Daddicus.6128

That isn't necessarily botting. It may be simply logging in to multiple characters and farming a resource. Now, it's possible that they're running a program outside of GW2 that opens and closes the window. But, I don't think it's possible to know that for certain.

How can you set the game to restart your auto-attack once your target is dead? I know of no way to do it. If I'm right, ANY second auto-attack is either a keystroke, mouse click, or automation. The first two are legal, since you can't do them unless your finger is active. The last is illegal.

Auto-attack stops working once you kill your opponent. If it auto-attacks again without a human hitting a key or mouse button, then it's botting and against the rules.

It's botting. Any time a character is using skills (for a period of time), the player is supposed to be there. If the player is AFK, they must be using automation to do it. Report it as botting. And, yes, they respond. I had one bot disappear while I was still looking at the situation. I don't think they can always respond so quickly, but this guy was blatantly botting.

As I said, I don't care about competitive modes. This idea would be for PvE. Fair enough. Yet i still fail to understand how anyone cant clear pve with core classes, even today... Most core classes have real issues surviving and passing Expac and living story content because of the power creep.. the newer content is extremely OP to them.. The only core class i can think of that breezes through later content imo is Engi. Ever tried a minon master necro? So we are all suppose to play 6 characters to be as good as an one elite spec.. I don't know what you are talking about... There is a ton of core builds which perform very close to elite specialization levels like core power guardian (easy 32-33k dps benchmark on golem) and core banner warrior (still a very valid and strong support warrior build). Most other classes have builds which are no further than maybe 10-15% in performance output on their core builds with the main inconsistencies being among support classes which have their support skills tied to elite specializations (like druid versus core ranger). As mentioned by me earlier: buffing core trait lines would not open up any or even close to as many role options as a new elite specialization could. As such if you want overall better class representation (at least that is what I'd be in favor of) it makes more sense to introduce a new elite specialization. This gets even more critical if we look at all game modes where just about every class has viable core builds in some game mode (with the only real exception being elementalist and mesmer). That is strait up untrue. If people have issues on ANY class or build in any story or open world content, it's a player issue. There is enough guides and core build guides available for players who struggle to improve. As a matter of fact, most people who come to the "Players Helping Players" section of the forums asking for help often have huge flaws in their builds, playstyle and execution (which is not their fault, that's what asking for help is for). The only content which is remotely affected by core versus elite specialization balance is either top end pve content where every little bit difference counts, or competative modes (where a lot more core builds work just fine atm). In most cases due to better support role availability of elite specializations for group content, where as solo or small scale content see a lot of core build gameplay still (in competative modes for example). If this is true why aren't the core builds all over metabattle, 99.9% of the builds are espec builds... For ever style of content not just hardcore raiding. Maybe actually go to metabattle and check. Each and every class has core builds in at least 1 or 2 game modes. In other cases core builds are not able to peform a certain role (like healig or boon support). That wouldn't change with adjustments to core trait lines as discussed in this thread since these are often related to mechanics. As for open world content, there is enough core builds which are rated high or better (4+) for every class. I check every day, the core builds are sub par and are the minority compared to especs. ... No. That is false. Core specs that have made their way into metabattle as good/great, means that theyre usable instead of elite specs, too. Plus i dont really know why metabattle should dictate stuff. On a side note, have you ever tried to play minstrel core guard? I have not and with how hard making armor is these days and how hard "grindy" it is getting modern inscriptions is i tend to avoid the no name ones outside of Marauders and Vipers.. Mostly because GW2 made making armor a hideous thing these days..I don't agree that it is grindy. Legendaries are grindy. Some of the achievements are grindy. But, ascended gear really isn't that bad. It takes a while, but not if you have a reasonable number of characters. I only play the content I like to play, but I'm 82% completely outfitted with ascended gear. I just use what I farm here and there to do it. (And, I have an UNreasonable number of characters.)

That's why they need to do the opposite, all specs should be a choice not a linear forced direction. I'm not sure I agree. They tailored the newer content to the higher-strength elites. It fits with their stated design goal of horizontal improvements.

