Leo G.4501
-
Posts
1,652 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Leo G.4501
-
-
On 5/9/2024 at 11:08 AM, Aeolus.3615 said:
OR at the cost of adrenaline which makes more sense IMO, upkeep skills need to be tied to mana/resource for balance reasons tho, what ur saying is SB would end with adrenaline and a energy bar, it would look SB work similar towards a gw1 warrior which had those 2 bars and the one u call latent magic would work like an energy bar tho.
I can imagine some skills on SB also use that e-bar to improve themselves tho, scaling some effects based on that e-bar working similar but IMO would have to work and keep is within a KISS principle (keep it simple and s7up1d) to avoid ending being overengeneered and clunky, so at the end would be the same as we have now with a more punch based on the e-bar.
Pretty much.
It was more just an idea. As is, some people complain about the adrenaline system being too straight forward which is kind of weird to mention since I feel only core war and SB even use adrenaline like normal. But yeah, the idea would be SB having both adrenaline and latent magic energy bar with adrenaline acting as normal (still only using 1 bar at a time) and the energy bar being for the other attributes of the spec (doesn't decay out of combat). It would have to do something besides just being upkeep on those utilities or else it would just sit there full if you didn't take any meditations.
Personally speaking, I think SB as a spec should just have Magebane Tether by default, put it on the F3, make it a skill that applies the tether to your next burst/FC + a flip skill that will just throw it on a target as a projectile instead 900 range at the cost of latent magic + another flip skill if a target is tethered to pull them to you on command. Then you can change around some of the traits to give different effects to the tether.
...but now we're talking about two avenues of messing around with SB and that's not very simple.
-
1
-
-
Would be kind of cool if SB utilities became upkeep skills. The resource? Entities losing boons around you adds to a 'latent magic' bar. So allies, yourself or foes losing boons fills it.
The utilities themselves act the same as now, clicking them gives you the effects they currently provide, but on top, they can provide an additional persisting added effect depending on if you keep them active or you run out of latent magic in the bar. And it kind of sounds more "meditate"y than what meditations currently are.
Stuff like Natural Healing could remove your boons and condis from the user then heal you and that would fuel the latent magic bar insuring you can use it's upkeep effect that will continue to remove conditions from you and heal nearby allies for each condi you remove from yourself.
Break Enchantment could apply the PBAoE damage/boon rip but the upkeep skill could charge your next Full Counter to use both adrenaline and all of your latent magic to super charge its effects.
Winds of Disenchantment would stop you from gaining latent magic for its duration and constantly drain your latent magic while standing inside it. While not standing inside it, it has a muted effect. It still has a max duration for its upkeep but the upkeep part would basically be getting the max duration but muted effect by standing away from it but getting the strongest effect but shortest duration while standing in it. How would you balance it that way? Dunno...maybe divide the effects so the muted version just does damage and removes 1 boon once you step inside but applies 100% boon duration debuff and the full powered version applies the boon rip per interval + missile deflection.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:
If that's what you actually think then I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt and simply note that you didn't read it correctly then. Nothing in my response was "dramatic". I questioned specific parts of what you said about me -or my post- there and yet, you simply failed to address those questions, but instead -for one- started asking me if I... disagree with things I didn't question? It's like you literally didn't want to answer what I asked.
So do I. But I think most of all it's too bad that you feel bad now instead of simply, you know, posting on topic, which -until your post with false accusations directed at me- at least was still happening in this thread, despite differences in the stances.
Such a generous benefit of the doubt lol 🙃
I answered your questions. I clarified my points. I pointed to your specific statement that you asked. Overall, it never was a big deal, you just made it a big deal. Like I said, you've become tiresome to discuss with because you keep asking for things you don't want and then complaining when you get them. You wanted to know why I made the statements that I gave. I did and then you wanted specific direction for why I would make said statements so I gave them and now you deny I did any of that and still miss the context. I don't feel bad for you, I feel bad for people who would waste their time with this discussion at this point, specifically discussing it with you.
1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:Consdering your repeated attempts at these weak personal jabs since the very first post in this comment chain -in place of any actual specific feedback, whether on-topic or about what I questioned about your accusations towards me- I'd say you seem to be overestimating your "lack of bias". Although if it makes you feel better to see yourself as such then you do you. Wouldn't say the thread is doing better now though.
