Arcaedus.7290
-
Posts
780 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Arcaedus.7290
-
-
I can say from experience that for assuming you have no conditions, and are scaling this based off of the closest target that is keeping you in combat, then the minimum threshold is around 1900-2200 units from the enemy. If you are just barely outside of ranger's longbow range (1840 units) you can be out of combat, so my best guess is that Anet set this to an even number of 2000 units.
-
I think OP is talking about weapons that are used as melee weapons, and also referencing auto-attack, or skills that otherwise involve standing still and striking with the weapon.
@Stand The Wall.6987 As far as auto attacks on melee weapons go, yes - all melee weapons have the same range. So both greatsword on warrior, and dagger on thief swing and strike targets up to 130 units away from you. I think at the end of the day this is rather inconsequential though since auto attack doesn't constitute the majority of what you do in pvp or wvw, and the range of your auto attack doesn't really make a difference in fractals and raids (you're gonna be stacked with every1 else anyways).
-
@Arken.3725 You have very valid complaints, but it's always good to at least suggest changes you would like to see (although I can see you clearly implied what changes are necessary). Do you have specific changes that you think would be beneficial for the class, but also reasonable given Anet's track record and vision for each weapon?
I too enjoy pvp (more wvw than pvp though) so I can weigh in here on some of the weapons:
Greatsword:
- Expand the range of GS 2 slightly (make it 180 instead of 130), remove projectiles, and roll damage over to the whirling attack itself. This would already be balanced since the attack slows your movement speed meaning you can't chase very well with it.
- GS 4 could receive a new animation that doeosn't involve immobilizing the caster at all, otherwise keep numbers the same
- GS 5 projectile speed should be increased, and the pull should be 1/2s instead of 3/4s.
Mace:
- For auto attack, just speed up the entire animation and decrease the damage and healing by a similar proportion. Might be more complicated than I'm making it sound, but it really should be faster.
- Mace 2 should be a 1 s cast instead of 1.25s cast, and it should be centered/placed in front of you exactly like axe 2.
- Mace 3 recently got a change, doubt we'll get one soon if ever again..... but I would change it so that fully channeling mace 3 without blocking an attack gives you aegis, and refreshes your f3 aegis timer (if your f3 passive is still up).
Scepter:
- Scepter 3 should be a 12-15s cd.
Hammer:
- Hammer 2 should have 420-450 range instead of 300
- Hammer 3 & Hammer 4 should both have a 3/4s cast time
- Hammer 5 should be able to be casted while mobile.
Focus:
- Focus 5 should deal slightly less damage (10-20% nerf), but have its cooldown reduced to 25-30s.
Shield: I think shield is actually one of our best and most balanced weapons. I would argue the thing that needs changing is the trait... it should do something else other than just grant toughness since that's redundant. It could do something like apply an additional 2s of protection to allies-only for both shield skills.
Torch:
- Torch 4 should be coded as a projectile rather than a ground-hugging shockwave.
- Torch 5 should cleanse condis on self.
Longbow:
- Reduce the range buffer on auto attack... seriously this thing strikes targets at like 1600 range. Also, just increase projectile speed.
- Recent trueshot changes in wvw should be ported to pvp.
- Knockback on LB 3 should be baseline (add something or change the trait to make it a competitive choice vs. Big Game Hunter).
- Decrease cast time for LB 4 to 1/2 s, increase projectile speed slightly.
- Decrease cast time for LB 5 to 2.25s to match Ranger's LB 5.
-
@EremiteAngel.9765 said:
Very nice list.I would largely agree with your ranking.Except I'm curious about Ranger's fall in placing.As far as I know, Ranger has not really taken any hits throughout the balance patches.They are still going at full strength, from Sic-Em LB/GS to Boonbeasts.What has changed?Are the other classes above them like Holo and Warrior just a lot stronger now?