As I said, I don't care about competitive modes. This idea would be for PvE. Fair enough. Yet i still fail to understand how anyone cant clear pve with core classes, even today... Most core classes have real issues surviving and passing Expac and living story content because of the power creep.. the newer content is extremely OP to them.. The only core class i can think of that breezes through later content imo is Engi. Ever tried a minon master necro? So we are all suppose to play 6 characters to be as good as an one elite spec.. I don't know what you are talking about... There is a ton of core builds which perform very close to elite specialization levels like core power guardian (easy 32-33k dps benchmark on golem) and core banner warrior (still a very valid and strong support warrior build). Most other classes have builds which are no further than maybe 10-15% in performance output on their core builds with the main inconsistencies being among support classes which have their support skills tied to elite specializations (like druid versus core ranger). As mentioned by me earlier: buffing core trait lines would not open up any or even close to as many role options as a new elite specialization could. As such if you want overall better class representation (at least that is what I'd be in favor of) it makes more sense to introduce a new elite specialization. This gets even more critical if we look at all game modes where just about every class has viable core builds in some game mode (with the only real exception being elementalist and mesmer). That is strait up untrue. If people have issues on ANY class or build in any story or open world content, it's a player issue. There is enough guides and core build guides available for players who struggle to improve. As a matter of fact, most people who come to the "Players Helping Players" section of the forums asking for help often have huge flaws in their builds, playstyle and execution (which is not their fault, that's what asking for help is for). The only content which is remotely affected by core versus elite specialization balance is either top end pve content where every little bit difference counts, or competative modes (where a lot more core builds work just fine atm). In most cases due to better support role availability of elite specializations for group content, where as solo or small scale content see a lot of core build gameplay still (in competative modes for example). If this is true why aren't the core builds all over metabattle, 99.9% of the builds are espec builds... For ever style of content not just hardcore raiding. Maybe actually go to metabattle and check. Each and every class has core builds in at least 1 or 2 game modes. In other cases core builds are not able to peform a certain role (like healig or boon support). That wouldn't change with adjustments to core trait lines as discussed in this thread since these are often related to mechanics. As for open world content, there is enough core builds which are rated high or better (4+) for every class. I check every day, the core builds are sub par and are the minority compared to especs. Except they are not subpar going by rating and more than capable to clear ANY PvE open world, dungeon or story content. Them being in a minority is also not of consequence, or is this about core builds outperforming elite? Because last I checked, this thread was about making core builds viable. Which they are. Some even meta. That's only PvE too, since in competative modes core builds see even more play. They are meta builds because there are a large number of characters who can't use elites. No they are not. They are meta builds because they perform very well in the content. The guardian and warrior core builds for example for raids/fractals are en par with elite builds for example pushing 33-35k damage on golem (guardian) or 26-28k damage on golem with heavy support in form of cc and banners (warrior). For competative game modes, some of the core builds are meta because they are that well at fullfilling their designated role. You can keep telling yourself core builds are far behind elite specializations if it makes you feel better in case you are struggling. That's not the case though.I never said they were far behind. I simply parroted what dozens of other people here have said in the past. Regarding struggling, go back and read my OP again.

I build my own computers, and I STILL don't overclock them. You really have to know what you're doing to overclock, and the people who know what they're doing ... don't. Overclocking by an OEM is really not acceptable, either. They only do it to meet some crazy benchmark test specs, not because it's right. I would look twice at any card that advertised itself as overclocked. But, since it was the OEM who did it, I apologize for being so blunt earlier.

How on earth do you expect them to "fix" a problem caused by your computer and its misuse? Overclocking is not a good thing. You void your warranty on the chip; why would you expect another company to "fix" a problem that only exists on one specific PC, when even the manufacturer warns against it?

Yeah, it probably would give them more new work than I originally envisioned in the idea. But, I don't think it would be too much. The nice thing is that since it would be PvE only, they don't have to worry about unbalancing competitive, which is where most of the balance changes seem to happen. I would guess for PvE, they simply count up the death ratios across Tyria, and then balance when they see imbalances. (For example, when they saw a chronomancer meta build on half the characters being played, they decided they had made them a little too powerful, and nerfed them. Happens almost every PvE balance build, and strongly indicates this would be almost trivial to balance.) Actually the entire game been largely balanced around PVE (raids and Fractals) since 2014-2015 with the release of HOT. That was when they gave up on the ESL stuff, and thus game up on balancing the game around PvP. PvP and WvW gotten life-support balancing since then, WvW barely even that. And even the balancing they do, they make sure not to make too large a difference between the modes, only numeric changes. Because they want you to be able to go from one mode to another and at least have a rough idea about what your build does (just with numeric changes). So they're not going to change the trait system in any way unless it also changes PvP/WvW (except pure numeric values, aka skill can give 1 or 3 bleed stacks or give 2 or 4 might etc). So the easiest way to solve this, is just make the 5th line (only) a "core elite", change its first minor trait to give: "+1% damage in pvp, +10% damage in pve" or something like that. But I'd still prefer to see them just nerf the Elites down to core level, like they promised when they introduced elites. Power-creep. Specifically, ANet promised us that elites was to be a "side-grade" not an "up-grade", but they failed at that. (Can probably blame that on the above, old pvp balance team thrown to the wind and the new pve raid balance team goes in, and probably think more standard mmo progression?). And I think it was Starlinvf that explained it very well in a post somewhere. But in short:Each core class is designed with weaknessesEach HoT Elite is designed to negate that weaknessEach PoF Elite is designed to let a class do what it does well even better TLDR: because the elite's are poorly designed. Had the game still been designed around PvP balance, you'd see a completely different picture, one where elites would be very close to core in power level. That said, there are still a few core builds that do well in the game. And yes a Soulbeast is still a ranger.Power-creep is HOW it works. I was asking WHY. In other words, the logic behind the decision to make them more lucrative to use. But, you did explain that, too: it was unintentional.

