Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Obtena.7952

Members
  • Posts

    12,756
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

6,857 profile views

Obtena.7952's Achievements

  1. Here is a joke: What kind of gamer can't move their eyes over their screen? A bad one. If your FOV is just that circle in the middle, something wrong on your side, not the game. Honestly, that's part of the skill of being a gamer. But customizable UI would be nice, like a luxury, which makes it a low priority item IMO. Game is most certainly playable without it.
  2. That makes no sense. My point has nothing to do with defending anything. No one asks WHY the current situation exists. They simply conclude the current situation is some mistake that needs to be fixed. Asking yourself why is a pretty significant thing to do if you want to make a suggestion that situation be fixed. Again ... if Anet wants Mirage to mimic some sort of behaviour of the standard dodge and did they that outside the dodge mechanic with a built-in traitline for Mirage ... then it probably is not unreasonable to conclude that their is a reason they went out of their way to do that implementation. Even if the best we can do is make assumptions about why they did that, it's better than not thinking about it at all and concluding Anet has no reasons to do so. Furthermore, any notion that the trait should be baseline makes no sense. It's an intrinsic trait that you always have as a Mirage, so it's effectively baseline already. The trait is bad? Yup, but not for the reasons people are saying while the suggestions to address it ignore whatever the reasons are it is this way. Frankly, I think people are completely missing the reason this trait is bad. It's bad because Anet sells you a spec based on a unique dodge mechanic ... then address a deficiency with that mechanic by tacking on a trait that mimics the standard dodge functionality. Basically, the trait downgrades the playstyle of a unique dodge, which is the whole selling point with Mirage in the first place.
  3. No hold on. Balance is not about making comparisons between specs or believing whatever you think it might be. If you really want to know what 'balance is about', then read some patch notes because Anet tells you what balance is about there.
  4. True dodge is baseline ... but how it's implemented on Mirage is unique. So no, it doesn't make sense to compare its implementation to other classes, EVEN the classes that also have uniquely implemented dodges. Why? because what other classes do have no bearing on how Mirage works. Should the trait be baseline for Mirage? Seems no one asked themselves why it wasn't in the first place. "Anet, why do I have to pay a trait to mimic a feature of the standard dodge implementation when it's obvious you want me to have it?" I'm going to bet the answer is related to how Mirage dodge is coded. Standard dodge is a movement skill. Mirage dodge might not be. So is the trait the worst? It's not good, but not because of what other classes do but because it costs a trait slot for something that is obviously intended to mimic an innate feature of the standard dodge.
  5. Comparisons between class toolsets are not a proof of anything because the classes aren't intended to do the same thing or have their tools work the same way. That's going to be an even MORE true in the case of Mirage that has an obviously intended alternative design for it's dodge skill compared to the dodge standard of other classes. But par for the course for certain people in the thread to accuse others of not playing the class when they are disagreed with.
  6. That wasn't their point at all. They made a general statement that Anet creates content like raids that results in toxicity. It doesn't. How people interact with each other in the game that creates that toxicity. The irony is that when this game was released, it was designed in a way that should have caused the LEAST toxicity among players because as long as you knew the encounter and could execute the mechanics, you could literally play whatever you wanted. And you know what? We STILL had a significant fraction of people that brought their toxic behaviours to bear on others, even without the things like role-mandated gameplay patterns in raids with integrated DPS meters and group-support-centric stat-check boosts. So the bottomline here is that there is no game anyone can make that removes toxicity. It's up to players to be inclusive and accepting of how others want to play to ensure they don't encounter it. When that breaks down, that's because players break it down because they have been given freedom by the game to play how they want. In otherwords, some players CHOOSE to be exclusive in an open, freeform team environment ... that tends to toxicity.
  7. Except raids (and other instanced content) NEVER did that in GW2 because you never needed meta builds or top tier DPS to successfully complete them ... like EVER. If anything, the 'requirement' for meta and DPS has only diminished over time, except for the most intendedly difficult content like CM strikes. Certainly the mechanics are no more difficult than any other MMO and in some encounters can be ignored completely, because of things like power creep. The toxicity, whatever the reason for its existence, certainly does not originate with how the game is designed ... and never has. It's solely based on the ideals and perceptions of players that impose those mindsets on others. Ironically, it seems that the complaints about balance for PVE commonly originate FROM the people that the content isn't designed around in the first place; I don't see the average scrub complaining that their 'press 1' or 'faceroll' strategy is messing up their ability to do content.
