Sigmoid.7082

So if it isn't balanced for you it's not balanced ?

Are they wrong ?

I think that's the part you are not understanding. You can't combine looks of armours of different weights because of their fundamental design. Its not just purely cosmetic. Each weight is its own rig / frame that the armour is then fitted to. Its not "just let the players choose if they clip or not and be done with it". The skins fundamentally do not fit together. There is a reason why when unlocking some skins you unlock Skin (light/medium/heavy). Each one has been designed with the rigging points of their respective frame in mind. Its why Incul said the only way to achieve your idea is to create a 5th weight to which everything can be fitted to. But like you correctly identified the amount of time needed to transfer everything to this as well as the increased cost of future development just makes this not very cost effective.

Just to be clear here. Are you making fun of people who are choosing to play the game a way they enjoy and are laughing at them because they could just do it the way you would want them doing it / the way you do it because you never have bad runs and it's easy for you...in a thread about the " raid over elite" being the ones who are toxic?

And that's part of the problem. You're never going to get a clear decision from a community on exactly how something should work because different people went different things. The only clear thing is the sentiment that "this needs to be changed".

Because people asked for it. Changing this to fear is one of those suggestions that would pop up time and time again because apparently daze made no sense whereas fear did and would have better synergy with the necro kit. So. Anet listened to those that requested said change and here we are. This for me is once again be careful what you wish for because Anet may implement it but they won't do it the way you're thinking.

Probably function similarly to superiority complex and wicked corruption. Superiority Complex is the one that has the note but the word is the same so it would follow that they are multiplicative. If there was no distinction there would be no real need to differentiate and you would just apply the appropriate amount of ferocity.

It won't really matter to some people if they get reworked , nerfed, made significantly weaker, or even become a second tier / situational pick compared to something else. As long as they remain viable or a meta pick in almost any way, including finding a completely different build to use, they "won't have been nerfed enough". I'm'm more interested in what is going to be changed besides these two since these two changing is an absolute given. Also looking forward to week 2 of July for either the nerf these two more threads or people complaining about the new hotness with week 3 to 4 being about how Anet could buff something like that or how could they not see X build rising to prominence and preemptively nerf it. It may seem nihilistic but based on history...it's generally true. I'm just waiting for the patch to come around to, more than likely, be vindicated.

No doubt they will get nerfed. But I don't think just nerfing then is what the people, who supposedly want balance, are after.

The things for me is...the specs we have now are not what Anet wanted to release at all... Anet had the specs in their respective beta 1s. Players complaied about them being to week. "Why would I play this?", "It needs buffs to be viable", "trash compared to what we already have..." Etc. Only a few were reasonably strong. So what did Anet do? They did what people say they don't do. They listened and buffed the specs in one way or another. Some of the reasonable ideas, not the I dont like it please rodo from the ground up, from players in the suggestion threads were directly implemented. And here we are. Anet didn't make the specs to be OP so people would buy the expansion. In fact they made them mostly weak/ balanced / "too fair" compared to PoF and HoT specs. Look at the first beta time spans of the respective feedback threads. Almost all of them are negative and say make it stronger in one way or another. For me it's more a be careful what you wish for. I remember before Willbender got buffed, along with base guard. People mocked it hard, said it needed buffs to be even remotely playable and not a grief pick for your team by forcing them to be 4v5 the entire game. Now look where we are. It's very hard to say "Anet made then OP to sell expacs" when players were the ones saying buff these or I won't play them. Anet: Here are the new specs. Players: These are trash. Buff or no point in them at all. Anet: Ok. Players: Of course they made then OP to sell expacs lol. Anet: ... Edit: before anyone comes at me with a "but my class..." Or " well I didn't ask for X" ... I'm talking in a general sense.

Because I fully expect people to complain right as the patch drops that Anet didn't think 30 moves ahead and predict what the player base is going to migrate to and preemptively balance those things...allowing them to further look ahead and preemptively balance those as well, etc. Despite the things being complain about getting changed. Thus the patch is bad, regardless of Anet addressing the things people complained about, the meta is "the worst one yet" and PvP "has never been as bad", "how could they not see this coming" ,"do they even play their own game" ,"lol balance team", "people need to lose their jobs" and how our of touch Anet are. Followed by weeks of "please nerf the new thing" threads. Till the smaller/future patches come, they make more changes about the things people are complaining about...then you can read this post from its first paragraph.

