Guild Wars 2

Kolwin.4950:

Aeonblade.8709:

Kolwin.4950:

Aeonblade.8709:

Kolwin.4950:

I don’t think so. A Warrior with a staff… doesn’t make much sense

How does a warrior with a staff make any less sense than a Ranger with a greatsword, or a Guardian with a scepter, or an Elementalist with 2 daggers…

why cant a ranger use a greatsword? are they kittened or something?? and a Guardian and Ele have powers… those weapons have special powers. a warrior has no powers so what would he do? just beat someone to death with it? seriously

That would be the general idea, yes. If you are going to give an example of something that doesn’t make sense there are more weapons that classes already have that don’t make sense rather than ones they should have that would make sense.

I wasn’t aware d/d was a “magic” combination. Seems like they would be used for…well…stabbing.

never played dark souls? or terraria? or any of the 100’s of games that use magic daggers? and you could say the same for the staff.. think it’s be used for fire wood

2 =/= 100, and no I haven’t played Dark Souls and have never even heard of whatever Terarria is.

Just wanna pop in and say DB will definitely need a bit more NA players to compete with T3 coverage. Our other time zones are pretty spot on, but with our NA coverage we are usually outnumbered heavily.

DarcShriek.5829:

OmaiGodman.2098:

Kolwin.4950:

I don’t think so. A Warrior with a staff… doesn’t make much sense

You never watched Ninja Turtles?

A staff could be a great weapon. It would do less damage per hit, but if they make it a very fast weapon that could, for example, knock opponents over or daze them, it could be very effective.

Because Ninja Turtles is so realistic.

About as realistic as Guild Wars 2. What with holographic wing attachments, instantaneous transportation that takes money out of your pocket, bandits you just killed coming back 30 seconds later, and people shooting rainbow unicorns out of their bow.

Don’t like the champ train? Don’t do it. Problem solved for everyone. Everyone gets what they want. Forcing your views on others is ridiculous. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but other players should never be punished for not sharing the same opinion.

Kolwin.4950:

Aeonblade.8709:

Kolwin.4950:

I don’t think so. A Warrior with a staff… doesn’t make much sense

How does a warrior with a staff make any less sense than a Ranger with a greatsword, or a Guardian with a scepter, or an Elementalist with 2 daggers…

why cant a ranger use a greatsword? are they kittened or something?? and a Guardian and Ele have powers… those weapons have special powers. a warrior has no powers so what would he do? just beat someone to death with it? seriously

That would be the general idea, yes. If you are going to give an example of something that doesn’t make sense there are more weapons that classes already have that don’t make sense rather than ones they should have that would make sense.

I wasn’t aware d/d was a “magic only” combination. Seems like they would be used for…well…stabbing.

Edited for clarity.

Kolwin.4950:

I don’t think so. A Warrior with a staff… doesn’t make much sense

How does a warrior with a staff make any less sense than a Ranger with a greatsword, or a Guardian with a scepter, or an Elementalist with 2 daggers…

Would love to see a card game over any of the current mini games in the game or planned to be in the game personally. Love Legends of Norrath in EQ, and Tetra Master from FF9 gave me hours upon hours of enjoyment.

Rezzet.3614:

Sirendor.1394:

Rebound.3409:

U no like? U NO BUY!

Such hard…much decision..wow

Come on lol. That’s all you have? It’s the same thing we hear in Living Story: don’t like it > don’t play it. Thing is, why have it in the first place if 70% of players don’t want it to be there at all and get good content instead. All the time that went to creating this “Pickaxe” would have been better spent making something like a new armour skin or something to do with expansions (new maps/races/classes/skills).

except in this case the 70% playerbase actually wants the darn thing so yeah

Um. 70% of people think it’s a BAD addition, not a good one. /facepalm. Please at least read the poll results or the thread before you just spew random nonsense in the future, it will save us all some time. Thanks!

If you are referring to 70% of the player base wanting Living Story…I just don’t even know what to tell you. Wow.

Over 120 ranks across 3 characters. 0 Ascended chests. Fix reward disparity Anet, this is absolutely terrible. I have gotten 1 Exotic, and maybe 5-8 Rares. To contrast, If I played PvE, I would be getting 10+ Rares every. Single. Day. Not to mention a couple of Exotics a week.

insaneseagull.7063:

We want capes

A thousand times yes. So tired of seeing all these people standing in LA with their ridiculous looking wings thinking it looks good when it gives me a fit of the giggles with how bad it functions. We need a real back slot item for once.

