Obtena.7952

I don't see what any of that has to do with the fact that you can choose weapons to optimize your play, which holds true for any game mode for any class, including those that you feel don't count for anything. Everything works in OW PVE? That stands for any game mode ... everything 'works' everywhere, yet for some reason, your criteria for what works in everything BUT OW PVE includes 'being good'. That's a purely cherry picked argument to validate your position and nothing else. You can't exclude OW PVE performance from any justification to change something, just because you have invented the facts that it doesn't matter and it's not the majority and yada yada. The problems with dagger are thematic; not specific to any game mode. So justifying fixes because 'bad' in PVP makes little sense on many levels; primarily that we have choice to pick weapons most suited to strategies that work in PVP if the class supports them. Dagger weakly supports a long duration sustain strategy .. that's NOT a strategy I would recommend in PVP or WvW in the first place. Like it or not, long duration sustain playstyles are REALLY good for OW PVE, primarily in HoT and PoF. It might be convenient for you to ignore that, but it doesn't make your argument that dagger is 'bad' any more true. It's nonsense to suggest changing the dagger so it's suitable for a playmode where other weapons do it better. That's why choices exist ... because Anet knows this already. If there is a change to the dagger, it should be to make it BETTER at what it does now, not less crap for what it's not good at doing.

Again, you can't simply 'choose' where you want your statements to be correct and ignore the rest of the game; the answer is still the same: You have choice. Dagger being 'bad' isn't just a function of everything BUT OW because you want it to. OW performance is taken into consideration, even if you don't think it should.

I'm pretty sure I have brain ... dagger is NOT underperforming in PVE, that's for sure. That's just meta-think and shows a significant lack of awareness for how to use dagger in an optimal way for PVE.

Sure .. let's assume it is bad for everyone in PVP ... that doesn't mean you can conclude that the problem is with the dagger. Not every choice is intended to be 'good' in every play mode. That's not a reason to change it. It IS a reason to make better choices more aligned to winning strategies. Then again, it might just be a weapon that needs a higher skilled player to win with as well ... If you want to look at dagger 'problems', it makes no sense to isolate it to a specific game mode, complain about how bad necro's performance in that game mode is with that weapon, conclude it's a weapon problem and 'solve' the dagger problems based on necro's performance in that game mode ... like WHAT? The solution to bad performance in PVP with dagger necro already exists ... don't use it. If EVERY other weapon outperforms dagger in PVP, then WTH would you choose to use it in the first place?

I don't get your comparison here. If dagger is bad for you in PVP, don't use it. If NECRO is bad for you in PVP, don't use it. Not every choice in this game is going to yield desired results, dependent on the play mode. That's not a reason to change it because there are choices available to choose things that DO provide reasonable results for the play mode. If you think there is some justification because of 'not competitive' in PVP, etc... then you haven't taken into account that most of the result of PVP is dependent on the player. In otherwords, you can't make those statements because you don't know your opponents skill level when you experience PVP. Let's take another angle here; let's assume you are 100% correct. What makes you think that any of the problems you listed can be addressed in a bandwidth of 3 skills on one weapon without significantly changing it's theme or making it OP'ed? I don't see it happening. You are listing CLASS problems and you think that's going to be fixed with adjusting one weapon ... that makes little sense to me. Problems should be addressed at the level where they occur. Low survival isn't due to dagger skills, nor is low damage. Dagger is not far off from being a really good weapon; if it's still lacking in some play mode, that's not because it's a bad weapon ... it's because there are other more fundamental issues with the class OR that dagger supports a strategy that isn't winning in that game mode in the first place.