You confuse accusations with criticism. 🤷♂️💁♂️🤷♀️
Like I said before: I gave you some feedback, you got confused, I said it wasn't that serious, you demanded clarification, I clarified, you complain. That's the loop here.
So you can keep your attention span limit met, the tl;dr: just mind your manners with telling people they don't know stuff or they did the bare minimum like reading posts. Nobody owes you anything, people can report your posts for even the hint of being rude and if you want to avoid frustration, try to consider how someone else will interpret your posts. 🤷♂️
But do what you want. I don't care. Smell ya later 🙃
-
1
-
1
-
5
-
2
-
-
23 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:
So you're trying to paint the picture where "I'm telling people not to have opinions" (which, again, I did not), while saying I'd have to convince them that there are reasons not to change everything which you direct as these two sentences. As if... there was no 6 pages of discussion on the way there, many of which involved me and 2 of the same people I also directed what I said in the post you're "calling out" here? See, this is the issue with someone trying to "jump in" while disregarding what was being said before. Because you're directing what you said at these two sentences, but "these two sentences" weren't written out of the blue with nothing before that. At this point, would you somehow expect me to keep copy-pasting my previous posts just in case someone felt the sudden need to join in at the last post I wrote? I think that doesn't make much sense -and as such, neither did your attempt to tell me what you said.
I didn't just "jump in" nor "call out" your reply "out of the blue". I've been reading the replies ever since I posted in the thread (page 2 btw).
I'd sooner accept criticism for trying to act as a "Great Value" brand referee than pushed off as someone who didn't bother reading the posts or making accusations without context.
23 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:Which makes what you wrote in your initial response that much weirder, since all it did was throw out an empty accusation that had nothing to do with what I did or said in this thread.
I don't need to "deny" anything now. I told you where I have an issue with your initial post and that's all it is.
Great, except -again- that wasn't written to a random person out of the blue, without any argumentation about it before. Again, this thread has multiple pages by now and most of the discussion -at least in, lets say, second half of it- is between the same few people. All you did was take a single sentence -or two- out of xx posts and tried slapping some tiktok meme on top of it (had to google it 🤷♂️), as if that would make your accusation any less empty.
Since we're sharing advices, mine for you is to read the thread and stop trying to take 1 sentence at xxth post as if nothing else was presented (to same people, at that, so I wasn't just gambling on whether or not they saw previous posts either) to support the stance I have. It's not meant as some backhanded remark btw, it's simply to inform you that you heavily misrepresented what was being said in this thread just because you latched onto a single sentence -or two- of xxth post and tried to draw a narrative where there was no argumentation (false), but just telling someone to not have an opinion about stuff (which is also false, even in isolation btw). Hence my reaction to that.
Is anything explained above unclear or -in your opinion- false?
It was a YouTube meme first, not Tiktok, but I'll forgive you for that.
Like I said before, I have read the thread. I mostly read threads I reply to when I have an opinion on something I want to share. I typically read the subsequent replies to see if someone will change my opinion. I hope you have some other advice for me than that.
So far, everything you've written doesn't convince me I heavily misrepresented anything. Even in my clarification, you seem to be dramatically responding to it despite conspicuously asking for it. I didn't want to have to spend the time to write that out (or this either) but I did to be polite because you asked with the assumption that you wanted criticism. Is that not what you wanted? I feel bad wasting the thread space on quibbling about nothing when the overall vibe I was trying to get across is to just chill out and come about the subject with a relative perspective that we're likely arguing personal taste of builds that are in constant flux.
23 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:I asked you what was "so harsh" (feel free to respond to "rather harsh" though, for me it doesn't change anything about the question here) and all you did was provide a substantial part of the post and say "[that] comes off pretty tactless". That doesn't answer anything. What was "rather harsh" -or now "pretty tactless"- there exactly? Can you literally point something out and explain that? Because for now I can quote any post on the forum, claim "it's pretty harsh" and when questioned "how is it harsh?", I'd say... "well, it's tactless". This is not a response, this is avoidance.
Nothing there was tactless. I found his mention about "offering for me to test it" simply weird, since I wouldn't be discussing something I didn't already do or at least try out. I don't need him to "offer me to go test it", when he's the one who tried to discuss something he apparently didn't try out at that point. What's so pretty harsh or tactless by pointing that out? Is this even what you meant? Unclear, you just quoted some extended fragment of a post and explained nothing. Hopefully you can provide a more accurate response this time.
