(edited by Pakkazull.6894)
There is a ridiculous amount of mobs in the camp to the point anything but a tank with good healing is pretty much unable to reach the area. If there hadn’t been groups I never would have reached it with my warriors.
… really? You literally just run. Stack around a corner and kill them afterwards, if you want. Or don’t. I’ve done it on both my glass ele and my condi engineer.
Scrappers are beyond fine and even amazing in fractals especially if pugging. They only fall off in raids because they don’t bring any sort of unique like buff whereas almost every other class does.
Please, enlighten me, how exactly are scrappers amazing in fractals? Literally the only specific use for scrapper I can think of is using Sneak Gyro to open the way in the Underground Facility fractal. If you mean using Function Gyro to ress downed people, again, like I said above, that is only useful if you fail in the first place.
i think you can use scrapper tank role in PvE. why all use only mesmers?
You’re going to need mesmers to give alacrity and quickness anyway, and while doing this they can’t deal much damage so they might as well tank. Using a scrapper tank would effectively “sacrifice” a DPS slot.
Ha, in that case the explosives trait should have more priority according to you, as fas as i know, that trait only sees play pve as a full offensive stuff or nothing, 1/3 game modes play this trait.
You’re comparing a regular trait line to an elite spec. I’d hardly call them equivalent.
scrapper is truly a side option and not a upgrade option like what happened to the rest.
That’s not really true though, is it. Scrapper is useless in high end PvE, and a straight upgrade in PvP. I wouldn’t exactly call it a side option in any game mode. Possibly WvW.
I’m guessing Fractals are the same from your post.
Kind of. Fractals are a bit more lenient though.
I’d rather see it given to CORE engi. Put it in the tools traitline. Scrapper already has enough use in other 2 game modes. Plus the ress with gyro is extremely strong, could be borderline OP in raids.
Engineer is the only class that doesn’t use its elite spec in PvE metabuilds. Literally the only one. Saying “scrapper is good in 2/3 game modes so it’s fine” is kind of strange when every other elite spec is good in 3/3 game modes. Also, no, the function gyro isn’t “OP” in raids; sure, it’s probably nice to have if you’re playing with beginners, but that’s the thing: it’s only useful if you fail in the first place. It’s just not worth the DPS loss.
For me these scrapper builds are fully capable of making short work of PVE mobs even in HOT.
Yeah, sure, it works in open world PvE, but that’s mostly because almost anything works in open world. Try that build in raids or fractals (where performance actually matters) and you’ll find it horribly subpar (not to mention that camping flamethrower is mind-numbingly boring in my opinion). Saying “scrapper works in open world” doesn’t mean that scrapper is in a good spot.
Prove it.
Present your facts that PvP has always had a low population going all the way back to launch.
You’re right, I can’t. My evidence is just as anecdotal as yours.
How do you get to a “low population” from a large population? You have to have decline…
This must be what it feels like trying to teach chimps to read…
sPvP has never had a large population, except for the influx of reward-farming PvE players at the start of each season. So yes, in that sense, there is an ebb and flow to the population… but you said “continued decline”, so that’s clearly not what you meant.
Also, you’re still here? I thought you “bowed out”.
Anecdotal?
Yes, the “proof” you presented is anecdotal. Do you know what it means?
They’ve said as much on numerous occasions that the rating deviation on match ups is so large in order to improve the long queue times due to low player population.
It’s funny how you originally said “continued decline in population” and then changed it to low population. There’s a difference.
This is about the furthest thing from a reasonable discussion, so I’ll bow out here.
That’s the first bright idea you’ve had today, I think.
No Proof of low player population?
Why else do you end up with matches taking minutes to pop and yet end up with the same players as the previous match?
And when the match finally pops, why is it do you think that the players in the match that took so long to pop are all wildly different ratings? Perhaps because ANet had to make it possible in order to ensure matches popped more frequently than every 20 minutes?
Yeah, like I said, anecdotal evidence. What you’re saying is entirely possible, but we don’t know if that holds true across all timezones on both NA and EU servers and across all rating ranges. Only ArenaNet has the entire picture.
Let’s try this another way:
2 + 2 = ?
Yes, your condescension is funny.
