Gotejjeken.1267

Yeah I'd rather them work on WvW over raids.

It's also the one that gives condition damage and increases condition duration on dodge... I guess my confusion is why would one want to use shortbow in a power build?

Light on Your Feet is stronger on a power build than a condi build....say what now? Putting aside the fact that it is specifically for shortbow; which I don't know why anyone would take on a power build, why would you ever consider it over vicious quarry when power builds are extremely fury dependent?

You're reading a lot into it aren't you? For a person named 'salt mode' you seem to be getting angry at an opinion I never stated (removing the reflect mechanic). Anyway, have you ever played an immob shortbow build? If not, let me clue you in--shortbow bleeds build up over time, so if the arrows are reflected it does very little damage to the user (and blocking does nothing since its spammable). If you wanted to be truly careless, can just 'pew pew' through any reflect and block and cleanse yourself right after, you will have received a minor amount of damage and they waste their defense utility. Thus, countering at range. The point being reflect doesn't 'counter ranger', it specifically counters longbow because longbow has its predictable glass rapid fire burst. Again, my initial post wasn't agreeing that the mechanic should be removed; it was showing why it is especially problematic for a particular weapon (longbow) and why 'swap to melee' is the 'noob posting on a forum' suggestion when I'd just rather switch to an immob build and come back to read complaining about ancient seeds instead.

What does boonbeast have to do with anything I said? I literally said you can bypass this entire topic by just playing shortbow, which last time I checked isn't a melee weapon. In short, reflect / block / etc. specifically punishes longbow and melee is a bad answer for countering it when it can literally be countered at range...

Wow, is all I have to say. I knew longbow hate was a thing, but didn't realize it was a 10-page thread kind of hate. Most of you seemingly do not play ranger, because 'swap to melee' is literally the worst suggestion possible for this. Specifically because sword skill activations are far too long (making the evades borderline useless) and greatsword is pretty much a kiting tool unless you run very tanky. As for unblockables, they took all of them away. Signet of the Hunt is about as useful as a 300s CD passive at this point, so bringing it up shows extreme lack of playtime on the class. So to counter it leaves the build everyone hates--immob shortbow. Because good luck blocking/reflecting/etc. the shortbow, one way or another you are going down unless you have a LOT of cleanse. The most spammable and least thoughtful build is also the most effective--sounds about right for GW2.

I'll entertain a bit longer since you admit you didn't read most of it--but both situations to me are identical. You can't just spam a skill like hunter's shot and still get stealth, and so you shouldn't be able to spam attacks (or worse have them blocked, etc.) in stealth and get to keep that stealth. Both should be treated as skilled play, and if they aren't then give on-hit skills like hunter's shot activation whether they hit or not.

Think you are thinking too hard about this debate--because the initial premise really didn't make sense to begin with; that is, 'missing' is 'punishment'. The hunter's shot remarks were to prove if missing is initial punishment then there are plenty of situations where 'additional punishment' happens (outside of missed damage). More specific to inverses and your condi examples, blind specifically behaves this way--you can miss and have it removed, you don't need to wait it out or connect with an attack. The point of all this being, there is precedent in the game currently for removing stealth on a miss.

Essentially a missing a gain stealth on hit skill is the inverse of missing a lose stealth on hit skill, if that makes sense. So the argument here is if we have skills that 'punish' you for missing by not giving its effect, than the standard is there for having a mechanic that 'punishes' you for missing by losing an effect (i.e. stealth). As an aside, I don't really agree with missing as being 'punishment' (rather poor play), just attempting to frame this discussion in that light since that is how it was going.

But you have to explain how if I miss Hunter's Shot I get punished for missing and punished by not getting stealth, thus double punished. The same argument as if you are in stealth and miss and then are revealed--same double punishment logic. There's nothing about being revealed on missing in stealth that's outside the status quo here as double punishment already exists.

Admitting defeat is fine you know.

I'm not too concerned on the OPs comments on the matter, the debate here is simply that you should be punished for missing an attack in stealth. I've even given suggestion for how good performance could impact things, and stated even those really aren't needed on the classes that utilize attacks out of stealth the most (you may think I mean thief here, but one-shot engi is far, far more egregious to me). Anyway, I see most thieves access stealth by leaping into a smoke field...what does that have to do with hunter's shot? The point was we already have a skill that does what you are arguing against--punishing for missing. Because if you miss hunter's shot the skill essentially does nothing, where by your argument the 'miss' is the punishment, so where is the compensation? Is the logical conclusion that hunter's shot should put you in stealth no matter what because that is what the skill is intended to do? Finally I don't recall the topic being thief specific in terms of stealth, it's simply any stealth and any blocked attempt at an attack should cause a reveal. You may be bringing thieves specifically into it as you have special allegiance to them, that I'm unsure of.

I believe 'git gud' is appropriate here. Where is this argument on the ranger forums for Hunter's Shot btw? If you miss, if it is blocked, etc. you do NOT get the stealth. How is this fair?