Actually considering you wrote "it seems rather harsh to criticize someone who decided to do some independent testing", does it mean that the mere act of criticising what/how someone tested something is "rather harsh" because... they bothered testing something they wanted to discuss? I don't get it. I knew what I was talking about because I already did (a.k.a tested) it. At that point, it's rather harsh to criticize whatever I said in this thread, because I bothered testing it? No, really, all I can do here is keep guessing what you actually meant because your response didn't explain anything about this part.
It's called a *clarification*. Do I need to define that for you too? I was *clarifying* that I wasn't saying you've crossed a threshold of harshness that has created some violation but rather it's just a perceived tone from an unbiased reader of being unnecessarily harsh. I even went on to describe busting someone's chops isn't outside of the realm of necessity. But being the Great Value brand ref, I just think you're pushing too hard and if there's one thing most people are backhandedly annoyed by it's try-hards...at least I am.
As for what was rather harsh? Everything I quoted. What was pretty tactless? This:
"I know how it plays and what it can do, you rather clearly don't (or, currenty, didn't?)."
and this:
"The question is: why did you even attempt discussing this without understanding what exactly you're talking about (and then try claiming I'm the one doing it "not in a good faith")?"
As something I've learned from various bouts of moderation, you could have posted with these 2 sentences deleted and it'd have come off as a tiny bit less harsh and would come off moreso as stern and info based vs debate bro provocation. And as for the part about asking for you to do tests, I'll write that off as a miscommunication but better to clarify with the person you're talking with if that's what they're asking for rather than just assume they want you to go out of your way, spend your effect pulling up builds and gear and you go through rounds and rounds of rotations.
-
1
-
5
-
1
-
-
Confusing. I thought I wrote one other post before this.
Anyway, *sigh* 🙃
Gotta start by putting up context, then point out why I acknowledged the point with criticism and then the criticism itself.
1. "It's easier to do that when you're not telling them to stop having opinions tho."
The full quote says "At the end of the day, people are always going to ask for change. You won't get them to stop by telling them, you have to convince them that there are reasons not to change everything." This was directly mostly at the following:
On 5/1/2024 at 12:33 PM, Sobx.1758 said:It's not just "my opinion on how they can resolve it", it's literally how they can resolve it. Different classes and builds playing differently is the point of having different classes and builds. Stop trying to make everything the same.
Do you deny that people are going to ask for change? I'm going to just assume that you know and understand that part and say no, people WILL ask to have things changed so there's no debate there. Resolutions to problems will always have multiple solutions which I'm not going to really debate about because some solutions are better than others but that aside, I don't disagree that different classes and builds play differently. My main criticism is the last part: "Stop trying to make everything the same". And as @draxynnic.3719can likely attest, I too don't like making everything the same...it's not about what you're advocating for that I disagree with, just how you're doing it. That's why the advice I gave (take it or leave it) was you have to try and convince people instead...because change WILL happen, even changes you don't like or perceptually *wrong* changes that shouldn't happen will happen.
2. "Reading the other comments, it seems rather harsh to criticize someone who decided to do some independent testing"
You replied to that quote saying "I'm not sure what you're talking about here, maybe you could be more specific. Which criticism was so harsh here?" First of all, I said 'rather harsh'. Nitpicking, sure, but 'so harsh' sounds like more of a threshold of harshness was reached/passed where as 'rather harsh' mostly means 'can come off as harsh'. Secondly, this:
On 5/1/2024 at 10:25 AM, Sobx.1758 said:Wait, what? You "made offers" for me to run tests for you? What kind of "offer" is this supposed to be? I know how it plays and what it can do, you rather clearly don't (or, currenty, didn't?). The question is: why did you even attempt discussing this without understanding what exactly you're talking about (and then try claiming I'm the one doing it "not in a good faith")?
Once again, you don't need that 70% boon duration from diviner's gear. You choosing to not use function gyro because you need/want it for rezing people as qdps in a group that will (maybe perhaps potentially who knows?) threaten you with kicks is also an interesting one to me, but I guess we need to cut those quickness sources somehow, in order to claim "it's just barely making it on the edge of being acceptable".Comes off as pretty tactless. And sure, no one says you have to have any tact when responding here but since you're asking me to pick apart your attitude like a dotting parent, here I am. I mean, this thread isn't just about Scrapper, it just so happens to relate to a specific build but could technically translate to any build that requires 'forced movement' in its rotation for a desired effect. Furthermore, your insistence on specific replies and rebuttals is tiresome and you should probably be more lenient went discussing things online. Not saying you can't break some noob's chops so they learn something but it's a form of communication when dealing with other adults that helps bring consensus rather than aiming for confrontational back and forths. The key is just knowing when to dial it back.
