Beast Sos.1457

If you are comparing what im saying to keyboard turning then I think you're misunderstanding me. Also, like I said above, it would be a toggle on option so no you are not forced to play that way. Just turn on action camera in game and move around then turn it off and move again. Tell me which one is more fluid. Its actually known that when you learn how to about face in pvp and even pve it makes you a better player.

Its not the same as turning 180. I just toggled on free camera on recently. The way it would work with what im saying is that it would automatically about face when you press S and run forward in that direction while the camera is still facing the direction it was in before the about face.

It would still work that way. You could make a 180 but your camera doesn't move. The way it works in action combat is that the camera only moves when you move it with your mouse. So if you press S your character makes a 180 and runs forward in that direction while the camera is still facing the initial location you were facing.

Thats why there would be a toggle on and off option..

Action combat camera movement. When I press S in free camera my character still back peddles, but if you toggle on action camera you will see that when you press S the camera stays still but your character does a 180 and starts running in that direction. The only time you back peddle is when you are in a skill animation. The game feels much more fluid when using action camera for that reason. I know you true gamers use about face to have the effect im asking for but my boomer hands dont like it. I tried to get use to it but its just a pain in the kitten. First you have to left click then you can about face so the camera wont turn. Then to get your camera to point in the direction you changed to, you have to right click or if you want to turn back around you have to right and left click at the same time. Its so many unnecessary steps for something that is already there with action camera. This would be a nice QoL improvement imo especially as a option we can toggle on and off for those who don't like it.

I agree. What I think is the important part is that your damage shouldn't fall off so hard if you move away from the group. If you can be at range and not take damage then you shouldn't be penalized for it by making your damage lower. If someone needs heal they can always run up to a healer. I don't think healing range should be increased. That would make the game much easier if anything. Edit: I suggested for it to be a instanced thing only. For example, raids or strikes. It shouldn't be applied in WvW or the opened world.

You say I'm taking what they said about the way you want to play professions out of context but with no reason why? At least explain why. How is it taken out of context. Give me the context if thats the case. Support was always part of the plan. Sure the hard healer role wasn't the plan, I should have worded that right but it was always a plan to have the option to go a "support" build that gives out boons and also has burst heal potential. Just not constant healing like your typical healing class. Play how you want meant you can play any profession and had the option to play it how you wanted. If you went warrior you could choose to play it as a support class and it WOULD be viable. Whoever has the opinion of "In my book, any player misusing this quote in 2023 has what ever opinion or issue he calls for automatically disqualified" is automatically disqualified in my books....Especially when they don't explain how it was misused. Why are you even engaging in this topic if my opinion is "disqualified" in your books. You're not in here to have a discussion clearly. TBH even if you reply back I'm not going to deal with someone who has their nose up at people. Have a nice life.

You're right, fov helps see more but it's not only about seeing them but also dealing with them. Theres a lot of encounters where depending on your range from the boss the mechanics are dealt with differently. Either with positioning or your timing of evade. Not only that but its a different experience then fighting in melee range. Stacking wasn't always a thing until people started to realise the benefits. If it wasn't for the fact that you gain so much from stacking, it definitely wouldn't be the meta. 300-600 range really isn't giving much at all. If you leave to deal with any mechanic, youre not going to get boons. As long as you gain more from stacking its never going to go away. A meta will never leave until its replaced or nerfed. Like I said, the meta will most likely stay the same even if they remove the boon range since healing will still be more beneficial up close. At least with the change, people who want to fight at range can without being a hindrance to their group and getting kicked. It's a win win. I don't see why this can be a bad implementation. Unless you see something wrong with it that I dont?

Alright, I'm probably going to get a ton of hate for this but so be it. The stack and attack meta needs a shift. It really takes away from the encounters. The whole fight you're either looking at a bosses cheeks or groin. You don't see 80% of whats going on in the fight because you're stuck on the boss. Anyone miss the days of actually playing a ranger at range? I do. Maybe make it so that, when in 10 instanced content (raids, strikes, frac, dungeons) boons are instance wide or greatly increase the range to be able to cover majority of boss platforms/arena. And I get it, part of the reason for stacking is to pump out those heals but there are a decent amount of ranged heals and on top of that us players can run up to our healer if we are getting low (comm will mark healers to make it easy to find them). Stack and attack will still exist and probably still be the meta but at least with increasing the range of boons, one of the initial philosophy of Gw2 combat, which was being able to play any profession the way you want (healer, tank, melee dps, ranged dps) can actually be applied in practice. I wouldn't consider using a ranged build while in melee range for a whole encounter being ranged dps. Theoretically sure. Practically, its evident that its not.

The best solution for this, on every map, would be the GW1 district system.

Don't forget losing map completion on top of that. Say goodbye to all the wp and zones you have unlocked.

The examples you used aren't good examples imo and heres why I think that. When you eat a feast in a game do you get full? When you die in a game or jump off buildings, do you feel the pain? No you don't. Gambling, no matter if its real money or fake money, releases dopamine. You get the physical effects of it unlike the example you used. I think we might differ in this- I believe that society should help with raising the next generation not make it harder for parents to do so. With what you're saying, all the onus is on the parents. I don't believe thats the case. It is both the household and society that play a role in a way a child grows to be. School, friends, the internet all have a effect on how a person grows mentally. Society shouldn't be making it harder to raise children but it does.

Whats your point? Of course extremism is going to be derogatory....Do you need the definition of derogatory as well or you already have your own made up like you do for extremism?

Why are you arguing against me when you yourself are saying that there are even more things not appropriate for kids in the game? Does that not just prove my point even more so that the age rating is wrong? Look what happened when I mentioned gambling. People flip their kitten. Imagine I mentioned all the inappropriate things in the game. This would be a war zone.

TLDR: "Dictionary is wrong and I'm right" Where did you get the idea that your view of the word is the popular perception? You trying to change language means nothing. The facts are clear. "That's usually violence" Key word USUALLY. Which doesn't mean its the only way.

Or maybe its not yours... ex·trem·ist /ikˈstrēməst/ noun DEROGATORY a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action. "political extremists"

Because I used the word extremist it doesn't matter? No matter what the context was? LMAO go sleep buddy. I called you w.e you want to think I called you.....

Me telling you that I apologize if you took it that way and I wasn't trying to call you a extremist.....Yeah I wrote it...

Did you not read my reply to you? Clearly not...

Thats wrong. Extremists are those who follow their political/religious beliefs to a extreme. Not those who go against it. I assume you're thinking of a vigilante.

If you took that as name call then I apologize. That wasn't my intent. My point was that just because it's a law doesn't make it right. Extremists also have their laws. I can have some extremist thoughts without being a extremist. I wasn't trying to call you one.

Fair points. I can see where you're coming from. We do live in a society where theres a ease of access to pretty much anything for children. Parents need to do a better job of parenting thats for sure. I still think if you label something appropriate for a specific age group, it shouldn't have something which is clearly gambling. We can argue if gambling only matters when real life money is on the line but at the end of the day you get the same dopamine hits from gambling fake currency s you would real. I would say there is a bigger dopamine "hit" with real money of course but gambling fake currency is still a precursor to real currency gambling.

I personally don't see how gambling for children isnt a black and white topic. What's there more to it? The younger of a age you are exposed to something, the more likely you will partake in it.

You don't find it to be amoral to have gambling in something targeted towards children? That was the point of this whole topic. Not gambling itself. I even clarified that in my edit.. Of course you don't find your morals lacking. If you found it lacking then it wouldn't be your moral anymore.

Do you base your morality off of law? A company doing something amoral just because the law allows it doesn't clear them of any fault.