Genesis.8572
-
Posts
228 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Genesis.8572
-
-
On 7/6/2023 at 1:46 AM, China.5268 said:
Theoretically speaking 'warrior' supose to be the master of melee combat and 'ranger' ranged, like i said theoretically...
Historically speaking, the ranger was designed as neither the melee or ranged class, but, rather, it was designed as the pet class.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, CornFarm.9260 said:
Is there a reason that Warrior isn't getting Main Hand Pistol (MHP) besides it "needs a support weapon" and they don't want to rework any of the existing weapons b/c they know how hard they suck + it just being funny to dunk on the Warrior community at this point??
Like I was thinking about it & MHP would solve SO many of Warrior's alleged combat-problems. It would:
1. Give it a main-hand mid-range option to combo with all their off-hand weapons. (Somewhat retaining that feeling / lore' element of being a Weaponmaster.)
2. It fits with the lore of Bladesworn if you account for that.
3. Give it new burst skills that (probably) wouldn't suck balls/bug out.
4. Could provide the opportunity for an actual hybrid condi/power weapon (e.g. Harbinger.) Something that Was doesn't really have for competitive'. (No 1H sword doesn't count. It's kitten for actual PvP dmg condi.)
5... You know what? Actually, just give us Harbinger's pistol skills & color it yellow. Done. All of the skills fit, the condis fit (warrior applies weakness, & technically already applies torment,) and it desperately needs a mid-range stun! AND That way Warrior could still feel like a Weaponmaster because it would be getting a Weapon from an entirely different class without pushing that idea! IT'S LITERALLY PERFECT!!
Like am I alone here...!?!? This is awesome ^.
It just doesn't seem relevant when it comes to feedback for the weaponmaster training beta about the existing warrior weapons being decoupled from their e-specs and NOT the announced new warrior weapon.
-
10 hours ago, mirage.8046 said:
For Elementalist, what will the pistol provide? A main-hand pistol might easily step on scepter's shoes as both generally offer midrange combat. I too wanted a longbow for Elementalist prior to EoD specs' announcements. I'm not against a gunslinger mage, as a pistol does sound cool, but that weapon sat low on my wishlist.
Oh, I hope its range isn't ungodly like that of Catalyst's hammer. ;__;And a longbow, as per the other common suggestion, could step on the staff's toes. What's your point?
-
2
-
1
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, DKRathalos.9625 said:
I just read this on the news so basically all class got access to all weapon? If that is yes isn't warrior get the short end of the stick again? I mean they proud of warrior because they can use a lot of weapon compared to other class, now if everyone can use every weapon what is the benefit of warrior anymore? 🤣
I mean sure a lot of weapon in warrior's arsenal considered useless but still..
What you read was that ANet is removing the link between e-specialization weapons and the profession. So you can play, for example, a Berserker that uses Dagger and Pistol or a Spellbreaker that uses Torch, or even a core Warrior that uses the e-spec weapons. It's similar for other professions.
-
I only wish that the stripes were dyable and that the tiger's fur was also fully dyable rather than having to work around the unchangeable white part.
-
It looks like a fairy moth.
-
6
-
-
1 hour ago, Teratus.2859 said:
True but realistically names are not locked in reality either.
Millions of people share their names with others, first and last names quite often so using reality isn't exactly a good counter argument.
Just search for your full name on any large social media platform, or even a google search and you'll probably find hundreds of others with the same exact name.This moves the goal posts of the issue. The point is regarding in-universe naming conventions for the various cultures and whether one chooses to adhere to that or not. It's not about the realism of being locked into only one name. There are plenty of MMORPGs where you are locked into one name per server, realm, or whatever.
QuoteIt's not a lore problem or an in universe issue it's simply an outdated system problem with the game, one that I simply believe doesn't need to exist anymore and is not only worth the effort to remove but actually beneficial for the game to remove at this point.
It would be erroneous to conflate what is "actually beneficial for the game" with what is "convenientally beneficial for Teratus."
Just because you find the system inconvient for your naming sensibilities and feel entitled to certain names doesn't mean that it's outdated.
QuoteIf you do the math on how many accounts there are in Gw2, even if all those accounts only had a singular character we're still looking at millions of unusable names.
Then factor in if they all had at least 4 characters, plus a believable number of accounts like ours that have more than 20.. probably a good few million at least.
Suffice to say that is a massive number of taken names whether you highball it or lowball it.