3. "By all means, explain what exactly you're talking about here, because it doesn't look like you're commenting on what I wrote in my posts. "
I read your posts. I quoted your posts. I clarified my replies. The point of going through this exercise isn't to belittle anyone or endlessly argue back and forth. For whatever reason, you didn't even try to understand someone you're directly replying to but rather jumped to accusations they had no idea what they were talking about OR didn't read your posts OR that what you posted couldn't be perceived as negative which should be pretty telling of how you interacted in the thread.
The crazy thing is, I'm not even disagreeing with your points. So dismiss the above as you see fit.
-
3
-
5
-
-
2 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:
Time to read the posts in the thread then.
Where did I say anything like that? If anything, I'm asking further questions about their opinions, which for the most part remained unanswered, at least for the majority of the time those questions were repeatedly asked.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, maybe you could be more specific. Which criticism was so harsh here?
By all means, explain what exactly you're talking about here, because it doesn't look like you're commenting on what I wrote in my posts. 🤷♂️
It's all on this last page (my settings have this thread on page 6 which has the last 23 posts made). It's not a deep dive, just read.
My post was moreso a call to be chill than anything but if you need someone to pick apart posts, just ask. I try to avoid doing that when the voices in my head say I'm being pedantic. As the saying goes, nitpicking begets more nitpicking. And if that's not a saying then I'm taking credit for it.
-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:
Well, meanwhile most people I talked about it with disagree with what you're writing here. Others simply play what they want instead anyways. Like I said before, I don't see how this is supposed to be problematic or in need of change. If someone yeets themselves off the platform, in this case it's because of their obvious -and rather bad- mistake. And without change "having to stack hits" has nothing (like literally absolutely nothing) to do with discussing any attempted "forced movement" change. I understand that you dislike how abender plays and agree that you're free to dislike it, while subsequently play one of many other options the game provides you with.
It's not just "my opinion on how they can resolve it", it's literally how they can resolve it. Different classes and builds playing differently is the point of having different classes and builds. Stop trying to make everything the same.
Calm down Jamal. Don't pull out the 9. 😆
At the end of the day, people are always going to ask for change. You won't get them to stop by telling them, you have to convince them that there are reasons not to change everything. It's easier to do that when you're not telling them to stop having opinions tho. For example, I'm pretty sure OP is done with the discussion and probably has come to the conclusion that if they improve action cam a bit so they can finagle a resolution to their "launching themselves randomly in a direction" problem, no other change to the professions is really necessary.
Reading the other comments, it seems rather harsh to criticize someone who decided to do some independent testing when, ultimately, they're trying to add more to the conversation. Sure, criticize the data but no need to go after someone who just wants to share info. All being said, and with all the criticism I throw at Anet and the direction GW2 is taking, the system still is pretty flexible and leaves a lot to explore for those willing to stray off the snowy path amidst the echoes of crows telling you where you should go.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
5
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sonork.2916 said:
The amount of free boons and utility tacked on through traits is obnoxious, and incredibly hard to play around. Some classes get infinite uptime or close on these boons which just happen to be the best boons in the game. Like soul beasts with infinite protection on dodge. Warriors and now engineers gain resistance on imply dodging, with warriors getting stab and movement impairing effects whenever they use a movement skill. Cata's gain stab whenever they get an aura. + a lot more, so much powerful free boons/utility for simply doing the things they do anyways.
Then what would traits be changed to do?
I see traits as coming in several flavors:
- ones that tack on skills to other skills or situations like adding a minor-version of a utility when you activate an elite skill or activating a minor-version of a utility when you get 3 conditions.
- ones that augment stats or effects directly; so stuff that just ups your ferocity or adds extra stats when you get boons or increase the duration of consecrations.
- ones that augment skills such as adding extra charges to shatters or makes your dragon slash have fewer max charges.
- ones that give you extra skills like Berserker getting the extra skill that cancels Berserk mode.
- ones that add additional boons/conditions to skills/effects/scenarios. (this is the one you are talking about).
