Showing Posts For Ganpot.3879:
Arenanet could theoretically release an expansion with gives each profession its own bard-inspired elite specialization. It would be absurd and I’m sure tons of people would complain (kind of like the panda WoW expansion), but it could also be fun.
Alright, so you don’t want an Elementalist, Thief, Warrior, or Guardian. You also don’t want a pet focus, so the Ranger is out too. I’d argue that Mesmer is a bit of a pain for solo pve play, so that’s also out. I’ll assume you don’t own Heart of Thorns, so no Revenant.
That leaves Engineer and Necromancer. Well, of those two, I guess I’d recommend Necromancer. It has quite a bit of sustain and can play vaguely similarly to a warlock or shadow priest from WoW. Engineer is cool too, but it is not easy to learn (really complicated rotations due to kit swapping).
Yes, there is a lot of blanket complaining on the forums in general. However, if you dig a bit deeper, it usually becomes apparent that the majority of complaints are much more specific than just “our class sucks”. A few examples:
Guardian: I saw a lot of positive comments about Firebrand, but also that it was very clunky to use due to long book cooldowns (regardless of whether you used any abilities from them before switching) and tons of short-range cone abilities (which make it very hard to hit multiple allies and/or enemies at the same time). Those both seem like fairly easy things to fix (extend and/or widen cones, and reduce cooldown based on unused pages).
Ranger: Most of the negative comments revolved around the new Soulbeast weapon. Apparently it is a hybrid weapon that just doesn’t do anything particularly well. Some other complaints are that the central Soulbeast mechanic relies on important cooldowns (pet abilities and pet swap) that become hidden from players. Besides some abnormalities (damage amplification from Sic’ Em and Maul), many players are also concerned that the benefits from fusing with a pet do not outweigh a Ranger’s naturally ~30% lower damage (which the pet is supposed to supply). Overall, the Soulbeast has potential but is really rough around the edges.
On the other hand, several upcoming elite specs (Mirage and Renegade) had virtually no positive feedback as far as I could tell. I’m inclined to believe that those are the ones which really are in a bad overall state.
(edited by Ganpot.3879)
I agree that legendary weapons and armor (at the very least, maybe even ascended items in a more limited fashion) should be able to swap sigils and runes.
I just transitioned back to Guild Wars 2 from The Secret World (played up until it relaunched as F2P / P2W), and TSW had a similar problem. Endgame equipment required a heavy time and resource investment, so players mathematically calculated the optimal stat distribution and then basically every player adopted that. As a result, players neglected a lot of niche builds which would otherwise have been allowed by the skill system, simply because no one wanted to waste time building a full set of items for one experimental build.
I really don’t understand why MMOs are so reluctant to address this limitation. It can’t devalue runes or sigils because most of them are already worthless. It won’t reduce grinding, because no one bothers to grind for non-optimal gear combinations anyway (they pick one or two and stick with that). Plus, if we are only talking about legendaries, people are required to grind for extreme periods of time to acquire them in the first place.
(edited by Ganpot.3879)
Personally, I find the human areas of the map the most boring. You just keep massacring centaurs over and over again. I think a lot of maps (especially early ones) suffer from a lack of enemy variety to be honest. Humans pretty much only fight centaurs, norn fight dredge, and charr fight ghosts. The asura and sylvari areas are a bit more diverse, even if they also specialize in fighting one primary enemy.
I think the reason why I dislike the human maps more than the others is also because I don’t find centaurs to be as mechanically interesting to fight. Ghosts sometimes use different aoe attacks that should be dodged (mage ghosts), and dredge often gain buffs (the drummer type) or use a heavy burst ability that can be avoided (the ground shock attack). Whereas centaurs basically just have the standard bow/arrow and sword/shield units that don’t do anything particularly interesting except knock you down occasionally.
Completely agree with OP.
That being said, one of the main reasons to keep the current system is just that gold sink. It keeps the economy/tradepost/crafting etc going around. Also imagine how much changes must be done to the crafting and crafting receipts.
An alternative method that would would keep the economy mostly unaffected would be to require players to consume a top-level stat item (sigils, etc.) in order to permanently unlock that stat distribution for a single armor slot or weapon type. It would require some back-end work with the engine, but it would probably be doable (the game already supports items acquiring stats, it would just need to also store a list of permissions akin to the skin collections).