Cloaks/ Capes should of been in at release. Please listen!

Or at least give us the option to hide others back slot items so we don’t have to deal with immersion breaking ridiculousness. This would fix people whining about clipping issues, which makes no sense anyway because half the gear in the game already has clipping issues.

No, I do not like the pick, and this about what I expected the results to be. When 70% of the voters in this poll say it’s a P2W item, it may be time to backtrack. You should be removing the P2W elements in the game, not adding more every update.

Here’s an idea, let’s add armor skins and weapon skins instead of arguably P2W crafting garbage?

IndigoSundown.5419:

Aeonblade.8709:

Laurelinde.4395:

Confirmation bias is confirmation bias. Getting reeeeally tired of it.

I’m confused, what does this have to do with this thread? Pardon my ignorance in advance.

As applied to the subject of the thread, confirmation bias would mean that people perceive rangers as causing the problem because they are predisposed to blame issues on rangers. If one expects something to be the cause, it’s pretty easy to find “evidence” that that is so, and to ignore evidence to the contrary.

I know what confirmation bias is, I just don’t see how it applies to this thread. Regardless of what people think, Ranger is a broken class right now. Plain and simple. Every measurable metric in game reflects this. I would love for Ranger to be viable again, as indicated in my signature, nothing would make me happier class wise honestly. That being said, all you do is cripple yourself by playing one right now when nearly every other class does the same job except better.

Yamiga.7863:

Subdue.5479:

@Yamiga:

The number one reason most people don’t care about the leaderboard is because the vast majority of players have no access to it. Plain and simple. My suggestions make it accessible and allow for awards to be attached to it, two things which currently are not possible.

That’s your opinion. Mine is that the number one reason most people don’t care about the leaderboard is because they think that “competing” about who spends the most time farming dailies is silly and absolutely not fun.
I obviously can’t prove I’m right (and neither can you), but it is what can be infered from the various posts of last december’s daily-related threads.

This. Anyone who thinks achievements are “competitive” in a game based around who plays the most and does the daily every day is kinda silly to me personally. The fact that dailies add AP to begin with kill any kind of competitive sense that would come from AP leaderboards, if there was any competition beyond time played to begin with.

Sorry to burst any bubbles, just my 2c, everyone has their own opinion on this.

Well this thread fell apart quickly. 3 Pages in and personal attacks everywhere. I don’t think there is any hope for CDI’s at this rate if we can’t even do this one right.

1. I think there should probably be a limit on the amount of words in the posts.

2. I also think the topics should be decided by community vote rather than Anet telling us we should think is important

Thanks for your time!

Darkobra.6439:

Start your own party and it fills quickly. If these people think achievement points matter, they’re bad at the game. Steer clear of them.

+1. Anyone who uses the crutch of acheesement points to measure skill is someone you don’t want to deal with anyway.

GuzziHero.2467:

Good call. Very suspicious behaviour for certain, and a positive sign that gold farmers are having a hard time.

Or a sign that everyday players are having a hard time making gold and the gold farmers / TP Barons have hardly been affected.

Either way, the 200AP makes it seem fishy, but since there was no actual scam done here, I’d say just file it under something to watch out for/ use your common sense. OP was smart enough to realize what was going on before the scam took place. Kudos!

“stealth assault on roleplaying”

Stuff like this is why you will not get an official response. Playing the victim gets you no where. This is a beautiful vibrant world, and if a small fraction of one corner of city determines your enjoyment of the game, I don’t think you liked RPG’s to begin with.

Just my 2coppers, I do feel for your loss of guild though, it’s never easy to say goodbye to a good guild and group of friends.

Laurelinde.4395:

Confirmation bias is confirmation bias. Getting reeeeally tired of it.

I’m confused, what does this have to do with this thread? Pardon my ignorance in advance.

Thaddeus.4891:

Stack on duration that would be a good idea. BTW nourishment of 10min are really low levels, most have 30min, 45min or 1 hour.

But if you’re talking about stack several kind of nourishment at the same time, this is a terrible idea. You can stack two kind of nourishment at the same time : Oil and Food. If you could stack different kind of Food at the same time, you could create overpower build.