…not even: it would only take ten to twenty games to put them roughly back at the same MMR they have now, because (shocking news!) the gliko algorithm converges fairly quickly on the target MMR.
I could see that being the case if a high MMR player was artificially lowered to bronze and inserted into an active system, but if everyone was reduced to bronze level MMR? I dunno, you might be right, I’m not pretending to be an expert.
What I’m asking is if you’ve ever contributed to producing a product for mass consumption. You’ve already made it clear you don’t
I don’t see how it matters in the slightest, but I sense that you just want to put me down and claim some sort of superiority, so… go ahead I guess.
It makes no sense to stop the product changes here, which is your suggestion essentially – do nothing.
I see reading comprehension isn’t one of your strong suits, because I suggested two refinements.
On top of which none of what you’re saying is a reason not to do these things. Just because there are problematic variables doesn’t mean they can’t be accommodated and addressed.
No, I honestly don’t think they can be adequately addressed — I’d gladly be proven wrong though.
You simply want to perpetuate an unhealthy system that benefits you even though it’s obviously faulty and the continued decline of the player population is your proof – not that you’re interested in facts or reality
Hilarious, considering you have no proof of “decline in population”. Only ArenaNet knows for sure; the rest of us have only anecdotal evidence.
(edited by Pakkazull.6894)
What exactly are you advocating for?
I think the system is fine as it is, provided they add more aggressive decay to the top divisions and a x number of games played requirement to place on the leaderboard. So I guess that’s what I’m “advocating for”.
You want a system that protects you from having to play kittenty matches, but not everyone else?
No, I don’t know where you’d get that idea, but strawmen are always nice I guess. I was merely remarking on how your suggestion seemed driven purely by spite.
And you’re reason for not doing anything apparently is because it’s hard and not as easy as copy/paste? We don’t have metrics for our game? Reliable stats that point to winning behavior? Kills/Deaths/Revives/Caps/Decaps/Defense? Just because ANet isn’t using them correctly doesn’t mean that can’t change.
We have metrics, yes, but that’s exactly the point; we have a lot more metrics than CS:GO, which is why making a system that accurately reflects the impact a player has on a game is much harder. Furthermore, you can’t game CS:GO’s metrics (except for hogging the bomb I guess?), whereas you can definitely game the GW2 metrics you listed.
Ultimately it’s up to ArenaNet if they want to try or not, but in my opinion it’s prohibitively difficult to get right and needless when wins/losses are a good enough metric already.
What is this point of this post? Have you ever made anything????
I’m not sure what you mean. Have I made anything? Like what, woodwork?
(edited by Pakkazull.6894)
Now if you think ANet can’t apply some criteria to include individual contribution then I kindly invite you to take your ignorant kitten elsewhere, because these systems already exist. Go play any other competitive game and you’ll find out pretty quick just how ANet’s system is deficient.
Please, enlighten me, because I barely know of any game that uses any other criteria than wins and losses. And yes, CS:GO has an MVP system, but it’s also easier to implement in CS:GO since the only real metrics it uses are kills/assists and plants/defuses (and even that system isn’t entirely accurate. You’ll get MVP for planting the bomb even if someone else carried hard and killed 4 guys solo to get you to the bomb site).
It’s simple: Everyone places into bronze. Period. Now everyone has to play to climb. Not just those of us who didn’t get the fortune of great placement teams.
Well, that’s the silliest suggestion I’ve seen in this thread so far. You’d basically condemn everyone to two months of awful matches out of spite, because you feel you’ve been wronged by “the system”.
(edited by Pakkazull.6894)
Anet really needs to develop an MMR system that accounts for personal performance and team performance.
I doubt ArenaNet has the expertise, time or money to develop such a system, nor do I think it’s feasible at all.
Like this guy captured the most points, killed the most players, and his team won, +47 MMR. or, this guy killed the most players, decapped the most points, but his team lost, +7 MMR.
Bad idea. None of those metrics can accurately capture the impact of a player on a game, and furthermore can be gamed which could encourage undesirable behaviour (such as several people staying on a point just to get the cap).
“If I wouldn’t of done this, and done that instead, maybe we could have won the match”
Wouldn’t have done this*. Sorry, pet peeve of mine.