That way, players still need to acquire a decent amount of stat items if they want ultimate flexibility. The biggest change is just that pve players are no longer punished for experimenting.
PART TWO:
- An overhaul of combat that brings back some semblance of the holy trinity without the rigidness of it. The philosophy of “everyone looks after themselves” becomes an unfun mess in group content. My ideal solution would be a system partially inspired by Rift and The Secret World. Each profession and elite spec is broken down into the following areas: Offense (physical and condition), Defense (vitality and toughness), Support (group buffs and debuffs), Healing, and Mobility. The devs then publicly assign each area a score from 1 to 5 for each area and sub-area. This would give the community a clear message about each profession and specialization’s intended role (maybe even that of individual weapons!), and hopefully force the developers to design with that in mind. Seriously, can any dev tell me what the Ranger’s current intended role is? Cause 5 years of development seems to indicate the answer is, “We have no idea.” Anyway, group content (even open world group content) should be designed around having different combinations of these roles available. That way every fight doesn’t just break down into: kill everything as quickly as possible and try to get out of the way or respawn if the boss decides to target and murder you.
- Dungeons with less bugs and more refined gameplay/tactics (as allowed by the above point).
- Way less waypoints around maps, but increase player movement speed (both within and outside of combat) by 50% across the board. Then allow mounts for even more movement speed (I really liked how the raptor mount felt in the PoF demo). Eliminate all movement speed increasing signets (they are boring and feel too mandatory during the leveling process). Superspeed grants +100% movement speed but doesn’t stack with mounts (it really should be noticeably better than regular swiftness in combat). Oh, and no flying mounts whatsoever. But keep the gliding system, it is quite nice while possessing limitations.
- Jumping puzzles which are designed to work better with the camera system and all races in claustrophobic environments. Attempting some puzzles with a norn character is torture.
- A far more robust and customizable player housing system (still instanced). Every NPC that plays a major role in the racial storyline should be located inside this instance, and possess lots of extra dialogue (about the state of the player’s past choices, how the NPC feels, etc.) The NPCs should be almost like old Bioware companions (not quite as reactive, but same concept). The player should be able to unlock a ton of stuff (both functional and cosmetic) for his/her house instance, including activities for visitors to participate in.
- A far more fleshed out Guild vs Guild system (the name of the franchise is literally Guild Wars). Each guild has a castle which can be heavily upgraded and customized. Once a week at a set time (timing varies per server, so players in different time zones aren’t punished), this guild castle is joined to another random guild’s castle on opposite ends of the same (symmetrical) map. Whichever guild breaches the opponent’s castle and controls their throne room first is the winner. There could also be 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 variants. The winning guilds and members get some minor rewards and higher placement on leaderboards (and will be matched up against higher-tier guilds in the future). Guilds may also volunteer to drop out of this matchmaking system (due to lack of available players or whatever). Additionally, at any time (24 hour advance scheduling necessary), 2 or more guilds may sign up for an unranked match against each other specifically. There are no rewards for winning, but it can be a good way to train people, have some fun, and settle inter-guild disputes.
- More drastic meta events that actually feel meaningful. Extend the duration of meta events (so that humans aren’t pushed back by centaurs 5 minutes after taking a base) but have some sort of event always going on throughout the map. Maybe even meta events that span multiple maps (if centaurs conquer enough bases on one map, they spread to a neighboring one).
- A voluntary 1 vs 1 dueling system (just for fun) anywhere in the open world. Failing that, just have a designated area in each hub city for it.
- Make heart quests less boring, and make absolutely certain that if a heart quest requires swapping a player’s weapon for a temporary one that the temp weapon is actually more fun and/or powerful than normal. I don’t want more experimental rifles with a single 2 second recharge ability that take forever to kill things.
- Way more game types and maps for pvp. Seriously, I remember trying pvp at launch and thinking… “Wow, this is just the same thing over and over.” World of Warcraft did a very good job of providing varied pvp game modes that were (generally) fun, so a couple of staples like capture the flag and elimination mode isn’t a lot to ask. If you want to be more ambitious, take a look at Resistance 2’s pvp model, which split large battles into small squads and gave them varied objectives (hold a point, assassinate a target, reinforce another squad, etc.). It was a brilliant system that required teams to switch up their playstyle without having the larger battle devolve into zergs or chaos.