I don't get your question 'runs against' other classes. What you say is true for ANY class; all classes have weapons where the highest skilled player may not achieve the same results as other more average players on other classes. That doesn't seem to me to be a relevant comparison in the current state of the game. That's a consequence of how the game is designed; if you are suggesting dagger should be changed because of the results of intended game designs, you should check your barometer. Dagger, as a necro weapon, is about as close to a sustaining weapon as you can get, along with it's damage, I don't see it getting much better than it is. Improvements will more likely be thematic ... like #3 for some reason, corrupting you with bleed seems like it shouldn't do that. Personally, I don't have a 'survival' problem on necro, ESPECIALLY when I run dagger, so I really can't see an argument for changing it because of lacking survival in the first place. I mean ... if dagger is so bad for you, why are you playing it? There is a reason we have choice of weapons; not every weapon is going to be good in every situation; again, it's easy to speculate that's by design. There is no point in giving choice if the choice is in name only. Then again, maybe I got dagger theme incorrect ... it couldbe more about corruption than sustain ... so maybe 1 and 2 should get more corrupting flavour.

I never get this complaint; the identify of necro dagger is about draining life from an opponent; if that's not THE most clearly aligned weapon that a necro has thematically, I don't know what is. Some of the mechanics are a little off, but no one should question what its identity is. There isn't all that much to complain about; for a weapon that has 3 skills on it, it can only do so much to begin with. #1 is fantastic, 2 works well enough in PVE. I can only think that the risk of self bleed is not worth the reward of immobilize on #3. It has limited use in PVE. In direct response to the OP, #2 doesn't heal enough, but it's not technically a heal, it's a life drain, so it's never going to do as much as a heal equivalent would because of it's additional damage application. Dagger is not the terrible weapon people want to make it out to be. You think dagger damage and skill set is good given the lack of survivability in class? I am not looking at the dagger skills only but the complete thing. Depends what you define as 'good'. If you're going to come back at me with 'it's not meta', don't bother. Considering the dagger combines a reasonable damage output with a massive LF regen and health siphon ... I can't really see how its skill set doesn't address a class that has 'not good' damage or 'lacking' survival.

I never get this complaint; the identify of necro dagger is about draining life from an opponent; if that's not THE most clearly aligned weapon that a necro has thematically, I don't know what is. Some of the mechanics are a little off, but no one should question what its identity is. There isn't all that much to complain about; for a weapon that has 3 skills on it, it can only do so much to begin with. #1 is fantastic, 2 works well enough in PVE. I can only think that the risk of self bleed is not worth the reward of immobilize on #3. It has limited use in PVE. In direct response to the OP, #2 doesn't heal enough, but it's not technically a heal, it's a life drain, so it's never going to do as much as a heal equivalent would because of it's additional damage application. Dagger is not the terrible weapon people want to make it out to be.

You should have played it when the orbs were half as fast. But technically, scepter is a pretty damn solid weapon ... you got a frequent AA, a frequent symbol and a skill that keeps people put in that symbol. Other than some more interesting chain AA, how could you really want more than this? Thematically, I think it's a little weird throwing around magic energy balls as a Guardian ... it definitely feels more like a Elementalist-styled weapon. And yes the sound ... On the flip side, what other kind of weapon would you recommend in it's place? There isn't much choices ...

Weapon swap isn't a solution to bad kits because kits will still be bad if you get a weapon swap. Besides ... do you believe that a weapon swap can even come close to what variety you get with kits? GL with that.

The class concept is flawed for multiple reasons such as the imbalance between kits (at least if most of them were up to par) and other utility skills is too large, or that the pressure on utility slots is too much, especially when it comes to things like stun breaks where you have an opportunity cost, which is why engy has always had lots of passive stun breaks, problem is they are inferior much of the time because you have no control over them. If the concept is kits are a must (if they were all actually decent) and you are only intended to play engy with at least some kits, then the concept would make more sense if engy were forced to take at least one kit with a dedicated kit slot in addition to the utility slots, or at the least if kits were able to be switched into whilst you were stunned/dazed so they could put stun breaks in some of them, rather than the kitten passive ones and at the same time making certain utility skills less mandatory. Except the Anet solution since HoT has been firstly to make a weapon so strong (hammer), that could do so much, it compensated for only having one weapon, at least before all the nerfs, or to basically give engy an additional weapon anyway with Holosmith, the original "concept" of engy simply has not worked since HoT, it is outdated in the game in 2018. (and to be blunt unless you've spent all your time in PvP the engy concept hasn't exactly been working great in the rest of the game over the last 5 years) OK ... that still doesn't mean a second weapon swap is the solution to bad kits. The discussion here isn't about whether kits are not good, it's about the idea of adding a second weapon to eng. That's a much higher consideration outside of kits being bad.

