Metzie.9083

I would welcome it if the standard models (option) also included the warclaw. This was probably not taken into account when it was introduced. In any case, it would help ... not to go completely blind at some point. 😑😎

The information contains the word ADD, not REPLACE. What result, after the new knowledge and recalculation, do you come to?

In short: No, never! At least not according to this suggestion. :-) And first and foremost, the currently required rank should not or less serve to counteract BOTS. Instead, it should be used to help new players "learn" before they really (excuse me, I have to laugh myself when I say "really") start playing. If it was up to me, I would even increase the requirement (Rank 40+). ANet should, in my opinion, create a possibility to reduce or even completely remove this restriction via Gems-Store. Oops, suddenly one has even created income through PvP. ANet, ... look over here. ;-) PS: Enclosed, your suggestion sounds quite selfish (because it's a personal concern to give an advantage even if other players would also benefit from it or welcome it). PPS: We need new "willing and able to learn" players, not the thousandth new account from the same player(s).

Why is nothing being done or has not been done so far? One of the reasons is that they earn (good) money with the existing system, they do not really want to do without it. And the main part is contributed by the manipulations (every two months) of the players. ANet knows that very well. If you would mention something like this in the present of ANet (which was already done, there was no answer), you might have to be satisfied with the answer that players decided this way, that is, players voted this way (relinking every two months). In my opinion, the basically miserable situation could have been countered by (at least) "one small" change long ago. And that with a relinking with every reset, i.e. every Friday. Sounds simple at first, but it doesn't seem to be, because of the "calculations" running in the background or the existing system (and the program code), which would have to be changed, which is probably not worth the effort from ANet's point of view. Unfortunately ANet is not able to find another way to reconcile this. This means satisfying its player base and earning money through a well thought out (transfer) system or other means of income. One solution may be (or at least it feels like it is): "Get as many casual players into game mode as possible and replace them for veterans". Nothing you haven't seen in the recent past. To go on, this (all) should be remedied by the alliance system, which is still important that it appears or is integrated. Whenever.Just by the way: "Two years development time for the templates (from conception to implementation) Now think about what this means for the vaunted alliance system. The next question is, why don't we hear anything about the Alliances system at the moment? Is ANet so busy to finish it, ... and ready for the next bigger announcement? Or is ANet still collecting data because of the current situation or the last change " removing the language barrier (EU)" to find out if and what makes sense? We do not know, not yet. And unfortunately yes, the waiting is annoying and meanwhile also unreasonable. Among other things, the legacy of the former company policy and the former CEO (for sure).

If we are going to discuss the balance of classes in PvP, why not include the balancing of (ranked) matches as well? I mainly refer to duo queuing. In addition the following question: "Is it planned in any form and future to prevent two duo's from playing on one side and none on the other? In my opinion this should not happen, or at least only if there are two duo's on the other side. In general, it should behave in such a way that the groups are set up "equally" - shouldn't it? o/

The contribution or the creator cannot really be taken seriously, at least one should not. Because he doesn't seem to have the slightest idea - right? Currently, the "deadeye" has actually been improved in the right direction! Why? The explanation is found when one actually recognizes the definition of the "deadeye" as such, respectively his task by definition. (Re-)think about it! Another keyword: #ambush The "deadeye" is currently finding a unique selling point and that is a good thing! It may be possible to optimize small things. But fundamental changes would be anything but logical! General: People play the class, not only just 2 hours and learn more about its playing style! Then keep talking or start an unnecessary discussion like this one! Thus: Deadeye is broken op = "idiocy"!