- Give players destructible forward bases and mobile siege bases that they can teleport to for free (after a slight death delay) in WvW. If I don’t need to waste so much time running around the map to actually find people, I might actually play more of it. There is a reason why supply lines are important in real life warfare.
- Lower the level cap to 40 (at most). A cap of 80 just feels like unnecessary filler.
That’s all I can think of for now.
Some really interesting ideas have been mentioned so far (as well as some wacky/impossible ones, but that’s half the fun). I guess I’ll join in as well. Keep in mind, I’ve just started replaying the game like a week ago (quit after 3 months… I found the game at launch painfully boring), so some of this stuff might actually be in the game and I just don’t know about it.
PART ONE:
- I don’t want to sound offensive, but the overall quality of writing (especially in the core game) was… dreadful. Sure, the game is rated T for teen, but that doesn’t mean you can’t explore some deeper concepts or have multifaceted characters. The game’s audience is not primarily composed of children and idiots; they shouldn’t be treated as such. Also, the story aspect should have been completely revamped. The elder dragons can stay, but the story really should have focused more on individual characters that stuck around. There’s just too big of a disconnect between the racial stories and the main one. Having the surrounding cast continue onto the offensive against Zaitan by organizing the entire effort around each race’s contribution to the war would have made everything sooo much better. Sure, it might not make sense that your barkeeper or anarchist friends would participate in front line combat, but they could always contribute in their own way (and that allows the player to gain more perspective on the war anyway by seeing how non-military individuals get dragged into it and decide to help). The pacts getting center stage was a bad idea. More story branches would also have been nice. Oh, and don’t treat the player character like a hero after 2 minutes of gameplay. That never feels earned. Make them start off as a nobody and actually work for respect.
- No temporary content: everything that is added to the game stays in the game (obviously some seasonal stuff will come and go every year, but it shouldn’t be a one-off). You can still charge latecomers for access to living seasons, but it’s probably a better idea to bundle that in with expansions. As someone who started playing HoT content without accessing season 1 or 2, the story is utterly incomprehensible (which is not a good first impression). Alternatively, keep the current system but make sure that the living world is not directly related to expansion content in any way. Instead of bridging the gaps between expansions, it should revolve around smaller stand-alone threats.
- A wardrobe system like the current one, but no (unlimited) transmutation charges. At the end of the day, it’s a stupid limitation, because it just makes fashion have less of an impact (and selling clothes nets Arenanet some easy money). Weapons should be included in the dye system (at least to some degree).
- Things such as weapon stats (on ascended gear), sigils, runes, and infusions should be permanently recorded by the game (not tied to a particular item but to an armor slot or weapon category instead). At any safe zone or hub city, players should be able to reassign all of these things at will, so long as they previously had access to the new sigils, etc. This would require a MODEST fee for each item. This fee is waived completely for legendary items. That system would still reward those who work for legendary weapons and at the same time encourage way more experimentation and build diversity.
- There should be more ways of gaining gifts of mastery after achieving 100% world completion. People shouldn’t be asked to create throw-away characters just to farm for them if they want lots of legendaries. Additionally, after crafting a legendary weapon, it becomes accessible on ALL level 80 characters for that account. Permanently.
- The world map should be less stylized, and there shouldn’t have been giant gaps between playable zones. It just looks ugly when you zoom out. Also, not every zone needs to be a giant rectangle.
- More interesting playable races in general. The sylvari were excellent, but the norn should have been scrapped altogether. Come on… they are just slightly taller humans. Why couldn’t we have played as the Kodan instead? It’s also a bit weird that there is no aquatic race, when a significant portion of the game’s content is underwater. Largos, Hylek, or even Quaggan could have made for a more exciting racial selection.
- Better underwater content. I admit this might be impossible in practice (for some reason no MMO ever has good underwater content), but at the very least all existing skills should work in some way underwater, and movement should be a lot less clunky. Traps, for example, could rather easily become underwater mines with a spherical range (similar to anti-projectile shields that are already implemented underwater).
No. You wanna know why? Guildwars was a nightmare to balance due to all the skills and 2 professions. That’s why it won’t be in gw2.
Based on the majority of feedback from the latest demo, the devs don’t seem to be doing any better at balancing without free-form skills and dual-classing. The ranger profession has been half buried in a shallow grave ever since the game launched five years ago (although I hear it somehow managed to become a respectable pvp bunker at one point). From what I gather, the necromancer has been suffering for a long time as well.
