Blinded Targets Can't See, So...
I know, I know, I picked a bad day to suggest this change, but perhaps blind should cause people to lose target?
When you’re blinded, you just have trouble seeing where things are, and you’re likely to miss your shot. Using your other senses, though, you can roughly tell where they are. I think that’s the logic.
The target system doesn’t work for example warrior loses headbutt or fails to target the closest target near him cause the system doesn’t working right the game says using auto target the player locks an hits what ever enemy is closest to you this doesn’t working i have seen my war fighting face to face with an enemy an then wen i try to head butt him locks a target 6000 miles away kitten logic.
The spellcasters doesn’t got problems cause all there hits are auto lock they don’t need to aim most of times to land hits an also they don’t need to stop to keep hitting like warrior is doing with the thousand blades Arenanet must fix the target system is pathetic.
The spellcasters doesn’t got problems cause all there hits are auto lock they don’t need to aim most of times to land hits an also they don’t need to stop to keep hitting like warrior is doing with the thousand blades Arenanet must fix the target system is pathetic.
Sorry, while I agree with you, you derailed my thread. I simply wanted to make the point that characters which are blinded are still able to see, whereas characters which are stealthed are unable to be seen.
This is inconsistency. I would like to see it addressed. That’s why I’m typing.
Isn’t the point of being stealthed to not able to be seen? Though, being blinded may still allow one to see, I’m not sure what that has to do with someone being stealthed.
I think the OP would have better luck convincing ANet to change things by appealing to issue of balance, rather than comparisons to real life. Is the game going to be more balanced and/or more fun if blinded foes lose their target?
I don’t think it’s fair to apply real-life logic™ to in-game mechanics. While ‘stealth’ and ‘blind’ have plenty of similarities to the plain-English reading of those words, they are always going to be approximations of our world.
In real life, a single plant might ‘drop’ things with different names, an herb (e.g. Cilantro), a seed (Coriander), and a root (might use either name). But in GW2, a single plant can drop all manner of food ingredients. That doesn’t make the mechanic ‘wrong’; it just makes it a mechanic.
Thus, it’s entirely possible that ANet decided for game-balancing reasons to allow the blind to keep their target, even as one can’t maintain a target after it stealths. That doesn’t make the mechanic ‘wrong’ or even inconsistent; that makes it a mechanic.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
Being blinded doesn’t mean your sight is completely obscured, just impaired to an extent, though it can go all the way depending on how one is blinded. You lose target lock on stealth because you literally can’t see them at all.
More on topic…please no. Such a change would turn blind from annoying to potentially infuriating to deal with. It might make blind more worth using against NPC enemies (assuming they make it work right) but considering there’s already a condition that screws with your targeting (taunt) which is already a pain when it pops up, I’d rather not have another.
I think the OP would have better luck convincing ANet to change things by appealing to issue of balance, rather than comparisons to real life. Is the game going to be more balanced and/or more fun if blinded foes lose their target?
I don’t think it’s fair to apply real-life logic™ to in-game mechanics. While ‘stealth’ and ‘blind’ have plenty of similarities to the plain-English reading of those words, they are always going to be approximations of our world.
If that’s the case, why don’t we get rid of stealth but have the icon pop up saying “Invisible to enemies”? That would be consistent with Blind (i.e. not what it says it is).
Meh … just rename it to Clumsiness
I think the OP would have better luck convincing ANet to change things by appealing to issue of balance, rather than comparisons to real life. Is the game going to be more balanced and/or more fun if blinded foes lose their target?
I don’t think it’s fair to apply real-life logic™ to in-game mechanics. While ‘stealth’ and ‘blind’ have plenty of similarities to the plain-English reading of those words, they are always going to be approximations of our world.
If that’s the case, why don’t we get rid of stealth but have the icon pop up saying “Invisible to enemies”? That would be consistent with Blind (i.e. not what it says it is).
My point is it doesn’t have to be consistent with real life.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”