Well, no it's not easy to understand because: It solves no problem; kits will still be terribleIt's contrary to the concept of the classEvery class is force to pick certain utilities to optimize. You can't claim you are punished if you purposefully exclude a significant part of your toolset from play. Kits are as core as belts are (Seriously, you went there?)Engi being in a bad state doesn't justify (or get fixed) a second weapon being added.

I have to say, I really can't understand your problem here ... so you AREN'T willing to swap into a kit to optimize your play ... but you ARE willing to swap to a different weapon for it. That's assuming that you even HAVE a weapon worth swapping to ... Seems like you're arguing semantics to me. You keep eluding to the fact that other classes aren't forced into using certain things ... but that's completely wrong. If you want optimized play on other classes like you are saying you want here, you are MOST DEFINITELY forced into using certain things to get that on other classes. This argument makes NO sense because your claim is completely wrong. Not only that, but a weapon swap doesn't solve any problem and in fact, goes against the intent of the class concept. The idea just doesn't make sense. I get that you don't believe there is any kit worth using, but that's hardly a reason to justify getting a weapon swap. The solution is to fix the kits. You don't fix kits by giving people an rewarding way to not use them and then justify that by making false statements about how other classes aren't forced into specifics to optimize their play.

so your argument is let me be original and that's it? , like i said before, Eles have a good reason for not to have a 2nd set of weapons, engis on the other side not, that's a fact, we depend a lot on kits and this remove a lot of customization and options for the class, if i decide to go full elixirs with out a single kit, i'm in a inferior position compared to the other classes. Of course that not having a 2nd set of weapons is the core problem of the class, try to be effective with enginner with out using holosmith or any kit, good luck with that, i'm not saying that engi is useless, i'm just saying that engi with out a kit is like playing another game in nightmare difficulty and by adding the 2nd set of weapons engi would be in a good position, you know just like the other 7 classes. It would be amazing if engi could have a 2nd set of weapons if you are not using any kit or holo. But that's the point of the class ... you USE kits if you want to be amazing. Engi is not deficient because you choose to not use the tools that will make you amazing. Look at what you are saying ... Engi will never work without a weapon swap ... because you CHOOSE to not use kits. That makes zero sense. You can't say that if you decide to not use most of your toolset, the class sucks. I mean, you CAN say that but it goes without saying that if you don't use a big part of your toolset, you won't be good.

Sure ... but a second weapon swap isn't the solution to those problems. It makes no sense to justify a 2nd weapon because of 'problems' when the 2nd weapon doesn't solve those problems.

Maybe, but that isn't fixed with getting access to a second weapon. It's fixed with looking at the toolbelt skills. So again ... second weapon isn't the effective solution you propose it to be.

I don't think that conclusion is correct. Even with one weapon and a swappable kit, you have access to more skills than most classes do. You might lose one slot on the hotbar, but you have 5 toolbelt skills.