Rather than add more skills for weapons, add new weapon archtypes (such as whips, flail, lances, etc.) to further diversify the combat. Exhaust the variety of weapons that can exist in a fantasy game, then expand the table of skills with each weapon.
As much as I would love new weapon categories, adding them wouldn’t have as big of an impact. Players still wouldn’t be able to adapt their weapon choice to their overall strategy, which means they would be pigeon-holed into less than ideal skills (there is usually one skill per weapon which is blah). By giving players a limited array of swap-able skills, the devs can increase build variety enormously, and cater to GW1 veterans (who miss the skill system). Plus, adding new skills would take (marginally) less work than adding new weapon types (because they wouldn’t have to create new meshes and weapon graphics).
What concerns me is that one area has been completely ignored in the “Months Ahead” blog and video. Class skills and balance is what I’m referring to, and that area tends to be fairly important.
Gameplay becomes extremely monotonous at higher levels (or after extended play sessions), because players unlock all the skills they really want by the time they are level 35. So first of all, you need to massively increase weapon skills’ variety. The easiest way to do this is to create another 5 skills per weapon (10 if you’re feeling generous) and allow players to slot whatever skills they want into the different slots (you might want to differentiate slot 1 from slots 2-5, since slot 1s tend to be auto-attack chains). Adding this would increase replay-ability across every area of the game (PvE, PvP, and WvW).
I’ve also heard rumors that the balancing department consists of 2 people. If true, that is abysmal; an MMO has to have fairly balanced (and fun) combat if it wants to retain a player base. You’re just shooting yourselves in the foot. That would also explain why some classes (cough Ranger cough) still haven’t been properly fixed months after launch.
Regardless of how many people are working on balance issues, you need to pick up the pace. Players won’t wait years for their class to become usable (or reasonably glitch-free). Every class has an abundance of useless traits (both major and minor), and most classes have some near-useless weapons. Speaking from personal experience, I was extremely close to quitting the game altogether after waiting months without noticeable changes to my main class (Ranger); I still might (re-grinding to 80 is a pain).
Alright, I know that I’m going to restate a lot of what has already been said in this thread, but I’d rather talk too much than not give the devs sufficient feedback.
There are several completely separate problems with the personal stories at the moment. I’m going to address them individually and offer suggestions for the next game / expansions (it’s unreasonable to expect major changes from existing content).
1. One-Dimensional Characters: As others have already stated, an NPC’s race seems to completely determine its mentality. This wouldn’t be major problem if it was handled subtly or interestingly, but it isn’t. The only exception I’ve run across is Tybolt. He was interesting precisely because he was a contradiction to his race. If you want a compelling story, you need to make unique characters. Give serious thought to their motivations, mind-set, and quirks. (That does not mean to always avoid stereotypes.) Above all, have an interesting antagonist. Zhaitan failed miserably in this regard. He was barely even present. IMO, the most interesting enemy is someone who might actually be doing the right thing. My favorite villain of all time (in games) is Saren from Mass Effect 1. Why? Because he truly believed he was doing the right thing, and there was a decent chance he was correct. He could easily have been the protagonist, and Shepard the antagonist.
2. Voiced Protagonist: This one is somewhat arguable based on personal preference. But many people have their own expectations for their characters. For example, I created a hulking Norn who I imagined was extremely dim-witted but fond of violence (sort of like the Hulk). However, my character breaks that fantasy every time he opens his mouth in a cut-scene. Having a silent protagonist is much preferable for role-players (Skyrim is a perfect example), and I would recommend at least considering it for GW3. Let players select their choice of responses from a limited selection, or at the very least tailor automated player responses to their personality score.
3. No Choices / Consequences: I realize that making branching and intertwining story paths is extremely hard and time-consuming. But if you want a genuinely personal story, there is no getting around it. Players need to be able to make decisions which effect their game 20+ levels on. Having a squad of potential followers (Bioware style) would be a huge benefit in this regard. They would allow for consequences without requiring massive changes to the larger story. However, if you’re feeling particularly ambitious, then feel free to include massive story branches as well (maybe the player wants to side with the antagonist in GW3?)