I actually kinda struggled to place ranger and warrior a bit when thinking about it. On one hand, you have somewhat famous ranger players like Kiritsugu who despite his edited uploads is actually extremely skilled at ranger, and by his account alone, I'd place ranger at #2, mayyyybe even #1 but I have dueled countless no-name warriors (non-warrior mains) who give me and anyone else I watch duel them an incredibly tough time. I reckon if you get a very skilled one who has been playing warrior for years and knows all the classes and builds well, they'd be able to win almost any 1v1.
Also, I'll say for Sic-Em LB/GS soulbeasts, I can actually win the 1v1 about 95% of the time if they aren't cheesing me with a tower nearby. It's a high damage build but if you know what to do, you drop them. The duelist variant performs better in spontaneous 1v1s, but will lose over time to the more sustain/offence balanced builds (Reaper, DH, Spellbreaker, Mirage, Holosmith) from my experience. You then have straight up pvp-ported boon beast that will force you to retreat, but like scrapper, it can't really kill you if you run. I guess that counts as a loss but I have only ever fought against two of these in wvw since PoF launched.
-
@Psycoprophet.8107 I was actually thinking more of shadow step and steal, both 1200 range instantaneous and both make you respect the thief's ability to control spacing.... although steal kinda falls out of the discussion here ever since it got disintegrated from DD...
@EremiteAngel.9765 Sure! I haven't done a lot of roaming over the past 2 months due to work, but I ranked them:
Engineer (Holosmith)MesmerWarriorRanger (Soulbeast)ThiefRevenantGuardian (DH)ElementalistNecromancer
This is strictly spontaneous 1v1s as you said, not overall roaming capabilities. A lot of these are really close, and there isn't a very big difference between places 3 and 8 in my opinion (given they're both running some variant of a meta build and not trying to hard-counter the other), so my perception is based on the absolute best players of each of these that I have come across.
-
@"EremiteAngel.9765" I almost want to ask you to include a few more assumptions in your post which would clarify some things for people, but I'm not sure there's a good way to include these without being too wordy:
- Victory in a 1v1 means the build is capable of causing the opponent to retreat indefinitely (like retreat to a safe zone, tower, etc. and out of combat), or outright killing them. This means a thief kiting you and maintaining a 1200 distance while coming back in every 10s or so for a burst has not yet lost, nor are they losing.
- Going out of combat by itself does not equate to a loss, although if a player is repeatedly doing this, they can't get a kill or drive off the other roamer so it's most likely a loss.
- Ability to contest a point doesn't really mean all that much in a spontaneous 1v1. Roamers will generally ignore contestable points and instead focus on going for the kill which is why mobility plays such a huge factor.
- The power of a roaming class actually should be determined by those god-tier players of that class. This is because those players represent the highest potential of that class, and classes should be judged by what they're capable of, not by how hard it is to reach that skill level.
All of these are opinion but I'd be happy to argue any "criteria" here from a practical standpoint.
-
@"Dadnir.5038" said:Unfortunately, I believe this is the kind of misleading sentence that ANet usually use to raise the hype. The players understand "introducing new weapon type in the game as a whole" while the dev mean "introducing new weapon type which are new to the specific profession but still in the existing pool of existing weapon".
The issue with spears is that they are tightly tied to underwater and when you try to equip them they are automatically sloted as underwater weapons. They would have to introduce exceptions and modify the UI and we all know that for them the idea of touching the UI is like the idea of conquering the Everest.
I see how Mike's line could be interpreted like that, but I highly doubt that's what he meant. Because if that's what he means, then "NOT introducing new weapon types" would have to mean one of two things: designing an elite spec that either doesn't have a new weapon at all, or reuses a weapon it currently already has access to but with different skills.
Neither of these two scenarios is or was the norm at any point and would be below/worse than the status quo. Mike's line implies that people are calling for something unique that goes above and beyond the status quo (and he's saying he's not against it) so I'm pretty sure he means introducing entirely new weapon types.
You're right about spears; it would be difficult but introducing ANY new weapon type would be a huge task for the dev team. However, they're talented and if they received the green light, I'm sure they could pull it off. Just some examples of how spears could be implemented into the game to resolve the issue you mentioned:
- Keep all underwater weapons/names/coding the same, introduce a new land-based weapon (named something like glaive, polearm, poleaxe, etc.)
