Guild Wars 2

Did Arenanet mention when to finish?

14% party wide damage boost not available anywhere else. Best waterfield in the game. 100% fury uptime. Etc. We need education more than buffs.

WvW zergs get complicated.

Fluffball.8307:

14% party wide damage boost not available anywhere else.

This is the only reason to pick a ranger. All other flavored classes offer more than just 14% more damage. And I highly doubt that Frost Spirit and Spotter translate to 14% more damage.

Fluffball.8307:

Best waterfield in the game.

Yay.

Fluffball.8307:

100% fury uptime. Etc. We need education more than buffs.

Nay. There are two classes out there who are both picked more often and have good access to fury.

Fluffball.8307:

WvW zergs get complicated.

Pets suck.

Healing spring isn’t the best water in the game. It’s a pbaoe, long cd and not as large as healing rain. Oh did I mention it’s pbaoe?

And its our healing skill, which can lead to complications with using it when the group needs it or when you need it.

I could put an * next to every single thing on that list lol.

And no, there was no indication when or even if they’d use anything from the Ranger CDI thread to adjust this class. I’d argue the CDI thread was a colosal cluster[censored] and was probably thrown in the garbage.

If all they do is consolidate traits, make utilities less dependent on traits, make main hand sword something I can use with auto attack turned on, and up the auto attack on great sword, I’d take back nearly half of all the bad things I’ve ever said about Anet.

That said, I expect them to do only one of those things (while introducing bugs to things totally unrelated) and then do a bunch of things nobody asked for or complained about.

Oh, and I expect a few people on the forums to talk about how amazing the rework is, no matter what…in every topic everyone else makes to complain.

I can tell you for certain that I suggested Invigorating Bond exactly how it functions (with a 2k base heal) back at the beginning of 2012. So either somebody at ANet thinks exactly like me, or they do read through our suggestions and implement stuff.

Just throwing it out there. I know it isn’t directly related, but I do know of a few players who have had their suggestions for ranger implemented almost verbatim to the suggestion made by those players.

So for me, it’s exciting to see what ANet takes and implements from the CDI in the future, since I have a pretty good idea of what they would take and implement. However, this patch had nothing to do with the CDI, and had been in the making long before the ranger CDI even occurred. I wouldn’t expect to see direct effects of the CDI until the summer at the earliest, unless ANet does listen to the players and starts rolling out more frequent balance updates (ANet noted that we would rather see smaller quantities in faster time frames than big patches every few months in a thread a little while back).

jcbroe.4329:

I can tell you for certain that I suggested Invigorating Bond exactly how it functions (with a 2k base heal) back at the beginning of 2012. So either somebody at ANet thinks exactly like me, or they do read through our suggestions and implement stuff.

If they implemented your suggestion, they must work near a black hole. Time runs slower over there. Way, way slower.

Brace yourselves, we can expect the first CDI based changes in almost 2 years!

HHR LostProphet.4801:

jcbroe.4329:

I can tell you for certain that I suggested Invigorating Bond exactly how it functions (with a 2k base heal) back at the beginning of 2012. So either somebody at ANet thinks exactly like me, or they do read through our suggestions and implement stuff.

If they implemented your suggestion, they must work near a black hole. Time runs slower over there. Way, way slower.

Brace yourselves, we can expect the first CDI based changes in almost 2 years!

I’m not saying they took it directly from me though, that would be so egotistical lol. I just mean to suggest that there is anecdotal evidence of them paying attention to the community if that happens to be the case.

I can’t argue with you either, the balancing in this process is so slow. Healing Signet just received a not good enough shave to efectiveness after being OP for like 1+ year I think. They just now nerfed the infamous dhuumfire. It’s like, everything the game needs for Player versus Player enviroments is already in place, but the balance is still in pre-launch development phase.

I don’t mean it to insult any ANet members that might happen to read this comment either. It’s just very hard as a community member to try to see where you guys are trying to take this game, and you aren’t transparent, or even allowed to be transparent, about any of the details.

HHR LostProphet.4801:

Pets suck.

Anything sucks if you totally neglect it.

jcbroe.4329:

you aren’t transparent, or even allowed to be transparent, about any of the details.

that is my main concern about this game.
Sure, saying “we are working on function X and expect to be done with it in Y weeks/months” is a bad thing. As that means you are committed into making that a reality. So vague answers is the best way to ensure they can use manpower where they need it, and not lock down X amount of employees in a content making process because someone said on the forums that “we shall give you this, soon™!!!”

Transparency in the form of dynamic balancing – listening to the crowd when they say “skill X is too strong” then asking “how much do you think we need to shave it”….
Obviously, when you reach the conclusion that skill X must be shaven down, all the “it’s fine” answers can just be ignored unless they carry a very strong counter argument.

Lack of feedback on discussions is also a “bad” behavior… take the CDI topics, sometimes they litterally spam one thread, and a couple of the others are just left alone without any proper monitoring. Sure, they may be reading it, but to ensure a healthy discussion, not to mention a healthy development process where you start with a brainstorming, then narrow things down, then find a number of subjects you want to discuss, then discuss these subjects – pro’s and con’s. THEN move onto discussing how to implement this and the needed “power”…
Instead they just leave us in the brainstorming process, without any decent leads as to “what should we discuss”…. In the ranger CDI, that caused a whole debate thread to degrade into a spamfest of ideas that overwhelmed them beyond the point of reading it……
Now, complete transparency isn’t always good, for us nor for them, but i agree that the lack of transparency is a big issue with Arena Nets community management team.

Prysin.8542:

HHR LostProphet.4801:

Pets suck.

Anything sucks if you totally neglect it.

No, Pets suck. Period.

Prysin.8542:

jcbroe.4329:

you aren’t transparent, or even allowed to be transparent, about any of the details.

that is my main concern about this game.
Sure, saying “we are working on function X and expect to be done with it in Y weeks/months” is a bad thing. As that means you are committed into making that a reality. So vague answers is the best way to ensure they can use manpower where they need it, and not lock down X amount of employees in a content making process because someone said on the forums that “we shall give you this, soon™!!!”

Transparency in the form of dynamic balancing – listening to the crowd when they say “skill X is too strong” then asking “how much do you think we need to shave it”….
Obviously, when you reach the conclusion that skill X must be shaven down, all the “it’s fine” answers can just be ignored unless they carry a very strong counter argument.

Lack of feedback on discussions is also a “bad” behavior… take the CDI topics, sometimes they litterally spam one thread, and a couple of the others are just left alone without any proper monitoring. Sure, they may be reading it, but to ensure a healthy discussion, not to mention a healthy development process where you start with a brainstorming, then narrow things down, then find a number of subjects you want to discuss, then discuss these subjects – pro’s and con’s. THEN move onto discussing how to implement this and the needed “power”…
Instead they just leave us in the brainstorming process, without any decent leads as to “what should we discuss”…. In the ranger CDI, that caused a whole debate thread to degrade into a spamfest of ideas that overwhelmed them beyond the point of reading it……
Now, complete transparency isn’t always good, for us nor for them, but i agree that the lack of transparency is a big issue with Arena Nets community management team.

I couldn’t agree more.

Killsmith.8169:

If all they do is consolidate traits, make utilities less dependent on traits, make main hand sword something I can use with auto attack turned on, and up the auto attack on great sword, I’d take back nearly half of all the bad things I’ve ever said about Anet.

That would be so good. Since the new trait system was introduced, every time I decide to play around with the traits I just get depressed. Especially with all the pet traits in Skirmishing when you just wanna longbow snipe in WvW.

Meanwhile on my Guardian for example there are so many handy changes I can make for practically every fractal boss.