Sounds like they need to scrap Solo queue because it’s incompatible with the organized team gamemode known as sPvP, and implement a pure 5v5 team Queue, and a 2/3 mans team Queue as well. Boom all problems solved with matchmaker especially once they remove class stacking, queue times should never be a reason for compromised Matchmaking.
Terrible idea, you’d completely kill sPvP in one swoop. I agree that teams need a competitive venue though, but that can be handled separately from the league system.
As far as I know, games in which someone DC:ed don’t show up in the leaderboard (but still count as far as rating goes if you won).
If that is the case, how did I place well within the top 250 after only 10 matches?
A combination of two things:
1) Your rating is highly volatile during placement matches
2) If you did your placement matches early, the threshold for entry is significantly lower than later in the season
How do other’s remain at or near the top with very few matches.
It’s possible because the rating decay is too lenient.
The leader board considers only win ratio.
Please tell me how what I said is “blatantly false.”
Exedore already explained it well enough in his post above. The leaderboard isn’t based on your win to loss ratio, it’s based on your MMR which is in turn based on which players you defeat and which players you lose to. Expected results lead to small changes in rating and upsets lead to bigger changes.
Simple observation will show you that pvp population is low.
No, that’s not good enough. Low compared to what? CS:GO and League of Legends? Certainly, but is it low compared to previous seasons? Only ArenaNet knows, and you certainly don’t work at ArenaNet. In my limited, subjective experience the population is about the same or higher than previous seasons, but I don’t go around presenting that as fact.
Sadly, population in low.
And you know this how? And no, queue times aren’t an accurate indicator.
The leader board considers only win ratio.
This is blatantly false, and I’ve said as much in two separate threads already. Funny how you manage to ignore it completely every time.
- Leader board needs to consider games played AND win ratio. This will improve match quality by encouraging people to play the whole season and keeping population high.
The leaderboard itself doesn’t need to change one bit; simply add a # of games played requirement to show up on it, make the decay more aggressive and incentivize further play after you’ve finished the Byzantium chest with additional league tickets and ascended shards.
I’ve already stated in another thread why your proposed “solution” is a bad one, but you didn’t bother to respond to it so I shall not waste my time by typing it all out again.
There will always be crybaby posts on the forum, that is obvious to any village idiot.
I could interpret that as you calling me a “village idiot”, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Anet don’t have a good track record with addressing issues in an expedient manner.
Can’t really argue with that, they’re slow as kitten when it comes to PvP.
I’d change/add the following things:
- Add # of games played requirement to show up on leaderboards (say, 100 or so)
- More aggressive decay in higher divisions
- Voice comms (yeah, not going to happen)
- Better incentive to keep playing after you’ve finished the Byzantium chest (i.e. additional league tickets and ascended shards, even if the yield is very low)
- Build templates (not specific to PvP. A man can dream, right?)
Some feedback on previous suggestions:
No match to commence without all 10 players being connected
Good suggestion.
Solo q and group q (2,3,5 man). There needs to be an in-game option for competitive teams and protect solo q’ers from being “farmed”
I kind of agree and disagree at the same time. In my opinion, ranked league play should be kept to solo/duo queue as it is now, and alternative, separate venues should be introduced for competitive team play (such as automated tournaments).
If players are going to be rated individually some metric must be included to measure individual contribution. An individual’s rating cannot solely be tied to a team win/lose outcome.
I don’t really see how you could make a system that accurately measures individual contribution, especially one that can’t be gamed (which could result in undesirable behaviour), nor do I belive it is feasible for ArenaNet to develop such a system.
“Qualifying” division below Bronze for all new players to Ranked
I don’t see the point to be honest.
No class stacking.
Depends on how it’s implemented, but my initial reaction is “no”. Better solved through balancing and players switching.
Anyone who has played Ranked this season, indeed played pvp at any time in the past 12mths, knows it’s in a sorry state.
I disagree. Sure, it has some issues, but it’s probably the best it has ever been.
Quick glance at the forums and you realise much of the community believe Anet don’t’ care.
People are always going to complain no matter what. That people are whining isn’t really an indication of anything, it’s just a constant of the universe. The fact that ArenaNet changed so many things for this season is an indication that they do care and do listen to feedback.
