Obtena.7952 Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 > @"Ryou.2398" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Lyger.5429" said: > > > I know the devs had good intentions with the recent reworks to deadeye and mesmer and it's awesome to see more dev interactions. However these reworks have been a good example of "good on paper, bad in practice". > > > > > > Mesmer has pretty much ruined pvp with it's clone spam, which also causes more lag. Deadeye is now both useless in pvp and pve, no longer even able to reach 30k with rifle on benchmarks. > > > > > > Please Anet if it ain't broke....don't try to fix it. > > > > Anet only fixes things they find broken though ... it's not open to player opinion or interpretation. > > > > > @"Lyger.5429" said: > > > > @"Lunateric.3708" said: > > > > Mesmer rework was pretty kitten good for the class, it also made possible things that weren't there before for it IE Power DPS Chrono. It does need some tuning in PvP/WvW so the main thing you should complain about is the slow pace of PvP balance/tweaking. Gotta keep it real, bro. > > > > > > > > Deadeye "rework" didn't really work out, I give you that, malice was basically made a non-mechanic and the whole spec is in a worse place overall. > > > > > > They didn't have to rework mes (not right away) because it was meta in all game modes. Plus chrono was meant to be a support spec not dps. They could have made another spec for that. > > > > Hold on here ... being meta in all game modes ... that doesn't indicate balance or 'things are fine' to me. Clearly, mesmer is doing alot better than most classes ... maybe too much so. i'm not surprised they have been getting some unwanted attention ... obviously mesmer players LIKE the current state of their profession, for reasons. > > Not opened to opinion? No that is wrong stop trying to censor others please there is no excuse for that behavior period, everyone has a right to express opinions about changes to the game where in the user agreement does it say that? Of course its opened to discussion and opinion, just like everything else. Express all the opinions you want ... but it's painfully obvious when some of those opinions aren't informed ones. And yes, opinions like 'please don't fix things because I like the old way' are poorly informed. Anet wouldn't have made the changes if they didn't feel they were necessary or want to direct play in a certain direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > > > No water mill has even been moved by still waters. > > > > > > > > > > I say any change is better than none, as long as anything that goes wrong can be fixed later. > > > > > > > > > > Continuous development demands change. > > > > > > > > There's a reason Coca-Cola doesn't change their formula anymore but rather introduces new flavors... > > > > > > Yeah. Because their original formula had cocaine, they can't go back to that. They got a new patent, and they can't change the recipe or they will lose it. > > > > > > > Completely beside the point since I said "anymore". Changing the formula because the needed to remove the cocaine in it is what would be considered a "necessary change". Changing malice because it is "bland" is what would be considered an "unnecessary change" or "change for change's sake". > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > And all those 'new flavors' are still change. > > > > > > > People that argue against overhauls like the recent ones don't dislike *additions* to the game. Removing options is the type of change being argued against. > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > And the actual flavor of Coca-cola also changes from depending on the water used to make it, because different minerals give water a different taste. That's why when I tried US Coke it tasted like what I guess is kitten kitten, compared to the delightful Coca-cola that is where I live. The temperature at which you drink it also changes the flavor. > > > > > > > The type of water is inconsequential as the processes the company uses to remove impurities likely removes most artifacts in the water that could drastically change the flavor. > > > > And it's funny you mentioned the regional differences. Frankly, coke flavor was a bad example for me to bring up had you done a simple google search. Coca-cola actually are changing the flavor of their coke in the US, but not for the sake of change. They are lowering the concentration of high fructose corn syrup to that of the levels of those in other countries, consequently reducing the calories. Likely the reason for their choice was decades of pressure linking regular consumption to various health issues. And they've been lowering the sweetness of the drink in increments for at least a year now. > > > > Also, what does temperature at which you choose to drink something have to do with anything? > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > There's nothing that is ever the same. Everything is always in constant change, except what's dead. > > > > > > The end to change is the end of everything. > > > > > > > Strawman. No one is advocating for static non-change. > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > It is not. Because change is never for the sake of change. > > > > Tell that to consumerists who will buy the latest iPhone, not because there is significant change in the phone or because their old phone is busted, but for the sake of change, hype and keeping up with the Jones'. > > > > Your entire argument is from an unrelated tangent that doesn't argue anything against the OP. > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > For mesmer, people would not use illusions the way they were meant to e used, their either spammed them a lot for shatters or tried to keep the phantasms up at all times. Phantasms had to be taken off the illusion cap they shared with clones to let mesmer gameplay be more fluent and not have people stuck in two opposite behaviors. > > > > > > > Because players can't be expected to choose what they deemed fitting for their own style of play? Explain in detail, why a trait could not be used to regulate phantasms being persistent or not (either it be a trait that makes phantasms persist or a trait that makes them not). > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > Now, as I said before, once the changes are done, adjustments have to come after that. In the case of Mesmer illusion spam, phantasms need a cap too like clones. They should not share their cap with clones, but they need a cap of their own, or they'll be spammed way too much all over the place, cluttering the screen and making gameplay less fun and harder to watch. > > > > > > > So a solution to a problem that was created by a solution for a problem that wasn't actually a problem. This is the definition of whack-a-mole balance. You tell the readers of this thread right now that it isn't. I dare you. > > > > > > Players can choose to do whatever they want, but if devs see them not doing what they were intended to do, you cannot be surprised when they keep doing changes aimed towards encouraging the intended behavior. > > For example, dungeon paths used to be repeatable with the same rewards. What people did? Repeat the fastest one over and over. > That was not the intended way of doing them, so they made the rewards diminish over time. People still repeated the fastest one over and over. > That still wasn't the intended way, so they split the rewards between a daily part and a diminishing part. People switched to repeating the 3 fastest ones over and over. > Of course that was still bad, so the removed a lot of the daily and diminishing rewards, and put them back in a chest for doing 8 different ones. What people do now? At least 8 different ones, which is closer to the intended way. > > A lot of "pointless changes" for many, and there's even people blaming the emptiness of dungeons to these when we know it's just that thre's way more things to do daily to focus on dungeons, after getting its collections. > > A particular individual or group of individuals not seeing a problem does not make it less of a problem. If your whole argument is "If ain't broke don't fix it" then it's all pointless, because they weren't fixing something broken, they were changing something that wasn't used the way it was meant to be used. > > > The changes to mesmers were needed