Axl.8924 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 > @"Lily.1935" said: > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so > > I think Shroud in itself is higher priority for balance than Scourge is. Some of the scourge's issues is from some rule breaking Arena net had done. Such as the spammable crippling. Shroud has lots of problems, I wont argue that Reaper is better balanced, it has to be since it has the same basis as death shroud. But its not without major design problems. You still can't be healed by allies, are locked out of your utility. > > I Don't care for reaper. I've made that clear. Doesn't mean I don't want to see it buffed. I do. I want it to be viable. I want support scourge to be viable. But both reaper's and scourge's problems stem from core necromancer. Scourge being the newer one needs a lot of rework, more so than reaper to separate its defensive and offensive utilities, so it isn't so overwelming.To me, this is the only way you might be able to buff nerf abilities individually.You know its bad, when the newest elite spec is underpowered compared to every other new elite spec, and under performs. Also how do you propose to have scourge be balanced in spvp WVW in aoe? I came here to play necromancers as i did in eq, I played warlock in wow and mained gw2 necro because is aw videos of spreading plagues, and that was what i hoped for, not necessarily a melee class, but i didn't know how gw2 was going to be before i started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonFury.6243 Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > Shiro? What necro skill is that? > > Again, what do other class skills have to do with Necro? Why is this comparison valid to you? Stealing health is not a unique buff for necro, nor does another class having health stealing have anything to do with comparing class skills ... lets enlighten you . [Vampiric Presence](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Vampiric_Presence "Vampiric Presence") is necro unique group support ( giving siphon health to allies ) same as banner are unique group support warrior and spirit for ranger etc . but ANET just copied our group health siphon and gave it to rev in this post > @"Obtena.7952" said: > THIS is a timely example of how Anet changes and balances the game: > > https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/ > that you clearly didn't read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oglaf.1074 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 > @"Nimon.7840" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > I'd say that the very difference is that anet still see transfer condition as a dps buff and the _"suffer!"_ naturally deal damage. You are comparing an heavily defensive/support skill to a very selfish offensive skill. It's like comparing apples and oranges. > > But the problem is: they destroyed literally every Condi reaper build in wvw. So most of the times you don't have any condition dmg. Then you transfer the condition from you to a target, that gets one stack of bleed. Super big dmg coming in on them - not. It adds like maybe 50dps against that target Would be interesting if Condition transfer worked more “smarter” and took the source into consideration: - A Condi Necro inflicts Bleed on himself and then transfers it, using his Condition Damage stat in both applications. - A Power Reaper gets hit by Confusion from an enemy Memser and transfers it back, using the Mesmer’s own Condition Damage stat (as per the original application of the Condition on the Necro). That would make transfer abilities way more of a threat and a potent tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swamurabi.7890 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > Shiro? What necro skill is that? > > > > Again, what do other class skills have to do with Necro? Why is this comparison valid to you? Stealing health is not a unique buff for necro, nor does another class having health stealing have anything to do with comparing class skills ... > > lets enlighten you . > [Vampiric Presence](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Vampiric_Presence "Vampiric Presence") is necro unique group support ( giving siphon health to allies ) same as banner are unique group support warrior and spirit for ranger etc . > but ANET just copied our group health siphon and gave it to rev in this post > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > THIS is a timely example of how Anet changes and balances the game: > > > > https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/ > > > that you clearly didn't read If you believe that GW2 Revenant is derived from GW1 Ritualist, then Rev should get life steal because Ritualist did have it. However, GW1 Necro was by far the class with the greatest amount of life steal. I've never heard of a life steal build for GW2 that would work anywhere close to what was in GW1. It's too bad that two of the three Necro theme builds I liked from GW1, minion master and life steal, were nerfed in GW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > Shiro? What necro skill is that? > > > > Again, what do other class skills have to do with Necro? Why is this comparison valid to you? Stealing health is not a unique buff for necro, nor does another class having health stealing have anything to do with comparing class skills ... > > lets enlighten you . > [Vampiric Presence](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Vampiric_Presence "Vampiric Presence") is necro unique group support ( giving siphon health to allies ) same as banner are unique group support warrior and spirit for ranger etc . > but ANET just copied our group health siphon and gave it to rev in this post That doesn't make sense. What ever gave you the impression that Anet thinks they can't give life stealing capability to other classes or ever decided to restrict it to necro? What does revs having a life steal ability have to do with Necro life steal anyways? Again, what gives you the impression that there is some link between the skills that classes have? I provided you a link that shows how Anet can balance a class based on theme ... and life stealing is relevant to that theme. I didn't see any class comparison there to necro ... why would that even been a thing they need to consider? It's irelevant ... or right, you saw that link, you commented on it ... > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > THIS is a timely example of how Anet changes and balances the game: > > > > https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/ > > > that you clearly didn't read Is that so? Interesting take. Care to elaborate or ... well probably not I suspect. I guess it's easier to ignore it and keep making irrelevant comparisons than it is to understand how Anet does things. Maybe it's not that you don't understand ... it's that you don't want to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lily.1935 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 > @"Axl.8924" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > @"Axl.8924" said: > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so > > > > I think Shroud in itself is higher priority for balance than Scourge is. Some of the scourge's issues is from some rule breaking Arena net had done. Such as the spammable crippling. Shroud has lots of problems, I wont argue that Reaper is better balanced, it has to be since it has the same basis as death shroud. But its not without major design problems. You still can't be healed by allies, are locked out of your utility. > > > > I Don't care for reaper. I've made that clear. Doesn't mean I don't want to see it buffed. I do. I want it to be viable. I want support scourge to be viable. But both reaper's and scourge's problems stem from core necromancer. > > Scourge being the newer one needs a lot of rework, more so than reaper to separate its defensive and offensive utilities, so it isn't so overwelming.To me, this is the only way you might be able to buff nerf abilities individually.You know its bad, when the newest elite spec is underpowered compared to every other new elite spec, and under performs. > > Also how do you propose to have scourge be balanced in spvp WVW in aoe? > > I came here to play necromancers as i did in eq, I played warlock in wow and mained gw2 necro because is aw videos of spreading plagues, and that was what i hoped for, not necessarily a melee class, but i didn't know how gw2 was going to be before i started. > > > > So I'm going to start this response off by saying that what I'm about to say is my personal analysis on what's going on. I am subject to being wrong on this and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I'm subject to flaws so take from it what you will but this is what I believe is the case. I'll start with scourge since that's what You want to hear, but I'll add that the issues with scourge are not caused exclusively by the scourge abilities. And I'll get into that a bit later as a justification on why I feel core necromancer should be addressed first. Although its True that scourge is radically different from what core and reaper are its differences in how it plays or uses life force isn't the issue. Rather we see an elite spec which is intentionally designed to control the field and create choke points to limit enemy movement and cut options. On its own, this is a frustrating play style to fight against, but its not in itself an issue. Where this becomes an issue is when we start to consider how much control the scourge exerts. Its not just that those areas are a stop gap but the scourge has an easy time keeping foes in those shades. Crippling, burning, torment, weakness and vulnerability. As soon as the scourge engages the foe there is the high possibility your foe will suffer 5 or even 6 unique conditions right out the gate. Weakness from Curses, Burning and vulnerability from soul reaping and crippling and torment from scourge. All of these conditions will be applied at the first engage. The very first skill is likely to cause all of these conditions. All at once. So how do you combat that? Condi cleans? Well, the scourge can reapply them very quickly so suddenly you're right back were you started. Worse still they can force your hand with a fear and they are able to corrupt your boons making the condi cleanse even less effective. But what are the most important conditions applied? Crippling and weakness. Crippling keeping the foes inside of the aoe longer than they want to and weakness reducing their energy regen by 50% making their dodges more valuable and much easier to control. You are hitting them at all classes primary means of defense. Movement and doge. Although some classes have more than that, those are your most important elements of defense. Scourge's most important attack is the engage. The one skill they have in their kit that costs no life force. On strike they begin the fight with 5-6 unique conditions and bring foes down with skills that don't interrupt their actions that allow them to pressure foes from 2 angles. The foe starts from a weakened position as the fight begins and has to fight effectively against 2 foes. one of which they can't harm. My suggestion isn't to nerf the damage though. They've done that too much already. But rather weaken the level of control the Scourge has. It should still be powerful but not this powerful. Weakness and crippling are the best