Royal Grand Majesty.9852

Just a speculation, seeing as how they have switched focus from releasing Elite Specs to providing new weapons that were otherwise inaccessible. My guess would be A-net would keep handing out new weapons to every class in future expansions until every class has access to every weapon in-game. This would be the new feature that they would most likely be working towards that would replace 'Elite Specs'. By the time every class has acquired every weapon in-game, way into the future, they would have already planned and most likely began testing the next big feature to introduce to the game going ahead. I'm not saying this would be the route that A-net will take, after all it's all just speculation, but it would be the "Lazy-Man's" approach to buy time. I personally wouldn't mind A-net implementing new features alongside releasing new weapons. It really depends on how much work A-net is able to get done and implement in-game. In regards to the next weapon for revenant, I personally want any 1200 range weapon with a fast and spammy auto attack animation for WvW. Hammer is 🤮 for me personally.

This is perfect, again you wrote a 'Word Salad'. You wrote 7 responses of which all you did was deny and state that it's nonsense. Now I know that you don't even know the definition of the word 'Subjective'. Don't you? Obviously you won't admit it and immediately refer to a dictionary, but in your previous response when I responded: "All the individual objective rewards being the same is just nonsense. [ Well that's subjective, ain't it? ]" Your response was: "No, it's not and I already explained it more than once. You yourself mentioned the difference in "length, cost or difficulty" of the tasks, suggesting that all of them should have the same reward is actual nonsense." Do you know what 'Subjectivity' is? Are you claiming that your view is the view of the rest of the player base and is a 'Fact'? Regardless of the "Length, Cost or Difficulty" excuse, your final response was that "It's actual nonsense", while also being 'Not Subjective', means that your statement is objectively factual. See how nonsensical your response is? You seem to always state that I'm the one dodging. Very interesting, I'm the one dodging right? Well since you're the accuser, you will never agree to this, but I ask everyone else to read through our responses, as nonsensical as it may be and see if any 'Dodging' was made by me, or if every point was addressed as I claim it to be. Interesting. You said "Player's don't need to complete all the tasks, so there's no problem for a solution to be made". In which I referred to the unlimited Gold Bags for AA dumping. Explaining that there is always a use for extra AA. You responded with: "Gold isn't WV specific currency/item nor is it one of the more valuable limited purchase items." My friend, why are you even stating that Gold isn't a Wizard Vault specific Item? Do you just randomly throw out random facts to lengthen your responses to make yourself appear more knowledgeable? This is getting nonsensical at this point. Your response was that: "nor is it one of the more valuable limited purchase items." So according to you, 'Gold' isn't as valuable as the rest of the rewards, that in itself justifies that 'Player's don't need to complete all the tasks'. You do realize how that sounds right? You are conflating your 'Subjective' views of the Wizard Vault rewards with an 'Objective' fact for the entire player base. Finally you state at the end "At this point, you might be doing this intentionally." in regards to me 'Dodging'. All you are doing is denying everything I suggested with the "It's Nonsense" approach. You don't even know the definition of 'Subjectivity', while also conflating it with 'Objectivity', in an attempt to make it appear that your 'Subjective' views is 'Factual'. Again you wrote another 'Word Salad', you can deny all you want, but I gave a perfect example when you stated: "Gold isn't WV specific currency/item". You are artificially attempting to lengthen your responses to appear more knowledgeable than you actually are, how-ever when reading your responses it becomes apparent that more than half your responses is just that, a 'Word Salad'. I am now certain that you aren't confused about what I said, just that you don't want to take back your initial comment about my solution for the OP being nonsense. In which I responded that It's fine, since it's a 'Subjective' response. However since then you are trying very hard to 'factualize' your response and claim it isn't 'Subjective' but 'Facts'. Which will never work and is just nonsensical in nature. You have the 'burden of proof', since you claim your response isn't 'Subjective'. Good luck trying to prove something that appears 'nonsensical' to you, is in fact 'Objectively Factual' for every person. 😉

Like I said earlier I won't be explaining myself again, If something is beyond your comprehension and understanding, there's no helping it. You're totally under the misconception that I want this change done for myself. I was providing a solution in response to the original post. I called your previous response a word salad because only 2 sentences from your entire response were even addressing the point, rest was just that, a 'Word Salad'. As you did just now with your recent response, you wrote 4 separate responses but only 2 sentences were even to the point. * "All the individual objective rewards being the same is just nonsense". [ Well that's subjective, ain't it? ] * "Player's don't need to complete all the tasks, so there's no problem for a solution to be made". [ You're forgetting the unlimited Gold Bags my friend 😉 ] Then you go on about how you didn't miss my point, which you clearly aren't understanding which is why you keep saying "You ignored what I said". If you actually understood what I wrote in response, you would see that all your points were addressed. I don't know if it's your ego that's responding and you don't want to seem like you don't understand basic conceptual reasoning behind the solution which I was providing for the OP or if you genuinely don't understand it. Either way, I fare you luck in the future. Enjoy the game! 😄