because the way it was being used wasn't the way it was meant to be used. And more changes are needed now because it's impossible to foresse how people will use them after, and now we see people is spamming too many phantasms because they no longer have a cap. But since they can't share the cap with clones, the solution is simple: A cap of their own. > That's what needs to be done, not going back to the old version. And in your example, point to the part where the devs removed dungeons because players were doing then in unintentional ways. This is a good question that *does* have an answer. Also, the whole argument about intended use is a dangerous slippery slope. There is a difference between experimentation and exploitation. The previous iteration of Mesmer was not an exploitation and I'm unsure why you're categorizing it as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithranArkanere.8957 Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > > > > No water mill has even been moved by still waters. > > > > > > > > > > > > I say any change is better than none, as long as anything that goes wrong can be fixed later. > > > > > > > > > > > > Continuous development demands change. > > > > > > > > > > There's a reason Coca-Cola doesn't change their formula anymore but rather introduces new flavors... > > > > > > > > Yeah. Because their original formula had cocaine, they can't go back to that. They got a new patent, and they can't change the recipe or they will lose it. > > > > > > > > > > Completely beside the point since I said "anymore". Changing the formula because the needed to remove the cocaine in it is what would be considered a "necessary change". Changing malice because it is "bland" is what would be considered an "unnecessary change" or "change for change's sake". > > > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > > And all those 'new flavors' are still change. > > > > > > > > > > People that argue against overhauls like the recent ones don't dislike *additions* to the game. Removing options is the type of change being argued against. > > > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > > And the actual flavor of Coca-cola also changes from depending on the water used to make it, because different minerals give water a different taste. That's why when I tried US Coke it tasted like what I guess is kitten kitten, compared to the delightful Coca-cola that is where I live. The temperature at which you drink it also changes the flavor. > > > > > > > > > > The type of water is inconsequential as the processes the company uses to remove impurities likely removes most artifacts in the water that could drastically change the flavor. > > > > > > And it's funny you mentioned the regional differences. Frankly, coke flavor was a bad example for me to bring up had you done a simple google search. Coca-cola actually are changing the flavor of their coke in the US, but not for the sake of change. They are lowering the concentration of high fructose corn syrup to that of the levels of those in other countries, consequently reducing the calories. Likely the reason for their choice was decades of pressure linking regular consumption to various health issues. And they've been lowering the sweetness of the drink in increments for at least a year now. > > > > > > Also, what does temperature at which you choose to drink something have to do with anything? > > > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > > There's nothing that is ever the same. Everything is always in constant change, except what's dead. > > > > > > > > The end to change is the end of everything. > > > > > > > > > > Strawman. No one is advocating for static non-change. > > > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > > It is not. Because change is never for the sake of change. > > > > > > Tell that to consumerists who will buy the latest iPhone, not because there is significant change in the phone or because their old phone is busted, but for the sake of change, hype and keeping up with the Jones'. > > > > > > Your entire argument is from an unrelated tangent that doesn't argue anything against the OP. > > > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > > For mesmer, people would not use illusions the way they were meant to e used, their either spammed them a lot for shatters or tried to keep the phantasms up at all times. Phantasms had to be taken off the illusion cap they shared with clones to let mesmer gameplay be more fluent and not have people stuck in two opposite behaviors. > > > > > > > > > > Because players can't be expected to choose what they deemed fitting for their own style of play? Explain in detail, why a trait could not be used to regulate phantasms being persistent or not (either it be a trait that makes phantasms persist or a trait that makes them not). > > > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > > Now, as I said before, once the changes are done, adjustments have to come after that. In the case of Mesmer illusion spam, phantasms need a cap too like clones. They should not share their cap with clones, but they need a cap of their own, or they'll be spammed way too much all over the place, cluttering the screen and making gameplay less fun and harder to watch. > > > > > > > > > > So a solution to a problem that was created by a solution for a problem that wasn't actually a problem. This is the definition of whack-a-mole balance. You tell the readers of this thread right now that it isn't. I dare you. > > > > > > > > > > Players can choose to do whatever they want, but if devs see them not doing what they were intended to do, you cannot be surprised when they keep doing changes aimed towards encouraging the intended behavior. > > > > For example, dungeon paths used to be repeatable with the same rewards. What people did? Repeat the fastest one over and over. > > That was not the intended way of doing them, so they made the rewards diminish over time. People still repeated the fastest one over and over. > > That still wasn't the intended way, so they split the rewards between a daily part and a diminishing part. People switched to repeating the 3 fastest ones over and over. > > Of course that was still bad, so the removed a lot of the daily and diminishing rewards, and put them back in a chest for doing 8 different ones. What people do now? At least 8 different ones, which is closer to the intended way. > > > > A lot of "pointless changes" for many, and there's even people blaming the emptiness of dungeons to these when we know it's just that thre's way more things to do daily to focus on dungeons, after getting its collections. > > > > A particular individual or group of individuals not seeing a problem does not make it less of a problem. If your whole argument is "If ain't broke don't fix it" then it's all pointless, because they weren't fixing something broken, they were changing something that wasn't used the way it was meant to be used. > > > > > > The changes to mesmers were needed because the way it was being used wasn't the way it was meant to be used. And more changes are needed now because it's impossible to foresse how people will use them after, and now we see people is spamming too many phantasms because they no longer have a cap. But since they can't share the cap with clones, the solution is simple: A cap of their own. > > That's what needs to be done, not going back to the old version. > > And in your example, point to the part where the devs removed dungeons because players were doing then in unintentional ways. This is a good question that *does* have an answer. > > Also, the whole argument about intended use is a dangerous slippery slope. There is a difference between experimentation and exploitation. The previous iteration of Mesmer was not an exploitation and I'm unsure why you're categorizing it as such. My arguments are that change is better than stagnation, and that the way to go to improve things is forward, not standing still. You are mixing up things. One thing is having people do something unintended, other thing is whether that is good or bad, and another whether that is exploiting or not. People do lots of unintended things that are not a problem as they are, or that are not exploiting at all. In the case of mesmers, they didn't remove anything. They changed things. As we had either perma-phantasms, or just using them as