And with every new player or even new character on an older account.. it continues to grow with each one.I've only got the one Asura, with Sylvari names being as annoying as they are I just can't be bothered to make more Asura which are even more restrictive tbh.
If you do the math for how many accounts and characters there are in GW2 and how many new accounts and characters are created each day, it's pretty clear that you are exaggerating the problem. Yes, there are a number of taken names, but there are also MANY MORE untaken ones. You have to factor in the reality that not everyone cares about lore-conventional names. So you are only competing with a relatively smaller subset of those players who do.
QuoteAs far as Scarlett goes though, Scarlet Briar was not her real name.
Her real Sylvari name Ceara was sigular like all other Sylvari names.
She took the name Scarlet Briar in part to rebel against the Pale Tree and her people and as a way of forging her own path and identity free from the influence of the Pale Tree and other Sylvari.. and even the Elder Dragon her race came from who was successful in corrupting her eventually and drove her mad via Nightmares, although Scarlet only knew this being as an entity in the beginning and did not realise it was the same Elder Dragon her race came from until she'd already lost her mind, by then it was too late, she was his.There is no "real name" about it. Regardless of her reasons, she chose to go by the name Scarlett Briar instead of her given name of Caera. That is her name. Furthermore, the Pale Tree doesn't mandate that Sylvari have single names.
-
2
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Teratus.2859 said:
It is, but that doesn't mean it isn't important to a number of people and how they enjoy games.
And I am one of those people, but it's still a self-imposed personal issue and not fundamentally a game one. Sometimes you have to accept that you won't get your first choice of names or that you may have to skirt around the norms of naming conventions. Naming conventions represent norms rather than rules. Reality throughout human history and cultures is full of plenty of exceptions to the norms of names. Your character is meant to be exceptional as well.
21 hours ago, Teratus.2859 said:As I said it heavily depends on the character, I rarely have issues with most races due to secondary names and such.
It's mostly Asura and Sylvari because of their naming conventions.My Asura follow asuran name conventions. I do break with name conventions slightly with Sylvari ones, but that is because I enjoy last names for them that help bring out further elements of their character. Also it's not as if last names are entirely foreign to or unheard of with Sylvari: cf. Scarlett Briar.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Teratus.2859 said:
Names are important to me, they have to fit and they have to line up at least loosely with naming conventions. (such as singular only names for Sylvari and Asura which are the two most annoying races to make)
That's an issue that you impose on yourself rather than one that the game imposes on you.
7 hours ago, Teratus.2859 said:I also have accounts on at least 20 other MMO's/Online RPG games and Gw2 is the only one with this name issue as bad as it is.
Say what? That is the exact reverse of my experience. GW2 is easily one of the best MMORPGs I have experienced when it comes to getting names. My partner also enjoys MMOs, and they couldn't believe how easy of a time they had getting names with this game in comparison with other ones.
-
2
-
1
-
-
I know that this meta has been tweaked as far as difficulty goes, but after all the horror stories about this meta, I was pleasantly surprised when I did the meta. I initially toured the map solely for map completion and specialization weapon collection purposes. I had no intention of doing the DE meta. I was in a map full of PUGs and roamers. When it came time for the Battle of the Jade Sea Meta, the PUG commander barely gave any instructions apart from escorting the three groups, CC, and the occasional "spread out." We succeeded at the boss with about 8 minutes left. So I got a turtle egg on my first try. I have since done it a few more times with only one loss so far.
There are definitely a lot of ways the meta can turn south: e.g., CC, not burning sub-bosses at the same time, the randomized back-and-forth, etc. But there are also a lot of ways that it's pretty forgiving: hello, airship WP.
2 hours ago, Ashantara.8731 said:I think you are missing the point completely. "Doing faster" is not what is necessary for success, it's "doing better": equipment, builds and the understanding of skill synergies are leading to higher DPS, an understanding of CC leads to much faster melting of breakbars. So efficiency is the point here, which - of course - leads to finishing this meta with more minutes left on the timer.
The same efficiency is required for all endgame content, of which most does not run on a timer. So the timer here is a measurement of the squad's efficiency rather than a race of "Do it faster!" Faster is not the actual point here.
Agreed. I don't think everyone needs the optimal gear or learn the optimal builds from websites and what not. There will be those who are. These people tend to be the "specialists" anyway (e.g., support, alac, heal, etc.). However, the meta does assume that you know (a) how to play your profession, (b) how to apply CC pressure, and (c) the basic boss encounter mechanics. This meta is less a matter of "gitgud" and more a matter of "gitdecent."