It probably just doesn’t update in real time. I bet it dumps the database to the ladder on set intervals to cut down on calls to a (pretty active) database.
Yeah, could be… except it has always updated immediately after a game when I was on the leaderboard.
Dropped out of the top 250 a few days ago after a kittenty day with 6 losses, and since then I’ve been trying to get back in — except when I do get a high enough rating to theoretically be in the low top 250, I still don’t show up. Anyone know what’s up with this or am I just missing something?
http://i.imgur.com/aIu52we.png
http://i.imgur.com/tLzIhSB.png
(Also I can’t figure out how the hell you make images show up directly on the thread. None of the formatting seems to work)
I think people are tanking matches in placement, hoping to win streak. It’s a logical strategy if leader board placement is only win ratio.
Except leaderboards aren’t based on win ratio. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Well, I guess the whiners won. At least it proves how pointless the AP leaderboard is when the people on it have to complain until AP that they can’t get is removed.
I didn’t say grind. What I said was that playing a minimal number of games doesn’t risk dropping anywhere near as much as a person playing regularly. It’s an exploit.
The leader board should consider win percentage AND number of games played.
But you do want a grind leaderboard. The current leaderboard isn’t based on win percentage or number of games played, it’s based on MMR, as it should be; it’s a leaderboard based on who the matchmaking system thinks is good.
Your leaderboard would reward people with a positive win/loss ratio but wouldn’t take into account the difficulty of the opposition; in theory, a player in bronze division could have the same win percentage as a player in legendary, in which case the only deciding factor between who is higher on the leaderboard would be games played.
It would also mean that players who are still climbing would have an advantage over people who have settled into their correct division according to the matchmaking system, which is absurd.
So in summary, you want a grind leaderboard with an element of win percentage which doesn’t take into account the difficulty of the opposition. No thanks.
The leader board ought to be based on a combination of games played and win %. That was really a pretty obvious exploit and should have been prevented.
So you want to go back to a grind leaderboard, no thanks.
The game still tries to force you into 50% win rate. It’s so contradictory it baffles me.
How is it contradictory? It’s literally how every competitive multiplayer game ever does it.
im wondering if what you see is just a time delay. does your character eventually have the correct animation after a while? how long does this last for?
It lasts for 6-7 seconds. Some animations remain stuck for this duration (such as pistol skills) while others function properly (like grenade skills).
I really like it. It looks simple and functional.
Actually the ranks are based on w/l of the first 10 matches.
No, only your initial placement is.
We have indicators now for deaths, dmg, kills, heals and so on..
Why we cant make it that way?
Would be the best Thing in my opinion.
Because it’s hard to implement in a way that makes it an actual reflection of skill, and it’s also way easier to game the system.
All I’m hearing from you is “We AP hoarders are like crony capitalists, we only care about things WE can achieve as long as WE can achieve them. If we can’t achieve it then NO ONE ELSE CAN! MUHAHAHAH!!”
Spot on.
But then again, it matters not if PvPers get AP or if they don’t get AP. The titles and whatever other rewards are enough.
True enough, it’s such a small amount that it barely matters if it’s there or not, but now I want it to stay there out of principle.
I like it. It reminds me a bit of Overwatch.
Are people actually legit complaining about this? Hooooo-leeehhh kitten. I knew there was going to be whining with the new season (when isn’t there?) but this seriously takes the cake. I don’t even see why this should be a discussion; let PvP:ers have their meager AP, I’m sure you’ll live.
Expect nothing and receive less.
These changes are useless and will do nothing to increase the viability of rifle in PvP. Overcharged Shot still CC:s yourself (and is prone to getting reflected) and Jump Shot can still be interrupted mid-air; until those two see some changes rifle will remain far below hammer.
I’m just lol at your assumptions about PVP. I don’t pretend that people use the classes that are most effective for them; that’s what winners do. It’s the losers that complain about inbalance.
I see, you’re resorting to ad hominems now. Well, I can’t say I’m surprised, considering your tone throughout has been thinly veiled condescension, and I guess there’s nothing left to say here (except that I got to legendary division the last three seasons. Not that it means anything, but I wouldn’t classify it as “losing” either).