As I said, I don't care about competitive modes. This idea would be for PvE. Fair enough. Yet i still fail to understand how anyone cant clear pve with core classes, even today... Most core classes have real issues surviving and passing Expac and living story content because of the power creep.. the newer content is extremely OP to them.. The only core class i can think of that breezes through later content imo is Engi. Ever tried a minon master necro? So we are all suppose to play 6 characters to be as good as an one elite spec.. I don't know what you are talking about... There is a ton of core builds which perform very close to elite specialization levels like core power guardian (easy 32-33k dps benchmark on golem) and core banner warrior (still a very valid and strong support warrior build). Most other classes have builds which are no further than maybe 10-15% in performance output on their core builds with the main inconsistencies being among support classes which have their support skills tied to elite specializations (like druid versus core ranger). As mentioned by me earlier: buffing core trait lines would not open up any or even close to as many role options as a new elite specialization could. As such if you want overall better class representation (at least that is what I'd be in favor of) it makes more sense to introduce a new elite specialization. This gets even more critical if we look at all game modes where just about every class has viable core builds in some game mode (with the only real exception being elementalist and mesmer). That is strait up untrue. If people have issues on ANY class or build in any story or open world content, it's a player issue. There is enough guides and core build guides available for players who struggle to improve. As a matter of fact, most people who come to the "Players Helping Players" section of the forums asking for help often have huge flaws in their builds, playstyle and execution (which is not their fault, that's what asking for help is for). The only content which is remotely affected by core versus elite specialization balance is either top end pve content where every little bit difference counts, or competative modes (where a lot more core builds work just fine atm). In most cases due to better support role availability of elite specializations for group content, where as solo or small scale content see a lot of core build gameplay still (in competative modes for example). If this is true why aren't the core builds all over metabattle, 99.9% of the builds are espec builds... For ever style of content not just hardcore raiding. Maybe actually go to metabattle and check. Each and every class has core builds in at least 1 or 2 game modes. In other cases core builds are not able to peform a certain role (like healig or boon support). That wouldn't change with adjustments to core trait lines as discussed in this thread since these are often related to mechanics. As for open world content, there is enough core builds which are rated high or better (4+) for every class. I check every day, the core builds are sub par and are the minority compared to especs. Except they are not subpar going by rating and more than capable to clear ANY PvE open world, dungeon or story content. Them being in a minority is also not of consequence, or is this about core builds outperforming elite? Because last I checked, this thread was about making core builds viable. Which they are. Some even meta. That's only PvE too, since in competative modes core builds see even more play.They are meta builds because there are a large number of characters who can't use elites.

Let's try a different tack: Can someone please justify why an elite specialization is always more powerful than the profession it is built upon? And, there is no option to play the basic profession at the same relative power level?

Exactly my point. Why on earth is a guardian better with a longbow than a ranger? That makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, here it stares us in the face.They're... not? Ranger longbow's still great on soulbeast, while dragonhunter longbow got nerfed into the ground (along with the traps) because of lazy PVPers.But, you're making my point: a soulbeast is NOT a ranger. It's a soulbeast. Why does a ranger have to give up being a ranger in order to use a longbow?

Yeah, it probably would give them more new work than I originally envisioned in the idea. But, I don't think it would be too much. The nice thing is that since it would be PvE only, they don't have to worry about unbalancing competitive, which is where most of the balance changes seem to happen. I would guess for PvE, they simply count up the death ratios across Tyria, and then balance when they see imbalances. (For example, when they saw a chronomancer meta build on half the characters being played, they decided they had made them a little too powerful, and nerfed them. Happens almost every PvE balance build, and strongly indicates this would be almost trivial to balance.)