-
4
-
3
-
-
On 4/4/2022 at 10:45 AM, Teratus.2859 said:
Old problem many have complained about for years which only gets worse as more players come into the game.
Odd. I mostly see your name floating around when it comes to this particular complaint and pushing up the post count. The rest of the community seems pretty happy with how things are. Even the OP was fine once they realized that they could uses spaces. 🤷♂️
On 4/4/2022 at 10:45 AM, Teratus.2859 said:It's not impossible to still find names (I managed to get a good one a couple weeks ago) but i'd be lying if I said it was easily to find them.
I've spent literal hours trying to name some of my characters, exhausting countless names and combinations because everyone these days starts pulling up common naming websites looking for name inspiration.
And on a few occasions i've had to use a name change contract to replace a garbage name I hated but got stuck with because of the availability limits.Compared to other games, getting names in GW2 is a cakewalk. It's easy to get names in this game. My main challenge with names has more to do with the time I put into creating a name that fits the character rather than acquiring that name or finding that the desired name is taken. The former is more difficult for me than the latter and they are hardly the same thing.
I have been playing GW2 since the beta and have 20+ lvl 80 characters, but I also occasionally play WoW and SWTOR. Only about 2-3 years ago did I bother trying to "convert" some of my characters from these other games into GW2 counterparts. I got all the names was aiming for without any creative alterations. Same with my partner. I even made a new batch of characters around March 2022 for EoD, and SURPRISE! I got all those names too.
On 4/4/2022 at 8:55 PM, PookieDaWombat.6209 said:Yeah, I personally only "sit" on one name that I use for getting black lion keys.
Mikey Farmer is a diligent worker. 😉
Ah yes. Mikey Farmer. He tills the soil of my key farmer "Sir Black Lion Keys."
On 4/5/2022 at 3:36 AM, Ashantara.8731 said:Okayyyy. If you like to spell a name so that its pronunciation will be completely different from what you had intended, feel free to do so.
It doesn't really matter how you spell your character's name; it will always be pronounced "commander" (/kəˈmændɚ/). 😉
-
2
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Parasite.5389 said:
the very first line literally says " This preview isn't comprehensive–the complete skills and balance notes will be in next Tuesday’s update notes"
I'm aware, but it seems to suggest that we would be mostly interested in a Catalyst update as opposed to updates for any other profession.
-
Is there more or is it just a break bar and Catalyst update?
-
8
-
2
-
4
-
16
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Valisha.8650 said:
It could be a great moment to bring back mecha-skyscale skin. It suits the new expansion aesthetics really well, and a lot of people started playing engi thanks to mechanist, and as we all know, robotic stuff and engineers go hand-in-hand. I think it would sell very decently.
I've been watching the sales nearly daily for the hopes of its return.
I'll also say again: Plant/Sylvari-themed mount skins. At the very least: the fern hound jackal skin.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, DarcShriek.5829 said:
Who is the succesor to the Krytan throne? This person was briefly mentioned in the human personal story during the "choose your order" section.
With our luck and the current ArenaNet writing team, it will be Kasmeer.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, maxwelgm.4315 said:
We'll be facing Lyssa next and it's all but confirmed that
I hope not. Facing another god in the Guild Wars franchise is about as original as facing down another Death Star in the Star Wars universe.
-
2
-
-
No one is forcing you to play the new elite specs. Each profession still has two other specializations to choose from.
Keep in mind, however, that many of the "mystical" weapons have already been given to the core scholar professions: e.g., scepter, staff, focus, etc. You may not like heavy weapons, which is a matter of taste and not quality, but new elite specialization weapons were bound to expand to many of these other weapons that are not to your liking.
The Bunny Thumper (i.e., hammer ranger) was a popular build in Guild Wars 1. It's honestly more of a surprise that it has taken three expansions before it was introduced into GW2.
-
3
-
2
-
-
King Adelbern
Svanir
Saul D'Alessio
Zinn, Blimm, or Oola
Riannoc
-
4 hours ago, Za Shaloc.3908 said:
Honestly I wish they would just make each dodge cost 50 endurance and last the same amount of time as Saint's Shield. 150 endurance is just absurd for a single dodge. Adjust the numbers on the effects and call it good.
How dare you propose such a simple fix for an overly engineered self-created problem?!
