status-11-27

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" I don't understand. I thought we were here talking about weapons and diversity through weapons? What is the "balance" and "false truths" stuff about? Just asking for weapon improvement ideas on lesser used weapons in pvp modes and how to improve them... You provided only one example, but we need the angle on more...

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" I don't think we need fully explore other topics outside of weapon skills. Besides, it’s easy enough for you to apply your understanding and keep presenting us with your revamped weapon skills that improve weapon viability and build diversity! Very awesome below btw! This game really needs stuff like this, so can you do more? “ Elementalist 1) Trait : Powerful Aura Aura's you grant to yourself are shared with a nearby allies. When an Aura ends, inflict 5 vulnerability to nearby enemies. If you are inflicted with 25 vulnerability when an aura ends, that aura is refreshed. Staff Abilities (Water) Staff 5 - Turn Vulnerability into Regeneration for allies and cleanse conditions. Enemies that are inside this field have vulnerability converted into healing for allies. Staff 4 - Summon a field of Ice, chilling enemies. Allies with an aura are healed while inside this field. Staff 3 - Place a geyser that resurrects fallen allies. Easily interrupted if you do not have a frost aura. Staff 2 - Splash the ground to heal your allies, and detonating allies auras around you (blast finisher) Staff 1 - Heal nearby allies for x healing, and inflict X stack of Vulnerability onto yourself for each ally you heal. At 25 stacks, Vulnerability is converted into a Frost Aura. Now I came up with these very quickly and on the fly. I'm sure if one were to spend more time, u could come up with all sorts of ideas for the rest of the weaponset”

I think we should buff thief so they are better for team play and we should give engineer 2 active weapon slots as a standard function.

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" Weapons are a very interesting topic for me. Now I don’t fully agree with the assessments of the OP, but I’m definitely interested to know more about how exactly you would apply science to fix underperforming weapon skills so we can improve build diversity in pvp modes! What specifics can you share? Edit- Let’s go down the line here... Can you please identify the lesser used and underperforming weapons and give some recommendations as to what should be improved so they are more widely used in the various profession builds? Because obviously the more viable weapons a profession has access to the more build diversity increases. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Weapon

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" What does "complexity theory", "computer science", "physics", "super computers", "anthropic reasoning"... have to do with the tons of pve skill designs and pve mechanics being used for pvp modes? Or the glacially slow profession updates and the many years between xpacs? Or the fact that we have been told many times that things are coming, but they do not? Or the fact that the devs will not make certain needed updates because they do not want to "screw over pve balance"? Or that "profession difficulty scaling" was held as a higher design priority over other areas of professions? Or the fact that at any given time there are limited amounts of skills, traits, and gears for professions that are impactful for pvp play? > > I literately just linked a 2 hour long video of a well known game dev that talks about how complex systems are involved in all aspects of game design. > > Even though some (but not all) the questions you've asked are some-what valid questions, this thread is about diversity. You can say that we don't have diversity because "game devs don't care," but that's not very constructive now is it. Nobody, including the devs who read the forums, are watching a 2 hour video... and one that isn’t related to GW2. The devs don’t want theory stuff either, they want specific and practical feedback that can possibly be applied to the game. And that’s what you are missing completely. Nowhere did I state, or imply, the “game devs don’t care”. That’s an assumption on your part.

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" What does "complexity theory", "computer science", "physics", "super computers", "anthropic reasoning"... have to do with the tons of pve skill designs and pve mechanics being used for pvp modes? Or the glacially slow profession updates and the many years between xpacs? Or the fact that we have been told many times that things are coming, but they do not? Or the fact that the devs will not make certain needed updates because they do not want to "screw over pve balance"? Or that "profession difficulty scaling" was held as a higher design priority over other areas of professions? Or the fact that at any given time there are limited amounts of skills, traits, and gears for professions that are impactful for pvp play?

Just wondering, why are you again trying to change what was designed to be a condition melee spec into a super support spec? Are you not aware of the Druid's design function and how much attention it needs as a support elite?

I think it would be beneficial if we took the time to learn about immobilize as a game mechanic so we can make adjustments and improvements to ourselves... https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Immobile

"Melee Attack Assist"... You mean collision and collision detection. "squads to tend to meatball formation"... That's because the majority of support skills are PBAoE. "benefit the bigger groups"... Welcome to the world of realm vs realm gameplay. "All players enter and stay in combat as soon as they are leave from respawn area."... What??? "Players can use uncontested Waypoints only while inside an uncontested structure."... What??? I really think you should reevaluate what you are trying to say and suggest honestly. Lots of head scratchers here...

> @"Jilora.9524" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"Jilora.9524" said: > > > Like I have the gold but why would I dump 70+ gold each weapon plus the time gate to acquire the new lodestones. 50 orich ingots 10 ecto per lodestone. > > > I legit bought the mark and pact black lion entire sets for less then 1000g and you get 14 tickets back like 560g back and you then think hey complete the new set for 20 AP and 12 AGs is somehow worthy of our gold. > > > I know alot will do these but just another set I'll skip because you think making these new weapons expensive instead of shaft hilt 4g inscription 5 ectos or something reasonable adds to your game. Well it doesn't > > > > This is what we call an _optional_ material sink. Material sinks like these are necessary for the game. > > And the higher you price it more opt out which then asks why and on top most include a MP. These type of sinks bring nothing extra imo. Legendarys and certain things sure. Lets throw a new weapon set together and add massive time gates and material/gold sink. My point is if I who has little issue making gold is skipping these things then the price is just unrealistic for the value of the skins again imo. > Everything is optional Swagger so that's an easy defense just no need to price out many players for no good reason Well you don’t need the weapons. The mp is a just a bonus. There will be plenty of other mps available. Don’t stress out over mp and optional sinks. What ways would make obtaining the weapons more reasonable for you?