I think he is referring to stacking the same food rather than multiples. Otherwise, yes it would be quite broken hehe.

Ayrilana.1396:

Aeonblade.8709:

Ayrilana.1396:

Aeonblade.8709:

Ayrilana.1396:

Some people either need to look up the definition for what pay to win is since this clearly is not. People are either misinformed or just trolling and using this as another opportunity to attack the game and/or Anet.

There is no concrete definition of P2W. It varies from person to person. This has been discussed to death on this forum, and P2W for one person is not P2W to another. Being hostile and accusing people of trolling for stating their opinion just makes you look silly and reinforces other’s points.

There is a clear definition. It’s any item that can be purchased with real money that is not available to players elsewhere that provides a distinct advantage over other players.

There is no definition for what every single person considers P2W because winning is different based off of each person. Please read the rest of the thread before posting in the future to save us all some time. Thanks!

I have been reading this thread since it was created. You can twist the definition however you like but you can’t change it. There is no way anything can be defined if its solely based on peoples opinions. That defeats the purpose of a definition. Just look at other games that are actually play to win.

There is a clear definition of play to win. People can misapply the definition based off games where the term originated. I highly suggest you read up on the history of that phrase.

No need to read up on it, opinions are opinions and there are people who feel both ways on this. I won’t be roped into this conversation again just because you feel the need to be right. As far as I’m concerned you are just as entitled to your opinion as I am, so be happy with that if you can.

Cool idea, gets a +1 for me. Would be nice to eat 4 or 5 at a time and not worry about refreshing every 30mins – 1hr in WvW!

Ayrilana.1396:

Aeonblade.8709:

Ayrilana.1396:

Some people either need to look up the definition for what pay to win is since this clearly is not. People are either misinformed or just trolling and using this as another opportunity to attack the game and/or Anet.

There is no concrete definition of P2W. It varies from person to person. This has been discussed to death on this forum, and P2W for one person is not P2W to another. Being hostile and accusing people of trolling for stating their opinion just makes you look silly and reinforces other’s points.

There is a clear definition. It’s any item that can be purchased with real money that is not available to players elsewhere that provides a distinct advantage over other players.

There is no definition for what every single person considers P2W because winning is different based off of each person. Please read the rest of the thread before posting in the future to save us all some time. Thanks!

brittitude.1983:

The argument seems to be that somehow buying this pick will create an undue advantage to the players that have it by allowing them to have a chance at getting something that is sellable on the TP that everyone completing the meta also has through the home instance mode, but at a rate so excessively high that it will create wealth disparity. Thus the extra wealth is now shown as pay to win because, of course, without excess gold, PvE is impossible to win…what?

What about the home nodes that are/were only available for those completing the meta? Those are okay because they provide limited supply items only because they were not a gem store buy?

Basically, this is providing players who won’t/can’t/missed the meta for the watchwork sprockets node another option to get them that isn’t based on the TP.

The only precedent, that I see, is allowing more supply on limited items to be available in the TP for current and future players. If this upsets flippers and speculators that like to hoard and depend on demand outpacing supply to make money, then I can only hope that this happens more often in the future. And maybe with past items too. Because yes, I would love it if the molten mining pick was converted to provide a random chance on azurite shards and orbs.

While I agree that pay to win is horrible, I do not think that this is setting or hinting at a precedence for a pay to win model. If this causes you to be worried, what about these items:
1. Magic find booster.
2. Wxp booster.
3. Karma booster.
4. Gathering booster.
5. Experience booster.
6. Black lion salvage kit.
7. Black lion chest keys.
8. Revive orb.

And yes, because there is a gold to gem conversion this should be an acceptable gem store offering.

The only problem with this statement is that the amount of time to gain gold in game has not increased with the inflation of gem to gold exchanges. It’s much more efficient to buy gems and convert them to gold now than at release, and gold generation through playing the game has not kept up with the pace of inflation.

The constant inflation, on top of lack of updates to in game gold/currency rewards, makes the game slowly creep further and further towards having to pay money to “win” , whatever your definition of win may be, as the majority of the game is centered around gold at the moment in time.

TChalla.7146:

Nodo.6907:

While I won’t comment on whether or not I think this is P2W, do people really feel entitled to a refund for their previous purchases and if so why?