extra clones to feed shatters. The intended use of phantasms is letting them do their skill first. That wasn't happening. So they made changes and now they are used like that. They are no longer a source of quick illusions for shatters, they take a bit to become clones unless interrupted, and they are no longer just summoned and left there, they do their thing, and then turn into a clone. The change had the annoying side-effect of having too much phantasm spam cluttering the screen, but they will only be improved by changing even further, not by going back. Phantasms need a cap to slow down the spam, not go back to what they were. The rework was a good first step towards improving mesmer. More need to be done. Change more. Forward. That's good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 Stop after you rework rev (to give an reason for energy mech it only restrict your already underpowered skills) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > You are mixing up things. One thing is having people do something unintended, other thing is whether that is good or bad, and another whether that is exploiting or not. People do lots of unintended things that are not a problem as they are, or that are not exploiting at all. > You're still using that "unintended" flag. Like I said, that is a slippery slope, as I'll demonstrate... > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > In the case of mesmers, they didn't remove anything. They changed things. As we had either perma-phantasms, or just using them as extra clones to feed shatters. The intended use of phantasms is letting them do their skill first. That wasn't happening. So they made changes and now they are used like that. They are no longer a source of quick illusions for shatters, they take a bit to become clones unless interrupted, and they are no longer just summoned and left there, they do their thing, and then turn into a clone. > [Phantasmal Force](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/2017-08-08#Traits_4): _This trait replaces the slot left open by Ineptitude and has the following effect: Phantasms gain a 1% damage boost whenever might is applied to them, and a 4% damage boost whenever they attack (maximum bonus 25%). This bonus damage lasts until the phantasm is destroyed._ This was a black and white trait created to benefit a mesmer's persisting phantasms. Since phantasms were implemented with the game's inital release, it's obvious the intention was to give the player the choice of keeping the phantasms for whatever benefit they deemed fit at the time or shatter them after their initial volley. If the former is unintentional, why would they add the above trait over 4 years after releasing the game if this was an unintentional game mechanic? Okay, so the devs changed their minds and thought "yeah, this is definitely something that should be changed". The next question is "why should it be changed?". Is it exploitive? Is it bad? Is it unintented? We'll assume its the latter and unintended. So? Practically everything the devs release end up having unintended use because the devs cannot be better at playing the game than a select few players who specialize in using very specific features to perform very specific tasks in very specific scenarios. This is evident in players who play tournaments, who speed run, who bug find, etc. Just because something is unintended is not grounds to change it. Because how much would you like it if next week, mesmer simply has *NO* illusions at all because the devs decided it'd be better to take Mesmer back to its GW1 roots? > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > The rework was a good first step towards improving mesmer. More need to be done. Change more. Forward. That's good. At the same time, it alienated many players who decided not to play mesmer anymore. At this time, no one is asking to roll back the mesmer change nor even the thief change but rather *NOT* to remove aspects of the profession without clear and pertinent reason. In conclusion : _"My arguments are that change is better than stagnation, and that the way to go to improve things is forward, not standing still."_ That's false. See the above example. Just because something is a change does not make it better than no change. I can write you a host of other examples, in-game and in the real world. Your perspective is flawed because you believe, since I don't think change is better than stagnation absolutely, that I believe stagnation is best absolutely. That is a false strawman and I suggest you put that argument down and tackle my *actual* argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryou.2398 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Ryou.2398" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Lyger.5429" said: > > > > I know the devs had good intentions with the recent reworks to deadeye and mesmer and it's awesome to see more dev interactions. However these reworks have been a good example of "good on paper, bad in practice". > > > > > > > > Mesmer has pretty much ruined pvp with it's clone spam, which also causes more lag. Deadeye is now both useless in pvp and pve, no longer even able to reach 30k with rifle on benchmarks. > > > > > > > > Please Anet if it ain't broke....don't try to fix it. > > > > > > Anet only fixes things they find broken though ... it's not open to player opinion or interpretation. > > > > > > > @"Lyger.5429" said: > > > > > @"Lunateric.3708" said: > > > > > Mesmer rework was pretty kitten good for the class, it also made possible things that weren't there before for it IE Power DPS Chrono. It does need some tuning in PvP/WvW so the main thing you should complain about is the slow pace of PvP balance/tweaking. Gotta keep it real, bro. > > > > > > > > > > Deadeye "rework" didn't really work out, I give you that, malice was basically made a non-mechanic and the whole spec is in a worse place overall. > > > > > > > > They didn't have to rework mes (not right away) because it was meta in all game modes. Plus chrono was meant to be a support spec not dps. They could have made another spec for that. > > > > > > Hold on here ... being meta in all game modes ... that doesn't indicate balance or 'things are fine' to me. Clearly, mesmer is doing alot better than most classes ... maybe too much so. i'm not surprised they have been getting some unwanted attention ... obviously mesmer players LIKE the current state of their profession, for reasons. > > > > Not opened to opinion? No that is wrong stop trying to censor others please there is no excuse for that behavior period, everyone has a right to express opinions about changes to the game where in the user agreement does it say that? Of course its opened to discussion and opinion, just like everything else. > > Express all the opinions you want ... but it's painfully obvious when some of those opinions aren't informed ones. And yes, opinions like 'please don't fix things because I like the old way' are poorly informed. Anet wouldn't have made the changes if they didn't feel they were necessary or want to direct play in a certain direction. Thats not the point, the point just because someone felt it was necessary hardly means it is, rather it is or not is not completely up to us but to say our opinions do not matter when they do use some of our ideas and concepts to start with is nonsense, we as a gaming community had lots of influence in game decisions this is why they ask us for our opinions to start with like any other mmorpg, maybe your new to mmorpgs but what you said is completely and 100 percent false, as far as what you replied to that opinion was not uninformed so your comment is completely unwarranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldrjth.7384 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 I dont expect them to leave DE where it is currently. There should be adjustments on what they done on the 8/5 patch (soonish I reckon), they are atleast looking at things like mid-air projectiles breaking stealth immediately after dodging into it. DE rifle needs something like a 30% dmg boost to bring into the dmg meta for raids though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeceiverX.8361 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 There are going to be adjustments made in the next few weeks. I just cannot fathom why people thought a stealth ranged OHKO