Until I see your stupid kitten rear its ugly head in another thread—bye.
Sure, but you don’t seem to want to comprehend the fact that perfect balance between classes isn’t what makes this business money.
Again, I don’t give a kitten.
Anet could hire a whole bunch of devs and set them to the task … and then what? GW2 would have 10 million players because they have awesomely balanced classes? I mean, the assumption that excellent class balance is some significant driving factor to player retention and acquisition is borderline absurd.
Nice straw man you’ve got there. I never claimed it helps with acquisition, but I definitely believe it helps with retention; the only thing more important than balance in WvW and PvP is the core gameplay, and if the balance is bad, the core gameplay is bad.
No one bought this game under the premise that balance was perfect, or even good. They bought it based on the features the game promoted, the theme, etc…
No, you’re quite right, but some of us did buy HoT on the premise that elite specializations would be horizontal progression and not power creep, and see how that turned out.
Also, I’d argue that people assume a decent balancing effort is part of the package when they buy a game without it having to be explicitly promoted.
You keep mentioning it’s important for PVP. But in fact, it’s not as important as you would like everyone to believe because as a competitive element of the game, the players in it will take the classes they are most successful with, even if they aren’t balanced perfectly. They want to win. Case in point; the existence of stacked Rev teams.
I can only assume you don’t play much PvP if you can pretend that skipping from one broken class to the next is a substitute for proper balancing. Sure, some people do it just because they like to win, but I don’t believe for a second that people actually think it’s fun or healthy for the game.
You can be tired of that fact all you want
I’m tired of the argument because it’s used to justify and rationalize away any fault, inadequacy and culpability on ArenaNet’s part.
this isn’t a charity and those devs aren’t working for free. It’s a business decision to put them on balancing efforts vs. other things
You’re right, it’s not a charity; it’s a product we paid for, and as such we’re not in any way obliged to consider the business side; that’s ArenaNet’s job. Obviously it’s a business decision, and obviously they don’t deem it worthwhile (or else are incompetent), but that’s hardly a reason for us to stop voicing our opinions; if I were to consider the business side I’d say it’s short-sighted and foolish to focus only on things that will yield a measurable short-term gain whilst largely ignoring one of the very fundaments of the game.
and that has a greater business impact than you seem to be able to comprehend.
I’m sure you have great insights into ArenaNet as a company.
If you think it’s realistic for devs to balance their games, then you have to ask yourself why so many MMO’s don’t do it to the degree players desire.
Then you can also ask yourself why so many MMOs are failing and why e-sports games, which place a premium on balance, are so popular.
So again … you can either be realistic in your view to how MMO’s work … or be like you, the bitter player that decides that all can and should be done, regardless of actual restrictions and constraints … and if it’s not done, you simply dismiss it as lazy, stupid or incompetent game devs that don’t deliver. /shrug
No, I can either express my opinion as a paying costumer and “business” be kitten ed, or I can be like you, the apologist who justifies every issue the game has with “it’s a bad business decision”.
Might as well post this here too, doubt anything will come of it, but whatever. Bomb kit animation has been bugged forever (on charr at least); sometimes (oftentimes) it gets stuck as if still holding the bomb kit when you switch away from it.
I think so to, but I think we all have to be realistic in how much effort that would require without really delivering much to the game.
I’m frankly getting tired of this argument; it’s not the consumer’s job to be “understanding” and “realistic”, all the consumer has to do is judge the final product. Besides, I hardly think it “unrealistic” for developers to balance their kittening game beyond three to four limp efforts yearly.
Even if you take the simplest measure; DPS, then it’s quite a complex task to purposefully develop an alternate combination of traits/stats/weaponskills/etc…. that isn’t just a variation on the current meta, but is close to it in damage …
Of course it’s complex, no one has disputed that; it’s probably why they’re so god awful at it.
Maybe it’s not obvious to you but that’s a lot of work and frankly, the end result is that no one really cares all that much because Anet stopped doing something else in the game to deliver these additional meta builds.
What you mean is, no one cares except raiders, PvP:ers and WvW:ers (because that’s where balance actually matters).
It’s not practical and it’s not realistic because alternate builds, whether they are equivalent or not, don’t really score high on the content meter.