I bought a TV one time that was HD and large…now they have new ones that are thinner with a better picture for cheaper than what I paid originally for my TV in the past but I don’t feel entitled for a refund or an updated TV. I bought the original iPhone for $400 bucks but then soon after they released a new version for $200 and it had 3g and more features so should I be entitled for a full refund or an upgraded version for free?

Using the examples, why do so many people feel they deserve a refund or an update to their existing pick? Please no trolling or flaming, I am just curious on the communities thought on that.

There is no difference between your example and what is going on with the picks. I’d love to see the look on a Best Buy employee’s face if someone went into the store and demanded that their TV be upgraded because a newer one came out a month after they bought it.

A month, no, but 15 days and they would have to by the law of the state I live in

This is just a statement for giggles mostly, I do not actually believe anyone is entitled to a refund of course :p

styx.7294:

Aeonblade.8709:

I’m starting to think ANet actually believes if they can force feed us terrible LS content that somehow we’ll develop some type of Stockholm syndrome.

Force fed? What kind of rhetoric is that? You have to go out of your way to even kill these mobs. They’re located in very low traffic areas (dunno about Eternal Battleground but in the borderlands… like how often do you find yourself on the cliff west of Hills?).

I mean, the alternative would have been for those areas to be empty. Instead they’re not empty but we can treat them like empty and it doesn’t change a thing. I’m not saying this is the best idea of it’s fixing anything but Living Story in WvW isn’t going to kill it. Living Story in WvW isn’t what’s wrong with WvW (it’s just a meh). We gotta fight the fights that matter.

A strong point worth considering. Thanks for the alternate view and opinion friend.

I’m starting to think ANet actually believes if they can force feed us terrible LS content that somehow we’ll develop some type of Stockholm syndrome.

Also, the reason WvW players don’t spend as much the Gem store is….Because they do not put anything in there for WvW players! Shocker!

Cactus.2710:

Aeonblade.8709:

Go to work for 8 hours and spend the money of one work day on gems. Convert it to gold and be rich in a few days. Otherwise, this game will grind you into the ground over several months trying to make money with the rate of inflation vs lack of improved rewards over time.

I couldn’t have said it better.

And it’s obvious that this is how ANet wants it to be. GW2 isn’t P2P, but it certainly is P/2G (my attempt at “pay not to grind”)

I like it. I’ll be using P/2G in the future

VOLKON.1290:

Aeonblade.8709:

VOLKON.1290:

Aeonblade.8709:

And that once again, is your opinion on an absolute definition. Just because you do not see how someone could view something differently does not mean it cannot be viewed differently. There is no actual definition of P2W because an actual definition of P2W assumes everyone considers winning to be the exact same thing.

You misunderstand. I see how people can view things differently. I can also see how those different views can be used out of the valid context, such as in this case here with the P2W argument.

You need to wipe out the original definition of what pay to win actually is in order for your argument to be able to gain any traction here. That’s pretty much the classic definition of a straw man argument.

I’m going to let this one go. The conversation has degenerated to the point of the overused straw man argument when no logical counter point could be reached to my own, which is not applicable here, and we have moved into the realm of off topic for this thread. I agree to disagree, as have several other people in this thread. One day you may realize the world is not all black and white, but shades of gray.

There is no valid counter point when there’s no valid point in the first place. You’re choosing to change the definition of “win”, and by default the definition of “pay to win” in order to give your argument the appearance of being valid. I agree the straw man argument is overused, however I’m not the one using it.

You are entitled to your own set of opinions, I’ll admit that readily. However you are not entitled to your own facts.

No one changed any facts because no facts were established at any point, just your opinion on what you think is a fact, which to counter that you could say I did the same thing. So that means they were both opinions to begin with as no facts were established. Ok, I’m done really this time before we derail this thread any further haha.

VOLKON.1290:

Aeonblade.8709:

And that once again, is your opinion on an absolute definition. Just because you do not see how someone could view something differently does not mean it cannot be viewed differently. There is no actual definition of P2W because an actual definition of P2W assumes everyone considers winning to be the exact same thing.

You misunderstand. I see how people can view things differently. I can also see how those different views can be used out of the valid context, such as in this case here with the P2W argument.