places to start here and the engage is an interesting culprit to look at. Making it so they can't spam crippling would go a long way in preventing them from striking both lines of defense so easily. The crippling breaks one of Arena net's rules by giving it to scourge at such a spammable rate. Moving the crippling from the shade pulse to garish pillar would be the first solution I would try. Still giving them the crippling, but not a spam cripple. This lowers the conditions from 5-6 to 4-5 and makes walking out of the aoe a more reasonable option as opposed to requiring a dodge burn. Second, I'd completely change how Sand Savant functions. This is still way too oppressive in WvW even with its nerf. Sand Savant should be changed to pulse really minor damage, much weaker than the smaller shade and apply no conditions on pulse, but rather be more beneficial to allies. I made a post about it right https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/47793/scourge-demands-pve-version-mostly#latest there. Take a look. I describe how sand Savant could go from an offensive trait to more of a utility trait. But there's still the issue with the engage. The placing of shades is the most important part, especially in WvW. So removing that would remove the scourge's teeth for the most part. Hard to say, I don't like the idea because I feel that might make them too weak if they didn't have summon damage with the shades. Now lets get into some more of the issues with core necromancer. We'll start with life force. Looking at that we can see how this is a problem in WvW. There is no limit to how much life force you can gain in a short period of time. This gives scourge access to all of their skills at all time without any consequence. You combine this with the issues I've mentioned above and its no wonder that scourge has been on top of zergs since its introduction. But this isn't anything new, necromancer has always been quite oppressive in WvW zergs because of this fact of life force. WvW is the necromancer's play ground. And how to address this would be a complete redesign of how life force works at the core. If life force was made into a slow regenerating mechanic with occasional boosts through skills and deaths much like it was in GW1, this could go a long way. This would aid necromancer in PvP and PvE raids while weakening them in WvW. These are just some of my thoughts on it though. There is a LOT more I could say on core necromancer but this is already 5 paragraphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonFury.6243 Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 > @"Lily.1935" said: core need a rework reaper need some defense and movement speed scourge need a rework but when we ll get some attention when we ll have a patch note just for necro when we ll competitive in PvE i am slowly reaching a new level of despair on the verge of give up and i think if i ll give up i ll end my MMORPG career with gw2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aslakh.3072 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 I disagree with the control effects being the problem and neither is defense and offense being entwined. Scourge is already quite fragile in wvw and pvp, such that it only really functions in groups. The problem scourge really has is in the sand savant trait in my opinion and this is just opinion. Hitting 10 targets reliably is an issue but the massive radius is more of an issue. If sand savant did not exist then a scourge could not reliably cover a capture point for very long if at all. It would be interesting to see if pvp arguments against scourge would be valid if they could still stay on a capture point but have their movement alot more limited. Being restricted to smaller shades would also mean that it would be difficult to keep someone in your shade for any period of time when so many evade and movement skills exist and if you manage it then they should be heavily conditioned. Lily's idea of making sand savant purely support would indeed fix this issue and i'd personally say that if this happened we'd find that scourge would suddenly become underpowered and could have its damage restored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dace.8173 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 > @"Lily.1935" said: > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feelsbadman T_T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make. > > > > > > > > Umm yeah, no I did not straw-man your argument. You have made broad generalizations to Reaper players in more than one statement. This one right here > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. > > > > > > > > is a broad generalization to Reaper players that indicates I am not straw-maning your argument and I can pull additional instances of such statements from your other posts if you would like. When I wrote my response I was responding specifically that that sentiment expressed right there, as it was directly in the post I was responding to. So if you meant a good chunk of them then it should have been stated in that instance as that wasn't your first overgeneralization to the Necromancer playerbase. Additionally, 1% to 5% is not a good chunk. Even at 5% the remaining 95% of which you speak of would constitute an overwhelming majority which pretty much nullifies the statement "a good chunk." > > > > > > > > As for starting over, no need to. I made several points that were a direct refutation to the things you actually said. None of which you can ignore by inaccurately stating I straw-manned you when I can quote you directly on your statement. If you prefer I can go point for point and quote for quote to illustrate that the points I made were a direct counterpoint to something you said. For instance you said > > > > > > > > > And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. > > > > > > > > You also said > > > > > > > > > And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. > > > > > > > > and I countered with > > > > > > > > >I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. > > > > > > > > You also stated > > > > > > > > >If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > and I responded with > > > > > > > > >Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > Then there was > > > > > > > > >And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > >As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > So clearly I have argued against statements you have actually made and not against things you did not say, as you have erroneously stated. Which is an actual straw-man argument since you are making a claim that I can prove to you is false in an attempt to not having to actually counter my arguments. > > > > > > again you misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not going to spend hours of my life re-explaining something to someone who didn't get it the first time. Its a waste of both of our time. Even further you are still straw-maning my argument. If you are confused, sorry. Can't do anything about that, I don't have the patience to re-explain it to you. > > > > The only person here who is confused is you, as you seem to misunderstand what a straw-man argument is. A straw-man is an argument that intentionally misrepresents what you have said in an attempt to dodge the points made. I have highlighted your exact wording and illustrated how what I said is a direct counter to what you actually said. I have not reworded what you have said. I have not made claims about things you have said. I have quoted you directly and illustrated which part of my statements was addressing your statements. To claim that you are being straw-manned when everything stated thus far is a direct response (and can be quoted as such) to what you have actually said is arguing in bad faith. Additionally, the claim that you are being straw-manned when direct evidence has been shown to refute that is in itself a straw-man argument as you have intentionally misrepresented the discussion twice in order to not have to refute points you can't counter. If you had no real counter argument the graceful thing would have been to simply bow out of the conversation. Claiming a straw-man argument when you have clearly been refuted is also arguing in bad faith. Being as how you can't or won't argue in good faith I am done with you. > > I'm not arguing your points because you refused to address my points as they are. You wanted to suggest that I said "All reaper players", I did not. I have no interest in arguing and trying to reexplain my points over again when you can't even address it at the start honestly. Whatever makes you feel better about not being able to counter an argument. The whole "all Reaper players" isn't an important enough point and is a result of your frequent generalizations and your inaccurate use of language. When it can be shown that your points were directly addressed it becomes clear that you are hiding behind a straw-man argument of your own creation since you know you can't counter any of the points made that directly addressed and rebutted what you said. But if focusing on "All Reaper players" makes you feel better then by all means use that strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dace.8173 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > Shiro? What necro skill is that? > > > > > > Again, what do other class skills have to do with Necro? Why is this comparison valid to you? Stealing health is not a unique buff for necro, nor does another class having health stealing have anything to do with comparing class skills ... > > > > lets enlighten you . > > [Vampiric Presence](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Vampiric_Presence "Vampiric Presence") is necro unique group support ( giving siphon health to allies ) same as banner are unique group support warrior and spirit for ranger etc . > > but ANET just copied our group health siphon and gave it to rev in this post > > That doesn't make sense. What ever gave you the impression that Anet thinks they can't give life stealing capability to other classes or ever decided to restrict it to necro? What does revs having a life steal ability have to do with Necro life steal anyways? Again, what gives you the impression that there is some link between the skills that classes have? I provided you a link that shows how Anet can balance a class based on theme ... and life stealing is relevant to that theme. I didn't see any class comparison there to necro ... why would that even been a thing they need to consider? It's irelevant ... or right, you saw that link, you commented on it ... > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > THIS is a timely example of how Anet changes and balances the game: > > > > > > https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/ > > > > > that you clearly didn't read > > Is that so? Interesting take. Care to elaborate or ... well probably not I suspect. I guess it's easier to ignore it and keep making irrelevant comparisons than it is to understand how Anet does things. Maybe it's not that you don't understand ... it's that you don't want to understand. > I don't think ANet viewed life stealing as a Necromancer only mechanic being as how they slapped it onto Runes and Sigils thus allowing anyone who wants to steal life to be able to steal life. > @"Oglaf.1074" said: > > @"Nimon.7840" said: > > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > > I'd say that the very difference is that anet still see transfer condition as a dps buff and the _"suffer!"