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
I'm not sure how I feel about the Vindicator after a day of playtesting. Overall, it feels like it's trying too much with no clear identity or internal synergy and as a result, it doesn't really pull anything off particularly well.
Jump/Dodge: How does the "jump dodge" tie into the idea with being a Vindicator or the Luxon/Kurzick Alliance? The Daredevil gets triple dodges because it's more acrobatic. The Mirage gets the mirage cloak because it is being deceptive and illusory. The Vindicator dodge feels a bit like it's just trying to do something different for the sake of being different without really bothering to figure out whether it really adds anything to the gameplay, whether mechanically or thematically. It feels unintuitive, again in contrast with both the Daredevil and Mirage. It also feels a bit unrewarding overall despite the ridiculous amount of traits that are dedicated to make this gimmick dodge "viable." All the dodge traits seem to suffocate the traitline of other e-spec defining traits or damage buffs that really change how the e-spec is played.
In a lot of open world large scale events, the Vindicator's dodge feels like a death sentence, where you will get battered and bruised around, CC'ed, and tossed around like a rag doll in all the AoE effects. So the best you can do is rely on your back jump evades and the stability skills to do the work that normally dodge does. But the dodge itself doesn't feel like it works well in these contexts either. I'm still not sure what the baseline Reward for this dodge is versus the massive Risks that come with using something so basic as dodging in a game that wants us to be constantly dodging in open world or more recent living story episodes. I guess the reward is being able to position your Vindicator in your AoE death-trap of choice?
It also feels as if Energy sigils on weapons are a MUST HAVE just so you can have at least one working dodge, which does not feel good. I'm okay with at least one must have sigil, such as Force or Bursting, but a second MUST HAVE sigil just to make my dodge mechanic function more fluidly does not feel good. It feels crippling, especially for character customization and gearing.
Greatsword: It feels pretty okay as a weapon. It has nice cleave and AoE, but it also lacks in damage compared to other weapons on the same gear set on other revenant specializations. More importantly, much as others in this thread have said, the Vindicator Greatsword doesn't really feel like a cohesive weapon kit. It feels more like a generic greatsword kit that was garbled together from other professions' greatsword kits but it seems to lack much synergy, functionality, or identity to it. Moreover, I'm not really sure how the Greatsword is supposed to fit in with the support side of the Alliance or thematically with the Alliance at all.
* Aesthetics: The weapon icons look more like Guardian icons than Revenant ones colorwise. Also, I feel like the Virtuoso got the entirety of the animation budget, because the animation budget for the Vindicator feels incredibly underwhelming. It feels like a lot of reused animations were just recycled to make a generic greatsword. Contrasting the Vindicator Greatsword animations with the Renegade Shortbow animations is like night and day.
Utilities: The utility flipping feels a little over-complicated and wonky, especially with the addition of cooldowns on top of the upkeep. It kind of reminds me of how clunky and unusable the entire Revanant profession was in HoT beta testing. Using the F2 to flip all the utilities generally meant that the utilities I wanted to use were a constant mess that was difficult to keep track of. As one commentator said, I felt more like I was playing the UI and having to pay attention to that than I was the action going on. I think that the stability and evade utilities are MUST HAVE and highly valuable for a specialization with a crippled dodge mechanic. But the whole selfish vs. support aspect wasn't really all that interesting, since I was more concerned with getting stability or evading than I was whether it was pro-DPS or pro-support. Also, the lack of CC on this specialization is pretty glaring, especially if this supposed to contribute to open world events. But I guess who needs CC on the spec when you added those annoying waystation tables that stick out like a sore thumb in the open world? Ugh.
I think that being able to pick and choose the utilities that I want on this Alliance would be much better than a needlessly gimmicky flipping mechanic. Plus, it would offer the Revenant something that it doesn't have: i.e., utility choices on a "single" legend. Then we wouldn't need cooldowns on it. Then the identities of the DPS and support side could be clearer without having to perform double-duty or mirror image each other.
Elites: I'm underwhelmed by both Elites, and I can't really imagine myself using them on a regular basis. I was using the standard Maruader gear, which is likely what I would use in open world or story. The Spear did only about 2K on the Maruader gear, which was just double the standard Greatsword 1 attack. Talk about underwhelming for a damaging elite. Maybe if there was a wind-up hold down mechanic for it, similar to the Bladesworn's ability, that allows you to get more damage for holding it down longer. Or maybe add some actual CC on this spec with this Elite, please! However, using the Spear (for lack of anything better) runs the risk of flipping the terrible Urn of Saint Victor elite, which I only found myself using out of combat. It feels more like a deadweight death-trap on a character who is not geared for support side of the Alliance.