You need to wipe out the original definition of what pay to win actually is in order for your argument to be able to gain any traction here. That’s pretty much the classic definition of a straw man argument.

I’m going to let this one go. The conversation has degenerated to the point of the overused straw man argument when no logical counter point could be reached to my own, which is not applicable here, and we have moved into the realm of off topic for this thread. I agree to disagree, as have several other people in this thread. One day you may realize the world is not all black and white, but shades of gray.

VOLKON.1290:

Aeonblade.8709:

VOLKON.1290:

Aeonblade.8709:

VOLKON.1290:

Aeonblade.8709:

Ayrilana.1396:

Some people either need to look up the definition for what pay to win is since this clearly is not. People are either misinformed or just trolling and using this as another opportunity to attack the game and/or Anet.

There is no concrete definition of P2W. It varies from person to person. This has been discussed to death on this forum, and P2W for one person is not P2W to another. Being hostile and accusing people of trolling for stating their opinion just makes you look silly and reinforces other’s points.

I disagree. There is the “official” description of “pay to win”, which directly involves paying cash for an advantage, usually in PvP, that cannot be obtained without making the cash purchase and there’s the watered-down version people tend to use to stir up emotions due to the stigma associated with the actual definition. I abhor pay to win. If ANet were to introduce actual pay to win items that gave people unobtainable advantages in WvW unless I pay myself, then they’ll flat out lose me and I’m one of the bigger fanboys out there.

This is not pay to win.

And that is your opinion, and I can respect that, even if we do not agree.

This isn’t opinion. This is based solely on fact, from past experience bumping into actual pay to win games. One little space PvP game, I forget the name, you could go so far in without paying but in order to compete you actually had to purchase special ammo and ships that were significantly better than anything you could earn in the game itself. It was, by the very definition of the word, pay to win. You don’t pay, you can’t win, period.

It’s a lot like the use of the word “theory”. There’s the scientific definition, such as used in the ‘Theory of Evolution’, and the layman definition which equates basically to a guess. A scientific theory is practically as good as it gets, yet you’ll sometimes hear people attack evolution as being ‘only a theory’. They’re using the wrong definition in the wrong context to stir an emotional reaction, just like people using ‘pay to win’ here are. It’s no different.

The entire problem with what you are saying is everyone’s definition of “winning” is different. I’m sorry that you can’t understand that winning in my eyes is different from what would be winning to you. Winning is not black and white, but a very gray area that differs from person to person.

Once again, everyone’s definition of P2W will be different, because different people base winning on different objectives for themselves. I can’t explain it in any other way, and I understand P2W has a mostly PvP connotation to you, but others find winning in unique skins, PvE bonuses, Shortcuts to legendaries using real money, etc.

Therein lies the rub. “Everyone’s definition is different” as you say. There’s one actual definition, like I stated. People are applying wrong (out of context) definitions where they don’t apply. Saying (for example) that ‘evolution is only a theory’ doesn’t make it true just because your definition differs from the scientific one.

“My definition is different” is not a valid excuse to use the term out of context.

And that once again, is your opinion on the absolute definition. Just because you do not see how someone could view something differently does not mean it cannot be viewed differently. There is no actual definition of P2W because an actual definition of P2W assumes everyone considers winning to be the exact same thing.

VOLKON.1290:

Aeonblade.8709:

VOLKON.1290:

Aeonblade.8709:

Ayrilana.1396:

Some people either need to look up the definition for what pay to win is since this clearly is not. People are either misinformed or just trolling and using this as another opportunity to attack the game and/or Anet.

There is no concrete definition of P2W. It varies from person to person. This has been discussed to death on this forum, and P2W for one person is not P2W to another. Being hostile and accusing people of trolling for stating their opinion just makes you look silly and reinforces other’s points.

I disagree. There is the “official” description of “pay to win”, which directly involves paying cash for an advantage, usually in PvP, that cannot be obtained without making the cash purchase and there’s the watered-down version people tend to use to stir up emotions due to the stigma associated with the actual definition. I abhor pay to win. If ANet were to introduce actual pay to win items that gave people unobtainable advantages in WvW unless I pay myself, then they’ll flat out lose me and I’m one of the bigger fanboys out there.

This is not pay to win.

And that is your opinion, and I can respect that, even if we do not agree.