All of this was just word salad littered with countless vocabularic errors. Your main point about it rewarding players less, just shows you didn't even understand my previous response. I will explain it one last time, if you still don't get it, or choose not to and refute it purposefully due to I don't know, ego maybe, then there's no helping it. My suggestion bulks majority of the AA within the reward track, sure individually each objective rewarding only 100 AA is less, but majority of the AA will be within in 'Reward Track', in turn you will be awarded the same if not more, depending on the amount of AA that's rewarded within the 'Reward Track'. Can't believe I have to explain this for the third time, such a basic concept. What do you even mean when you said "Please, next time you want to comment on "my point", make sure you actually comment on what I said" ? Every single point that I made was in response to yours. Are you just trying to add more sentences within your vocabularic error infested word salad to seem more knowledgeable? Like I said the change isn't a re-work, the systems are already implemented within the 'Daily' and 'Weekly' tab and just need to be carried over towards the 'Special' category. Can't explain that in more simple English I'm afraid. Your final point in regards to me not understanding that A-net doesn't need to calculate anything in regards to Wizard Vault rewards, and the example I gave about 1 Bag Gold being increased in price from 30 AA to 35 AA, your response was because people had too much AA to spend on left-overs so they increased the price. Let's say for a second that's the exact reason why A-net re-adjusted the price, I wonder how they got to the new price of 35 AA? Did they just randomly roll a dice and chose 35 AA? Or did they 'Calculate' a more fitting price for that particular item? You just proved my point to be true 😉

My point for a theoretical change that I suggested, helps resolve the issue which some players and the OP have in regards to certain 'Special' objectives being lengthy, costly or difficult. With a reward track rewarding bulk of the AA, all the while introducing more objectives within the 'Special' Category, how-ever only limiting a set amount of objectives to be completed to fill out the 'Reward Track' while the left-overs only rewarding 100 AA per, so it's not as crucial to complete everything as the individual rewards are only 100 AA per Objective, where-as the completionists can fully utilize the extra AA, meanwhile the casual player doesn't feel like their missing out on a-lot of AA by not completing 'ALL' the Special Objectives as they only reward 100 AA individually. Can't believe that I had to explain this concept in-depth, it's not very difficult to understand. As I said, it's not a rework, if it's already implemented into the 'Daily' and 'Weekly' tabs, and just needs to be transitioned over. Systems are already in place, and just require implementation, not hard to understand. On your final point, "A-net doesn't need to calculate anything?" Not to be rude, but that comment is just nonsensical in nature. I have a simple question for you. How was the cost of the limited 1 Gold Bags changed from 30 AA to 35 AA? I wonder if A-net did any 'Calculations' to figure out of the amount of AA for the reward was too great, hence the price of the limited 1 Gold Bags were slightly increased by 5 AA. 😉

You do realize implementing a reward track bonus like there is with the 'Daily' and 'Weekly' tab into the 'Special' tab isn't a rework per say, as it's already implemented into the previous 2 categories and just needs to be carried over. In regards to your question about AA requirements, A-net can always calculate that themselves, what's the point of asking that?

If this becomes too much of an issue, in regards to difficult, costly or lengthy objectives within the 'Special' tab. I could see A-Net implementing a reward track progress system like the ones within the 'Daily' and 'Weekly' tabs. While also restricting each individual objective reward within the 'Special' tab to 100 AA each. While the bulk of the AA would come from completing the 'Special' reward track and upon completion it would give you a bulk amount of AA. They would need to increase the AA cap if they implemented this, but I don't see anything wrong in it. Those who want to grind out however many extra 'Special' objectives that remain past the reward track, can do so, but will only receive 100 AA for each. Further down the line, if A-Net decides to increase the amount of objectives within each category, they could also implement a pip system within the reward track. For example every 25% you get some rewards, one at 25%, 50%, 75% then 100%. This way people aren't forced to complete all the objectives to receive all the rewards at the end, but are consistently rewarded as the reward track progresses.