design could ever possibly be healthy for the game. A number of the most prominent thieves have been saying since the dawn of HoT where people were talking about the rifle on thief that such a concept is incompatible with GW2. The DE rework attempted to resolve this failed design ideal. Some implementation errors absolutely happened, but people upset about a super safe class/build dealing top-tier damage being removed are delusional. And you know, Deadeye not being the highest DPS spec for the thief is okay. Raw math mandates that 67% of all specializations will not be viable in PvE and this number will only grow as more are released, too. To be honest, the Malicious Attacks change and the M7 trait being basically incompatible with nearly every aspect of the thief and current game-state (and general wellness of the game) are the real bad apples and areas for criticism here. These areas need major work if not redesigns in them of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimon.7840 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 Pls pls pls pls pls pls gimme that necro rework Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithranArkanere.8957 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > You are mixing up things. One thing is having people do something unintended, other thing is whether that is good or bad, and another whether that is exploiting or not. People do lots of unintended things that are not a problem as they are, or that are not exploiting at all. > > > > You're still using that "unintended" flag. Like I said, that is a slippery slope, as I'll demonstrate... > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > In the case of mesmers, they didn't remove anything. They changed things. As we had either perma-phantasms, or just using them as extra clones to feed shatters. The intended use of phantasms is letting them do their skill first. That wasn't happening. So they made changes and now they are used like that. They are no longer a source of quick illusions for shatters, they take a bit to become clones unless interrupted, and they are no longer just summoned and left there, they do their thing, and then turn into a clone. > > > [Phantasmal Force](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/2017-08-08#Traits_4): _This trait replaces the slot left open by Ineptitude and has the following effect: Phantasms gain a 1% damage boost whenever might is applied to them, and a 4% damage boost whenever they attack (maximum bonus 25%). This bonus damage lasts until the phantasm is destroyed._ > > This was a black and white trait created to benefit a mesmer's persisting phantasms. Since phantasms were implemented with the game's inital release, it's obvious the intention was to give the player the choice of keeping the phantasms for whatever benefit they deemed fit at the time or shatter them after their initial volley. If the former is unintentional, why would they add the above trait over 4 years after releasing the game if this was an unintentional game mechanic? > > Okay, so the devs changed their minds and thought "yeah, this is definitely something that should be changed". The next question is "why should it be changed?". Is it exploitive? Is it bad? Is it unintented? We'll assume its the latter and unintended. So? Practically everything the devs release end up having unintended use because the devs cannot be better at playing the game than a select few players who specialize in using very specific features to perform very specific tasks in very specific scenarios. This is evident in players who play tournaments, who speed run, who bug find, etc. Just because something is unintended is not grounds to change it. > > Because how much would you like it if next week, mesmer simply has *NO* illusions at all because the devs decided it'd be better to take Mesmer back to its GW1 roots? > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > The rework was a good first step towards improving mesmer. More need to be done. Change more. Forward. That's good. > > At the same time, it alienated many players who decided not to play mesmer anymore. At this time, no one is asking to roll back the mesmer change nor even the thief change but rather *NOT* to remove aspects of the profession without clear and pertinent reason. > > In conclusion : _"My arguments are that change is better than stagnation, and that the way to go to improve things is forward, not standing still."_ > > That's false. See the above example. Just because something is a change does not make it better than no change. I can write you a host of other examples, in-game and in the real world. Your perspective is flawed because you believe, since I don't think change is better than stagnation absolutely, that I believe stagnation is best absolutely. That is a false strawman and I suggest you put that argument down and tackle my *actual* argument. You are missing the point completely, because intention isn't mechanics. What people do specifically and the intention of the feel, the ebb and flow of the battle can be separate. Yes. Phantasms were meant to last longer. But the intended flow of the battle was summoning phantasms **and** shattering as the match goes on. They eventually realized that the initial design encouraged sticking with one of those two, instead using both, and after adding Chronophantasma and later Phantasmal Force with the intention of improving phantasms and letting them build up strength, they finally could see the problem as these traits only exacerbated it. Phantasmal Force and Chronophantasma encouraged people to go even further into the path of sitting on one mechanic, they could never work together very well, and it was more efficient to focus on one or the other. The intention of the original phantasm mechanic and the original Phantasmal Force was clashing with the intention for the Mesmer itself. The solution was changing them to encourage using both illusion and shatter mechanics rather than focusing on one. Still not removal. Still a change. A change derived of the phantasm change. It would not make sense to keep a trait that worked with the old way phantasms worked after changing them. You see this happen all the time with elementalist, when people tend to sit on one attunement, they change the other attunements to have more synergy and encourage using all attunements more. A skill gainst a blast, another gainst an extra effect on someone with a condition, and so on. Waver is the epitome of this idea, as you get +6 skills with attunements, the less people use any of those 6 on a weapon, the more likely they'd get improved or reworked to have more more or synergy with other skills. Change begets change. You keep seeing what was "lost" when nothing was lost. You know what would be a loss? An actual removal of something. Changes in mechanics, skill or trait names, that's just change. Two traits being merged into one and another added to fill the gap? Still change. Mesmers do not have any less traits or skills, they haven't lost any mechanic like illusions, distortion, hide in shadows or shatters. There has been only change. And after the change they could even do so much more damage that chronophantasma's power had to be cut in half. And you keep completely ignoring that any change can be changed again. This is an MMO, and that means Continuous Delivery, like Agile. After a change is done, more change can be done. It's impossible to know if something will work until it's Live. You can have a large QA team, and army of beta-testers and even a well populated PTR, and you'll only get a limited view of how things will actually work and what people will do. You can use that to make adjustments before release, but you will still need to see how things work on the Live version. Then adjust accordingly. What happens if you do not do any change? Issues remain there, and even if people do not see them or complain about it, these issues will do harm. People get used to how things are. The game become stagnant, the players become stagnant themselves, and the longer that goes on, the harder it will be for them to adapt when change eventually comes. They will be no different than bots coded for a particular behavior. That mentality will always be a problem with a game that is always in constant change. There's games that are released "as is" and may not have any more updates other