This isn’t opinion. This is based solely on fact, from past experience bumping into actual pay to win games. One little space PvP game, I forget the name, you could go so far in without paying but in order to compete you actually had to purchase special ammo and ships that were significantly better than anything you could earn in the game itself. It was, by the very definition of the word, pay to win. You don’t pay, you can’t win, period.

It’s a lot like the use of the word “theory”. There’s the scientific definition, such as used in the ‘Theory of Evolution’, and the layman definition which equates basically to a guess. A scientific theory is practically as good as it gets, yet you’ll sometimes hear people attack evolution as being ‘only a theory’. They’re using the wrong definition in the wrong context to stir an emotional reaction, just like people using ‘pay to win’ here are. It’s no different.

The entire problem with what you are saying is everyone’s definition of “winning” is different. I’m sorry that you can’t understand that winning in my eyes is different from what would be winning to you. Winning is not black and white, but a very gray area that differs from person to person.

Once again, everyone’s definition of P2W will be different, because different people base winning on different objectives for themselves. I can’t explain it in any other way, and I understand P2W has a mostly PvP connotation to you, but others find winning in unique skins, PvE bonuses, Shortcuts to legendaries using real money, etc.

I play for both PPT and Bags. They go hand in hand.

VOLKON.1290:

Aeonblade.8709:

Ayrilana.1396:

Some people either need to look up the definition for what pay to win is since this clearly is not. People are either misinformed or just trolling and using this as another opportunity to attack the game and/or Anet.

There is no concrete definition of P2W. It varies from person to person. This has been discussed to death on this forum, and P2W for one person is not P2W to another. Being hostile and accusing people of trolling for stating their opinion just makes you look silly and reinforces other’s points.

I disagree. There is the “official” description of “pay to win”, which directly involves paying cash for an advantage, usually in PvP, that cannot be obtained without making the cash purchase and there’s the watered-down version people tend to use to stir up emotions due to the stigma associated with the actual definition. I abhor pay to win. If ANet were to introduce actual pay to win items that gave people unobtainable advantages in WvW unless I pay myself, then they’ll flat out lose me and I’m one of the bigger fanboys out there.

This is not pay to win.

And that is your opinion, and I can respect that, even if we do not agree.

Dynnen.6405

Its never hit more than 5. Maybe you hit virtue of resolve at the same time and you saw more than 5 targets being healed?

That is a good possibility. Like I said, I’ll look into it when I get off work and let you know what I find out. I’m not always right, and I have been known to make mistakes in my lifetime haha.

Ayrilana.1396:

Some people either need to look up the definition for what pay to win is since this clearly is not. People are either misinformed or just trolling and using this as another opportunity to attack the game and/or Anet.

There is no concrete definition of P2W. It varies from person to person. This has been discussed to death on this forum, and P2W for one person is not P2W to another. Being hostile and accusing people of trolling for stating their opinion just makes you look silly and reinforces other’s points.

Dynnen.6405:

Aeonblade.8709:

Dynnen.6405:

Aeonblade.8709:

Karolis.4261:

Aeonblade.8709:

I do not think they should remove zerg combat, but it would be nice if the AoE cap was removed and 10-15 had a chance against 20-25.

WvW was meant for large scale combat, and they already have stated they won’t be changing that. However, I would not be adverse to doubling the AoE cap from 5 to 10 to give superior players a chance against more numbers.

Zerg =/= blob. Gw2 doesn’t have issues with zerging, Gw2 has issues with blobing. In every other mmorpg i played, players were directly punished for stacking up. Take “Rift” conquest for example- total zerg fest: but players that were stacking up was getting totally wiped by groups that spread out in the field, circle them up and fry their blob with aoes till the y get nice and crispy and thats how it should be.

I agree with you. The thread topic said Remove Zergs, but I think blobbing is the bigger issue. DAoC made you strategically move around in a zerg, far enough apart to not be AoE bombed, but close enough together to keep large scale fights going. The AoE cap cripples WvW in this game, and promotes the blob mentality.

EDIT: To the poster above, several heal effects on Guardian effect the entire zerg, not just 5 people.

Name them please.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_guardian_skills

Read through them, several of the ones that heal an area, unless specified to a limit of 5 people, heal everyone in the target area. Not just 5 people in the target area.