4. No Protagonist Progression: If the player character is a hero by the end of the prologue, then what room is there to advance? In your effort to make everyone always feel like a hero, you’ve done the exact opposite. There’s a reason why “peasant rising from obscurity to become a hero” is a fantasy stereotype (it is effective at creating character growth). If you really want players to start at the top, then you have to arrange for them to fall back to the bottom later on before climbing back again (this can sometimes repeat multiple times). Failure defines character every bit as much as success does. Just don’t make it predictable. Most failures should occur suddenly, without warning.
5. Lack of Plot Complexity: This is a big one. Most of the stories from level 1-20 were pretty good (if predictable). But afterwards the story takes a nosedive. The story needs to grow more complex, not less. Hint at things and let players figure them out instead of telling players outright. Have plot twists, but make sure they are sensible and rare enough not to be anticipated. Lastly, do not be afraid to include an abundance of moral quandaries. Players will remember those hard decisions long after they would have forgotten standard quests.
I love the idea of Rangers, but they are so infuriating to play as that I’m considering re-rolling as a Warrior (even though I’m level 76). In addition to what other people have said:
1. Don’t give pets aggro until they attack a target (this would help a ton in PvE. Pets make Orr a nightmare).
2. Make traps last twice as long, but don’t allow ground-targeting without the trait (they are supposed to be area-denial, but they fail in that function).
3. Reduce the damage pets take by 50% but decrease their damage by 33% (makes them more survivable but not OP, since right now my bear can out-DPS me -_-). Alternately, Arenanet could allow pets to dodge (I’m not hopeful on that though).
4. Eliminate the out-of-combat cooldown for pet swapping (this was implemented to fix an easily fixable exploit), and reduce the cooldown for a dead pet swap to 45 seconds (90 seconds is way to punishing, since you lose around half your potential DPS).
5. Rework the Shouts completely. Guard, especially, is the most useless thing imaginable.
6. Increase the damage of Shortbows slightly but don’t make bleeds automatic (this would make bleeds a reward for good positioning rather than a necessity, and make the weapon more viable in dungeons).
7. Dramatically increase the damage of Longbows. Multiple people have done the math and concluded that skill #1 needs something like a 60-70% DPS increase to break even with the (slightly underpowered) Shortbow. That is an absurd situation, and should be rectified immediately. Also consider making skill #5 an immobilize or stun (and moving Barrage to Shortbow) since this weapon is more for 1v1 kiting whereas Shortbow is for skirmishing with groups (who are ideally focused on someone else).
8. Increase the Signet of the Hunt’s movement speed bonus to 25% (equivalent to Rogue’s) and improve the active affect.
9. Either make Spirits unkillable or improve their active effects and health immensely. These things are a joke at the moment.
I’d like to talk about the trait system and its effect on character diversity. I don’t think the current system is doing anyone a favor. Players are extremely and arbitrarily limited on how they can play, and the developers can’t get a very clear picture on which traits are too powerful or not powerful enough. Here is my proposed solution.
1. Attributes
The first step is to separate attributes (power, perception, etc.) from trait lines. Why? Well, speaking as a Ranger, the Marksman trait line is pretty bad. I want those bonuses to power, but not at the expense of wasting 3 minor and 3 major traits. So I pick up Wilderness Survival instead, even though I have no use for the toughness it gives. This discourages players’ preferred play styles needlessly. Going even deeper, there are some players who want (again, using the example of the Ranger) the pet attribute bonuses, but don’t want the increase to healing power. So each attribute should be assigned points individually, instead of grouped in twos.
2. Minor Traits
There are some very useless minor traits available for the Ranger (Opening Shot in the Marksman tree being the obvious example). I doubt this class is alone. But players will take these minor traits anyway, simply to get to the major ones. This causes a problem for the developers: they can’t tell whether people are taking the minor traits because they want them, or because they need them in order to get other, better traits. Once again, this also needlessly limits player choice. So I propose that the trait lines be eliminated entirely, and every minor trait be made equally available. Players can then choose a minor trait every 10 levels (starting at level 15).
3. Major Traits
Similar to minor traits, I think these should be choosable at will. Players would obtain one every 10 levels (starting at level 20). This would bring the benefits of increased game balance and freedom.
Closing Thoughts
You might be thinking that these changes would drastically unbalance the game, or lead to “cookie-cutter” builds. If properly implemented, I do not believe that will be the case. There will always be niche builds (as Guild Wars 1 proved). There might be some temporary balance issues at first, due to players being able to choose more appealing traits. But in the long run, it would actually make the game more balanced. The developers would be able to see clearly which traits were favored by the majority of players, and which were continuously passed up.