_ naturally deal damage. You are comparing an heavily defensive/support skill to a very selfish offensive skill. It's like comparing apples and oranges. > > > > But the problem is: they destroyed literally every Condi reaper build in wvw. So most of the times you don't have any condition dmg. Then you transfer the condition from you to a target, that gets one stack of bleed. Super big dmg coming in on them - not. It adds like maybe 50dps against that target > > Would be interesting if Condition transfer worked more “smarter” and took the source into consideration: > > - A Condi Necro inflicts Bleed on himself and then transfers it, using his Condition Damage stat in both applications. > > - A Power Reaper gets hit by Confusion from an enemy Memser and transfers it back, using the Mesmer’s own Condition Damage stat (as per the original application of the Condition in the Necro). > > That would make transfer abilities way more of a threat and potent tool. > That could be very interesting to do. My concern would be it moving to other professions who also engage in condition swapping like Mesmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnabus Stinson.1409 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 The reason is blanace isnt fun? What kind of game wants balanced classes instead of a two tier system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lily.1935 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 > @"Dace.8173" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feelsbadman T_T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make. > > > > > > > > > > Umm yeah, no I did not straw-man your argument. You have made broad generalizations to Reaper players in more than one statement. This one right here > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. > > > > > > > > > > is a broad generalization to Reaper players that indicates I am not straw-maning your argument and I can pull additional instances of such statements from your other posts if you would like. When I wrote my response I was responding specifically that that sentiment expressed right there, as it was directly in the post I was responding to. So if you meant a good chunk of them then it should have been stated in that instance as that wasn't your first overgeneralization to the Necromancer playerbase. Additionally, 1% to 5% is not a good chunk. Even at 5% the remaining 95% of which you speak of would constitute an overwhelming majority which pretty much nullifies the statement "a good chunk." > > > > > > > > > > As for starting over, no need to. I made several points that were a direct refutation to the things you actually said. None of which you can ignore by inaccurately stating I straw-manned you when I can quote you directly on your statement. If you prefer I can go point for point and quote for quote to illustrate that the points I made were a direct counterpoint to something you said. For instance you said > > > > > > > > > > > And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. > > > > > > > > > > You also said > > > > > > > > > > > And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. > > > > > > > > > > and I countered with > > > > > > > > > > >I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. > > > > > > > > > > You also stated > > > > > > > > > > >If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > and I responded with > > > > > > > > > > >Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > Then there was > > > > > > > > > > >And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > >As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > So clearly I have argued against statements you have actually made and not against things you did not say, as you have erroneously stated. Which is an actual straw-man argument since you are making a claim that I can prove to you is false in an attempt to not having to actually counter my arguments. > > > > > > > > again you misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not going to spend hours of my life re-explaining something to someone who didn't get it the first time. Its a waste of both of our time. Even further you are still straw-maning my argument. If you are confused, sorry. Can't do anything about that, I don't have the patience to re-explain it to you. > > > > > > The only person here who is confused is you, as you seem to misunderstand what a straw-man argument is. A straw-man is an argument that intentionally misrepresents what you have said in an attempt to dodge the points made. I have highlighted your exact wording and illustrated how what I said is a direct counter to what you actually said. I have not reworded what you have said. I have not made claims about things you have said. I have quoted you directly and illustrated which part of my statements was addressing your statements. To claim that you are being straw-manned when everything stated thus far is a direct response (and can be quoted as such) to what you have actually said is arguing in bad faith. Additionally, the claim that you are being straw-manned when direct evidence has been shown to refute that is in itself a straw-man argument as you have intentionally misrepresented the discussion twice in order to not have to refute points you can't counter. If you had no real counter argument the graceful thing would have been to simply bow out of the conversation. Claiming a straw-man argument when you have clearly been refuted is also arguing in bad faith. Being as how you can't or won't argue in good faith I am done with you. > > > > I'm not arguing your points because you refused to address my points as they are. You wanted to suggest that I said "All reaper players", I did not. I have no interest in arguing and trying to reexplain my points over again when you can't even address it at the start honestly. > > Whatever makes you feel better about not being able to counter an argument. The whole "all Reaper players" isn't an important enough point and is a result of your frequent generalizations and your inaccurate use of language. When it can be shown that your points were directly addressed it becomes clear that you are hiding behind a straw-man argument of your own creation since you know you can't counter any of the points made that directly addressed and rebutted what you said. But if focusing on "All Reaper players" makes you feel better then by all means use that strawman. Try starting a position with honesty and good faith before mocking people for their experiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oglaf.1074 Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 > @"Dace.8173" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > Shiro? What necro skill is that? > > > > > > > > Again, what do other class skills have to do with Necro? Why is this comparison valid to you? Stealing health is not a unique buff for necro, nor does another class having health stealing have anything to do with comparing class skills ... > > > > > > lets enlighten you . > > > [Vampiric Presence](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Vampiric_Presence "Vampiric Presence") is necro unique group support ( giving siphon health to allies ) same as banner are unique group support warrior and spirit for ranger etc . > > > but ANET just copied our group health siphon and gave it to rev in this post > > > > That doesn't make sense. What ever gave you the impression that Anet thinks they can't give life stealing capability to other classes or ever decided to restrict it to necro? What does revs having a life steal ability have to do with Necro life steal anyways? Again, what gives you the impression that there is some link between the skills that classes have? I provided you a link that shows how Anet can balance a class based on theme ... and life stealing is relevant to that theme. I didn't see any class comparison there to necro ... why would that even been a thing they need to consider? It's irelevant ... or right, you saw that link, you commented on it ... > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > THIS is a timely example of how Anet changes and balances the game: > > > > > > > > https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/ > > > > > > > that you clearly didn't read > > > > Is that so? Interesting take. Care to elaborate or ... well probably not I suspect. I guess it's easier to ignore it and keep making irrelevant comparisons than it is to understand how Anet does things. Maybe it's not that you don't understand ... it's that you don't want to understand. > > > > I don't think ANet viewed life stealing as a Necromancer only mechanic being as how they slapped it onto Runes and Sigils thus allowing anyone who wants to steal life to be able to steal life. > > > @"Oglaf.1074" said: > > > @"Nimon.7840" said: > > > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > > > I'd say that the very difference is that anet still see transfer condition as a dps buff and the _"suffer!"_ naturally deal damage. You are comparing an heavily defensive/support skill to a very selfish offensive skill. It's like comparing apples and oranges. > > > > > > But the problem is: they destroyed literally every Condi reaper build in wvw. So most of the times you don't have any condition dmg. Then you transfer the condition from you to a target, that gets one stack of bleed. Super big dmg coming in on them - not. It adds like maybe 50dps against that target > > > > Would be interesting if Condition transfer worked more “smarter” and took the source into consideration: > > > > - A Condi Necro inflicts Bleed on himself and then transfers it, using his Condition Damage stat in both applications. > > > > - A Power Reaper gets hit by Confusion from an enemy Memser and transfers it back, using the Mesmer’s own Condition Damage stat (as per the original application of the Condition in the Necro). > > > > That would make transfer abilities way more of a threat and potent tool. > > > > That could be very interesting to do. My concern would be it moving to other professions who also engage in condition swapping like Mesmer. I’d still like to see Anet giving it a try. The potential of an enemy player possibly having the ability to bounce all your Conditions back at ya, full force, would mean Condispam would be a less brain dead strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lahmia.2193 Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 > @"Oglaf.1074" said: > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > Shiro? What necro skill is that? > > > > > > > > > > Again, what do other class skills have to do with Necro? Why is this comparison valid to you? Stealing health is not a unique buff for necro, nor does another class having health stealing have anything to do with comparing class skills ... > > > > > > > > lets enlighten you . > > > > [Vampiric Presence](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Vampiric_Presence "Vampiric Presence") is necro unique group support ( giving siphon health to allies ) same as banner are unique group support warrior and spirit for ranger etc . > > > > but ANET just copied our group health siphon and gave it to rev in this post > > > > > > That doesn't make sense. What ever gave you the impression that Anet thinks they can't give life stealing capability to other classes or ever decided to restrict it to necro? What does revs having a life steal ability have to do with Necro life steal anyways? Again, what gives you the impression that there is some link between the skills that classes have? I provided you a link that shows how Anet can balance a class based on theme ... and life stealing is relevant to that theme. I didn't see any class comparison there to necro ... why would that even been a thing they need to consider? It's irelevant ... or right, you saw that link, you commented on it ... > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > THIS is a timely example of how Anet changes and balances the game: > > > > > > > > > > https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/ > > > > > > > > > that you clearly didn't read > > > > > > Is that so? Interesting take. Care to elaborate or ... well probably not I suspect. I guess it's easier to ignore it and keep making irrelevant comparisons than it is to understand how Anet does things. Maybe it's not that you don't understand ... it's that you don't want to understand. > > > > > > > I don't think ANet viewed life stealing as a Necromancer only mechanic being as how they slapped it onto Runes and Sigils thus allowing anyone who wants to steal life to be able to steal life. > > > > > @"Oglaf.1074" said: > > > > @"Nimon.7840" said: > > > > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > > > > I'd say that the very difference is that anet still see transfer condition as a dps buff and the _"suffer!"