Also, as it is not quite the same but I feel worth mentioning, some of the shouts that add the Regen boon affect everyone around you, not just 5 people as well.

I am aware however, that boons =/= straight healing, so take that as you may.

I am also aware that some of the abilities that DO only heal 5 allies do not state so, such as Empower in the staff skill set. However, there are others, such as heal area, that I have seen heal more than 5 people myself using the ability.

Virtues: 5 targets
Weapon skills: 5 targets
Symbols: 5 targets
Utilites: 5 targets

Which ones specifically were u referring to?

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Heal_Area

I already gave you an example with the Heal Area skill. It has been a long time since I have used it, so there is a chance I could be wrong on this at this point, as the GW2 Wiki is less than helpful with it’s skill descriptions. But I am fairly certain it does, or at least used to heal more than 5 targets in said area.

I’ll test out which abilities do and do not affect more than 5 targets tonight just to be sure, and I’ll get back to you. You might be right on this.

This is good news for people looking for more small scale battles away from siege and PPT coverage. Maybe this will stop the every day posting of people hating WvW because of the large scale siege battles it was meant for.

I myself am excited for both game modes, as this opens up options for different types of players, myself included!

Not too happy about the inclusion of the failed living story elements, but I think we are going to get that half content shoved down our throats regardless.

Go to work for 8 hours and spend the money of one work day on gems. Convert it to gold and be rich in a few days. Otherwise, this game will grind you into the ground over several months trying to make money with the rate of inflation vs lack of improved rewards over time.

Anathem.5760:

So you think 1-2 random sprockets are P2W? Really? OMG, people, you are so….

Please, re read the thread. No one is up in arms about sprockets, it’s about what CAN happen in the future now that this is a reality.

Not only that, who is to say in 10 months sprockets won’t be worth a small fortune?

Dynnen.6405:

Aeonblade.8709:

Karolis.4261:

Aeonblade.8709:

I do not think they should remove zerg combat, but it would be nice if the AoE cap was removed and 10-15 had a chance against 20-25.

WvW was meant for large scale combat, and they already have stated they won’t be changing that. However, I would not be adverse to doubling the AoE cap from 5 to 10 to give superior players a chance against more numbers.

Zerg =/= blob. Gw2 doesn’t have issues with zerging, Gw2 has issues with blobing. In every other mmorpg i played, players were directly punished for stacking up. Take “Rift” conquest for example- total zerg fest: but players that were stacking up was getting totally wiped by groups that spread out in the field, circle them up and fry their blob with aoes till the y get nice and crispy and thats how it should be.

I agree with you. The thread topic said Remove Zergs, but I think blobbing is the bigger issue. DAoC made you strategically move around in a zerg, far enough apart to not be AoE bombed, but close enough together to keep large scale fights going. The AoE cap cripples WvW in this game, and promotes the blob mentality.

EDIT: To the poster above, several heal effects on Guardian effect the entire zerg, not just 5 people.

Name them please.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_guardian_skills

Read through them, several of the ones that heal an area, unless specified to a limit of 5 people, heal everyone in the target area. Not just 5 people in the target area.

Also, as it is not quite the same but I feel worth mentioning, some of the shouts that add the Regen boon affect everyone around you, not just 5 people as well.

I am aware however, that boons =/= straight healing, so take that as you may.

I am also aware that some of the abilities that DO only heal 5 allies do not state so, such as Empower in the staff skill set. However, there are others, such as heal area, that I have seen heal more than 5 people myself using the ability.

Neural.1824:

Vol.7601:

If Anet came out with a redesigned molten pick that had a 20% chance of Azurite Crystal (3 s worth now), I’m sure people would be up in arms.

Again, this isn’t about sprockets, it’s about the extra items you get themselves, and the lack of alternative picks that give you the same chance.

I’m pretty sure that Anet is betting on the forum being a ‘small minority" that they can ignore with their P2W scheme. People need to get the word out to their guilds and get non-forum players to speak up as well. Sadly it is likely that Anet has already calculated that risk and found they can get away with it, otherwise it wouldn’t have been implemented.

Remember, the Devs have said that this year they are going to change GW2 forever in a way that the players did not expect. :/

That statement does seem all the more ominous now that this has happened. All we can do is give our opinions and hope for the best.