than a bug patch, so one won't expect change when playing them. Whatever one reads in a guide should work forever. But that will never be the case in a game such as this one. Players in a game that is still being developed can't afford to be like a rock, fixed, immobile, sticking to that one build that works well, never trying something new. Because then when change comes, and change **will** come, that change will be their ruin. They need to be "like water" instead, like Bruce Lee said. Welcome change, see it as a challenge. Do not rely on particular builds and a fixed mindset, but in their own skill at using whatever tools are available to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucianDK.8615 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 MMOs never finishes developing until effectively abandoned and in maintenance mode. Strategies changes over time, and or the developers might shake up a stale meta. Plus bugfixes and content updates changes things further. Consider GW1, it doesnt get anymore updates. No reason to play it anymore, its a dead game save for the few diehards working on HOMM. So no, calling for no more updates and reworks is a ridiuculously bad idea. Plenty of classes needed serious work on them still. Revenants being one of the worst offenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlinvf.1358 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > Players can choose to do whatever they want, but if devs see them not doing what they were intended to do, you cannot be surprised when they keep doing changes aimed towards encouraging the intended behavior. > > For example, dungeon paths used to be repeatable with the same rewards. What people did? Repeat the fastest one over and over. > That was not the intended way of doing them, so they made the rewards diminish over time. People still repeated the fastest one over and over. > That still wasn't the intended way, so they split the rewards between a daily part and a diminishing part. People switched to repeating the 3 fastest ones over and over. > Of course that was still bad, so the removed a lot of the daily and diminishing rewards, and put them back in a chest for doing 8 different ones. What people do now? At least 8 different ones, which is closer to the intended way. > > A lot of "pointless changes" for many, and there's even people blaming the emptiness of dungeons to these when we know it's just that thre's way more things to do daily to focus on dungeons, after getting its collections. > > A particular individual or group of individuals not seeing a problem does not make it less of a problem. If your whole argument is "If ain't broke don't fix it" then it's all pointless, because they weren't fixing something broken, they were changing something that wasn't used the way it was meant to be used. > > > The changes to mesmers were needed because the way it was being used wasn't the way it was meant to be used. And more changes are needed now because it's impossible to foresse how people will use them after, and now we see people is spamming too many phantasms because they no longer have a cap. But since they can't share the cap with clones, the solution is simple: A cap of their own. > That's what needs to be done, not going back to the old version. I'm now trying to imagine raids if the rewards weren't time gated to once a week. Raids developed a lot of the bad habits Dungeons had, but with a higher barrier for entry and a much higher failure rate. As for those thinking mesmer was fine........ a Chorno tank was doing 4 roles in a Raid, 3 of which it was never intended for. Consider the areas that got hit the hardest in traits and effects...... Group Invul converted to Aegis, Alacrity altered to a Boon AND changed its potency, shield alterted to lower the amount of quickness a mesmer can generate, Phantasms now converting to clones to stop indefinite boon sourcing, and Phantasm skills faster cycling with clone conversion to encourage shattering without chornophasma. For any fight where people can cluster up, a single chorno was all they needed.... and this was putting a lot of pressure on the Chorno to carry a whole group during a fight. And when I say carry- If the Chorno made a mistake, or gets caught in a weak spot in its rotation, they could completely lose control of the fight. What they (Anet) are trying to accomplish is to break people out of a single build meta per class, and make people want to change builds with different raid segments. That didn't work for Raids 1-3, because they were designed more around basic ideas then actual builds..... after all, they expected players to fill in that gap. But moving forward, they have to start thinking about individual builds and team comp if they want players to adopt differing strategies, so players can't just figure out one solution and force everyone to use it. This same problem extends into a lot of other game modes, because class counters are harder create when base line defenses are as strong as they currently are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > You are mixing up things. One thing is having people do something unintended, other thing is whether that is good or bad, and another whether that is exploiting or not. People do lots of unintended things that are not a problem as they are, or that are not exploiting at all. > > > > > > > You're still using that "unintended" flag. Like I said, that is a slippery slope, as I'll demonstrate... > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > In the case of mesmers, they didn't remove anything. They changed things. As we had either perma-phantasms, or just using them as extra clones to feed shatters. The intended use of phantasms is letting them do their skill first. That wasn't happening. So they made changes and now they are used like that. They are no longer a source of quick illusions for shatters, they take a bit to become clones unless interrupted, and they are no longer just summoned and left there, they do their thing, and then turn into a clone. > > > > > [Phantasmal Force](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/2017-08-08#Traits_4): _This trait replaces the slot left open by Ineptitude and has the following effect: Phantasms gain a 1% damage boost whenever might is applied to them, and a 4% damage boost whenever they attack (maximum bonus 25%). This bonus damage lasts until the phantasm is destroyed._ > > > > This was a black and white trait created to benefit a mesmer's persisting phantasms. Since phantasms were implemented with the game's inital release, it's obvious the intention was to give the player the choice of keeping the phantasms for whatever benefit they deemed fit at the time or shatter them after their initial volley. If the former is unintentional, why would they add the above trait over 4 years after releasing the game if this was an unintentional game mechanic? > > > > Okay, so the devs changed their minds and thought "yeah, this is definitely something that should be changed". The next question is "why should it be changed?". Is it exploitive? Is it bad? Is it unintented? We'll assume its the latter and unintended. So? Practically everything the devs release end up having unintended use because the devs cannot be better at playing the game than a select few players who specialize in using very specific features to perform very specific tasks in very specific scenarios. This is evident in players who play tournaments, who speed run, who bug find, etc. Just because something is unintended is not grounds to change it. > > > > Because how much would you like it if next week, mesmer simply has *NO* illusions at all because the devs decided it'd be better to take Mesmer back to its GW1 roots? > > > > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > > > The rework was a good first step towards improving mesmer. More need to be done. Change more. Forward. That's good. > > > > At the same time, it alienated many players who decided not to play mesmer anymore. At this time, no one is asking to roll back the mesmer change nor even the thief change but rather *NOT* to remove aspects of the profession without clear and pertinent reason. > > > > In conclusion : _"My arguments are that change is better than stagnation, and that the way to go to improve things is forward, not standing still."