_ naturally deal damage. You are comparing an heavily defensive/support skill to a very selfish offensive skill. It's like comparing apples and oranges. > > > > > > > > But the problem is: they destroyed literally every Condi reaper build in wvw. So most of the times you don't have any condition dmg. Then you transfer the condition from you to a target, that gets one stack of bleed. Super big dmg coming in on them - not. It adds like maybe 50dps against that target > > > > > > Would be interesting if Condition transfer worked more “smarter” and took the source into consideration: > > > > > > - A Condi Necro inflicts Bleed on himself and then transfers it, using his Condition Damage stat in both applications. > > > > > > - A Power Reaper gets hit by Confusion from an enemy Memser and transfers it back, using the Mesmer’s own Condition Damage stat (as per the original application of the Condition in the Necro). > > > > > > That would make transfer abilities way more of a threat and potent tool. > > > > > > > That could be very interesting to do. My concern would be it moving to other professions who also engage in condition swapping like Mesmer. > > I’d still like to see Anet giving it a try. The potential of an enemy player possibly having the ability to bounce all your Conditions back at ya, full force, would mean Condispam would be a less brain dead strategy. > > You would have liked pre PoF, when condi reaper was at its peak. A 1v1 between them was just a game of chicken with condi transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dace.8173 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 > @"Lily.1935" said: > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feelsbadman T_T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make. > > > > > > > > > > > > Umm yeah, no I did not straw-man your argument. You have made broad generalizations to Reaper players in more than one statement. This one right here > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. > > > > > > > > > > > > is a broad generalization to Reaper players that indicates I am not straw-maning your argument and I can pull additional instances of such statements from your other posts if you would like. When I wrote my response I was responding specifically that that sentiment expressed right there, as it was directly in the post I was responding to. So if you meant a good chunk of them then it should have been stated in that instance as that wasn't your first overgeneralization to the Necromancer playerbase. Additionally, 1% to 5% is not a good chunk. Even at 5% the remaining 95% of which you speak of would constitute an overwhelming majority which pretty much nullifies the statement "a good chunk." > > > > > > > > > > > > As for starting over, no need to. I made several points that were a direct refutation to the things you actually said. None of which you can ignore by inaccurately stating I straw-manned you when I can quote you directly on your statement. If you prefer I can go point for point and quote for quote to illustrate that the points I made were a direct counterpoint to something you said. For instance you said > > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. > > > > > > > > > > > > You also said > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > and I countered with > > > > > > > > > > > > >I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. > > > > > > > > > > > > You also stated > > > > > > > > > > > > >If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > and I responded with > > > > > > > > > > > > >Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there was > > > > > > > > > > > > >And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > > >As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > So clearly I have argued against statements you have actually made and not against things you did not say, as you have erroneously stated. Which is an actual straw-man argument since you are making a claim that I can prove to you is false in an attempt to not having to actually counter my arguments. > > > > > > > > > > again you misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not going to spend hours of my life re-explaining something to someone who didn't get it the first time. Its a waste of both of our time. Even further you are still straw-maning my argument. If you are confused, sorry. Can't do anything about that, I don't have the patience to re-explain it to you. > > > > > > > > The only person here who is confused is you, as you seem to misunderstand what a straw-man argument is. A straw-man is an argument that intentionally misrepresents what you have said in an attempt to dodge the points made. I have highlighted your exact wording and illustrated how what I said is a direct counter to what you actually said. I have not reworded what you have said. I have not made claims about things you have said. I have quoted you directly and illustrated which part of my statements was addressing your statements. To claim that you are being straw-manned when everything stated thus far is a direct response (and can be quoted as such) to what you have actually said is arguing in bad faith. Additionally, the claim that you are being straw-manned when direct evidence has been shown to refute that is in itself a straw-man argument as you have intentionally misrepresented the discussion twice in order to not have to refute points you can't counter. If you had no real counter argument the graceful thing would have been to simply bow out of the conversation. Claiming a straw-man argument when you have clearly been refuted is also arguing in bad faith. Being as how you can't or won't argue in good faith I am done with you. > > > > > > I'm not arguing your points because you refused to address my points as they are. You wanted to suggest that I said "All reaper players", I did not. I have no interest in arguing and trying to reexplain my points over again when you can't even address it at the start honestly. > > > > Whatever makes you feel better about not being able to counter an argument. The whole "all Reaper players" isn't an important enough point and is a result of your frequent generalizations and your inaccurate use of language. When it can be shown that your points were directly addressed it becomes clear that you are hiding behind a straw-man argument of your own creation since you know you can't counter any of the points made that directly addressed and rebutted what you said. But if focusing on "All Reaper players" makes you feel better then by all means use that strawman. > > Try starting a position with honesty and good faith before mocking people for their experiences. Good faith was extended to you until you decided to get hung up on three words that had nothing of consequence to do with the actual discussion. The fact that I quoted you directly and showed you which statements you made that lead me to make my statement indicates perfectly the fact that I was being honest. If you take issue with my generalization then it is only because you were inaccurate in your own depiction of the Reaper players you spoke of. Not being able to counter an argument does not make a person dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dace.8173 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 > @"Oglaf.1074" said: > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > Shiro? What necro skill is that? > > > > > > > > > > Again, what do other class skills have to do with Necro? Why is this comparison valid to you? Stealing health is not a unique buff for necro, nor does another class having health stealing have anything to do with comparing class skills ... > > > > > > > > lets enlighten you . > > > > [Vampiric Presence](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Vampiric_Presence "Vampiric Presence") is necro unique group support ( giving siphon health to allies ) same as banner are unique group support warrior and spirit for ranger etc . > > > > but ANET just copied our group health siphon and gave it to rev in this post > > > > > > That doesn't make sense. What ever gave you the impression that Anet thinks they can't give life stealing capability to other classes or ever decided to restrict it to necro? What does revs having a life steal ability have to do with Necro life steal anyways? Again, what gives you the impression that there is some link between the skills that classes have? I provided you a link that shows how Anet can balance a class based on theme ... and life stealing is relevant to that theme. I didn't see any class comparison there to necro ... why would that even been a thing they need to consider? It's irelevant ... or right, you saw that link, you commented on it ... > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > THIS is a timely example of how Anet changes and balances the game: > > > > > > > > > > https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/ > > > > > > > > > that you clearly didn't read > > > > > > Is that so? Interesting take. Care to elaborate or ... well probably not I suspect. I guess it's easier to ignore it and keep making irrelevant comparisons than it is to understand how Anet does things. Maybe it's not that you don't understand ... it's that you don't want to understand. > > > > > > > I don't think ANet viewed life stealing as a Necromancer only mechanic being as how they slapped it onto Runes and Sigils thus allowing anyone who wants to steal life to be able to steal life. > > > > > @"Oglaf.1074" said: > > > > @"Nimon.7840" said: > > > > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > > > > I'd say that the very difference is that anet still see transfer condition as a dps buff and the _"suffer!"