On the contrary, balance is everything in PvP-focused game modes; way more important than content.
This appeals to such a small proportion of the community.
Yeah, I wonder how that portion of the community got so small in the first place…
So, I’ve been having this issue for ages and yet I’ve never seen mention of it anywhere. Often, whenever I switch away from bomb kit, the animation will get stuck so that it looks like my character is holding an invisible bomb. This happens extremely frequently, almost more often than not it feels like. The character is a charr, in case it happens to be specific to that race.
I’m curious, is anyone else getting this, and if so, how come it’s never talked about anywhere? Have people just gotten used to it or what? It’s seriously starting to wear on me and makes the profession feel unpolished.
There is only one answer, and that answer is charr.
You do not -need- HoT for PVP. You don’t. Honestly, go tell a pro or someone that is good in PVP that they could not beat you without their elite specs. They would proceed to laugh in your face, take off their elite spec, and then kick you to Foefire and back.
Really, that’s your argument? “The people who are best at PvP in the game could beat you without an elite spec, so it must be fine”? By that logic, raids should be like 5x harder because some guilds can low-man certain bosses.
Yes, there is a power creep, but it doesn’t matter to those who are generally naturals in PVP.
So… it doesn’t matter for the top 10%? Well guess we can just ignore the issue then. All is clearly well.
Rifle knockdown is an issue? They give themselves a butt ton of stability to by pass the stability completely.
Please enlighten me, because I can think of only two sources: Toss Elixir B and the Juggernaut trait coupled with a Flamethrower. Yeah, that’s a “butt ton” alright, one skill and a niche trait.
Oh, I see, you meant the stability spam from Perfectly Weighted and Final Salvo in the Scrapper trait line, those traits that kitten out stability every time you dodge and every time you summon a gyro? You mean that very power creep that according to you “doesn’t matter”? So basically your “solution” to rifle knockback is only possible if you’ve got HoT. But power creep isn’t an issue. K.
Oh the damage of rifle is too low? They can stack vulnerability through explosives where the damage now matters in a matter of seconds.
You can just as easily stack vulnerability with another weapon, and it’ll do more damage than a rifle with stacked vulnerability, so what’s your point? For that matter, hammer has a way easier time stacking vulnerability because three in five skills apply it, whereas rifle only has one skill that applies vulnerability. Also it matters even less in raids, because vulnerability will be maxed out constantly anyway.
After seeing many marauder rifles take down power hammer players, I can say rifle has just as much of a place.
Lol, you’re like that senator in the US who said global warming was false because there was snow outside.
It’s the fact that their popularity as sunk immensely since the new specs came out. That’s all.
Gee, I wonder why.
(edited by Pakkazull.6894)
Here, I’ll elaborate. Let’s disregard the fact that rifle deals subpar damage and instead look at its (according to you) strength: crowd control.
Additionally, I think Obtena’s placement of Engi Rifle is fair. Compared to Engi’s other weapons (there aren’t many), Rifle is the premier ranged cc weapon which also happens to have some decent physical damage.
Rifle has two CC skills: a 1,200 range immobilize and a 600 range knockback.
From a PvP perspective, both of these skills can be reflected, which in the case of Overcharged Shot potentially means you get knockbacked twice (and believe me, it’s not hard considering the abundance of projectile reflection going on since HoT).
Compare this to hammer which not only has twice the range on its Thunderclap skill, it’s also an AoE stun, not to mention that it can’t be reflected and doesn’t CC the user. Additionally, it’s a lightning field that can be used by the scrapper and/or allies to provide even more CC in the form of daze. Literally the only upside of rifle is that it has shorter cooldowns on the CC skills, and this comes at the cost of aforementioned downsides.
Now, let’s look at it from a PvE perspective (as in, raids or fractals), which means break bars. First off, the break bar damage provided by rifle is higher than hammer: 432 vs 300, but the thing is; it’s barely needed. Engineer already has excellent hard and soft CC no matter which competitive build it uses, through stuff like Explosive Powder, Air Blast, Big Ol’ Bomb and various blinds and chills. Break bars are usually not an issue anyway, and no group would willingly sacrifice DPS for a miniscule increase in breaking power.
