Showing Posts For Szin.1250:
Just tried this on Tarnished Coast. Same problem. His HP gets down to almost-empty, and then he resets to full health again.
Adding my name to the list of people requesting the restoration of this very useful feature.
I enjoyed viewing pieces linked by other players in chat, linking some interesting drop myself, and checking how some heart vendor piece looked so I could decide whether it might look good on one of my alts.
I sincerely hope you find a way to bring this back again. If the only reason for its removal was that there were occasional display issues, I would far rather put up with those than the inconveniences that the new restriction puts in place.
Add my name to the list of players who are immensely unhappy about this change and the implication, clear from Lindsey’s post, that it’s only the first increase in gear stats.
I bought the game in part to get away from the very idea of “progression”. With every increase in stats, all new content will be balanced with the new stats in mind, and will be harder to play without the higher-stat gear. Eventually as stats creep up, new content will be impossible without the new gear; the stat creep will be mandatory for anyone who wants to play the whole game.
I am aghast that ArenaNet could cater to the people who wanted to change the game into something that so many of us thought, with eager encouragement from ArenaNet, was going to be fundamentally different in so many ways.
I am seriously questioning whether I will continue playing this game in the long term. Please, please, ArenaNet, reconsider. Make the new stat ceiling applicable only in the dungeon for which you say it’s intended. Keep the old one everywhere else, from now into perpetuity. Don’t betray the trust we put in you.
(edited by Szin.1250)
This happened to me last night, too, with mining iron ore. I submitted an in-game bug report with a screenshot. Restarting the game seems to have fixed it.
As of this afternoon, this camp is still occupied by bandits. About a dozen players were trying to clear it, unsuccessfully; the bandit spawns and respawns scaled to match the number of players. What’s odd is that one of the NPCs was just standing there, and has some dialogue about good hunting in the area. He was the only one not being attacked by the bandits. The others — including at least one vendor — kept getting killed, rezzed by players, and killed again.
If it’s designed not to be retaken, I’m baffled why there’s a vendor and a waypoint here (especially one not marked as being contested) in the first place, unless the game designers have an unusually cruel sense of humor.
The first four letters of the name of that country are used as an ethnic slur in some English-speaking countries. I would imagine that’s what the censor snagged on.
Ranger’s aren’t supposed to be true marksman/bowman neither in my conception nor in the “original” concept (I take it Tolkien’s is the original, I have searched far and wide and have not found any mention of rangers predating his works).
You need to search farther and wider, then. Tolkien isn’t even close to being the original, although his conception of rangers has heavily influenced modern fantasy and gaming.
“Ranger”, according to the OED, goes back in English to at least 1455. It has quite a wide range of definitions there, with scads of quotations across the centuries before Tolkien. About half of the definitions do include some reference to managing wildlife and/or livestock.
In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s in England, the term could be a mildly derogatory term roughly equivalent to “vagabond”. It had less to do with any fighting style than with the fact that they “ranged”, i.e., wandered about. My own take is that Tolkien was thinking of this term when he called Aragorn and his companions “rangers”, given the way the rest of the humans in Middle-Earth seemed to look down on them at first. Since the term has lost its derogatory force in today’s English, that nuance of the book is lost on most readers.
But really, that is all irrelevant. “Thief” in GW2 is not really much like “thief” the way non-gamers use the word. Neither is “Guardian” or “Engineer”. “Necromancer”, prior to D&D, meant “a medium who speaks to the dead to divine the future”, which bears only a distant resemblance to what it means in gaming.
“Ranger”, as ArenaNet uses the term, apparently includes having a pet as its core mechanic. It’s all well and good to request that they change that core mechanic (although my own preference would be for them not to), but appeals to outside sources should carry no weight in the discussion.
Gay man IRL here. I can think of exactly three same-sex relationships I’ve come across — the “beloved” couple in the Sylvari story that the OP mentions, Caithe and Faolain (which is understated and could even be missed if you weren’t paying attention), and a random male NPC in the Grove who talks about how he started to notice restlessness on the part of an unknown male person (who presumably was his lover, but could as easily have been a best friend or even a pet).
Three. And only the first is unequivocal and obvious.
My complaint is that there aren’t nearly enough same-sex relationships to make the world believable.
As others have pointed out, I think your problem (and it is your problem, not the game’s) is that you notice the same-sex relationships because you do, in fact, have a problem with homosexual people, despite your insistence to the contrary.
“I don’t feel like I should be punished for disliking one aspect of the class while enjoying everything else.”
It isn’t “one aspect”. It’s the core mechanic. It’s like a Guardian wanting more survivability for not using virtues, or an elementalist who wants a buff for never switching attunements, or a thief who wants to trade initiative for cooldowns.
Pets are more than damage. They are CC and support and an additional target for mobs. They affect most of your signets and traits.
You and a number of others here seem to think it’s just as easy as adding a permanent stow and increasing damage by 20%, but balancing professions involves a lot more than that. The devs would have to experiment with such a fundamental change and make sure that the ranger was not now overpowered or underpowered relative to other classes in both PvE and PvP. There would be a lot of dev time and effort required that would detract from all the other work that needs to be done. It’s not as simple as “Give us 20% extra damage in exchange for a pet.”
In the words of Michael Flynn, “No field of knowledge is so transparently simple as another’s.”
I think the lesser damage might be because your pet is making up the difference. You can’t really judge the ranger’s weapon abilities without taking the pet into account.
Here’s my biggest advice: the player’s everyday experience with the game is paramount – far more important than the global game economy will ever be.
The global game economy affects the player’s everyday experience, too, though. So if the DR is in place to help protect the game economy, they are trying to protect the player’s experience. I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, but it’s simplistic to think that the player’s experience will be unaffected if the game economy goes south.