Legendary Alliance: I'm not sure what the identity of this Alliance Legendary is supposed to be. Is it a DPS/support hybrid? Okay? But this is something that Revanant could easily do with Shiro/Jalis or Shiro/Ventari. Like the Alliance, Shiro also has an engage and disengage utility, and it doesn't have to rely on utility flipping to have the right one up at a given time. So the Alliance kit feels almost redundant with the existing legends, and it doesn't offer anything new apart from an awkward and unintuitive dodge mechanic that doesn't really have much payoff. There are other legends and specializations who do similar things, if not better, than what the Alliance does. The Renegade and Herald both seem to offer so much more group boon support while still pumping out more reliable DPS.
So in the words of the Bobs from Office Space, when I'm looking at the Legendary Alliance I can't help but ask: "What would you say... ya do here?" Please give this e-spec a clear and competitive identity, both mechanically and thematically. Right now, the Vindicator feels like a garbled mess of half-baked mechanics rather than a specialization with a clear niche or identity.
-
4
-
-
25 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
Then maybe you need to be clearer about what your argument actually is rather than hiding it behind obscure quotes and layers of semantics and rhetoric, since every time I try to pin down which point you're actually trying to make, you shift it in a condescending fashion.
First of all, would you mind laying off the insults and quit making it personal?
Secondly, I did not think that I was somehow hiding my argument behind obscure quotes or even trying to be pretentious about it, as (1) I stated the quote in my OP, and then I rephrased it after quoting it to make my point clearer, and (2) expanded my point on that matter further.
25 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:At the moment, I really only see two possibilities here:
The first is that you're simply bullying the OP for their choice of example.
Woah. Hold it there. How am I bullying the OP? I did not agree with their D&D comparison, and I listed why in a single post responding to them. Since then, my exchanges in this thread have entirely been with you, and so far you have been the one who has been lobbing insults at me. You still keep escalating things and making it increasingly made your argument about me.
I have repeatedly stated that I think that for both you and the OP, that your desires and aesthetic preferences regarding espec are valid ones to hold. I have indicated that I would want a more ranged espec as well. I just don't think that the D&D comparison is an apt one, about which the discussion then kind of derailed into one about whether Elementalists would be Wizards or Sorcerers.* (*The answer is neither because D&D fantasy is its own idiomatic genre.) I suspect that it's a bit of a smokescreen for the real disappointment that the OP is feeling.25 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:In any respect, the OP (and everyone else) has the right to politely express their disappointment when expectations aren't met - and, in fact, a good company would prefer that they do so (so that the company can take that feedback on board in the future) rather than have someone express their disappointment by simply disengaging from the franchise without a word.
I have not said otherwise, and I have also made repeated points where I have tried to reaffirm and validate that disappointment.
-
2
-
-
55 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
So it WAS just a pretentious way of claiming that the OP was comparing apples to oranges. In which case, my counter-argument applies: both are fantasy roleplaying games, and are therefore comparable. Which is what my whole point about Mediterranean cities was in regards to - it wasn't a direct attack on the quote per se, but how you were using it. Take the quote out of the context of being a contrast between religious and philosophical modes of thought, and you're just using it as a "these two things are different" - but with layers of obfuscation that you use to duck the argument when people point out that they're not so different.
Hey look. Ad hominem attacks. I think we're done here.
55 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:Oh, come on, comparing to WoW shaman is fine because it suits your argument, but comparing to Guild Wars' own history, including the original game as well as the original release of Guild Wars 2, is "genetic fallacy"? Cherrypicking what you consider to be admissible much? I really don't think it's unreasonable for people playing a game in a franchise to expect a profession to at least resemble that profession in earlier installments of the franchise, let alone how it was presented at the release of the game in question. The term "genetic fallacy" is supposed to apply when the origin of something is irrelevant to the points being made in the discussion, but I don't think this is the case here: in this case, the origin sets expectations.
No, but you are misconstruing my argument pretty egregiously and rudely so.
-
13 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
Yeah, I was taking the quote at face value rather than looking at the deeper meaning.