Karolis.4261:

Aeonblade.8709:

I do not think they should remove zerg combat, but it would be nice if the AoE cap was removed and 10-15 had a chance against 20-25.

WvW was meant for large scale combat, and they already have stated they won’t be changing that. However, I would not be adverse to doubling the AoE cap from 5 to 10 to give superior players a chance against more numbers.

Zerg =/= blob. Gw2 doesn’t have issues with zerging, Gw2 has issues with blobing. In every other mmorpg i played, players were directly punished for stacking up. Take “Rift” conquest for example- total zerg fest: but players that were stacking up was getting totally wiped by groups that spread out in the field, circle them up and fry their blob with aoes till the y get nice and crispy and thats how it should be.

I agree with you. The thread topic said Remove Zergs, but I think blobbing is the bigger issue. DAoC made you strategically move around in a zerg, far enough apart to not be AoE bombed, but close enough together to keep large scale fights going. The AoE cap cripples WvW in this game, and promotes the blob mentality.

EDIT: To the poster above, several heal effects on Guardian effect the entire zerg, not just 5 people.

Neural.1824:

Welcome to the world of pay-to-win.

This game had so much potential, but they had to destroy it for a dollar :/

In Anet’s defense, all they are doing is what NC$oft tells them to do, and NC$oft is in full on panic mode I would imagine at the releases coming out in 2014/2015 and the lack of enthusiasm for another WoW clone (Wildstar).

evilsnowmad.6309:

Hi guys,

I have a idee. i play this game now like a few months and i miss a good thing ingame like mounts. My idee was to do it in GW2 style and i love mount combat to that will be awsome like horses and riding bears and big birds and you maybe can buy faster mounts of course at the gem shop that is of course mounts are account bound on every character you can use them. do you like the idee plz say yes to it because it the best for the game gems are need to buy to help the game be alife and you can get free mount at lvl 11 to a bit more fast travel and my idee was to at lvl 40 get a bit faster mount and lvl 80 fastest mount and gem mount are faster then lvl 80 mounts do you like the idee now plz vote yes in a new reaction on this topic you will help the game grow with it.

the best wishes to my peaple in my guild and al the other how wil like this idee.
from every server i want to help this aprove and want to help it grow and sell copys of course

evilsnowmad / ingame de zwarte jager

Mounts are unnecessary with the waypoint/swiftness system currently in game. All it would do is be another grind and money sink, and I’m not willing to endorse that in an already grind heavy game.

Also, the game is already inundated with P2W feature creep, as exposed by the new mining pick in the gem store now. All adding Gem mounts faster than other mounts would do is accelerate this. This entire idea makes me sick. Sorry OP.

Rather than being mad at other player’s for pointing out the uselessness of the ranger class, point it out to Anet as there is far more likelihood of something being done about it.

Getting mad at the truth does nothing, work towards changing the truth.

I have been warning people quite a while now about the P2W state of the game and the shift towards a more P2W model for several months now. This just reinforces that precedent imo.

I really hope I’m wrong, but I have had a hunch this was inevitable for quite some time.

I do not think they should remove zerg combat, but it would be nice if the AoE cap was removed and 10-15 had a chance against 20-25.

WvW was meant for large scale combat, and they already have stated they won’t be changing that. However, I would not be adverse to doubling the AoE cap from 5 to 10 to give superior players a chance against more numbers.

Three Likes:

Large group siege warfare
Competitive and strategic PvP environment (not instanced arena garb)
The opportunity to grow as a player and have server pride

Three dislikes:

People who try to force duels and small group PvP on others who prefer WvW for what it was meant to be.
Lackluster reward structure. Really terrible.
5 Target AoE cap ( this is crippling the ability for superior players to beat superior numbers)

lukeNIN.2901:

Since this new living story started once marionette is up and someone dies and no one breaks the chains, why is it that somehow everyone is being called a noob, maybe there are noobs that don’t know what they are doing and need help, but, when someone with 2k AP calls a 15k AP person a noob, it just gets me really angry, who made them god of the game, i could one day go into a dungeon with someone with 10k AP and they keep dying (i myself having 4,515 AP) i would not start calling them names etc. just because they dont know a path, I for one would like people to stop being arrogant and start helping other instead of slagging them off all the time.

Rant over…….

Thanks for Listening

People are mean, and AP means nothing. Don’t worry about it.