Probably some I missed but...if they did less of the latter, they have to replace them with something as some traits literally only grant boons/conditions for certain actions.
-
On 4/2/2024 at 5:39 AM, DanAlcedo.3281 said:
- Counterblow:
- Renamed to Wary Defense.
- New effect: Block attacks for 3 seconds. Gain Adrenalin (5) for blocked attacks.
- Flipover skill: Counterblow.
- Increased damage of Counterblow to 2.2. Deals 10% extra damage for every attack blocked by Wary Defense. Max 50%.
Something I always wished they'd do is alter this skill is more shifts to make it better at defense.
A new mechanic that would be fun to try is making it an upkeep skill. Taking your idea, changing the main click to something like "Dulled Blow" that blocks attacks and drains your adrenaline while it's used (max duration would be however long you can keep your endurance up but extreme cases would probably be 6 seconds) and apply 1sec of weakness to anyone in range. The flipover skill would also be Counterblow but Counterblow will recover some endurance for each attack you blocked during Dulled Blow (meaning you want to cancel the skill, not wait out it's duration) and do increased damage to weakened foes.
Thinking more on the idea, that pretty much makes main-hand mace stronger at blocking than shield lol
-
You know what terrestrial weapon that has NEVER been proliferated?
Focus.
Sincerely,
Someone who crafted focus as their 2nd legendary weapon and is actively working on Harpoon gun.
-
3
-
-
On 4/26/2024 at 4:02 AM, draxynnic.3719 said:
That is basically what you said, though:
At the bottom line, I think it's better for skills to have clear use cases rather than to have some novelty value only to be ignored when the novelty wears off - and that's where most conjures are now. I don't think they should get to a point where they're showing up in Snowcrows raid builds because they boost your DPS more than the top three non-DPS utility skills available - hopefully I don't need to quote chapter and verse as to why. But I think a good position could be one where, in the notes for a melee build, they say that a particular skill could be replaced with a conjure so you're not twiddling your thumbs during a phase that has some anti-melee element to it. Or an open world (or even competitive!) build uses pistol or staff, but carries conjure hammer or shield to use in situations where the enemy is forcing you into melee and you need some more defensive ability, or when the enemy throws up some projectile hate and you need something that isn't projectiles.
Do I have to pull out the full English interpretation of each sentence now? Jeeze.
Firstly, putting quotation marks around a phrase typically means the writer isn't saying the words but rather is quoting someone or something else. Secondly, the first part of the sentence says "closest thing to your accusation" which I'll just clarify to you, is me making a steelman of your accusation to direct it closer to a reasonable argument rather than a flagrant attack. Thirdly, the quoted phrase should be taken at face value. Do you want the profession to be power crept because you don't like how conjures work? If you answer yes, then that highlights our divide on the subject. If you say no, then there is common ground.
If English isn't your first language then the above is me explaining to you what that meant and I'll further clarify if necessary. If not, well..
As far as the comment about having clear use cases vs novelty, the entire point of me commenting is to create BOTH. Novelty AND use case. Because the game is, first and foremost, a game. And like I've repeated over and over, throwing away fun stuff just because it's not useful now in exchange for power is a faustian deal; it makes something much more useful now but it's merely overshadowed later by something stronger, more useful, more efficient. Skills becoming more similar to other skills making them easier to compare and replace. And this doesn't go just for skills/utilities but entire games...balance everything to be similar in function as any other standard tab targeted mmo and it becomes just as easily replaced with the next game taking up all the mentions on social media. Sure, you now have more balance and useful utilities, but the result is there's less flavor and no style. Do it enough to enough skills across enough profession and that becomes your reality.
-
On 4/21/2024 at 6:41 PM, Jackthetripper.9035 said:
Well it surprised me that arcane wave, a skill that seems otherwise useless, somehow made sword ele useful again in WvW, which it hasn't been since the powecrept EOD specs came out
5 hours ago, nthmetal.9652 said:What do you even mean? Yes, sure, Arcane Wave now has a cast time and cannot be used in water (who cares about underwater combat that much anyways?), but on the upside it adds a movement skill and a daze. I think it's pretty much awesome. It was also good before, but I don't mind the changes at all.
But couldn't they have just, ya know, helped Sword by giving those abilities instead?