- Recode all underwater spears as "harpoons." Then, "land spears" as everyone likes to call them would be an entirely new land-based weapon that reuses most if not all of the skins from the underwater harpoons.
- In addition to #2 or #1, to reduce amount of time spent designing new skins, and time spent rigging the spears to various models/enabling them for various classes, the spear could be tied to one or a few elite specs per expac. I mean for every expac anyways, classes essentially receive new rigs/animations since they're now capable of using a weapon they previously could not use. What does it matter if that new weapon is a spear (for which there are already rigs and animations) vs. a sword?
-
SPEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
And by spears, I mean a spec that uses a spear/glaive/polearm as a two-handed weapon. It would be set apart from greatswords by offering more versatility through defensive skills and range (180-240 melee range) at the cost of doing slightly less damage. And could perhaps be either dps-focused or burst-focused depending on the other weapons/builds the class has available. Personally I think elite specs are the best method for introducing new weapon types to the game in a cost-effective way (since "new" weapons must be brought to each class anyways with each batch of elite specs).
Mike Z said in an interview 3-4 months ago:
"We do not mind the idea of introducing new weapon types. When we talk about elite specializations and what additional weapons we want to make classes available, there is a balance we try to achieve. So far we have been able to add value to each class due to the weapons we have selected." (source)
THAT MEANS SPEARS AREN'T OFF THE TABLE. Really though, any new weapon types would be a welcome addition to the game. I think they would definitely add value. New fashion wars, more theory-crafting, new animations to enjoy the game with, and more money for Anet through monetization of skins. I'd call it a win-win overall.
-
@HawkXtream.1538 said:It's very unlikely they will increase the Bow2 damage, I hope they will decrease the cooldown and remove the root. And the range increase is a bit weird because if you enter the combat with Bow2 at max range then realised that all other skills u have are out of range. But it is good to down a fleeing player.
As for Bow4, I remember they design DH for range support. So Bow4 is more like supporting teammate rather than damage.
True, but keep in mind that due to the range buffer, bow's auto attack is actually much larger than 1200 range. I remember testing this. If you have a static target, flat ground, DH's auto attack on LB will hit them at around 1550-1600 units away which is a pretty massive range buffer. This is probably a bug though since range buffers for other weapons aren't quite that large.
-
@RisenHowl.2419 said:Make symbol of energy a backwards leap that leaves a symbol where you started, like acid bomb. 1/2s evade.
what DH LB needs is something defensive
An interesting concept. LB 4 could do something like cause a low damage strike immediately on top of you (that applies aoe burn like it currently does), then leap to target location and create a symbol of energy where you land. Would be a unique defensive skill and would really help LB's sustain.
I think originally, LB3 was supposed to be a defensive skill since with Heavy Light, you can punish people who get too close to you and knock them back allowing you to control positioning in the fight but it doesn't function like a defensive skill at all if you don't take heavy light. This is why people say that LB doesn't feel like a complete weapon without Heavy Light, and thus the knockback on LB 3 should be made baseline.
-
I would predict one to three more if the elite specs are tied to expacs as they have been thus far.
The devs are very talented and there is no doubt they could whip out 10 more sets of elite specs +expacs if they so wished but at the end of the day it comes down to money so I can't really picture them going beyond 3 more expacs.
