kharmin.7683

You think it would be too OP? Or the new meta?Yes (body is too short)

As to the second point, I'm pretty confident that if this change would significantly increase sales over the resources that would be needed to make the change, then Anet would have done so. It's always about the money. :)

By calling it a lie, you are almost suggesting that ANet is misleading on purpose. There is no evidence to support that claim. Rather, in my opinion, one might say that the description does not appear accurate. Calling out Anet as a "liar" is not helpful to support your position. Just my 2 coppers.Good luck.

You may disagree with the outfit description, but calling it a lie and then asking for Anet to do something is probably not going to get anywhere.

Also, isn't this why we have repair canisters?

ESO wasn't built on its predecessors old code, either.

oh i really want to know, like what, fixes you'll never get, improvements that never get done correctly, balances that will always screw over professions that work? I'd rather the devs focus attention on those than making a moving cloud chair. i rather have a fun game than a broken game, cloud is fun, screwing up systems breaks games.So rather than focus on the things that you mention that never get done, you would prefer the devs to make a floaty chair that doesn't progress the game in any real sense? I see your agenda here, but sarcasm aside I can't believe that you would want this done instead of fixing things that displease you about the game. But w/e

oh i really want to know, like what, fixes you'll never get, improvements that never get done correctly, balances that will always screw over professions that work? I'd rather the devs focus attention on those than making a moving cloud chair.

Well, that's clear as mud :)

Just imagine a big wooden club and it's thematically fitting. To me, a wooden club would be more like a mace whereas a hammer is a two-handed ordeal. A larger club might make sense for a druid to me, though.

How can you have an "on block" effect on something that is unblockable?

Well, we don't know how hard it would be to fix or how much development resources would be required to address it. It could be a lot more than we expect since much of GW2 is built on the old, spaghetti code. I agree, though, that a better preview for items like this would be appreciated. The regular preview panel (outside of the BLTC) has three view options. It would be helpful if that window opened from the BLTC preview button.

I'm not sure that they would net more money as they would have to make two, different mount skins.

I still don't see how a hammer can be thematic for a ranger. To me, it is too large and bulky of a weapon, better served for more fighter-type classes than ranger. Just my opinion.

I'm a PvE player and I have the warclaw, too.

Kinda glad that it isn't blue or purple again. At least it's got that going for it.

Very punny! On second thought, however, the Jackal is my least used mount...really only good for the sand portals, which only exist in PoF and later zones. Covering open ground works better with a raptor or roller beetle...so what would sell better, a skin for the least used PvE mount (especially one that doesn't even resemble that mount) or the only usable mount in WvW? Well, least used mount for you perhaps. I use my jackal second only to my skyscale. I find that I can control it much better than the raptor and/or beetle. /shrug

Yeah, it seems out of place as a Jackal skin...jackals are usually slender, this thing doesn't look like it would even fit through a sand portal. I would have bought it as a Warclaw skin, though. My guess is that it was made on a jackal skin for more availability. Probably way more players with jackals than warclaws. Probably more in sales this way, too.

To each their own, I guess. Not a fan of this suggestion. /shrug

Downloaded new build and am now able to log in.

Blizzard is not Anet. I really hate this comparison because it simply cannot be made.

Saying they're doing something but unwilling to explain what they actually did leaves lots of room for people to believe they aren't doing anything, especially when emprically, players are noticing otherwise. They could be doing something, but I think they need to be a little more open about who and how many they ban, etc. But they won't for privacy reasons. I'd rather that then have them be more specific and then being sued out of business.