-
1
-
-
What would I do? Throwing random kitten at the wall on a test server for players to mess with probably. When some stuff works out, consider putting it into main testing for potential updates. I think a lot of discourse comes when they seemingly just change stuff just because. Just having stuff for players to mess around with on test might sate a lot of desire to mix stuff up.
Since a lot of discussion is around boons, how about mixing those up?
Might: instead of 30 power/condi per stack, might grants 800 power/condi and stack caps at 10. Might grants increased damage to your next offensive attack and reduces your stacks by 1 per hit. Application stacks from skills/traits/gear will have to be adjusted (with small might application dropping to 1 might, moderate might application being 2-3 and the most might applied at a time being capped to 4). This would be to rebalance might to still be great but needing upkeep not by just duration but application itself to keep the damage flowing.
Alacrity: Would become intensity stacking up to 5 and would decrease cooldowns by 50% instead of 25% but only on the next skill with a cooldown is used and decrease stacks by 1. If the tech is there, making this the first user-based activation boon could be cool...like, if instead of just the next skill used, if you have a skill that is currently recharging while having Alacrity on you, you could click that skill that is recharging to apply the reduction to it. If it works somewhat well, you could try making it a full user-based activation boon, giving players the ability to strategically use skills and these boons to capitalize on a strong effect.
Quickness: Shift the dynamic of this to increase skill activation from 50% to 100%...but only for basic attacks (the #1) and heal skills (#6). All other skills get a *stacking* 20% activation speed up. This means, you can then shift some of the boon to traits so if you want more activation speed up, you have to stack traits/gear/boons to get it but I'd look to keep this relegated by filtering what can and can't stack with quickness.
Swiftness: Just a random idea; Add an effect that decreases the degradation of boons' durations by 33% while out of combat. I think of all the boons that is slept on primarily for its abundance is swiftness. I just want to emphasize that people should desire this boon. This, I'd imagine, would make this just as pivotal a boon when setting up prior to a push in WvW scenarios and organized PvE.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, KryTiKaL.3125 said:
(FC activating burst traits simply from being triggered and not actually hitting and Mirage Cloak needing to not be allowed to be used while CC'd)
And even when they fix things that need fixing, they manage to still do odd stuff.
Mirage Cloak definitely shouldn't be a stunbreak equivalent BUT it certainly should allow you to dodge while immobilized (that's the whole schtick of Mirage Cloak...dodge while standing still)...but they managed to screw that up and bundle MC's nerf with both CC and immob.
Considering Full Counter not only requires adrenaline on top of a specified cooldown for the skill, many say these multiple penalties for War's profession mechanic is oppressive for utility and skill plays. That adrenaline drains near instantly upon exiting combat is another hinderance. Necro doesn't lose life force out of combat and Mesmer can still use their shatters without clones...
-
1
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
And you're claiming that a set of core skills actually being made useful shouldn't be done because it's powercreep?
Oh no, you're doing it again.
I'm pretty sure I did NOT say that. In fact, I'm sure I made a post in this thread about what I think they could do with conjures. I'm coming from the perspective that they don't need to make it a whole avenue of gameplay that revolutionizes the profession but rather, a niche tool that ultimately can lend itself to temp gains just like any other attunement works now.
-
14 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
Again, you're veering into "the profession is not completely unplayable therefore it can't possibly have any problems whatsoever"
No I'm not. You have somehow interpreted it as that though.
Closest thing to your accusation I'd be making is "the profession shouldn't be stupidly power crept because you don't like how conjures work".
16 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:By that logic, there was no point to the mesmer phantasm rework, or the deadeye rework, or the spirit weapon rework.
Wow, you must have dug WAAAY deep into my post history because I did indeed complain about all of those reworks and still hold a grudge about them to this day. But I wasn't against those changes because I preferred the old version, I was against them because they simply removed the option...primarily for lame reasons that ended up neutering other aspects of the game. Instead of using their trait system to diversify how these skills work (the phantasm change was likely specifically done to make room for Mirage), they simplified and genericized.
21 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:Sometimes, making something functional requires removing properties that some regard as cool, but which are impractical.
Yes, and it's called "being lazy and not thinking outside the box" as well as "not caring about your original vision".
I mean, the whole horizontal progression system is mostly impractical for a game that needs to retain as many players as possible. Replacing it for a vertical progress system would have kept the game going for longer with less content.