-
@Yannir.4132 said:
@Arcaedus.7290 said:Dream spec for me would be guardian wielding a 2h spear/polearm. The weapon-skills would be a bit more pvp-focused having a balanced kit of mobility, offence and defence (either evades, blind, weakness, maybe a single block). It would be slightly weaker than the greatsword of course but would have the advantage of being a close-mid range weapon (ranging from 240-450 range on some attacks) and more versatile. The heal/util/elites would be useful for various different situations/game modes as is often the case.I'd like if the spec brought something to the table that guardian doesn't currently have: the ability to deal with boon-loaded foes. This wouldn't necessarily have to be through boon-rip/corrupt, but there could be like traits where guardian's strikes allow them to ignore Protection, or maybe blocking a strike from a foe removes all of their might stacks, or burn specifically removes resistance.As I recall, before the trait revamp in 2015, guardians used to have a trait in radiance that allowed them to remove boons from foes when they inflicted burning and that trait was removed. It would be nice if something like that returned in the future.I'm gonna drop that ESpec suggestion for ya in the Guardian forum within a week. I've been working on an idea, that checks all your boxes, for a bit and I think it's ready for presentation. Just taking some time to actually write it down.<3
-
Dream spec for me would be guardian wielding a 2h spear/polearm. The weapon-skills would be a bit more pvp-focused having a balanced kit of mobility, offence and defence (either evades, blind, weakness, maybe a single block). It would be slightly weaker than the greatsword of course but would have the advantage of being a close-mid range weapon (ranging from 240-450 range on some attacks) and more versatile. The heal/util/elites would be useful for various different situations/game modes as is often the case.
I'd like if the spec brought something to the table that guardian doesn't currently have: the ability to deal with boon-loaded foes. This wouldn't necessarily have to be through boon-rip/corrupt, but there could be like traits where guardian's strikes allow them to ignore Protection, or maybe blocking a strike from a foe removes all of their might stacks, or burn specifically removes resistance.
As I recall, before the trait revamp in 2015, guardians used to have a trait in radiance that allowed them to remove boons from foes when they inflicted burning and that trait was removed. It would be nice if something like that returned in the future.
-
@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:Hear me out. Mounts will severely disrupt the balance of mobility in WvW. They will completely change the capture/defense game speed. They will cause drastically increased lag and fps issues in a game mode already plagued by them. They were dreaded being implemented by the community and many feel betrayed by the announcement.
Hypothetically, what if the mount (in wvw) worked like this:
- 5-7k HP, if depleted while mounted, player is knocked down for 2 seconds.
- Movement speed of the mount is capped at 400 units per second (player movement speed when out of combat + swiftness)
- Has an engage attack that does very minor siege damage and minor power damage (3-4k damage) not influenced by stats, cannot crit, no CC, boons or condis attached, 20s cooldown.
- Cannot dodge while mounted. Can only dismount or use the engaging attack.
- Is affected by CC and conditions unlike mounts in pve (but the pve version of this mount will of course function like other pve mounts).
Hypothetically, if the mount worked like that, I think it would add value to the game mode! It would be a mount that helps slower members of a zerg keep up, and would be something focused on engaging the mechanics of wvw (siege and defences) rather than something used to gain a cheap advantage in combat or to 100% escape larger groups of players without fail.
-
@Kain Francois.4328 said:I want Spear. on anything.
Same. I'd prefer if it functioned more as a polearm with thrusting, cutting and maybe thrown attacks rather than the throw-only spears of GW1 paragons. Really, any new weapons would be great though.
-
For me it's a respect thing. If I know someone is skilled (from many past encounters, whether I won or lost), regardless of class/build/guild-tag, I'll let them be.
Also, from my experience, other skilled roamers I see tend not to do this thing unless.... the person they're avoiding is a friend/guildie/former server-mate they know well, or it's someone they just recently dueled.
-
@"Aplethoraof.2643" said:I believe that anet (unconfirmed) has stated that they won't shy away from reusing weapons if needed. Things like taking the staff, and turning it into a spear weapon with certain animations for the e-spec. Or a scythe. That can certainly be done and doesn't require the backload involved with creating a new weapon.
Weapons are given new skill-sets, that kind of thing.
I can definitely see that happening.
I get what you're saying, but with the tiny bit of programming knowledge I do have, let me make this argument:
It would not be that much more work (than just reusing current weapons) to have a few "new" weapon types as long as they're attached to elite specializations.
Every time a new elite spec gets created, a "new weapon" in some sense is also created. Before PoF, mesmer with axe did not exist, so that had to be newly created, though not entirely from scratch: there already exists a model of the player character rigged with axe, so all that had to be done was enable that rig on mesmer, and reuse assets such as basic axe swing/throw animations that warrior already has, plus design some new ones (Lingering Thoughts animation is unique) and some unique visual effects (purple shockwaves and blurs and whatnot) to compliment the mesmer class + add flavor to the skills and elite spec.