On the contrary, WoW [Retail] released content and new features consistently as OP wishes GW2 to, how-ever watch any WoW [Retail] content creator today or go read the WoW reddit or forums and be witness to the complaints made by the masses on how WoW has become too complicated and cluttered with all of its overlapping systems. Do you really want a new mount every expansion? Do you really want another method of traversing the Maps such as Gliders and Jade Bot Protocols? There comes a point where less is better. WoW [Retail] for example has long past this point many expansions ago.

Personally I always saw the story as a way to gain more AP, Mastery Points and an unavoidable method of unlocking new content [Maps] for the first time. Don't want to discredit the story in GW2, but in my personal opinion GW2 is mainly about the flexibility of character progression. Sure there are a-lot of people who play GW2 for the story, but the game has so much more to offer, that the story becomes just a one and done thing for many. It would be great if the story is improved like you said, but personally I think the GW2 Community has been 'Conditioned' in a way that the Story becomes 'Side-Content'. One thing that I personally think would drastically improve the overall feel of the Story is if every point in the story where your character or the NPCs talk amongst each other, is made into a cut-scene or something more enjoying to watch. I feel like the unskippable conversations in 'Chat-Bubble' format makes the player fall asleep very fast.

I wonder if the chest piece would have some sort of extra effect like the PvP and WvW chests with tentacles coming out from the back. Or if they take the PvE route and make the armor transformable. Imagine it being both, [Extra Effects + Transformable], that'll anger so many people. 🤣

Try the 'Hide Ally Effects' option, any issues or bugs with it will be resolved in due time. That's A-Nets solution to those who dislike infusion effects altogether. What you're asking for [Removal of Infusion Stacking] will literally crash the infusion market on the TP, in turn upset a-lot of the player-base that contribute the most, if you know what I mean. Feel free to make a thread to portray your views, I'm just asking for the ability to use any stats while being the 'Vomit' on the screen. I guess the issue that me and my friends are having are limited to a small slice of the community, I was blinded in thinking that the majority of the GW2 player base would face similar issues, guess I was secluded in a very niche community, glad to know. Maybe the people who would be having this issue probably only stay in places such as 'Overflow' or the likes. Maybe the forums isn't the ideal location. Guess this request is going out to A-Net directly.

That's completely subjective. I'm sure 8 stacks of certain infusions look great on certain fashion. In regards to build-craft simplicity, I for one have different infusions for each of my characters, stat swapping infusions is very quick and easy. What I'm talking about is losing stats from infusions from being forced into using all different stats to acquire 8 stacks of infusions intensity. To be honest, what I'm requesting is something that is very possible for Arena-Net to implement if they ever do an infusion rework or release 'Legendary Infusions' or the sort. What you're asking for [Removal of Infusion Stacks] is next to impossible as I explained in my previous post: [Read Below] Then there's the matter of sales and if A-net would risk jeopardizing the Infusion market on the trading post and also themselves via 'Whales' who just swipe for gems to gold to acquire said infusions.

Actually infusion effects can compliment fashion quite well within GW2, what your conflating between are the people who use it to flex their wealth to the people who actually use infusion effects to genuinely enhance their fashion game. To be honest, I personally think 'most' of the people who use the 'too bright' or 'obnoxiously distracting' excuse even though there is an option to completely turn off infusions with the 'Hide Ally Effects' options are actually just 'jealous' more than anything. Not trying to be that guy, but you're the one who brought up "Its just showing that you got gold". 😏

I understand your dilemma, If you don't already know, there's a simple solution to your problem which A-net already implemented in-game. You can turn on 'hide ally effects' in the settings to remove infusions. I for one use 8 Chaks, 8 Imperial Everblooms, 1 Peerless and 1 Mystic for my 18 Infusion slots, it's not overbearing but very beautiful as was mentioned by many. If A-net implement no stacking as you suggest then people would just resort to 1 stack of every infusion they can get their hands on, so rather than light bulbs, you'll just get walking fireworks all over the place. Then there's the matter of sales and if A-net would risk jeopardizing the Infusion market on the trading post and also themselves via 'Whales' who just swipe for gems to gold to acquire said infusions. Good luck though.

I should have been more specific, since majority of the player base aren't even using cosmetic infusions, due to financial restraints or maybe they aren't at that stage where stats from cosmetic infusions are all that's left to min/max their characters power. All the people who I associate with in-game are at this stage, which in-turn made me forget that cosmetic infusions are something that only a select few even possess or choose to use. Rather than playing on the semantics of who is representing who, if this problem is not affecting you, I don't see any contribution to your input.