IndigoSundown.5419

As far as I am aware, "snap ground target" involves how one places AOE targeting rings. The game controls can be set up to have this take multiple actions -- or one action -- already. I am not familiar with the Steam Deck controller. Will you be performing two actions (left trackpad and right trackpad?) or combining them into one action? Also, which game functions will be emulated? The answer to your question is likely going to depend on the answer to that question. For instance, if your idea will emulate the existing option to instant-cast AOE's (targeting and execution via one key press), it seems unlikely to be an issue. If the idea is about doing something else, I don't have a clue.

If I were making that decision for ANet, I'd look at EoD sales. If they are going strong, I would not put it on sale. If they have tapered off considerably, I'd probably put it on sale to increase them. Of course, I'd have to consider the possible backlash from those who recently bought EoD who are now demanding refunds. 😉

Insist? No. You're the one insisting it isn't. I prefer to acknowledge the possibility their actions are evidence of listening. This is an educated guess based on the fact that an awful lot of player feedback has appeared in one form or another in the game. As to your suggestions about staff dedicated to perusing and acting on feedback... which you think might satisfy your complaint. The truth is that there was a collaborative initiative between ANet and players years ago. It's no longer here. Turns out that a lot of people weren't satisfied with ANet conversing openly about changes to the game. Many were unhappy if their views were not the ones heeded. Maybe I'm cynical, but I would see much the same happening as happens now -- people claiming ANet doesn't listen to the player-base, when the truth is they mean ANet didn't give them what they wanted. That's also based on (anecdotal) evidence from ten years of the official forums.

Over ten years, many, if not most of the changes to the game were things that one group or another asked for. Start all the way back with Fractals, which put in progressive agony resistance when people were complaining about lack of gear progression. So, no matter what ANet does, you are going to attribute it to something other than them "listening?" Why? The raid changes are just them positioning the game to appeal to new players,? Why couldn't it be in response to player feedback? Why not BOTH. What would ANet have to DO for you to conclude that changes they make are in response to feedback? What changes to the meta-game of community/dev interaction would satisfy you? Without something more specific than, "They're not listening!" it's hard to see this as more than just frustration over something unclear.

I have no doubt ANet is listening to players... What I am not sure of is which players they are listening to. Take the Empowered buff in raids. For years, raiders fought tooth and nail against easy-mode raids. Others demanded them. Meanwhile, raiders asked for more raids. So, is Empowered about listening to those who wanted easy-mode raids? Or, is it about both catering to those who want easy and those who want more, by growing the population of players who want more raids? Perhaps some clarification is needed in this thread about just which player inputs are being ignored. I'd expect we might find almost as many opinions on that as there are posters.

So, here's the thing... The MMO genre is full of content whose longevity is ensured by the attachment of rewards to successful completion. The end result of this genre staple is that MMO players expect rewards -- and will rarely repeat content that is unrewarding. You might say that the rewards are an inseparable part of content in such games. There had to be a reward for strikes, and a separate reward for the CM's. This should be considered a given. Any attempt to deny this would be flying in the face of overwhelming evidence. So, if the reward that the OP is up in arms about were not to be the exclusive reward for CM's. what would be? It would have to be something desirable. A reward that lacks appeal is as bad as no reward. More importantly, how would ANet (or any game developer) be able to select a reward that would appeal to those who would do CM's, and not appeal to those who won't?

Ty... which would mean that those who didn't use arc got a bit more out of the ANet system

For those who did not use Arc Templates, the GW2 loadouts were a small increase in functionality. Before they debuted, we had WvW, PvE and PvP builds, as well as WvW and PvE gear loadouts. After they debuted, we now have 3 build slots, 2 equipment slots, and a small number of build save slots. The number of build and equipment slots didn't change. We did get more flexibility -- those who don't PvP or WvW can now load three PvE builds, for instance. We also got more bag space since the equipment loadouts store the gear in them. For those who did use Arc, the GW2 version was a massive downgrade behind a paywall.