_ > > > > That's false. See the above example. Just because something is a change does not make it better than no change. I can write you a host of other examples, in-game and in the real world. Your perspective is flawed because you believe, since I don't think change is better than stagnation absolutely, that I believe stagnation is best absolutely. That is a false strawman and I suggest you put that argument down and tackle my *actual* argument. > > You are missing the point completely, because intention isn't mechanics. What people do specifically and the intention of the feel, the ebb and flow of the battle can be separate. Yes. Phantasms were meant to last longer. But the intended flow of the battle was summoning phantasms **and** shattering as the match goes on. > They eventually realized that the initial design encouraged sticking with one of those two, instead using both, and after adding Chronophantasma and later Phantasmal Force with the intention of improving phantasms and letting them build up strength, they finally could see the problem as these traits only exacerbated it. Phantasmal Force and Chronophantasma encouraged people to go even further into the path of sitting on one mechanic, they could never work together very well, and it was more efficient to focus on one or the other. > The intention of the original phantasm mechanic and the original Phantasmal Force was clashing with the intention for the Mesmer itself. > The solution was changing them to encourage using both illusion and shatter mechanics rather than focusing on one. > Still not removal. Still a change. A change derived of the phantasm change. It would not make sense to keep a trait that worked with the old way phantasms worked after changing them. > And you're not understanding that everything you just said, whether unintentional or not, do not qualify as bad, detrimental or exploitive. So what is the problem beside the intention not being exactly the same? And you say both playstyle cannot coexist but offer no example or proof, because in my experience, either style has their weaknesses (i.e. you're not going to sit on phantasms against masses of foes below elite). Basically, you're working to justify why that particular change occurred but ignoring that such changes *CAN* be avoided, which is the entire premise of this argument. > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > You see this happen all the time with elementalist, when people tend to sit on one attunement, they change the other attunements to have more synergy and encourage using all attunements more. A skill gainst a blast, another gainst an extra effect on someone with a condition, and so on. Waver is the epitome of this idea, as you get +6 skills with attunements, the less people use any of those 6 on a weapon, the more likely they'd get improved or reworked to have more more or synergy with other skills. > > Change begets change. > But they didn't REMOVE an attunement or put a hard timer on how long you can stay in an attunement. They REMOVED phantasm mesmer. Phantasm spam mesmer is not the same as phantasm mesmer. > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said: > You keep seeing what was "lost" when nothing was lost. You know what would be a loss? An actual removal of something. Changes in mechanics, skill or trait names, that's just change. Two traits being merged into one and another added to fill the gap? Still change. Mesmers do not have any less traits or skills, they haven't lost any mechanic like illusions, distortion, hide in shadows or shatters. There has been only change. And after the change they could even do so much more damage that chronophantasma's power had to be cut in half. Phantasmal Defender is completely different from what it was. In many instances, it's worse as a defensive tool, replaced for an offensive tool. That is change. It is also loss. I have no idea why such a concept is ungraspable to you. I've explained it in plain terms but you refuse to acknowledge. At no point have I denied your points beyond just the fundamental of what change means. At this point, I can only assume you're intentionally trying to disrespect me as you just deny facts I present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZDragon.3046 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 They actually need to do a few more of them they just need to hit the professions people are really asking for and the ones that really need it rather than ones that dont need it as much. Scourge needs a rework Renegade needs a rework Cor nec needs a small rework Cor rev could stand for some small changes too. But im willing to bet we will see a rework for like firebrand or some mess like that come through next... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 > @"Ryou.2398" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Ryou.2398" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Lyger.5429" said: > > > > > I know the devs had good intentions with the recent reworks to deadeye and mesmer and it's awesome to see more dev interactions. However these reworks have been a good example of "good on paper, bad in practice". > > > > > > > > > > Mesmer has pretty much ruined pvp with it's clone spam, which also causes more lag. Deadeye is now both useless in pvp and pve, no longer even able to reach 30k with rifle on benchmarks. > > > > > > > > > > Please Anet if it ain't broke....don't try to fix it. > > > > > > > > Anet only fixes things they find broken though ... it's not open to player opinion or interpretation. > > > > > > > > > @"Lyger.5429" said: > > > > > > @"Lunateric.3708" said: > > > > > > Mesmer rework was pretty kitten good for the class, it also made possible things that weren't there before for it IE Power DPS Chrono. It does need some tuning in PvP/WvW so the main thing you should complain about is the slow pace of PvP balance/tweaking. Gotta keep it real, bro. > > > > > > > > > > > > Deadeye "rework" didn't really work out, I give you that, malice was basically made a non-mechanic and the whole spec is in a worse place overall. > > > > > > > > > > They didn't have to rework mes (not right away) because it was meta in all game modes. Plus chrono was meant to be a support spec not dps. They could have made another spec for that. > > > > > > > > Hold on here ... being meta in all game modes ... that doesn't indicate balance or 'things are fine' to me. Clearly, mesmer is doing alot better than most classes ... maybe too much so. i'm not surprised they have been getting some unwanted attention ... obviously mesmer players LIKE the current state of their profession, for reasons. > > > > > > Not opened to opinion? No that is wrong stop trying to censor others please there is no excuse for that behavior period, everyone has a right to express opinions about changes to the game where in the user agreement does it say that? Of course its opened to discussion and opinion, just like everything else. > > > > Express all the opinions you want ... but it's painfully obvious when some of those opinions aren't informed ones. And yes, opinions like 'please don't fix things because I like the old way' are poorly informed. Anet wouldn't have made the changes if they didn't feel they were necessary or want to direct play in a certain direction. > > Thats not the point, the point just because someone felt it was necessary hardly means it is, rather it is or not is not completely up to us but to say our opinions do not matter when they do use some of our ideas and concepts to start with is nonsense, we as a gaming community had lots of influence in game decisions this is why they ask us for our opinions to start with like any other mmorpg, maybe your new to mmorpgs but what you said is completely and 100 percent false, as far as what you replied to that opinion was not uninformed so your comment is completely unwarranted. > No, I think that is the point ... I never saw Anet ask opinions from us about why they shouldn't make design changes to things ... This isn't a democracy; it's not a player-driven design experiment in MMOs ... it's a business and Anet is the proprietor; they know their market better than anyone because they know what market they want to target. They direct the changes the way they see fit and they always have. Again, voice all the opinions you want; but make no mistake, some opinions are worth more than others. The opinion that Anet shouldn't change