As I said, I don't care about competitive modes. This idea would be for PvE. Fair enough. Yet i still fail to understand how anyone cant clear pve with core classes, even today... HoT and PoF are both designed to be harder than core areas. In fact, they were done so to raise the challenge for people with ... elite specifications. (And mounts, gliding, etc., but primarily because of elites.) Fractals are designed to be more challenging than core maps, as were dungeons. This isn't an idea to beef up new characters. It should require roughly the same amount of game interaction as the 18 elites do now. My idea isn't to make things easier. It's to make the original professions not be a second tier to elite specialization professions.

What is so complex about multiplying numbers? Change NOTHING ELSE. Just multiply all values by the percentage targeted by elites now. (Which I don't know, but I assume ANet does. One person above suggested +20%.) Here are a couple of "obvious" problems with this idea (where by "obvious", I really mean they occurred to me without much thought): 1: For many traits, it just doesn't make sense to scale the numbers up by 20% (or whatever other arbitrary value you pick). Take, for example, the Thief's Trickery traitline: Kleptomaniac grants 2 initiative when you steal, Preparedness increases maximum initiative by 3, and Quick Pockets grants 3 initiative when you swap weapons. In the elite slot, would these traits now grant 2.4 and 3.6 initiative? What does that even mean? For traits where scaling by 20% does make sense, it's unlikely that this scaling would benefit all traits equally. Some traits might become overpowered, while others would barely benefit at all. The scaling for each trait would have to be calculated separately. 2: Also, there's a deeper point that you seem to think ANet have a deliberate intention that elite specs should be "20% better" (or at least some percentage better) than core specs. But 20% better at what? It's totally unclear (at least to me) how that would be quantified, or what it would really mean. Sure, some things are easy to quantify - you could ask, for example, that elites deal 20% more damage than core professions. But if that's what you mean, ANet definitely isn't taking that approach. As an example, Druid doesn't have a 20% damage bonus over core Ranger; on the other hand, it is more than "20% better" at healing. 3: (By the way, I actually think the essence of what you're suggesting is a good idea - but I don't see any practical way to implement it, given the somewhat convoluted nature of the trait system and the wide range of effects and interactions that traits can have,)At least you have logical arguments. I've numbered them for clarity. 1: They aren't integers even now. They go up over time at rates determined by your traits, which can be varied based on equipment and other traits. They APPEAR as integers, but it's how often they appear that matters. However, there probably are instances where integer arithmetic really does occur. Those would be instances where it would require balancing by ANet, and make this idea harder to implement than I described above. However, these are few in number and scattered. I'm guessing they could be managed relatively easily. But, the bulk of the numbers are not integral in nature, and would be served by simple math. 2: 20% (if that's the number) would apply to everything. For a druid, but is usually in healing/buffing mechanics. While I'm not sure what the number is (or numbers are), it's guaranteed that they have them positioned they way they want them. All game designers go through a process to determine the relative power of items in the game. They wouldn't tell the public, lest someone game the system. But, they have them. 3: Thanks.

Seems fixed now. However, I assume the first new build (a few minutes ago) is what fixed it, but it didn't fully correct until I restarted my computer.

I think they fixed it now, but you may have to restart your system. I think there was some bad code left laying around in memory on my system. Cleared when I restarted (after they fixed it.)

How about option number three: The opening poster isn't describing a real situation, so how can I answer yes or no?

One big change a couple years ago (at Heart of Thorns time) was to guilds. Guild halls require a massive commitment to complete now, so small guilds are pretty much a thing of the past. I recommend finding a new guild and go from there.

The game keeps losing connection to the server. Code =7:11:3:191:101 Worked fine earlier today and last night. It won't stay up long enough to send an in-game support notice. Now, it won't log in at all, so I'm putting the message here.

Except the elite specs commonly have nothing at all to do with the profession. Think ranger and druid. What on earth do they have in common besides pets? Soulbeast is closer, but daggers?

Possibly. But, if it has, then 90% of the arguments against this idea evaporate. Getting a new elite is probably not going to happen. But, these wouldn't be new. The would be slightly beefed-up old lines.

Exactly my point. Why on earth is a guardian better with a longbow than a ranger? That makes no sense whatsoever. Yet, here it stares us in the face.

What is so complex about multiplying numbers? Change NOTHING ELSE. Just multiply all values by the percentage targeted by elites now. (Which I don't know, but I assume ANet does. One person above suggested +20%.)