I'm disappointed to see that the "everything you need to experience Tyria" verbiage is still on their site on the EoD/PoF/HoT purchase. While it doesn't say 'experience all of Tyria and its story, that is in fact how newcomers are going to read it. C'mon ANet. Prove that you're better than it looks.

I wouldn't mind if people looked at my clothes (skins), but I would not want them to be able to look at my underwear (underlying stats).

Suit yourself. I still think this is much ado about nothing. I'd be surprised if it turned out there are really any sales of the canisters, but perhaps I'm not as aware of just how much people want to avoid going out of their way at all. I always thought they exist in the store at all in order to create the perception that they have some value when they drop as login rewards or from BLC's.

Let's look at the word, "scam." The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as, "A dishonest scheme, a fraud." "Dishonest" and "fraud" involve misinformation. "Scheme" involves intent. There is no misinformation. Players who have been in the game long enough to remember armor repair (like what, since 2-3 weeks ago?) should know that the anvils/NPC's exist in game. Then, there's Occam's Razor. If you believe that there is a problem, which you obviously do, why assume that there is malice intended, which would need to be the case for fraud? The simplest explanation for the omission of the information you'd like to see is that ANet has a long history of being explanation-light about the game. Yet you'd prefer to assume cynical, manipulative salesmanship. A lot of posters misappropriate negatively-loaded terminology in an effort to build agreement with their gripe, whatever it is. Far and away the most common such misappropriation involves the term "pay-to-win." Sometimes, these posters have many issues with the game and make lots of complaint posts. Perhaps, though, you are just mistaken in your use of the terms "deceptive" and "scam." That's not to say I'd complain if ANet put in the disclaimer you mention. I just think this situation is the proverbial "tempest in a teapot."

Consider that ANet made them function as they now do because (a lot of people (probably) have a lot of them, either gotten for free or bought. Also consider that exchanging gold for gems to get the 150 gems to buy 5 of the canisters was way more in-game coin than paying at the anvil used to be. Of course, once the anvil became free, this was even more so. So, why did the canisters continue to exist? Because some people would rather buy them than find an anvil. That is the only possible explanation, and continues to hold true whether to gain a buff or repair armor. Don' think it's worth the cost. Don't buy it. But get used to the idea that ANet is happy to take whatever odds and ends it can get from players who cba to go a few seconds out of their way. That's the way convenience micro-transactions work. Or, you can keep angsting about how ANet is scamming, even though this is nowhere near the definition.

When ANet creates playtime extenders like Masteries, exploration and achievements, they tie some of these together, or tie them to content. Their goal seems to have been to entice players into doing specific content they would normally not engage in. As much as I and some others might dislike this design decision, it is probably good for the game. MMO's thrive when there are things for players to do, and most -- if not all -- MMO's use rewards of one sort or another to ensure that players keep coming back. Why? Money. Whether the game makes money via a cash shop or a sub. players who stop playing will also stop spending.

In the aftermath of the 6/28 patch, ANet acknowledged there were issues, put out a patch that nerfed mechanist a bit and buffed ranger weapons/ They also promised more such adjustments in future and will publish their current balance goals/philosophy in the next few months. Fwiw, the ranger nerfs from 6/28 and buffs in the after-patch have resulted in an overall buff to some ranger builds. In essence, ANet raised the skill floor (how easy it is to produce good results) while also lowering the skill ceiling (made it easier to play) for ranger power builds. In a relatively short time, the 6/28 patch will be nothing but a momentary bump in the road. If current trends hold (and it's early days), the skill needed to succeed in raids/strikes will be lower, and the results available to highly skilled play may be less. If you're primarily an open world solo player, but are looking to dabble in instanced group content, the game may actually be better for you. I wouldn't worry.