something because it's not in a player's best interest is one of those low-value opinions. The fact is that mesmer is not a hard done by class, so someone complaining that Anet changed something on it ... and that might be a negative impact on how it plays is a completely laughable opinion. The poster even admitted that mesmer is in a good place because it's meta in every game mode. How confused can a person be? The whole idea that Anet 'stop the reworks' is completely preposterous to begin with ... why would anyone take that as a serious and well thought out opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 > @"ZDragon.3046" said: > They actually need to do a few more of them they just need to hit the professions people are really asking for and the ones that really need it rather than ones that dont need it as much. > Scourge needs a rework > Renegade needs a rework > Cor nec needs a small rework > Cor rev could stand for some small changes too. > > But im willing to bet we will see a rework for like firebrand or some mess like that come through next... Counter to my previous points, I'm not opposed to reworks _when it's needed_. I've heard a lot posters expressed the needs of Renegade and Revenant so there very well might be a high need to revamp the profession as a whole or change the concept of energy. But drastic changes to the core of a profession or the game as a whole should be something people look upon with extreme criticism and should be uncommon/rare. For example, the trait rework...what if every 4 months they just completely redid how traits work like they did in the past (requiring gold to unlock, unlocking via events, locking traits to 3 lines at a time, etc)? Wouldn't be very fun, now would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tashigi.3159 Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 Agreed. If you're going to rework something, at LEAST let the community test it in a PTR of sorts. If you can't do that, then just don't rework classes. I've been bummed about the Deadeye rework since day one. You took away the coolest aspect of that spec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlippyCheeze.5483 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 > @"Tashigi.3159" said: > Agreed. If you're going to rework something, at LEAST let the community test it in a PTR of sorts. If you can't do that, then just don't rework classes. > I've been bummed about the Deadeye rework since day one. You took away the coolest aspect of that spec. This is vastly less helpful than you imagine: while it will occasionally turn up bugs before release, it mostly is ineffective as the stuff that doesn't get caught with internal testing is the stuff that doesn't show up until 10,000 people try the thing all at once, because it is a super-rare issue. (...or, honestly, because no matter how silly doing something is, one of 'em is gonna try it, while the developers and beta testers? prolly not.) It definitely would not be a "community vote on features and reworks" experience anywhere; that just isn't going to happen. So, while you are clearly and reasonably disappointed by the changes, a play-test realm would not have significantly altered the overall flow of events here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > @"Tashigi.3159" said: > > Agreed. If you're going to rework something, at LEAST let the community test it in a PTR of sorts. If you can't do that, then just don't rework classes. > > I've been bummed about the Deadeye rework since day one. You took away the coolest aspect of that spec. > > This is vastly less helpful than you imagine: while it will occasionally turn up bugs before release, it mostly is ineffective as the stuff that doesn't get caught with internal testing is the stuff that doesn't show up until 10,000 people try the thing all at once, because it is a super-rare issue. (...or, honestly, because no matter how silly doing something is, one of 'em is gonna try it, while the developers and beta testers? prolly not.) > > It definitely would not be a "community vote on features and reworks" experience anywhere; that just isn't going to happen. So, while you are clearly and reasonably disappointed by the changes, a play-test realm would not have significantly altered the overall flow of events here. That's the thing about player test servers, it's not a core of beta testers, it's the entire player community that is willing to log into a server that has no link to their main account. This type of test server also has the benefit of trying more experimental solutions that won't get transferred to the main servers. Things that end up having intruiging results or results that had unintended benefits could be fit into future solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlippyCheeze.5483 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > > @"Tashigi.3159" said: > > > Agreed. If you're going to rework something, at LEAST let the community test it in a PTR of sorts. If you can't do that, then just don't rework classes. > > > I've been bummed about the Deadeye rework since day one. You took away the coolest aspect of that spec. > > > > This is vastly less helpful than you imagine: while it will occasionally turn up bugs before release, it mostly is ineffective as the stuff that doesn't get caught with internal testing is the stuff that doesn't show up until 10,000 people try the thing all at once, because it is a super-rare issue. (...or, honestly, because no matter how silly doing something is, one of 'em is gonna try it, while the developers and beta testers? prolly not.) > > > > It definitely would not be a "community vote on features and reworks" experience anywhere; that just isn't going to happen. So, while you are clearly and reasonably disappointed by the changes, a play-test realm would not have significantly altered the overall flow of events here. > > That's the thing about player test servers, it's not a core of beta testers, it's the entire player community that is willing to log into a server that has no link to their main account. Yes. The WoW developers tell us that the proportion of players who do that is very low. The proportion who do it and report issues is minuscule; most of the people who log in expect fully polished and complete content, and complain if it is not delivered in that form. > This type of test server also has the benefit of trying more experimental solutions that won't get transferred to the main servers. Things that end up having intruiging results or results that had unintended benefits could be fit into future solutions. You are absolutely correct in everything you say, other than the assumption that "willing to log into a server..." is a significant enough proportion of the player base to help, or that random players are good at reporting issues they discover there. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > > > @"Tashigi.3159" said: > > > > Agreed. If you're going to rework something, at LEAST let the community test it in a PTR of sorts. If you can't do that, then just don't rework classes. > > > > I've been bummed about the Deadeye rework since day one. You took away the coolest aspect of that spec. > > > > > > This is vastly less helpful than you imagine: while it will occasionally turn up bugs before release, it mostly is ineffective as the stuff that doesn't get caught with internal testing is the stuff that doesn't show up until 10,000 people try the thing all at once, because it is a super-rare issue. (...or, honestly, because no matter how silly doing something is, one of 'em is gonna try it, while the developers and beta testers? prolly not.) > > > > > > It definitely would not be a "community vote on features and reworks" experience anywhere; that just isn't going to happen. So, while you are clearly and reasonably disappointed by the changes, a play-test realm would not have significantly altered the overall flow of events here. > > > > That's the thing about player test servers, it's not a core of beta testers, it's the entire player community that is willing to log into a server that has no link to their main account. > > Yes. The WoW developers tell us that the proportion of players who do that is very low. The proportion who do it and report issues is minuscule; most of the people who log in expect fully polished and complete content, and complain if it is not