I do not mean to suggest that you are not entitled to your opinion, which is that the price is too high. I only mean to state that based on these facts:Mount skins are new.Since they are new, they have no price history The price was set at $25.The price has not been lowered.New options were introduced, which did not affect the pricing model of the single skin option. The logical conclusion is that ArenaNet is meeting their revenue projection which means that the price point is not too high, it is just too high for you personally. Rolls Royce sells cars for $450,000. That price point is not "too high", because they sell them at that price point for a profit. That price point is too high for me though, because I don't want to spend that much on a car. I will even state that I am completely with you with regard to mount skins. $25 is substantially more than I am willing to pay for a mount skin, however, until ArenaNet either lowers the price or changes the delivery model completely, the logical assumption is that they have priced it correctly for the target market. Yes, but they get away with that due to the allure of exclusivity in the upper class economy (insert eye roll here), but they also have a lot of features and components that help drive up the cost to manufacture, and the selling point is likewise inflated. I'm not sure how comparable this is. The only nitpick I'll make is that I think it's too early for us to conclude that the prices are fine just because they haven't gone down. For starters, Anet has a track record of failing to admit mistakes and moving slowly to correct course. What concerns me most is the indirect effect of making prices too high on any item - it tends to have a more significant effect in the long term even if they are meeting revenue goals in the short term. My feeling is that Anet needs to tread a bit more carefully about burning customers that would otherwise be loyal supporters by creating a perception that they are price gouging with vanity items. There needs to be some correction here; Anet has shown in the past they are open to adjusting prices on GS because of profitability, even to the point of stopping to offer items completely when they can't be sold at a reasonable price to make them profitable. The 'speed' that this is done is a negative cost to THEM, not US so if there is a failure to admit mistakes and moving slow to correct course IN THIS INSTANCE, then the pain is on them. You continue to use language that pushes the idea there is a 'right' price for the goods. It's not that the price is too high; it's that the market isn't there for the item at the given price to make it profitable ... as was the case for why Anet stopped selling full armor sets. The price is set based on targets for revenues and assumptions (which at this point are probably pretty good) about their market audience. Until we know the details of the financials of how they run this business, any implication they are price gouging on vanity items is laughable. Think about that for a second ... Price gouging on VANITY items ... that should set off alarm bells for you. People who buy vanity items aren't price gouged .. they are willingly spending their money on completely cosmetic items they don't need ... not sure how else to explain that.

Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.If the price seems to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people. See the companies/executives are hypercompetent fallacy. Or, in other words, the appeal to authority. News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health. Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards. Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route. Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies. Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up. Right, I'm the one doing that. You’re the one claiming to know how every company works, saying that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re simply just guessing. You provided zero evidence to support these claims but you use it to substantiate your claim that Anet must not know what they’re doing when determining pricing. The burden of proof is not on me to provide data supporting that they don't know what they're doing. It's on you (or whomever) to provide data that they do. The problem with threads like this is that most people on my side have already said their peace and moved on or out, while only defenders remain to pick apart arguments. It's sort of pointless for me to continue in this way, so I'm out.LOLWUT? YOU are the one that made that claim/statement ... furthermore, the 'data' that Anet knows what they are doing is simply the fact that they have funded their games for many years with that gemstore business model. :/ Let's take a turn and be honest here and put the cards on the table. Are you or are you not of the belief that Anet knows what they are doing? Because the fact they persist with the current business models shows they DO, contrary to the option/scenario you provided they don't. At this point, any idea that Anet is just clueless at how to run this business model and price Gemstore goods is ridiculous ... UNLESS you are willing to present some evidence that refutes this obvious fact they have been running this business model successfully for many years ... which is unlikely based on your claim you don't need to do such a thing. Time for you to change your course here.

That doesn't change what I said ... especially the part of Anet of having no idea of what they are doing after 5 years. The sour grapes routine is getting old. You think the prices are too high and you didn't buy them. Great. That's exactly what you should do ... and no more because that's enough; it's all the data Anet will need to make pricing decisions. Complaining on the forums about skin prices isn't like complaining about how much damage a class does; it's a business consideration and no one here has enough information to say anything intelligent about what the prices should be. There is no appeal to authority ... Anet has run a online Gemshop in a MMO for FAR longer than you probably have ... my bet is that they have forgotten more about how to run their business than you have ever knew to begin with. Guess we can just sit around while Anet 'fails' and you stay mad.

OK .. but that's not any different than any other person who thinks the prices are too high ... and there will always be some, so again, that's no indication there is a problem with how this is priced. This way of thinking has nothing to do with how these items are priced in the first place. The question from Anet isn't how many people will buy if priced at X because that's not relevant question to them ... the question is what is the item release schedule on GS is and how it relates to gem sales so they can keep the lights on, the water running and meet their revenue targets. Anyone who is arguing for ONE item or item family being priced wrong has no idea on how this works. Again ... Anet will make corrections if necessary; they have done so in the past. RIGHT!!! A gaming company that has survived on gem sales and store offering for the last 5 years ... NO idea what they are doing!!! OK ... :/ Let's just keep our fingers crossed that Anet keeps guessing right I suppose!!