But quite possibly the best example of this is staff being used as a melee weapon on daredevil/revenant. This is effectively an entirely new weapon being created. A slightly new rig had to be made for staff being used as a melee weapon which is apparent by how they hold staff like a hammer (melee weapon) as opposed to every other class holding staff like a mage would. Many basic striking and swinging animations were also freshly designed (the unique auto attack they both share is a good example), but also many animations were reused. Rev staff 2 (both hits) and daredevil staff 4 are essentially just warrior/guardian hammer swing animations.
What I'm arguing is they could introduce new weapon-types by the same process they used to design staff on daredevil and revenant. Don't get me wrong, doing this would definitely be more difficult, but I don't think it would be that much more difficult than their current model of giving new elite specs one of the current weapons. There are other challenges obviously, mainly with having to write code for a new weapon-type ID in the system (marketplace/trading, achievements, crafting, vendors/merchants) which will take time but can arguably be seen as a one-time investment.
Overall, I think this is something that while only maybe economically viable for Anet (something for them to decide) it's well within the developers' capabilities. They're very talented and if they wanted to, they'd implement new weapons.
-
@"Lonami.2987" said:
I don't think every profession needs to be able to use every new weapon. I mean, in my new suggestions above there's stuff like a relic, which is a two-handed magical artifact. The likes of engineer, thief, and warrior have no business being able to use something like that.
Right, and this is what I was saying with my first bullet point. What I was saying with later bullet points is that if Anet so wanted, every class could gain access to each of the new weapon types. No matter what though, if new weapon types get introduced, it would have to be 3+ new weapon types, and for fairness, every class would have to get access to at least one of the weapon-types before the game's final expansion
-
On this same note, I made a post in general discussion about implementing spears or underwater weapons as land weapons.
It could be viable, it could be done in such a way to minimize production costs and it could be monetized. I definitely agree with OP that some new weapons in the game would be a welcome addition.
I agree with the OP here - new weapons would be fun, and interesting. Personally I'd love them to be included and I know most of the community either wants new weapons or is ambivalent about the issue. This should have been done with PoF. It's not too late, and it should be done sooner rather than later if Anet cares to do it at all because we're getting to a point where it may result in a fairness issue over who gets which weapons unless they do something totally out there, like 9 unique weapons for the final expac.
@Obtena.7952 said:
If I were Anet, my biggest problem is that you couldn't make just one new weapon because that would be very dissatisfying to the classes that wouldn't get that weapon. We would need at least 2 or 3 and even then, that wouldn't guarantee a new weapon for a new espec.
Addressing your last point here: You pose a good argument and it's one of the key things someone should address when proposing new weapons be added to the game. There are multiple ways to solve this problem if Anet really wanted to though:
- Create three-four new weapon types. Within 3 expacs, every class would have gained access to at least one of the new weapons.
- Create three new weapon types. Every single new elite spec would get one of the three weapons in the next expac (this could be done for the final expac).
- Create 9 new weapon types and each new elite spec gets one. Similar to previous option, much more novel but likely more tedious for the devs.
- Create an achievement/crafting-based system of modification, where the new weapon types are obtained by attaching a crafted/earned piece to an already existing weapon (for example, you attach a spearhead to any exotic, ascended or legendary staff you have, and it turns into a spear of equal grade keeping the same stats, sigils, infusions). Advantage here is that each of the 9 professions could receive their own unique weapon-type. Disadvantage is tedium for the devs to develop such a system.
-
@"Commander Kanen.6031" said:"Land" spear (Paragon specialization) would be perfect for me. Failing that, Pistol
Lot of people would love this, but it's almost a certainty that Anet will never include a new weapon type in the game. The thing is, of all the weapon types, a land spear/polearm is the most sensible and requested addition and Anet has made it pretty obvious that they don't intend for spears to ever come to land, thus it's very unlikely any of the other lower priority weapons will ever make into the game either.