What reasonable points? That you don't want to be punished for missing? Anet's logic on the subject is very clear--stealth is meant for squishier classes to have options for engaging / disengaging. At the time of creation (i.e. 2012) there were few ways to really abuse the mechanic, but fast forward to now and there are too many ways to abuse it, and it's spread too far among classes that don't really need it. For your compensation argument--even though I don't think it is needed--a successful attack out of stealth could do more damage because of the penalty for missing (i.e. being revealed for 1-2s). I don't love this because it would infact create an imbalance for classes like thief that have too many out of stealth evade abilities already, but it would satisfy the earlier argument about compensation (assuming 'missing' is a penalty and not just being careless).

It's like arguing with a circle... I think what we've come to discover over the nearly nine years of game existence is that stealth is poorly implemented. You may disagree with this under 'intended design' but sometimes 'intended design' turns out to be problematic (see: cars prior to when safety belts were required). It's not even like breaking stealth on a miss is unfair, it's basic logic. If I sneak up behind you and start whiffing a knife I think you are going to turn around and ask wtf I'm doing. This applies everywhere in life...ever heard of 'one shot one kill'? It's because you only get one shot as a sniper and you're revealed. What would be unfair is breaking stealth on getting hit; specifically for this game because of the amount of wonton AoE. If that were implemented I'd agree it'd be very unfair. As for compensation, thief specifically already has plenty of bonuses that apply to hits from stealth (gaining might, boon rip, etc.) so I'm not sure they need anything.

Unfortunately I think you are in the minority here. PvE players aren't looking for the 'prestige' of 20 tournament wins when they can just do the PvE path to an amulet; and by extension I'd imagine a good cross-section of WvW players could care less as well. You compound this with people in this very topic wanting the slumbering version to toggle off the effect that you are angry is being 'devalued'... What they need to do is give competitive modes some more skins/visuals to strive after, this way everyone is happy. I would say without tying them to any stat or entity (like legendary) because that just pollutes things for people who just want the stat swap effect and don't care about the chosen visual. It also causes topics like yours to be resolved for people that do want the visual but for an entirely different reason than stat swapping / legendary ability.

They did this in WvW already with the rank drop for the sublime chestpiece so it isn't a new thing. You really are playing the wrong game if you think legendary armor is the prestige--and even worse if you think people associate PvP/WvW items with prestige. Prestige in GW2 is all about PvE related things, at this point mostly infusion effects and other visual items. This is why only the PvE legendary armor set has its own unique look at the moment, because anet doesn't care all that much for the competitive modes.

I still don't understand the complaint--yeah the extra 20-30 seconds is an inconvenience if you are for whatever reason constantly swapping out weapons; but really, use templates and you'll be fine. Stat swapping an ascended is far more annoying (and costs gold / mats to do). Anyone who says this is easier than opening the customize menu on a legendary must not swap builds very often or ever. Sure, having the armory keep a 'last known config' would be handy, but the armory is already a luxury so in the grand scheme it isn't that important. Can threaten to use ascended all you want, you'll go back to your legendary as soon as you need to stat change and I'd bet money on that.

A two year old necro is impressive.

I wanna see how this works in EBG with 50 v 50 man blobs deciding who to take prisoner or not

I mean he's self proclaimed to be a 'fiend' that sits on government assistance and be of 'no use' to the world outside WoW (look up the vid where someone envies his life). Why would anyone want that kind of attitude or the associated community coming over? Anyway, I'm not sure streamer culture fits GW2 at all--GW2 is too laid back for that. Sure there is toxicity here and there but not the frog spamming emote kind. I also don't see how streamers help anything really. They just latch onto games where they can attract an audience and make money. The audience itself doesn't necessarily play the games they play though or recommend them to other people; for instance, Fall Guys had a huge streamer presence but within a month lost a vast majority of the audience when the streamers moved on because no one actually played it, just watched people play it.

Different viewpoints I guess. I like things like GW1 and Dark Souls 2 death penalty because it made me think before doing things.

Irritating maybe, but it did reinforce some semblance of skillful play. Fast forward 16 years and everyone needs a million safety nets in the name of 'fun'.

Right, but a pug can be four people that create a party--no commander needed. You are 'picking up' other players when you group with others you have no real affiliation with. Commanders just provide some level of organization but I have no idea why some feel they are the end all be all of the mode. You don't need any semblance of organized play for WvW, if you got rid of all commanders the gamemode would proceed fine as there's really no skill bar (like a raid or some other organized content). I don't see how alliances change anything other than allowing interested guilds to stay together over relinks. There's no reason to even have named alliances because the alliance part is a mechanic not an extra level of initiation.

I'm not sure if it was you in another topic or someone else, but I will repeat what they said here 'it's important to state what mode you are discussing'. I mention this because essentially one of you is a PvE player and one a PvP/WvW player--ranger functions very differently depending on where you are. Pets are a good example, in PvE I'm not sure it really matters what you use most times, but in WvW there are probably four total that are effective across every specialization. So for competitive this is a big problem, for non-competitive it isn't. My opinion on this is Path of Fire is what caused the major gap to occur between ranger and other professions. Ranger got its heal/support role taken away to accommodate the new specs and what it was given (soulbeast) was essentially a 'bugfix' so that you can permanently stow pets. None of this increased class complexity--in fact it decreased drastically with the sic' em meta that eventually resulted.