As lame as you think elementalist is currently, changing conjures to fill whatever niche hole you feel it has is only going to follow with a swath of skill changes and nerfs to other skills that you likely won't like. All for the sake of a utility skill you don't even like and will probably only use for a month after it's changed to replace it with the next thing that gets buffed (and there's spirit weapons peeking in at the finish). Yay. *golf claps*
-
7 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:
In the post you just quoted, I asked you to elaborate, while posing questions about your apparent simultaneous complaints about "boon ball" and what amounts to "but I can't just stand in the middle of my group :((". I also asked you what do you mean by "balancing around boon meta". It's not a "boon meta", boons are just clearly intended part of the game's design, not including them during balancing wouldn't make any sense. As far as I understand, you didn't respond to anything questioned, but just repeated what you already said in your previous post. Which is the position I already questioned.
Pressing f2 backwards and then using gap closer, including f1 isn't "running a round the backside of your kitten to get to your elbow". If you have issue with that, simply change the spec to something that isn't made specifically to be a mobile one. I'm not sure how you're "missing your aim on f2". Again, are you even aware of ranges you're trying to discuss here? Because for now it looks like you're just guessing here.I guess I'm the one who brought "boon ball" into the conversation lol
The complications of the boon ball aren't binary. The game has practically always had this boon ball strat since the beginning. It's just closer to the start, it wasn't as main-stream and specialized as it is now. That and it wasn't about having all boons all the time but rather necessary boons at a given time. The problems mutate with any given meta whether it's unique buffs or just the max uptime we are contending with now. One could complain that it's too effective because most strats default to it or possibly that the resultant upkeep is the product of spamming skills which is low-skill/low-coordination or that it favors specific applications or boons over others. I personally find the subject interesting to discuss as we're talking about streamlining application of boons when application of boons is already the peak default goal. It's basically making a moderately straight-forward strategy into a one-handed strategy.
As far as balancing around the boon meta, I'd say that probably coincides with quickness and alac specifically. Being the premier boons to provide, balancing not only the uptime so every profession can apply it with a specific spec but also suggesting streamlining the application method to match is a red flag to me. We're only a stone's throw away from just regulating all quick/alac to a relic instead so everybody's boon-dps is the same. Is it good? Is it fair? Should those boons be thrown in the trash? I dunno...I'm just a player here. I'm just pointing out the patterns that some people see. Same with them changing skills to be easier and faster to use then have to rebalance everything else to accommodate that these once slower skills can be popped out with little window for punishment.
Or maybe I'm a masochist and just want to be punished while everyone else just wants to make punishable skills easier but then complain that the game gets rebalanced all the time. I guess that's a different kind of masochism...like shooting yourself in the foot.
-
1
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
Just as one consideration, sharing is why the cooldown is so long - you can either have two people using the powerful skills simultaneously, or one person can get to use them twice if they jump through the required hoops. Remove the sharing and the cooldowns can be cut in half right away - making them far more practical as a backup weapon.
Sharing is holding the entire group back, and in doing so, holding back the entire profession by extension.
The utility doesn't need to change into a "practical backup weapon" as you describe. Elementalist has functioned from the beginning without an equivalent weapon swap so using that as your baseline to uproot the skill is doing so on faulty premises. Or to explain it more clearly: your argument is starting from the false premise that elementalist requires it to be a certain thing.
And trying to argue that what is holding back ele is conjures is absurd. To argue that any one set of utilities holds back a whole profession is absurd.
The unfortunate truth is, if you're going to make up truths then how is someone suppose to have a conversation with you? If conjures are made better, they don't have to adhere to a meta-status. They don't have to fill in the hole you think the profession should have filled. At the end of the day, the best option for conjures is to just change them into kits that do huge damage at long range and are swappable like engi kits but that doesn't mean it should happen because you could say the same about practically any professions' utilities: just copy a strong thing and profit.
-
11 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:
I'm not sure if this is directed at my comment, but yes! That's exactly what I'm saying and why I commented that a fixed movement skill like Flowing Resolve is commonly considered problematic for a support build. It seems quickscrapper has the same problem with the kitten rockets!
I mean, support skills that push you out of the melee boonball are just so much fun, right? LOL.
Mostly directed at the general audience. I just think people need to hear it more, about what boon-ball meta results into. And that not everyone is a fan of it.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Are you saying you don't like the boon-ball?