However, if you think that quote in its intended form is relevant to the discussion, I'm pretty sure you're the one that's missed the OP's point. It's not like there's some big philosophical difference between class design for tabletop RPGs and MMORPGs, apart from MMORPG mechanics generally being more complex and mathematically based because a computer is handling the underlying mechanics. It's a general philosophical trend for fantasy in general for the elemental magic users to be the guy or girl with robes and maybe a stick, who prefers to stay out of melee combat. Characters who mix elemental magic with melee combat are usually then a special variant that appears afterwards (this applies even in games like the Witcher where the protagonist fills that role - since in that setting, the classic sorcerers and sorceresses came first and then created the Witchers, it's just that Geralt is the protagonist).
13 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:In this context, I'm pretty sure that the OP was just using D&D as the example because it's the ur-example of a fantasy roleplaying game. While I'm not sure how you think a quote related to the distinction between Greek philosophical modes of thinking and Christian religious modes of thinking applies at all here. Unless it's related to the distinction between tabletop and computer roleplaying games, in which case, I'm pretty confident that's completely missing the OP's point.
How I repurpose this quote and my reasoning for doing so was in my original post. You and the OP's disappointment and anger about the e-spec aside, I think that it is fundamentally important to recognize that Guild Wars 2's idiomatic brand of fantasy is not the same as Dungeons & Dragons' idiomatic brand of fantasy. The two games approach their own sense of fantasy differently. Not just in terms of mechanics but also flavor. I mostly come from the D&D and TTRPG side of things. One of the biggest character conception hurdles I have watched time and time again are people who are disappointed that D&D's versions of things aren't how they are in video games or fantasy literature. Why? Because D&D has evolved into its own brand of adventure fantasy across almost 50 years. (In a number of regards, it's quite conservative, with grognards aplenty hating changes to its lore and flavor.) Likewise, Guild Wars is its own brand of fantasy with its own tropes and such.
I think that the OP would have been better off and made a much stronger case simply by saying, "melee is not necessarily the class fantasy I was hoping to get out of playing the elementalist, and I'm disappointed that we have another one after getting a mid-range and melee e-spec" rather than appealing to "from a D&D perspective." Because I don't think that the D&D perspective - i.e., what the Elementalist would be in D&D - is particularly relevant or meaningful to this discussion of the GW2 Elementalist. I think that obfuscates the point.
13 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:This includes, incidentally, Warcraft, since even if we only care about shamans and ignore everything else, our first introduction to shamans in a Warcraft game was as a ranged unit in Warcraft 3.
This represents something of a genetic fallacy. Our first introduction to Shamans in Warcraft does not somehow represent the entirety of how Shamans exist nowadays or have since been expressed in the holistic sense of the overall Warcraft franchise anymore than our first introduction to the Paladin in Warcraft means that all paladins should start out as mounted knights. I remember how the Conjurer, our introduction to mages in Warcraft Orcs & Humans, could summon scorpions, but this is never picked up or utilized in any subsequent game apart from general conjuration of food and portals. Also, Clerics in WC1 had the Invisibility spell, which was subsequently given to the Sorceress in WC3 and Mages in WoW. In the case of Warcraft shamans, the WC3 shaman auto-attack uses a ranged lightning spell, and the shaman primarily serves a support role. Then in WoW, one of their three specializations involves elemental melee with weapons. Furthermore, there are two shamans in Heroes of the Storm: they are melee bruiser (i.e., Thrall) and melee support (i.e., Rehgar).
The genetic fallacy is likewise an issue when saying that Elementalists were one way in Guild Wars 1. Yes they were, but they have evolved differently in Guild Wars 2. I do think that it's perfectly valid to say, for example, that one would want to see some things from the GW1 Elementalist return to the GW2 Elementalist. I think that's fair to say that the game play for the GW2 Elementalist especs don't fit your aesthetic preferences or playstyle fantasies. I think that wanting valid play options for the GW2 Elementalist is both valid and fantastic. I want that too. But I think that the "D&D perspective" is irrelevant for either finer points or the overall points in the OP.
-
48 minutes ago, draxynnic.3719 said:
Pedantic nitpicky pointscoring while ignoring the overall context of the discussion it is, then.
It's rich that you accuse me of ignoring the overall context for the sake of your "pointscoring," when you devoted a paragraph to missing the point (and context) of a quote as a basis for your argument. Don't act like it's pedantic nitpicking for getting called out on it, drax. It's just poor form.
-
1
-
1
-
Weaponmaster Training Beta Feedback: Warrior
in Warrior
Posted
Indeed.