delivered in that form. > > > This type of test server also has the benefit of trying more experimental solutions that won't get transferred to the main servers. Things that end up having intruiging results or results that had unintended benefits could be fit into future solutions. > > You are absolutely correct in everything you say, other than the assumption that "willing to log into a server..." is a significant enough proportion of the player base to help, or that random players are good at reporting issues they discover there. :) Well the proportion may be low, but what about the count? I figure, it has to be better than a hired core of beta testers. And I'm sure quality would be the cost for the quantity but it wouldn't be the sole source of freedback and reporting. I think the question would be, if such a change were put into their pool of options, how much more resources would it incur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlippyCheeze.5483 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > > > > @"Tashigi.3159" said: > > > > > Agreed. If you're going to rework something, at LEAST let the community test it in a PTR of sorts. If you can't do that, then just don't rework classes. > > > > > I've been bummed about the Deadeye rework since day one. You took away the coolest aspect of that spec. > > > > > > > > This is vastly less helpful than you imagine: while it will occasionally turn up bugs before release, it mostly is ineffective as the stuff that doesn't get caught with internal testing is the stuff that doesn't show up until 10,000 people try the thing all at once, because it is a super-rare issue. (...or, honestly, because no matter how silly doing something is, one of 'em is gonna try it, while the developers and beta testers? prolly not.) > > > > > > > > It definitely would not be a "community vote on features and reworks" experience anywhere; that just isn't going to happen. So, while you are clearly and reasonably disappointed by the changes, a play-test realm would not have significantly altered the overall flow of events here. > > > > > > That's the thing about player test servers, it's not a core of beta testers, it's the entire player community that is willing to log into a server that has no link to their main account. > > > > Yes. The WoW developers tell us that the proportion of players who do that is very low. The proportion who do it and report issues is minuscule; most of the people who log in expect fully polished and complete content, and complain if it is not delivered in that form. > > > > > This type of test server also has the benefit of trying more experimental solutions that won't get transferred to the main servers. Things that end up having intruiging results or results that had unintended benefits could be fit into future solutions. > > > > You are absolutely correct in everything you say, other than the assumption that "willing to log into a server..." is a significant enough proportion of the player base to help, or that random players are good at reporting issues they discover there. :) > > Well the proportion may be low, but what about the count? I figure, it has to be better than a hired core of beta testers. And I'm sure quality would be the cost for the quantity but it wouldn't be the sole source of freedback and reporting. > > I think the question would be, if such a change were put into their pool of options, how much more resources would it incur? No idea. Blizzard reported they didn't find it particularly useful with WoW though, in some of their game development conference talks. IDK if they still do PTR stuff or not, or why, given that talk came earlier than at least one PTR launch, as I recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Francois.4328 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 Actually, I consider the Mesmer rework a *massive* success. In every way possible. Mesmer is now one of the most versatile, fleshed out classes in the game, with major builds for support, power, condi, utility, everything! Deadeye rework seems poorly thought out, I admit. But the only thing wrong is execution of Malice. The actual new traits themselves are extremely fun and reminiscent of Assassin's Promise from GW1. I think the Deadeye rework can be alvaged with future updates. However, I do sorely miss the Kneel rifle gameplay of previous iteration.. Right now, Revenent next needs a rework, and I hope Trident is a preview of what is to come. > @"LucianDK.8615" said: > Consider GW1, it doesnt get anymore updates. No reason to play it anymore, its a dead game save for the few diehards working on HOMM. STONE THE INFIDEL! **WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimon.7840 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 Like for real. Deadeye was way to strong in wvw roaming. You could shoot from 1200 distance, do a shitload of dmg and still be mobile as f.... While having a lot of condicleanses. It was like almost unkillable in the right hands. And if it was pressured too hard you could just run away. Like for real.anet said in the trailer I guess, that deadeye is an immobile sniping class. So I take the most immobile class of the game, necro. Do you think you could reach the sniper and deal dmg to him? No as soon as you got there, the thief was long gone on another spot shooting at you again from 1200 range. And tbh. It would be amazing if anet could make proper balance. For example: scourge gets more supporty but looses dmg. Reaper gets more dmg and tankyness. So every class rlly has their uses. Like they did with ele or firebrand or even chrono and druid. Ele has support with tempest and dmg with weaver Guard has dmg with DH and dmg or support with firebrand Ranger has support with druid and dmg with soulbeast. Something like this for all classes would be nice. Not: core thief and daredevil are awesome for PvP, so deadeye has to be as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZDragon.3046 Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > @"ZDragon.3046" said: > > They actually need to do a few more of them they just need to hit the professions people are really asking for and the ones that really need it rather than ones that dont need it as much. > > Scourge needs a rework > > Renegade needs a rework > > Cor nec needs a small rework > > Cor rev could stand for some small changes too. > > > > But im willing to bet we will see a rework for like firebrand or some mess like that come through next... > > Counter to my previous points, I'm not opposed to reworks _when it's needed_. I've heard a lot posters expressed the needs of Renegade and Revenant so there very well might be a high need to revamp the profession as a whole or change the concept of energy. But drastic changes to the core of a profession or the game as a whole should be something people look upon with extreme criticism and should be uncommon/rare. For example, the trait rework...what if every 4 months they just completely redid how traits work like they did in the past (requiring gold to unlock, unlocking via events, locking traits to 3 lines at a time, etc)? Wouldn't be very fun, now would it? I think the concept of energy is fine with rev some things are just unfinished or poorly executed Renegade is a prime example of being poorly executed While in some cases somethings that were considered to be way too op mechanic wise got removed from Rev but now other professions have stances and things that are even more broken than those older mehcanics. Rev has lost alot without gaining much over the past years and thats leading to its under performance within the game overall. In the case of others i pointed out yes they should be looked at closely and reworked possibly even allowed to be tested within a PTB weekend so that anet has time to review feedback without trapping players into something new for what could be 4 to 8 months. I didnt mind the old trait unlock system to be honest I never had a issue getting what I wanted At the time you didnt have tomes to boost level you up from 1 to 80 instantly so you had plenty of time between your personal story to go do the events and get the gold. It wouldnt work in todays version of the game because it would be seen as too complicated to new players and just a bother to returning or current players when making new characters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now