Again, that's not data or a measurement. Rarity is not a measure of what the market will bear as a price for mount skins. On the other hand, the persistent release of mount skins at the price listed ... IS. Maybe at some point, Anet stop releasing mount skins because the market changes ... like they did with armor sets. We aren't there yet. What you think you see is completely irrelevant. I look at the horizon ... looks like the world is flat too, but it's not. The players you see without premium mounts is likely not a statistically valid sample. heck, you probably don't even know if you are seeing a premium mount; I can hardly believe you pay that much attention to begin with. Self-observation, especially with a bias, is a highly unreliable source of data.

Except people complaining about prices is not indicative of issues, or even indicative of a problem; anyone that can't or doesn't want to pay the price for something is obviously going to have negative feelings about the cost; that doesn't mean there is a marketing or economic issue there. Did you know the price of any good is whatever the market will bare? That's basic economic stuff. If 'enough' people pay the price for the goods that Anet sets for them, then THAT IS the price. I don't know what enough is, but what I do know is that if enough isn't enough, Anet will do something about that because they have in the past. I can hardly think we have someone with a RL economics background complaining about the pricing AND claiming Anet has done the pricing 'wrong' without sales, revenue, cost and other financial data to make the conclusion. Considering that economics is just the science of exchange, that is just garbage science. And obviously, the market isn't bearing that cost very well. Since even players that have the resources to buy them won't.Maybe you find it fun to make up facts, but you don't have a clue if this is true or not; you don't have the data or I'm assuming the ability to even analyze it to make this claim. Again, if the market will not bear the price, we know Anet will do something about that ... and so far, I don't see the cost of skins or mounts changing yet. So the evidence is actually weighing against what you think it true, not supporting it. Besides, people don't buy stuff just because they have the means to buy them. That doesn't mean the market won't bear the cost ... it means those people are part of that market for that item. Basics ...

This is flawed reasoning. These are digital purchases, so Anet benefits more by releasing creative items at fair prices than they get by releasing different variations of the same thing and then trying to exploit player interest. See the recent controversy with mount skins, which are unarguably laughably overpriced to the point that it's very obvious to most player that it's an exploitative cash grab. Even if people indulge this in the short term, it is more likely to drive players away over time than it is to attract more revenue. It's a typical corporate problem of trying to maximize short term profit (usually for the benefit of shareholdres) at all costs. This is especially a problem with collectible items like gathering tools and skins. Overcharging for these while releasing them frequently will burn the absolute kitten out of players until they get pissed off and stop supporting the game. If you're going to overcharge, it makes way more sense to do it with finite items that don't receive constant expansion. It's hardly flawed. There is a cost to make those things they sell in the GS and Anet needs to sell a number of them just to cost the costs, not to mention fund other projects, overhead, etc ... . They are footing the bill to run the game on a server ... that is a cost they need to cover for US ... so unless you are proposing we go back to a server-cost covering model (i.e., monthly subs), then that point is very strong.

Except people complaining about prices is not indicative of issues, or even indicative of a problem; anyone that can't or doesn't want to pay the price for something is obviously going to have negative feelings about the cost; that doesn't mean there is a marketing or economic issue there. Did you know the price of any good is whatever the market will bare? That's basic economic stuff. If 'enough' people pay the price for the goods that Anet sets for them, then THAT IS the price. I don't know what enough is, but what I do know is that if enough isn't enough, Anet will do something about that because they have in the past. I can hardly think we have someone with a RL economics background complaining about the pricing AND claiming Anet has done the pricing 'wrong' without sales, revenue, cost and other financial data to make the conclusion. Considering that economics is just the science of exchange, that is just garbage science.