Yes, it is intentional. Although many players (including me) disagree with it.
It only seems to work if you initiate combat with the standard attack (1 key). And even then, it is extremely glitchy.
1) range projectiles are always combo finishers, where as melee aren’t
Ranged projectiles have a 20% chance to finish combos. As well, melee attacks already (usually) do more damage than ranged ones. So they are already pretty balanced.
I mean, even if you disagree with the professional reviews, their reviews almost always have more substance than most of the user reviews. No professional reviewer is going to give a game a 0 because “fanbois of that game put down my favorite game!” But a user sure would.
Feel free to call me cynical, but these types of things are well known in the game industry, and it does have an effect on review scores. Simply look at Metacritic’s top scores list. Triple A games from big publishers usually score much higher with critics than with with players. I’m not saying all or even most professional reviewers pan to publishers, but it is almost unquestionable that some do.
Admittedly, many of the fans who vote are not being fair. But the idea with fan reviews is to average them together (which Metacritic already does) and read through a page or two of them. If that isn’t enough, look up a Let’s Play on Youtube.
Not that I don’t like Guild Wars 2 (I really do), but don’t put a lot of stock in critics. There is a well-known downhill score trend, because some reviewers are basically bribed for good scores. As well, reviewers who promise to give a game good reviews are allowed access to the game early, meaning the review will be up on launch day (which earns the review website more revenue). Since the current metacritic score is 92, I imagine it will end up at around 88 by the time everyone finishes reviewing it.
Geez, nothing but complaints in these forums. I don’t have anything to say about your comments but I love my ranger!
Let me guess… you run a condition build, don’t you?
the main disadvantage rangers with pets have in sPvP is that pets cannot attack and move at the same time. Fix this, and rangers will be by far the most balanced class in sPvP
That is certainly a problem, but it isn’t nearly the only issue with the class. Most of their weapons are either underpowered or wonky. And (as the OP stated) Rangers tend to pick the exact same utilities due to the abundance of useless ones. At the moment, there are literally 2 decent Ranger builds. That is completely unacceptable in a game supposedly about choice.
There is a very easy way to fix this problem without overhauling the pet AI. Just don’t have pets draw aggro until they attack. That would literally solve everything.
The sad truth is that giving a 20 second CD to pet swapping while out of combat makes it pointlessly aggravating to compare pet abilities and stats. And this was done only to combat a relatively harmless exploit.
The worst part of the patch, by far, was Arenanet’s removal of pet revival. This change makes us useless against bosses except when using 2 bears (and we were already weak in dungeons). Players weren’t complaining that they were given the option to revive their pets, they were complaining that it took as long as reviving a player (and the pet would die so quickly that it was never worth it). Pet’s represent (roughly) 30% of a Ranger’s damage output and survivability.
Here’s what they should have done (and should still do):
1. Get rid of the 20 second pet cooldown while out of combat and, instead, don’t finish the cooldown for pets’ abilities when switched.
2. Allow Rangers (and other players) to revive pets, with the process taking 1/3rd (or even 1/4th) the time it takes to revive a player.
3. Reduce the pet swapping cooldown when a dead pet is active to 45 seconds from 60 seconds (it is way too punishing for a class which needs its pet alive to stay relevant).
My major problem with the Ranger’s downed state is that the 3rd ability (pet revive) starts on a 5-7 second (can’t remember) cooldown. If more than a single mob is attacking you (the player, not the pet), you probably aren’t even going to live long enough to call for the pet. I find that rather aggravating.
Also, as other people have mentioned, sometimes the pet AI breaks.
I’ve noticed this too, and I’m almost positive it’s the game thinking you’re lagging because of the sudden change in location. Then the game tries to correct this bug, which puts you closer to the initial location.
If we look at your example where you said you had a total of 143% increased chance, this would still only increase your total chance to find a magical item to 24.3% still assuming a 10% base. In reality, the base chance is probably a lot lower
Well that sucks…. That would make it extremely useless, considering all the other stat bonuses you’d have to give up.
There better be a general forum. As well as class forums, a suggestion forum, and other stuff.
If you are easily annoyed by inconsistent (glitchy) AI, stay away from the Ranger due to its pets. They aren’t bad other than that, but the Longbow is underpowered at the moment, which means everyone goes with either the shortbow or axe.
You also have to complete all the dungeons and WvW.