As Cyninja says, this suggestion would cause more power creep and loss of opportunity cost. 1) Your solution to power creep is to ask the devs to then nerf "stuff" to compensate. I am very leery of ANet nerfing things except for "stuff" that is really overpowered. My opinion would be that it is better not to buff, particularly game-changing buffs like your suggestion, than it is to "compensate" for buffs with nerfs. The latter usually works out to the detriment of many builds, but not all, which makes balancing across builds more difficult. Further, what would you nerf? Since the proposed buff is to utility skills, would each utility skill then have to lose 33% of its effectiveness to "compensate?" Be careful what you ask for. 2) You don't offer a "solution" for the loss of opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is the bedrock on which any choice-based build system rests. Without the necessity to weigh whether you want desirable stuff A or desirable stuff B, the build system is poorer, less engaging and most importantly sacrifices depth. This leads to a less interesting game. Sorry, I'm not in favor.

You can do a good shout healer using Tempest w/ all shouts. Not meta, but good enough for strikes and raids if the group is willing.

This is a fair point, thanks.

7.1 weeks to get a Legendary item? Wow, Do the WvW dailies you can get done for three times that long. If 7.1 is legendary, then surely 21.3 weeks is even more so. MMO's are marathons, not sprints. As long as such games make money by promoting player playtime longevity, this will be true.

Do I think that low-intensity builds should do as much damage as long-rotation builds? No. Do I think that long-rotation builds should do 4-5x the damage as low-intensity builds? No. Why? There should be a reward for mastery. For me, though 2-2.5x ought to be enough. Caveat: that's as compared to a low-intensity build that involves multiple key presses in rotation, not AFK and auto. Again, why? Ask yourself why the game doesn't see new raids, well, at all. The harder-instanced content game needs new blood. ANet sees this, and is trying to get more people into such content by making it possible for them to contribute without having to learn and build into muscle memory 30-50 step rotations. Think otherwise all you like, but be aware that if you get what you want, that will likely sabotage ANet's harder-content intentions and you may be cutting your own throat.

Nice! Thanks for the fyi. That's one on the positive side of the scale for ANet.

The poll wording is very biased. Unique and fun are not necessarily the same, certainly not across the entire range of players. Balanced and homogenous are also not necessarily the same, though bringing two classes closer together in terms of capability can be an easy way to aim for balance. So, what we have here is a poll creator who has already made up his mind and is looking for agreement, not discussion. That said, I'm in favor of fun, and I'm in favor of balance. I don't give a fig about "uniqueness" as an absolute, though differences in how classes play is something I do like. The truth is that GW2 does a decent job of offering different play-styles as is. I also don't care about homogenization -- at all. In fact, if this patch is any indication of the overall direction the game is going in that regard, I dislike it. It's pretty obvious that ANet is pushing harder, instanced content. They (seem to) hope that they can entice players who've avoided such content in the past into participating, probably so that committing resources to making such content is effective at keeping the larger player-base engaged with the game. They seem to think that standardizing boons across more professions is going to accomplish this. I'm skeptical. Most of the people I've seen are either comfortable with changing to a different character who fills a given role OR they want to play their "main" using their build of choice regardless of what the group needs. Frankly, what's much more likely to make a difference in increasing player counts in instanced content are the low-intensity builds that have surfaced on streams and YouTube. These builds allow players to participate in harder content and contribute to the outcome, without having to play one of the intricate, lengthy-rotation builds out there . Obviously, profession design makes these low-intensity builds possible. However, I don't know whether ANet deliberately crafted build components with that objective in mind, or whether they were just a by-product of overall profession design that were then theory-crafted by the build tinkerers in the community.

Agreed. The proposed change would negatively impact guild WvW dailies for my guild group.

0/10 It's a good thing I don't expect anything good to come out of ANet. That way I'm not disappointed. The removal of the unique buffs is especially troubling. Does ANet think that they're opening up options for groups to want those classes by giving them second-rate versions of buffs that other professions do better? That's not going to happen.

Caused by ANet actions as noted by Ashen. Players complain the game is unrewarding, ANet responds by providing events that drop ever more of the mats or salvage bait items that provide more mats. Players complain that mat X (e.g., mystic coins) costs too much, ANet adds a faucet.