People said this about build templates and look how that turned out

Nobody is saying you are wrong or crazy to try and subvert your observation that harb is op. In fact near enough everyone agrees. It's your pedantism and method of argumentation that people disagree with. You are literally losing people at "I read the word vulnerable and I take that as they should t benefit from certain traits. Because the word". If you had clearly gone on about what you actually we're on about, death magic, directly and clearly from the begining this would have been a more productive thread but alas, here we are.

Your subjective interpretation of the use of vulnerable doesn't make it an objective fact that it shouldn't benefit from something. My interpretation is that the use of vulnerable means it doesn't shield your health. Who is correct? You because you say so? Since that's your argument.

But then isn't this also the case with Reaper + Spite and Scourge + Blood Magic? I think you may be being pedantic over the wording here. Because technically, and what I believe Anet was going for wording wise here, compared to the other shrouds it is vulnerable to attack since all the others provide some way of shielding your health from the incoming damage. Core and Reaper through the health sponge nature of their shrouds and Scourge with the large amount of barrier . Its there way of letting people know its different to Death Shroud, which has the specific wording "Assume a spectral form and gain new skills, turning your life force into health.". Vulnerable to attack is much shorter and sweeter than saying "This ability does not turn your life force into health". Literally one says gain new skills and cover your health the other says gain new skills and not cover health. About the healing aspec. If damage goes through why shouldn't healing? Another genuine question. Is it a sneak that you can't be healed in base shroud then? None of this is a sneak since none of this was under the table nor came out of nowhere. We've known this from the word go about Harbinger. If you had come out and said "Harb synergises to much with Death Magic" or "Harb is too durable for the sustain it can get" then there would be fewer people being standoffish and being pedantic over the wording you have chosen (again something you're also doing to try and prove a point). Since if you truly weren't trying to spread misinformation and be sensational you wouldn't use "Why is harbinger shroud reducing damage?" as the title because, at its base, not only are you not specifically talking about the shroud itself, which we know has no innate damage reduction, your talking about something, Corruptors Fervor, that can be taken advantage off completely outside of shroud to, near enough, its fullest; The title doesn't fit the argumentation and discussion points unless trying to specifically talk about something that's not true. Harb is OP, everyone knows this. Its due some tuning(nerfs before more pedantism is used around my word of choice) but going this way about the discussion isn't the way. Comes across as disingenuous. There's a lot to talk about when it comes to Harb and its balance. I mean you're right about it synergizing to well with death magic among other thing but because of how this all is its comes across as "Just another Crab Fear Thread..." Anyway, despite not disagreeing with the general premise that harb is op, ready to be written off as just another "Necro...Harbinger main spotted."

My bad I meant to write wasn't instead of was. Not sure if your reply is applicable to what I meant to ask which was: Can I ask, if this thread wasn't about death magic the whole time and not misinformation about harb shroud having an innate damage reduction, how exactly did Anet sneak in corruptors fervor?

Can I ask, if this thread wasn't about death magic the whole time and not misinformation about harb shroud having an innate damage reduction, how exactly did Anet sneak in corruptors fervor?

To some people the second is the first. You can say people don't understand that people play for fun but don't also forget that fun is entirely subjective to the person experiencing it.

I don't think that really matters what it may reward wise then or now the sentiment will remain the same, especially if they add anything unique. Be it a title, skin, etc. "Anet, why is the OW version not worth doing for the rewards but in the instanced version you are getting X / Y more of Z. This is unfair and needs to be fixed!" As much as you try to hand wave or diminish this, history has taught us that this is almost 100% be the case and reaction.

The problem here would be that, one way or another, the instanced version would have greater or unique rewards. Then the complaints would shift into the common territory of it's not that you are getting more for doing a haeder,instanced, version, it's that you are getting less for not doing that and doing the normal version.

"I want the thing. But I don't want to do or pay the amount to get the thing and this is a problem. Please fix."

Because they think if it had a sub that Anet would somehow be able to fix all the things said individual precieve as a problem with the game. It's a fairly naïve way of thinking to be quite frank.

People express criticism all the time. Some people just get too "passionate" and often express themselves and their opinion very much in opposition of the forums code of conduct. More often than not it's not what is being said that's the problem, but how.

How much damage over what timeframe is considered burst?