kharmin.7683

I disagree. As long as GW2 keeps profiting the shareholders, then it can go for a long time.

When was the siege turtle ever advertised that it would be available in WvW?

Why get a commander tag if you're not going to be commanding squads? If you just want a map marker, then use the mentor tag.

I understood quite well. I just don't see how you are punished.

Not understanding how OP was punished?

I'm guessing it didn't see more play because those modes are more interested in DPS.... which is why we have what we have now.

No thanks. Not needed.

We'll just have to disagree then. I found it to be fun, useful and quite effective. Apparently, you didn't have the same experience. As for it never being used, you present a very limited scenario (raid/strike). You may be right in that sense, in which case certainly other weapon sets may well prove more useful. There was no need to radically change the way sword worked since, as you said, it was never used in that environment.

It's like you never used sword correctly. At what point do you roll backwards? It's called "disengaging" so that you can re-engage and flank ... thus taking full advantage of a trait line designed for just that. And you didn't have to waste a utility slot for it.

Yep. Above is correct. Spiders were considered and dropped, partially due to so many people having phobias of spiders.

Me too. I was pretty torqued when they swapped skill 2 and 3 around, but then learned how to adjust my preferred rotation. Now, it's bland with no interesting movement which, for me, has gutted one trait line which I found highly useful with the weapon. As the thread title says, these were changes to sword that literally no one asked to be made. It's frustrating and infuriating. I really wanted OH shield to go with MH sword. The only reason I rolled a Dragonhunter was to get that combination, but it just doesn't flow for me on that profession as much as it had with Ranger.

Completely disagree with point #1. "Most situations?" "wasn't inherently beneficial?" It was all a L2P with MH sword. If you knew how to use it, it was a lot of fun and quite useful. Disagree as well as the last point, saying that it maintains a more mobile playstyle. I find it to be significantly less mobile. Once you leap in to your opponent, then what? Leap again? You're already standing there. And now, you have no discernible evade and no movement to take advantage of the Skirmishing trait line. Finally seeing use in PvE? What type of PvE? Group content? Because I was using it a lot in open world, but not so much anymore due to these recent changes. It's a win across modes? The Skirmishing trait line would probably disagree with you. Serious question: Are you a ranger main? Have you really played the class with MH sword before these changes? Did you know how?

https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/articles/360013625034

Reading the forums and engaging the community are two different things.

If you have marketing data to support your points, I'm sure that ANet would love to look at it.

They never said that they would.... ah, nevermind. I caught the end-tag. 😉

I'd prefer resources be spent on more content that everyone can play. Adding new classes? What isn't already covered by the existing ones?

Only the second point you make is relevant and even then we don't know the exact make up of the teams involved in any projects. The rest of your points are immaterial because they can be very subjective (lower quality) or business decisions (no ability to work on raids or PvP). WvW alliances having only 2 people working on it? You don't know that. All of your evidence is conjecture.

No, it's anecdotal evidence, not proof.

I often find that the complaints about the changes are more from the competitive crowd (PvP and WvW) and instanced content runners (raids, strikes, fractals). OWPvE and storyline just take the collateral damage hits.

Of course I have eyes. And I have yet to see incontrovertible proof of the claims that the other poster made. Speculate all you want, that's fine, but don't come on a public forum and make factual statements with no evidence or proof. I agree that Anet (or any company really) would probably not go public with how they allocate their resources especially if they are migrating resources to one project to the detriment of another. You cite things as evidence when it is really no more than perception and subjectivity. Lack of manpower? Who are we to decide if that's true? Anet knows how much manpower they need. Decline in quality? While I may very well agree with that, it is highly subjective. None of these things are provable. So, the point is that players ought not come to the forums with their complaints by using statements of fact without proof.

You're right. I had forgotten that!

Nope, I don't jest. I was really enjoying Sw/D ranger (core and untamed) until Anet screwed MH sword. Regardless, when my pet and I are engaged with a target and rotating through skills and some other ranger knocks it away .... yeah, I get testy. I often feel it is inexperienced Ranger players who are simply pressing skills when they come off CD with no real thought or regard for the result.

Anet has already said that there isn't.

It is not harassment to question a claim that you appear to have made with some authority. I merely asked you to cite the evidence of your claim. Where is your evidence to back up the statement that "nearly all the resources of the studio are dedicated to the unannounced game." I haven't seen anything in the official channels. If you can't manage to have a debate on a public forum without resorting to personal attacks, then maybe you shouldn't be making baseless claims.