_ naturally deal damage. You are comparing an heavily defensive/support skill to a very selfish offensive skill. It's like comparing apples and oranges. > > > > > > > > But the problem is: they destroyed literally every Condi reaper build in wvw. So most of the times you don't have any condition dmg. Then you transfer the condition from you to a target, that gets one stack of bleed. Super big dmg coming in on them - not. It adds like maybe 50dps against that target > > > > > > Would be interesting if Condition transfer worked more “smarter” and took the source into consideration: > > > > > > - A Condi Necro inflicts Bleed on himself and then transfers it, using his Condition Damage stat in both applications. > > > > > > - A Power Reaper gets hit by Confusion from an enemy Memser and transfers it back, using the Mesmer’s own Condition Damage stat (as per the original application of the Condition in the Necro). > > > > > > That would make transfer abilities way more of a threat and potent tool. > > > > > > > That could be very interesting to do. My concern would be it moving to other professions who also engage in condition swapping like Mesmer. > > I’d still like to see Anet giving it a try. The potential of an enemy player possibly having the ability to bounce all your Conditions back at ya, full force, would mean Condispam would be a less brain dead strategy. > > Would it be possible for the enemy to keep bouncing back the conditions? I'm curious how many bounces would be allowed in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonFury.6243 Posted August 26, 2018 Author Share Posted August 26, 2018 > @"Dace.8173" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feelsbadman T_T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Umm yeah, no I did not straw-man your argument. You have made broad generalizations to Reaper players in more than one statement. This one right here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a broad generalization to Reaper players that indicates I am not straw-maning your argument and I can pull additional instances of such statements from your other posts if you would like. When I wrote my response I was responding specifically that that sentiment expressed right there, as it was directly in the post I was responding to. So if you meant a good chunk of them then it should have been stated in that instance as that wasn't your first overgeneralization to the Necromancer playerbase. Additionally, 1% to 5% is not a good chunk. Even at 5% the remaining 95% of which you speak of would constitute an overwhelming majority which pretty much nullifies the statement "a good chunk." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for starting over, no need to. I made several points that were a direct refutation to the things you actually said. None of which you can ignore by inaccurately stating I straw-manned you when I can quote you directly on your statement. If you prefer I can go point for point and quote for quote to illustrate that the points I made were a direct counterpoint to something you said. For instance you said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I countered with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also stated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I responded with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So clearly I have argued against statements you have actually made and not against things you did not say, as you have erroneously stated. Which is an actual straw-man argument since you are making a claim that I can prove to you is false in an attempt to not having to actually counter my arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > again you misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not going to spend hours of my life re-explaining something to someone who didn't get it the first time. Its a waste of both of our time. Even further you are still straw-maning my argument. If you are confused, sorry. Can't do anything about that, I don't have the patience to re-explain it to you. > > > > > > > > > > The only person here who is confused is you, as you seem to misunderstand what a straw-man argument is. A straw-man is an argument that intentionally misrepresents what you have said in an attempt to dodge the points made. I have highlighted your exact wording and illustrated how what I said is a direct counter to what you actually said. I have not reworded what you have said. I have not made claims about things you have said. I have quoted you directly and illustrated which part of my statements was addressing your statements. To claim that you are being straw-manned when everything stated thus far is a direct response (and can be quoted as such) to what you have actually said is arguing in bad faith. Additionally, the claim that you are being straw-manned when direct evidence has been shown to refute that is in itself a straw-man argument as you have intentionally misrepresented the discussion twice in order to not have to refute points you can't counter. If you had no real counter argument the graceful thing would have been to simply bow out of the conversation. Claiming a straw-man argument when you have clearly been refuted is also arguing in bad faith. Being as how you can't or won't argue in good faith I am done with you. > > > > > > > > I'm not arguing your points because you refused to address my points as they are. You wanted to suggest that I said "All reaper players", I did not. I have no interest in arguing and trying to reexplain my points over again when you can't even address it at the start honestly. > > > > > > Whatever makes you feel better about not being able to counter an argument. The whole "all Reaper players" isn't an important enough point and is a result of your frequent generalizations and your inaccurate use of language. When it can be shown that your points were directly addressed it becomes clear that you are hiding behind a straw-man argument of your own creation since you know you can't counter any of the points made that directly addressed and rebutted what you said. But if focusing on "All Reaper players" makes you feel better then by all means use that strawman. > > > > Try starting a position with honesty and good faith before mocking people for their experiences. > > Good faith was extended to you until you decided to get hung up on three words that had nothing of consequence to do with the actual discussion. The fact that I quoted you directly and showed you which statements you made that lead me to make my statement indicates perfectly the fact that I was being honest. If you take issue with my generalization then it is only because you were inaccurate in your own depiction of the Reaper players you spoke of. Not being able to counter an argument does not make a person dishonest. if lily has spoken that mean a necromancer has spoken we are not reaper nor minionmancer nor scourges we are corrupted dark Deities and nothing can fill our abyss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lily.1935 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 > @"Dace.8173" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feelsbadman T_T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Umm yeah, no I did not straw-man your argument. You have made broad generalizations to Reaper players in more than one statement. This one right here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a broad generalization to Reaper players that indicates I am not straw-maning your argument and I can pull additional instances of such statements from your other posts if you would like. When I wrote my response I was responding specifically that that sentiment expressed right there, as it was directly in the post I was responding to. So if you meant a good chunk of them then it should have been stated in that instance as that wasn't your first overgeneralization to the Necromancer playerbase. Additionally, 1% to 5% is not a good chunk. Even at 5% the remaining 95% of which you speak of would constitute an overwhelming majority which pretty much nullifies the statement "a good chunk." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for starting over, no need to. I made several points that were a direct refutation to the things you actually said. None of which you can ignore by inaccurately stating I straw-manned you when I can quote you directly on your statement. If you prefer I can go point for point and quote for quote to illustrate that the points I made were a direct counterpoint to something you said. For instance you said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I countered with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also stated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I responded with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So clearly I have argued against statements you have actually made and not against things you did not say, as you have erroneously stated. Which is an actual straw-man argument since you are making a claim that I can prove to you is false in an attempt to not having to actually counter my arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > again you misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not going to spend hours of my life re-explaining something to someone who didn't get it the first time. Its a waste of both of our time. Even further you are still straw-maning my argument. If you are confused, sorry. Can't do anything about that, I don't have the patience to re-explain it to you. > > > > > > > > > > The only person here who is confused is you, as you seem to misunderstand what a straw-man argument is. A straw-man is an argument that intentionally misrepresents what you have said in an attempt to dodge the points made. I have highlighted your exact wording and illustrated how what I said is a direct counter to what you actually said. I have not reworded what you have said. I have not made claims about things you have said. I have quoted you directly and illustrated which part of my statements was addressing your statements. To claim that you are being straw-manned when everything stated thus far is a direct response (and can be quoted as such) to what you have actually said is arguing in bad faith. Additionally, the claim that you are being straw-manned when direct evidence has been shown to refute that is in itself a straw-man argument as you have intentionally misrepresented the discussion twice in order to not have to refute points you can't counter. If you had no real counter argument the graceful thing would have been to simply bow out of the conversation. Claiming a straw-man argument when you have clearly been refuted is also arguing in bad faith. Being as how you can't or won't argue in good faith I am done with you. > > > > > > > > I'm not arguing your points because you refused to address my points as they are. You wanted to suggest that I said "All reaper players", I did not. I have no interest in arguing and trying to reexplain my points over again when you can't even address it at the start honestly. > > > > > > Whatever makes you feel better about not being able to counter an argument. The whole "all Reaper players" isn't an important enough point and is a result of your frequent generalizations and your inaccurate use of language. When it can be shown that your points were directly addressed it becomes clear that you are hiding behind a straw-man argument of your own creation since you know you can't counter any of the points made that directly addressed and rebutted what you said. But if focusing on "All Reaper players" makes you feel better then by all means use that strawman. > > > > Try starting a position with honesty and good faith before mocking people for their experiences. > > Good faith was extended to you until you decided to get hung up on three words that had nothing of consequence to do with the actual discussion. The fact that I quoted you directly and showed you which statements you made that lead me to make my statement indicates perfectly the fact that I was being honest. If you take issue with my generalization then it is only because you were inaccurate in your own depiction of the Reaper players you spoke of. Not being able to counter an argument does not make a person dishonest. I didn't address your argument because there wasn't anything to argue. You're trying to suggest my experience with reaper players didn't happen. Its unreasonable skepticism that in itself is dishonest. You might believe you have a point, but when you begin with a dishonest position then say that its not important, you have failed your goal. By starting with your dishonest position You've haven't given me reason to take your opinions seriously. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_all This is how you started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dace.8173 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 > @"Lily.1935" said: > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feelsbadman T_T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Umm yeah, no I did not straw-man your argument. You have made broad generalizations to Reaper players in more than one statement. This one right here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a broad generalization to Reaper players that indicates I am not straw-maning your argument and I can pull additional instances of such statements from your other posts if you would like. When I wrote my response I was responding specifically that that sentiment expressed right there, as it was directly in the post I was responding to. So if you meant a good chunk of them then it should have been stated in that instance as that wasn't your first overgeneralization to the Necromancer playerbase. Additionally, 1% to 5% is not a good chunk. Even at 5% the remaining 95% of which you speak of would constitute an overwhelming majority which pretty much nullifies the statement "a good chunk." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for starting over, no need to. I made several points that were a direct refutation to the things you actually said. None of which you can ignore by inaccurately stating I straw-manned you when I can quote you directly on your statement. If you prefer I can go point for point and quote for quote to illustrate that the points I made were a direct counterpoint to something you said. For instance you said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I countered with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also stated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I responded with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So clearly I have argued against statements you have actually made and not against things you did not say, as you have erroneously stated. Which is an actual straw-man argument since you are making a claim that I can prove to you is false in an attempt to not having to actually counter my arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > again you misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not going to spend hours of my life re-explaining something to someone who didn't get it the first time. Its a waste of both of our time. Even further you are still straw-maning my argument. If you are confused, sorry. Can't do anything about that, I don't have the patience to re-explain it to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > The only person here who is confused is you, as you seem to misunderstand what a straw-man argument is. A straw-man is an argument that intentionally misrepresents what you have said in an attempt to dodge the points made. I have highlighted your exact wording and illustrated how what I said is a direct counter to what you actually said. I have not reworded what you have said. I have not made claims about things you have said. I have quoted you directly and illustrated which part of my statements was addressing your statements. To claim that you are being straw-manned when everything stated thus far is a direct response (and can be quoted as such) to what you have actually said is arguing in bad faith. Additionally, the claim that you are being straw-manned when direct evidence has been shown to refute that is in itself a straw-man argument as you have intentionally misrepresented the discussion twice in order to not have to refute points you can't counter. If you had no real counter argument the graceful thing would have been to simply bow out of the conversation. Claiming a straw-man argument when you have clearly been refuted is also arguing in bad faith. Being as how you can't or won't argue in good faith I am done with you. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not arguing your points because you refused to address my points as they are. You wanted to suggest that I said "All reaper players", I did not. I have no interest in arguing and trying to reexplain my points over again when you can't even address it at the start honestly. > > > > > > > > Whatever makes you feel better about not being able to counter an argument. The whole "all Reaper players" isn't an important enough point and is a result of your frequent generalizations and your inaccurate use of language. When it can be shown that your points were directly addressed it becomes clear that you are hiding behind a straw-man argument of your own creation since you know you can't counter any of the points made that directly addressed and rebutted what you said. But if focusing on "All Reaper players" makes you feel better then by all means use that strawman. > > > > > > Try starting a position with honesty and good faith before mocking people for their experiences. > > > > Good faith was extended to you until you decided to get hung up on three words that had nothing of consequence to do with the actual discussion. The fact that I quoted you directly and showed you which statements you made that lead me to make my statement indicates perfectly the fact that I was being honest. If you take issue with my generalization then it is only because you were inaccurate in your own depiction of the Reaper players you spoke of. Not being able to counter an argument does not make a person dishonest. > > I didn't address your argument because there wasn't anything to argue. You're trying to suggest my experience with reaper players didn't happen. Its unreasonable skepticism that in itself is dishonest. You might believe you have a point, but when you begin with a dishonest position then say that its not important, you have failed your goal. By starting with your dishonest position You've haven't given me reason to take your opinions seriously. > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_all This is how you started. I can see how you might think that. It isn't what I was suggesting, but I can see how you can see that. Really, if you hadn't phrased your previous response to imply all Reaper players you wouldn't feel that I was suggesting your experience didn't happen. I suggest being more specific when you discuss a playerbase, staying away from language that implies a generalization to an entire subpopulation when you really just mean a handful. Saying "Reaper players" is a generalizing statement, one that you said multiple times. Why you feel the need to claim I'm dishonest to cover up your inaccurate phrasing of your position that some Reaper players said something to you is beyond me. But if it will make you feel better to claim that I was dishonest when I was merely responding to how you positioned Reaper players in most of your post then that's cool. I don't mind being dishonest if it is to help other people feel good about themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lily.1935 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 > @"Dace.8173" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feelsbadman T_T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Umm yeah, no I did not straw-man your argument. You have made broad generalizations to Reaper players in more than one statement. This one right here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a broad generalization to Reaper players that indicates I am not straw-maning your argument and I can pull additional instances of such statements from your other posts if you would like. When I wrote my response I was responding specifically that that sentiment expressed right there, as it was directly in the post I was responding to. So if you meant a good chunk of them then it should have been stated in that instance as that wasn't your first overgeneralization to the Necromancer playerbase. Additionally, 1% to 5% is not a good chunk. Even at 5% the remaining 95% of which you speak of would constitute an overwhelming majority which pretty much nullifies the statement "a good chunk." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for starting over, no need to. I made several points that were a direct refutation to the things you actually said. None of which you can ignore by inaccurately stating I straw-manned you when I can quote you directly on your statement. If you prefer I can go point for point and quote for quote to illustrate that the points I made were a direct counterpoint to something you said. For instance you said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I countered with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also stated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I responded with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So clearly I have argued against statements you have actually made and not against things you did not say, as you have erroneously stated. Which is an actual straw-man argument since you are making a claim that I can prove to you is false in an attempt to not having to actually counter my arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > again you misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not going to spend hours of my life re-explaining something to someone who didn't get it the first time. Its a waste of both of our time. Even further you are still straw-maning my argument. If you are confused, sorry. Can't do anything about that, I don't have the patience to re-explain it to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only person here who is confused is you, as you seem to misunderstand what a straw-man argument is. A straw-man is an argument that intentionally misrepresents what you have said in an attempt to dodge the points made. I have highlighted your exact wording and illustrated how what I said is a direct counter to what you actually said. I have not reworded what you have said. I have not made claims about things you have said. I have quoted you directly and illustrated which part of my statements was addressing your statements. To claim that you are being straw-manned when everything stated thus far is a direct response (and can be quoted as such) to what you have actually said is arguing in bad faith. Additionally, the claim that you are being straw-manned when direct evidence has been shown to