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, DeceiverX.8361 said:
Has been attempted before, threads got combined, and the ideas either ignored or completely spat in the face of.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Suggestions-Future-Elite-Specializations/page/6#post6072256
Many posts, like the above, were their own threads.Don't waste your time. Better-off home-brewing D&D classes.
I think suggestions like these should aim to be more for fun rather than actually taken to be implemented. At best, maybe inspire someone who is working on content to alter their future addition.
-
15 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
People have cleared vale guardian with ten heal tempests (before alactempest) simply outhealing the enrage damage.
Just because you CAN do something doesn't make it good.
Sharing conjure weapons was effectively balanced out of the game nearly a decade ago. We can retain a gimmick that feels cool but in practice has led to almost the entire skill group being dead, or we can hamburger that sacred cow and allow three out of six primary elementalist weapons to be actually used in regions where you might find yourself needing a ranged option (and some of the others be used in regions where you might find yourself mobbed in melee and needing better melee defensive options than staff can provide).
If they are "balanced out of the game", then that means they have spare power budget to boost them up. You don't need to chop stuff off of it to get it rebalanced. And if you just want to fit them in the meta for raids, why not look at Glyph of Elementals too? Let's just take those non-meta powers and force them through the raid-group holes at all costs?
I'd be much more receptive to attempting to maintain the little quirkiness to these powers in some fashion than to just chop it off like so many other flavors that have been lost to time over the game's lifespan. And no, I'm not saying maintain all of the old quirks, but this is a very unique and flashy one that I don't think needs to go away just to make conjures good. Like someone said, making the conjure trait affect this. It's not hard to maintain flavor.
-
2 minutes ago, Magmi.6723 said:
P2W isn’t a subjective opinion though lol. It’s a statement.
Statements can be opinions. Statements can even be facts but not all facts are correct.
-
1 hour ago, Magmi.6723 said:
People don’t call things p2w to wish they stay the way things are, they call things out as p2w to create a push for change.
OP didn’t come here saying this to simply say “oh well” they stated it to get like minded people in agreement to amass numbers, I.e to push change in direction. it’s a demand in itself.
And how well did that work out for them?
I'm all for counter criticism, but I don't think you understand what the actual scope of the argument is. At worse, the OP would be pushing for weapon mastery from specs they already purchased to be available to core by default.
1 hour ago, Magmi.6723 said:Your right everyone’s free to spout nonsense we live in an era there are people who still think the world is flat, or the world is only 2000 years old.
and alike these arguments it’s impossible for them to be opinions, the world cannot be both flat and round, games cannot be both pay 2 win and not be. It can’t be subjective, because it’s impossible for them to both be correct lol.
Again, I don't think you really get this. You're trying to compare scientific data to subjective consumer opinion. That hypothetical is just bonkers. I'm surprised you're not embarrassed posting it lol
1 hour ago, Magmi.6723 said:this isn’t a exchange of opinions it’s a flat question of weather gw2 is or isn’t by definition p2w
they didn’t create multiple types of model for us to all use one for everything, it’s a fallacy of logic, gw2 was advertised as a B2P game, a middle ground between F2P and Subscription based models. It has remained a B2P game, I.e no subscription costs, no p2w micro transactions but you still pay box prices for content.
Buy to play is not a middle ground between free to play and subscription. It's an alternative, yes, but there is no metric that puts it between the two unless the only metric measured is money exchanged. Understand that those metrics or scales don't even interact with the concept of pay to win. A game can be subscription based AND pay to win. A game can also be buy to play and subscription. So on and so forth.
1 hour ago, Magmi.6723 said:It is not a “opinion” that it isn’t that model, the issue is without making it subjective no one can put together a real argument to why it is p2w.
Do you want me to make a real argument to why GW2 is pay to win?
-
1
-
Dan´s balance wishlist. Updated: 30.4.24
in Warrior
Posted
I'd argue that the point made at the end there was how Daring Dragon was supposed to be: let the Bladesworn customize their flow use with several attacks be they all reach or boost or whatever combo you wanted. Unyielding Dragon was supposed to be the strongest hit for your 'standing still' buck and Immortal Dragon being something else...sustain mostly but I found this mostly superfluous....
I think if they did want to alter the GM traits to have each have an additional favor to a certain DS, Daring Dragon would be boost, Unyielding Dragon would be Force and Immortal Dragon would be reach. I'm sure everyone has their own interpretation on how Bladesworn should be reworked though.