  8. I don't see a problem here. It's not necessary for the game to cater to everyone's particular hang ups so those people can experience the game. "form your own squad" might be a problem, but it's not a game problem. Can't stress enough ... if you can't get a team, you just ain't trying hard enough.
  9. As always, going to wait to pass judgement. It's not uncommon to get an 'upgrade' and wonder 'WTF ... this is worse'.
  10. Sure, I think the same thing. I guess the difference is that I think the context of that change is STILL relevant to how Anet is regarding cweaver as a whole, which contradicts the OP's view. Op thinks Cweaver is a completely has-not class because 'numbers'? Weird conclusion if we actually LOOK at how Anet treats it or even how it performs in general if you remove the constraints the OP imposes on it to make his argument. Focus on the changes the OP is asking for? I think I've done that no? Like somehow we should just accept the idea that cweaver not having CC is a problem? It's not. Classes/specs have these gaps. It's not unreasonable low CC is a gap for Weaver. If an ele needs CC for an encounter ... they can get it. This is simply a case where someone wants something very specific for a particular spec because they don't want to have to make choices or change anything about their build to get it. Other than some weird comparison to other classes skilsets (which isn't really relevant since skillsets aren't intended to be the same across specs/classes in the first place), there actually ISN'T a reason presented for why cweaver should have more CC. It's just some vague notion of "improperly applied balance philosophy", therefore "giev buffz" The bottomline is that something don't jive about what the OP is saying and how it's being regarded by Anet and even other players ... and it ain't because Anet doesn't know what they are doing with the game or their own philosophy either.
  11. That doesn't make sense. Anet TOLD us the hammer nerf was due to cweaver and ctempest builds being too high in DPS ... so yes it does have SOMETHING to do with it. Again, why discrepancies in class/spec gap? Probably because balancing isn't just about the numbers and it IS more complex than you want to admit. There are things to consider that AREN'T just about numbers. The worst part about this thread is that if you want CC, you just make different choices to get it. Apparently that's too much to ask, even given all the choice we have on the classes.
  12. Again, your going to come here, tell Anet they don't know what they doing and they should change the game, based on what you believe is a 'your fair' version of balance. I guess taking a hint about how Anet is going to react to that from the more recent balance patch where Anet is nerfing cweavers with hammers just doesn't hit with you ay? Cweaver has low CC? OK, again, that's not a problem nor is it some departure from the balance philosophy. Classes/specs are intended to have gaps like that. Again, you simply aren't going to justify class changes based on the premise that you think you know better than Anet about how to implement their own balance philosophy, made even more evident by the fact that while you complain it's a have not spec in all it's numbers, Anet just handed out a fresh nerf for it.
  13. Bad assumptions ... you don't know how they arrived at that decision to make that nerf. Again, you don't know what is happening behind the scenes there; none of us do. You are saying things you have NO idea about. And yes, they did nerf cweaver with the hammer nerf ... clearly because it was cweavers using hammer that alerted them to the high DPS they didn't want to see. Again, just because Anet's version of balance doesn't match your ideas should not lead you to the conclusion they just don't know what they are doing. That's just nonsense. It's actually irrelevant if they do or don't know because in either case, they certainly aren't going to ask players how they should be doing it. They are going to do it the way they want to do it, regardless if they know or not. This isn't about Anet knowing or not and you stepping in to 'help' them out. This is about you acknowledging how game changes work.
  14. So just doing some research here. From Jan 30th patch notes: The changes to hammer in November pushed condition builds for tempest and weaver a bit higher than we like to see, so we're making a few tweaks to bring those builds back in line. Singeing Strike: Reduced the burning duration from 3 seconds to 1.5 seconds in PvE only. Surging Flames: Reduced the burning duration from 9 seconds to 3 seconds in PvE only. Ground Pound: Reduced the bleeding duration from 10 seconds to 6 seconds in PvE only. So explain again how Anet should conclude that cweaver isn't hitting its power budget and that somehow 'the numbers' suggest it's a have not spec? Seems to me "the numbers" suggest the OPPOSITE based on the change Anet put in on Jan 30th. So either Anet isn't interpreting their own philosophy and numbers correct ... OR ... someone else isn't. Tell us that story about how balancing is about fair and equal and not about the game working how Anet wants again. It's a good one.
  15. OH you think Anet balancing is about being fair now? You must be new here. Anet's balancing is about one thing: the game working the way they want it to work, because that's their role ... figuring out how things should work. And they give us insight to that with the philosophy.
×
×
  • Create New...