Airdive.2613

Is "Lotus training" not a burst of physical projectiles anymore?There used to be a lot of skills those daggers can be destroyed or reflected with.

Either that, or it's just the community's general mindset.As I argued earlier, even with a great engage from your warrior you're more likely to lose because four other players on your team believe it's best they stay away from the node, so they choose not to follow you.

Probably a less popular opinion: I think level-80 boosts are fine as there's nothing in GW 2 that can be gained by playing a lower-level character except artificially limiting yourself (due to the New Player Experience). Playing through the game (even the starting zones) as a complete character is actually going to teach you better.Mounts are sorta-bad (but not REALLY bad) in pre-PoF areas because they make it somewhat harder to see some brilliant map designs, but it's mostly a matter of preference.

That's a good question, OP. Too often I find myself alone on the mid node despite setting up some defense, area control and supportive AoEs (as different professions). It's sad to see your engage go to waste time after time.I don't think much can be changed, though. It's generally considered common knowledge that you "shouldn't die" above all else, therefore players are reluctant to really commit to a fight.

Can't you place your sell order 1 copper above this value?

Honestly, I think people are just too busy playing. I know I'd played an MMORPG with such long casts (requiring your character to stand still) that you had the time to chat, but GW 2 requires (or at least rewards) pulling off tight combos.Also, I believe free accounts have map chat restricted, and where would you expect to find the most free-to-play players? (Hint: it might be the human starter zone.)

Standing on the node is a counter to invulnerability.

Things I disagree with: that the parity can be easily improved; that your suggested changes would have any effect at all. I don't really care about this, as long as the game stays balanced overall. Of course it's going to be a lot of work balancing all those defensive and evasive skills that aren't attribute-dependent now.

I can't be bothered to check the actual numbers right now, but that sounds about right: power is a linear modifier while toughness works as an inverse (1/x).I would not be so hasty to compare time to kill, however, before experimenting with different actual in-game numbers. In general, it might not mean anything because, according to the formula, 3/3 = 1 (in case you triple both damage and armor values, time to kill does not change). Yes, and it is a general strategy employed in a lot of games as well as in real warfare. The only lack of parity you provide is that of general desirability, and it stems from common sense. You can't fix people.I can't evaluate the effectiveness of defensive attributes because I haven't nearly played all builds and setups in the game (and also not sure what "effectiveness" means because there are builds with different purposes).

You are clearly not providing any data apart from some disconnected facts (for the current system) and pure speculation (for your proposed one). It is "skill coefficient"x"damage attribute"/"armor" for most abilities. Yes, there is no "armor penetration" in GW 2, but the rest is the same. I've tried to help your analysis in my first post, but to summarize here: you do not provide enough meaningful data about neither system. At this moment there's nothing to argue with as there's nothing to infer from your points.

Yet you provide no evidence it is a problem at all, nor that your solution is any better. Somehow League of Legends, surely a renowned and competitive game, uses damage modifiers and then divides "pure" damage by the target's armor score. It seems to work just fine in that game, where is the evidence of it being problematic in Guild Wars 2?(Edit: you could argue GW 2 would benefit from its own "armor penetration" attribute, and it is a possibility, but it would take a whole another thread to discuss.) This is simply a speculation. I'm sure you're convinced in your own stance, but, as I said, you refuse to provide clear illustration of a problem. I see no reason to assume your suggestion is going to "fix" anything unless you actually carry on some analysis. Which you claim to have done, but refuse to provide the results, trying to speculate instead.

This needs more math to justify your point.You could start with plotting some arbitrarily chosen damage per second (or just some real skill to use as a point of reference, say ranger's longbow 1) against power increase and toughness increase for both the current and the proposed system so we can see what the curves look like in average and in extreme cases, both with and without protection or 25 might stacks.Having a target time-to-kill value in mind could be helpful: try to balance both distributions around the desired point and explore what happens.

And just like the previous year, you're getting more rewards in shorter time compared to getting silver.

You can buy Sunrise off the trading post if nothing else works.

From the latest patch notes: Edit: I mean, "removes all stacks of stability when casting" is a rather vague statement. It might mean the warrior removes their own stability.

Don't act offended with people voting of their own free will in your own thread.Personally, I think HoT and PoF content will stay just as playable, especially with both mastery sets fully unlocked. If not - well, all the more reason to play in a party which isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

You mean the exciting HoT PvP bunker meta?Anyway, that's not the point. You can have your fights a fair bit longer right now if you so prefer. Now, if defenses would just get buffed, you could become able to sustain indefinitely in a lot of encounters, now that's certainly not fun; there's no skill in repeating the same skill combos tens and hundreds of times over again without any change of context.I know I quit the fight when I had been soloing the legendary viscount (one of the Mad King's labyrinth bosses) for about 20 minutes and realized he's still got 50% health left.

The passive defense is actually fine where it makes a difference.The thing is, in a game revolving entirely around cooldown times, that one extra second of passive survival, while seemingly unimportant, may let you cast your healing skill again, at which point you're obviously going to survive even longer. With every extra one small second that you live, all your skills become closer to being available again - including defensive and healing ones. It's very easy to overtune passive defenses and send players into a feedback loop of endless survival. And that would be the most boring thing ever, really.Either that, or all healing and defensive skills would need a complete overhaul just to achieve the same state we see now (that is, to make it harder to achieve immortality).

Yeah, I think people don't change their build often because there are no build templates.Even with the same equipment, you would be able to quickly fine-tune your build depending on the situation (certain maps, activities, etc). It would also be a great improvement to underwater content, quickly (or better yet, automatically) switching your traits to the ones actually useful underwater.I can see some downsides as well, like those player-imposed ("meta build-switching or kick!"; not really a GW2 problem, though) or even worse roaming/dueling imbalance in WvW (though I don't know if people are already using third-party extensions to instantly change their builds for them).

Yes, but it's sort of still good to not have your main mechanic fail (rather "fail") half of the time. OK, this doesn't sound very useful, then. Which is a new learn to play issue, thus shouldn't pose a problem for chronomancer mains and can become a new thing separating good chronomancers from bad, I suppose? (I do realize it also means no easy F4 revives/finishes anymore, which is a noticeable nerf, though they didn't require an awful lot of skill to pull off.) I see. I didn't know that, thanks for clarification.

I've only been playing my chronomancer in the open world, so I have to wonder how exactly the feel is going to change. You don't provide examples.All I can see on paper is a slight maximum potential nerf with the added value of fool-proof mechanics to help prevent wasting your Continuum Shift (because your clones suddenly decided to die on their own and now you can't spam all of your abilities during that unlucky one-second-and-a-half window). Now it's (probably?) going to be at least 3 seconds with you being invulnerable during the first few seconds, making it easier to spam abilities, which is the mechanic anyway.

I still remember how Bless Online killed GW 2.

Can't tell if serious.Sword 2 gives you an instant gap closer which gives you a lot of mobility. It is especially important in PvP modes, but it's always nice to have a shadowstep skill in your kit.

Somehow you've only listed improved rewards, but none of the improved guild mission ideas.

Sorry but gliding does not equal flying.To take flight implies the ability to gain altitude. The Gryphon is simply a long distance glider. I mean, if we're really doing this, here's what I find on the internet: "Flight is the process by which an object moves through an atmosphere (or beyond it, as in the case of spaceflight) without contact with the surface." - Wikipedia. "[to fly]a : to move in or pass through the air with wingsb : to move through the air or before the wind or through outer spacec : to float, wave, or soar in the air" - Merriam-Webster dictionary. Sure, these are just some of possible meanings, but the point is our mounts in GW 2 are technically flying.