refute that is in itself a straw-man argument as you have intentionally misrepresented the discussion twice in order to not have to refute points you can't counter. If you had no real counter argument the graceful thing would have been to simply bow out of the conversation. Claiming a straw-man argument when you have clearly been refuted is also arguing in bad faith. Being as how you can't or won't argue in good faith I am done with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not arguing your points because you refused to address my points as they are. You wanted to suggest that I said "All reaper players", I did not. I have no interest in arguing and trying to reexplain my points over again when you can't even address it at the start honestly. > > > > > > > > > > Whatever makes you feel better about not being able to counter an argument. The whole "all Reaper players" isn't an important enough point and is a result of your frequent generalizations and your inaccurate use of language. When it can be shown that your points were directly addressed it becomes clear that you are hiding behind a straw-man argument of your own creation since you know you can't counter any of the points made that directly addressed and rebutted what you said. But if focusing on "All Reaper players" makes you feel better then by all means use that strawman. > > > > > > > > Try starting a position with honesty and good faith before mocking people for their experiences. > > > > > > Good faith was extended to you until you decided to get hung up on three words that had nothing of consequence to do with the actual discussion. The fact that I quoted you directly and showed you which statements you made that lead me to make my statement indicates perfectly the fact that I was being honest. If you take issue with my generalization then it is only because you were inaccurate in your own depiction of the Reaper players you spoke of. Not being able to counter an argument does not make a person dishonest. > > > > I didn't address your argument because there wasn't anything to argue. You're trying to suggest my experience with reaper players didn't happen. Its unreasonable skepticism that in itself is dishonest. You might believe you have a point, but when you begin with a dishonest position then say that its not important, you have failed your goal. By starting with your dishonest position You've haven't given me reason to take your opinions seriously. > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_all This is how you started. > > I can see how you might think that. It isn't what I was suggesting, but I can see how you can see that. Really, if you hadn't phrased your previous response to imply all Reaper players you wouldn't feel that I was suggesting your experience didn't happen. I suggest being more specific when you discuss a playerbase, staying away from language that implies a generalization to an entire subpopulation when you really just mean a handful. Saying "Reaper players" is a generalizing statement, one that you said multiple times. Why you feel the need to claim I'm dishonest to cover up your inaccurate phrasing of your position that some Reaper players said something to you is beyond me. But if it will make you feel better to claim that I was dishonest when I was merely responding to how you positioned Reaper players in most of your post then that's cool. I don't mind being dishonest if it is to help other people feel good about themselves. I've already proven my point about your response. It's clear to see you are the unreasonable one here who is incapable of making an honest response. You continue to derail the conversation with that misleading platitude. Others who've read it knew what I was getting at it was just you who wanted to misrepresent it as all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aetatis.5418 Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 shiro life steal is 85 for TEN ppl (if traited) ... has an icd (!) but i dont know what icd exactly. 1/2 or 1 sec so revenant has an vampiric presence "equal" now for 50% of the fight (legend swap). but i dont think it will be used, since the raw dmg trait is a lot stronger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dace.8173 Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 > @"Lily.1935" said: > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Dace.8173" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"DragonFury.6243" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know. My opinions and thoughts have changed a lot in the past 6 years. I've changed religious, political and gaming philosophies in that time. I've changed so much when it comes all sorts of things. I've admitted I was wrong on countless occasions and have moved to new ideas that better reflect reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But one thing that hasn't changed in those six years is my view of the necromancer. Although minor points have changed, the main point remains. **Necromancer is the worst designed class in GW2**. And that opinion hasn't changed. Anyone who remembers, it was one of the very first posts I made back in 2013. And since then, I have not had my opinion shift otherwise. Not for lack of trying mind you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feelsbadman T_T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it. The necromancer has no defined Fanbase. Half of us HATE with a burning passion what the other wants. Half of use want reaper and more death knight specs while the other half want classing Necromancer such as minion master, curses, support and high party life stealing. The first half gets some of what they want and the second half gets very little of what they want, and when they build something to their liking it gets gutted. The GW1 Necromancer vets do not have a home in GW2. There is NO class that truly represents the play style that fits what they desire from a profession. So the only home we have is Necromancer and it is nothing, not even a shadow of its former self. And the GW2 only fans see the current necromancer and hate any push in the direction of classic necromancer styling. People are literally asking for scourge to be deleted from the game. And that's all coming from necromancer players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I Can't stand reaper players because of this. A good chunk of them either want scourge to be useless or changed to be more like reaper. And I DESPISE that! Scourge is the closest thing to a home the GW1 necro vets have and they would rather us be removed from the game. Well kittens to you too! Their pompous behavior in this regard sours any enjoyment I get out of scourge when they kitten about any sight of us in PvP, WvW, PvE. You want a death knight? Fine, you've got your death knight in reaper. And lets leave it at that and never have another shroud again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you have the vets. We LOATHE shroud. We hate it so much because it is the absolute opposite of what we fell in love with in GW1. It isn't the greatness at any cost spec we knew. Necromancer doesn't reanimate corpses, we're okayish at spreading plagues, can't sacrifice health, aren't nearly as glassy as we were in GW1 and aren't a support spec like we were in GW1. GW2 necro is an absolute bastardization of what it originated from and the GW2 fan base LOVES it. While us GW1 players are still asking the question "Where is our spec? Where is our home?". And to top it all off, Shroud only caused more problems than soul reaping did in GW1. It makes the class extraordinarily weak for no reason, takes away tools for no reason, prevents us from functioning in groups for no reason, and is overall a **parasitic mechanic**. People say "You can't be best damage" But it was never about the best damage. It was **EVERYTHING WE CAN'T DO!** Its everything we aren't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hate shroud. I hate everything about it. I hate the skills, I hate its design I hate what it does to the class. I want it gone. Removed from the game baring reaper. You death knight fanboys can keep your reaper. Everything else though should be removed. Its not a good mechanic. its not well designed. Its parasitic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Necromancer has a defined fanbase. You wrote an entire post that defined it. As for GW1, that game is still around if you want to play it. I don't see anything from ANet in which they state that they were going to deliver the exact same experience as GW1. Most sequels actually attempt to deliver a different experience, one that they feel is an evolution from the previous experience. Of course, this Necromancer doesn't add up to the one you loved in GW1. They decided not to port it over. They designed an entirely new way of handling professions and that was going to create an entirely different play experience than what was had in GW1. This Necromancer was never going to be what folks had in GW1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have serious doubts that folks who like Reaper want the old GW1 fans removed from the game. I suspect what they really want is for Necromancer to be the Necromancer that was created for GW2 and not a rehash of a game many of them didn't play. They came on board to play this Necromancer and not a Necromancer from a different game. So, of course, they are going to resist changes to Necromancer that make it less like the Necromancer they signed up to play when GW2 launched. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This Necromancer isn't a shadow of it's former self because this Necromancer isn't meant to be the GW1 Necromancer. It's meant to be a new Necromancer that is aimed at delivering a new experience to a new crowd. To claim that it's a shadow of its former self would mean that ANet set out to make this Necromancer be like the old one and the design choices they made for this Necromancer makes it clear that they weren't attempting that. Judging this Necromancer to the GW1 is comparing apples to oranges. They fundamentally are not the same profession and odds are strong they were never meant to be the same. The success of this Necromancer was always going to be about how this version of Necromancer fits into this specific game and not how it holds up in relation to another Necromancer from a different game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. Especially when arena net themselves have stated that the reason they created revenant was to fill a play style gap gw2 had. And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. There is supposed to be something for everyone and it isn't. If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have trouble believing every Reaper player or the majority of the Reaper players hold that sentiment. Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for offering something for everyone, let's be real that is impossible. You cannot offer something for everyone in the game. They can have that goal to offer something to everyone but it is an impossible goal to ever attain due to the different desires people have. No gaming company anywhere will ever be able to provide something for everyone. Due to how well the game seems to be doing they appear to be meeting that goal on some level but they will never be able to meet that goal for every single person out there that could play their game. No one should be surprised that there isn't something for everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right away you straw-man my argument. I never said "every reaper player" I said a good chunk. This could be 5% or as low as 1%. But that's still far too much of the player base. So as soon as you start you're arguing against a straw-man. So start over and argue what I'm actually saying. Don't argue against a point I didn't make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Umm yeah, no I did not straw-man your argument. You have made broad generalizations to Reaper players in more than one statement. This one right here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh yes the reaper players do. They've said it to me personally multiple times. Much to my disgust. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a broad generalization to Reaper players that indicates I am not straw-maning your argument and I can pull additional instances of such statements from your other posts if you would like. When I wrote my response I was responding specifically that that sentiment expressed right there, as it was directly in the post I was responding to. So if you meant a good chunk of them then it should have been stated in that instance as that wasn't your first overgeneralization to the Necromancer playerbase. Additionally, 1% to 5% is not a good chunk. Even at 5% the remaining 95% of which you speak of would constitute an overwhelming majority which pretty much nullifies the statement "a good chunk." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for starting over, no need to. I made several points that were a direct refutation to the things you actually said. None of which you can ignore by inaccurately stating I straw-manned you when I can quote you directly on your statement. If you prefer I can go point for point and quote for quote to illustrate that the points I made were a direct counterpoint to something you said. For instance you said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is a certain expectation of a new game in the same series. You need to hit on many of the same notes, to offer an improvement on what the previous game gave players. It isn't conducive to change everything the fans knew and loved for the sake of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, they didn't change things for the sake of it. They changed things to improve on old things and to try out new things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the necromancer 0lay style is still sorely missing from the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I countered with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I disagree that the Necromancer playstyle is missing because there is no set singular vision of what a Necromancer should be. Necromancer is an umbrella concept that comes with a lot of different types of ideas related to playing a magical character who handles magic related to death. This Necromancer fits a Necromantic play style, you've admitted as much when you discussed the desires of Reaper players. What it doesn't do is fit your conception of a Necromantic playstyle. These are two very separate things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You also stated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If they didn't want necromancer's play style then they shouldn't have named the class necromancer. And it was clear I'll n development that they did want that style of game play but decided not to include it for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I responded with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Attaching the name Necromancer to the profession is not a promise of a specific type of Necromantic idea related to the GW1 experience, just that it is a Necromantic idea based on Necromantic concepts. They included a Necromancer playstyle in this game. It just isn't the playstyle you wanted. It is, however, the playstyle that other people want, again see your comments about Reaper players. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And thousands of players are left without their playstyle when anet has made it their goal to include everyone for the game. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to which I said > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >As for thousands of players leaving due to a playstyle not being met without any evidence to back such a claim it is not a real point worth considering. I could counter with thousands of players love Necromancer the way it is and nothing is missing from it and it would be just as valid as your statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So clearly I have argued against statements you have actually made and not against things you did not say, as you have erroneously stated. Which is an actual straw-man argument since you are making a claim that I can prove to you is false in an attempt to not having to actually counter my arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > again you misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not going to spend hours of my life re-explaining something to someone who didn't get it the first time. Its a waste of both of our time. Even further you are still straw-maning my argument. If you are confused, sorry. Can't do anything about that, I don't have the patience to re-explain it to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only person here who is confused is you, as you seem to misunderstand what a straw-man argument is. A straw-man is an argument that intentionally misrepresents what you have said in an attempt to dodge the points made. I have highlighted your exact wording and illustrated how what I said is a direct counter to what you actually said. I have not reworded what you have said. I have not made claims about things you have said. I have quoted you directly and illustrated which part of my statements was addressing your statements. To claim that you are being straw-manned when everything stated thus far is a direct response (and can be quoted as such) to what you have actually said is arguing in bad faith. Additionally, the claim that you are being straw-manned when direct evidence has been shown to refute that is in itself a straw-man argument as you have intentionally misrepresented the discussion twice in order to not have to refute points you can't counter. If you had no real counter argument the graceful thing would have been to simply bow out of the conversation. Claiming a straw-man argument when you have clearly been refuted is also arguing in bad faith. Being as how you can't or won't argue in good faith I am done with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not arguing your points because you refused to address my points as they are. You wanted to suggest that I said "All reaper players", I did not. I have no interest in arguing and trying to reexplain my points over again when you can't even address it at the start honestly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Whatever makes you feel better about not being able to counter an argument. The whole "all Reaper players" isn't an important enough point and is a result of your frequent generalizations and your inaccurate use of language. When it can be shown that your points were directly addressed it becomes clear that you are hiding behind a straw-man argument of your own creation since you know you can't counter any of the points made that directly addressed and rebutted what you said. But if focusing on "All Reaper players" makes you feel better then by all means use that strawman. > > > > > > > > > > Try starting a position with honesty and good faith before mocking people for their experiences. > > > > > > > > Good faith was extended to you until you decided to get hung up on three words that had nothing of consequence to do with the actual discussion. The fact that I quoted you directly and showed you which statements you made that lead me to make my statement indicates perfectly the fact that I was being honest. If you take issue with my generalization then it is only because you were inaccurate in your own depiction of the Reaper players you spoke of. Not being able to counter an argument does not make a person dishonest. > > > > > > I didn't address your argument because there wasn't anything to argue. You're trying to suggest my experience with reaper players didn't happen. Its unreasonable skepticism that in itself is dishonest. You might believe you have a point, but when you begin with a dishonest position then say that its not important, you have failed your goal. By starting with your dishonest position You've haven't given me reason to take your opinions seriously. > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_all This is how you started. > > > > I can see how you might think that. It isn't what I was suggesting, but I can see how you can see that. Really, if you hadn't phrased your previous response to imply all Reaper players you wouldn't feel that I was suggesting your experience didn't happen. I suggest being more specific when you discuss a playerbase, staying away from language that implies a generalization to an entire subpopulation when you really just mean a handful. Saying "Reaper players" is a generalizing statement, one that you said multiple times. Why you feel the need to claim I'm dishonest to cover up your inaccurate phrasing of your position that some Reaper players said something to you is beyond me. But if it will make you feel better to claim that I was dishonest when I was merely responding to how you positioned Reaper players in most of your post then that's cool. I don't mind being dishonest if it is to help other people feel good about themselves. > > I've already proven my point about your response. It's clear to see you are the unreasonable one here who is incapable of making an honest response. You continue to derail the conversation with that misleading platitude. Others who've read it knew what I was getting at it was just you who wanted to misrepresent it as all. If you say so. I made several honest attempts to give you an honest response. I explained to you the things that you said that made me think a specific way. You rejected that honesty and instead focused just on what was said. Not the why of what was said but just the act. Focusing on the act to the exclusion of the why I saw your statement that way indicates that you never wanted an honest response. When I explained that you made a generalized statement I was being honest with you as I honestly told you what you said to make me think the way I did. I highlighted the statements I saw as generalizations, again an attempt to be honest with you. Normally when someone doesn't see eye to eye on something I work with them to get to a shared meaning. I attempted that with you but you rejected that. Cool. I have no reason to be dishonest as this is just a silly internet discussion. It isn't important enough to be dishonest. I have a history of working with folks to make sure we are on the same page, even going so far as to take back statements that have been shown to be based on a bad interpretation. Claiming I'm dishonest to cover up the fact that you don't have a counter argument just won't work though. It's cute that you engage in an ad hom attack in order to maintain a straw man attack. =) :p 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