Do you see how it’s hard to make a case for rifle as the “premier” CC weapon? The fact that it is ranged barely factors in, because one of the CC skills is on a 600 range, and engineer needs to be close to deal damage anyway.
(edited by Pakkazull.6894)
My entire point is that Rifle isn’t useless despite the rhetoric. It certainly isn’t me that’s having confusion.
I must say, you did an exceedingly bad job defending that point considering you managed to ignore my entire argument on the limited use of our “premier ranged CC” weapon.
Especially with High Fractals and Raids, they’re built around expectations of performing near optimally, which means the choice between using Hammer or Rifle could indeed cause drastic changes, and not just to yourself.
It’s true, performance does matter in raids and (borderline) in high fractals, and the point is rifle does not perform well enough to be relevant in either for anyone who wants to be even close to optimal, nor is it competitive in PvP or WvW.
Additionally, I think Obtena’s placement of Engi Rifle is fair. Compared to Engi’s other weapons (there aren’t many), Rifle is the premier ranged cc weapon which also happens to have some decent physical damage.
It has literally 2 CC skills, one of which has a range of 600 and also knocks the user down. Considering engineer needs to be at medium to close range anyway (to effectively deal damage), I’d rather take a hammer if CC were my primary concern (hell, the hammer stun even has twice the range of the rifle knockback!)
Kits aren’t weapons, but if you want to include them, then you aren’t taking Mortar or Grenade kit for their utility
I’m not 100% sure what you’re saying exactly, but the only reason to take mortar kit is utility (certainly no one is going to take it for its damage, unless you count Orbital Strike). Also, grenades provide excellent utility in the form of blinds, chills and poison.
and you aren’t taking Elixir Gun or (often) Flamethrower for its Power damage.
Except both of those are standard for power builds due to Flame Blast and Acid Bomb… (edit: at least they used to be, seems it might no longer be the case)
Similarly with Flamethrower, now that I’ve mentioned it, you take FT for specific things, but not for others. Compared to other kits and weapons, FT will do certain things that no other kit or weapon will.
No one is arguing that every weapon should be identical, or that each weapon should excel in every field; it’s just that some weapons excel in nothing currently.
I mean, if we truly wanted everything to be equal for everyone then we should be looking into giving thieves a healing role because they certainly don’t have the tools for it.
You seem to have trouble distinguishing between two things:
1) a weapon is genuinely mediocre and gets outperformed in every situation by other things
2) a weapon is kitten in some (maybe many) cases, but has some specific applications where it excels
(edited by Pakkazull.6894)
I have a recommendation for you. It’s not going to help you with the angry, but it’s really good advice for MMO’s in general.
I’m not angry, I’m bitter.
If you don’t like some of the choices you have, don’t use them. Play the choices you like, then you don’t have to worry or care about all the completely imcompetent game devs ruining everything for you, and then you will be happy …
Please don’t presume to tell me how to play.
I see you’re not going to address my arguments and instead offer condescending “advice”. Have a good day.
Rifle is a utility weapon. It’s great for supporting conditions and breaking bars
I’m sorry, “great” for conditions and breakbars?
It’s also the longest range option as an equippable weapon, which has purpose.
Yeah, a “long range weapon” with a super weak auto-attack and more than half of its skills only usable below range 800.
Actually, I know because Anet isn’t a charity organization, hiring tons of devs to chase the meta and balance skills all the time without regard for cost and profits. Balance as you see it … costs money and it’s poorly spent money
I see how it is. You call me out for making unsubstantiated claims and then you turn around and do the exact same thing, because you “know”.
NOT every weapon needs to be ‘on par’.
Oh, they don’t have to be on par in every area, but they should at least excel in one. Engineer rifle is currently way below any other engineer weapon in any situation.
I know some people have a hard time nowadays with the concept of being given choices and make responsible decisions, but that’s why it’s there.
Except it’s not a choice if one of the options is so far below par that it isn’t even considered. There’s a reason engineers have been running healing turret since the dawn of time; because all the other options are useless. Actually balancing stuff would make for more actual choices.
We’ve already talked about why it’s unlikely to be incompetence
Well, more like you’ve talked about it and I’ve debunked your bovine feces, but you chose to ignore my arguments because they were too difficult to address I guess.