-
From experience I find that classes with decent long-duration damage negation techniques (Shield of Courage on guard, Endure Pain on warr, signet of stone on ranger) are good for at least putting up a decent fight against power mirage 1v1, sometimes beating them. It's essentially about bleeding them out of their sustain since they do have a decent amount of sustain but generally a bit less than other roamer/1v1 builds (but make up for it with WAY more mobility and damage).
Fact is, a good power mirage will beat you if you eat their burst even a couple times. Power mirage doesn't really have any hard counters as far as I can tell so imo if you're really concerned about dealing with them, you should absolutely "fight dirty" if you can. Use the terrain to stop the pathing of clones/LoS them/shut down blink + burst.
-
@Loopgru.1026 said:I'm curious why the suggestions here keep focusing on maintaining the existing wiffle ball mechanics & aesthetic (just variable-speed faster). It would be great to just tweak it to make it land more consistently, but for the purposes of this thread it still doesn't really address the core issue of it just being a fundamentally unsatisfying weapon to use. It seems to me that there's an opportunity for a much more interesting ranged weapon implementation in a professional that already has the thematic hooks of spirit weapons that would be far more interesting than the continued Angry Ping Pong model...
It takes more resources and a considerable amount of time to carry out some major rework to the skill just because some people dislike the aesthetic. I'd like nothing more than for it to be changed to a beam (like downstate 1 skill or mesmer scepter 3) but it's just not going to happen. Better to work with what we have, make suggestions and explain why they should be carried out.
-
@"Arken.3725" said:Just gonna leave this here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5VrnYTCbzk&t=3s
You uploaded that before the mini-rework where they reduced after-cast and reduced range to 900 which made scepter 1 more consistently land.
Funny thing is, the mini-strafing technique still kinda works like what we see in this video... go figure.
That's part of the reason I suggested what I did on the previous page (Saiyan's suggestion is a good one too). An auto-attack orb that flies very quickly for a segment of time would largely negate that mini-strafing nonsense. Whatever the devs do, I think a rework of this sort should be implemented since a ranged weapon should not be avoidable by simple fidgeting in place.
-
Just had a neat idea regarding the scepter auto-attack. Most of the complaints surrounding scepter auto-attack are as follows:
- The animation is very lack-luster. It's a slow moving shaky orb that doesn't look particularly powerful or thematic.
- The sound effect is annoying. It's pretty loud too but honestly not the greatest effect out there.
- Despite being 900-range, the orb itself has problems hitting a target at even 600 range due to how slow it is. This is a balance issue.
I suggest the following two changes:
- Change the attack functionality slightly. Upon waving your scepter, an orb will fly out, and hover in front of the guardian momentarily before zipping, in a straight line, quickly to the target.
- Change the sound effect to sound a bit more like Photon Blitz (Photon Forge skill #4 on Holosmith/Engineer).
Reasoning:
So changing the attack functionality would overall be a very good thing, balance-wise imo. It would help a guardian strike a target at 900 range more consistently, it would definitely feel a lot more like a bullet-hell -type attack and it would have plenty of counter-play (the hovering orb is a big cue to put up blocks/reflects/use mobility to escape). Obviously some numerical balancing would have to be done since this could be a buff in many areas.
Visually, I think this would be an improvement too. A straight-forward and quick-moving orb would seem a lot more guardian-like and seem more powerful.
I think the sound effect would be an improvement as well. The new effect would be more focused on the impact rather than on the act of simply flinging out an orb.
hunter's determination proccing with stability - bug?
in Guardian
Posted
I think it's unintended and that they should change this, but I don't think it's a bug. A similar thing happens on warrior if they get CCed with stability already on, they'll proc that passive Balanced Stance trait.
There are other problems like this in GW2 that I wish they'd address, like the fact that if you are using focus 5, mace 3 and have aegis on, a single attack will chew up 3 blocks. There's no way that this is intended, and if it is, it can't be rationally defended as a good balance decision, but it's been a thing since forever.