Guild Wars 2

Specific Game Mode
PvE/WvW

Proposal Overview
Potential Longbow Skill Changes (non-overhaul)

Goal of Proposal
Longbow is an underwhelming weapon. I am offering some non-overhaul skill tweaks, since I believe that the basic design mechanics of the longbow are sound, unique, and engaging.

Proposal Functionality

s1- Long Range Shot: Increase projectile speed to allow more reliable hits against enemies, as this is a targeted skill and very easy to walk out of the way of at > 1200 range. Doesn’t need to be undodge-able, just more reliable. Also, eliminate the scaled damage by distance, the DPS should be a flat consistent damage amount regardless of range.

s2- Rapid Fire: Decrease channel time by 1 second while maintaining the damage output. This would make the skill a bit more of a burst of damage, as well as maintaining a higher concentration of vulnerability. (Low cooldown and still comparatively long channel time to damage still allows this to be considered “sustained damage”)

s3-Hunter’s Shot: add Apply Revealed on target on hit. This would allow Rangers to more effectively counter stealth.

s4- Point Blank Shot: Leave it be – good skill as is.

s5- Barrage: Slightly increase damage amount per arrow, and add a 3-sec retaliation. In essence, LB 5 becomes the ranged version of Axe 5.

Associated Risks
None

PS: Some of these suggestions are mine, but most of it is basically a slight alteration of Ltomato’s earlier suggestion. Thank’s Ltomato.

AEFA.9035:

Yeah, did you see that 3cc (or 4 forgot the number) proposal component on LB? Its ridiculous, what some of these players posts just to tweak Rangers and make them desirable. Agree with your posts as well, now, Barrage. I made a proposal about this and I believe 3 more Rangers somewhere in this forum, this for me is the most underused skill in LB kitten nal as of now IMO.

Should change:
1. Reduce cast time
2. Increase damage coefficient per arrows hit
3. Improve accuracy of arrows to make sure they hit and do damage. (IMO can be done by reducing arrows shot to 6 instead of 12, compensate by increasing damage for arrow see 2)
4. Most importantly allow Ranger to move while channeling skill. Reduce movement speed by 50% to compensate if needed.

I agree with most of your LB5 suggestions, but not the move while channeling one. I know that’s a popular idea, but IMO it’s a bit much IF the cast time is lowered and damage is increased as you propose. Instead of your number 4 suggestion I would go with a 3-sec retaliation added, so LB5 becomes the ranged version of Axe 5.

AEFA.9035:

Ltomato.8649:

Specific Game Mode
PvE

Proposal Overview
Potential Longbow Skill Changes (non-overhaul)

Goal of Proposal
Many players feel that the Longbow is an underwhelming weapon. I am offering some non-overhaul skill tweaks, since I (as someone who has put waaaay too much time into longbow ranger) believe that the basic design mechanics of the longbow are sound, unique, and engaging.

Proposal Functionality
s1- Long Range Shot: Increase projectile speed to allow more reliable hits against enemies, as this is a targeted skill and very easy to walk out of the way of at > 1200 range. Doesn’t need to be undodge-able, just more reliable.
: Alternatively- Decrease channel time. The skill would feel more reactive and less “clunky”.

s2- Rapid Fire: Decrease channel time by 1 second while maintaining the damage output. This would make the skill a bit more of a burst of damage, as well as maintaining a higher concentration of vulnerability. (Low cooldown and still comparatively long channel time to damage still allows this to be considered “sustained damage”)

s3-Hunter’s Shot: In addition to current functionality, add 1/2 second of evade on use. This would give the skill more of a use of an escape, providing a better feeling of reactionary dodging.
: Alternatively- In addition to current functionality, add Apply Revealed on target on hit. This would allow Rangers to effectively counter stealth.

s4- Point Blank Shot: Unblockable/Unreflectable. Makes this skill more of a failsafe, and actually effective against enemies that are looming in upon the ranger that may be reflecting projectiles or have some sort of block. Cooldown could be increased to 15 seconds to counteract a very powerful skill.
:Alternatively- Increase base range to 1200. Makes a little less sense since it’s no longer “point-blank”, but maintains the range as other longbow attacks, making it less clunky to use.

s5- Barrage: Buff into more of a projectile storm than an AoE, ala Ice Bow’s skill 4. This would increase damage and enemies affected, which seems fitting for its long cooldown and rooted channel.
:Alternatively- Allow movement while channeling. Evens out the risk/reward balance for using the skill.
:Alternatively- Immobilizes enemies hit by the first barrage or entering the AoE for 1 second. Makes the skill more useful even if the entire channel isn’t launched.

Associated Risks
The skill additions I’m suggesting are very strong. The Longbow is currently still underestimated, and too much tweaking could easily push it over the edge. Just two or three of these suggested skill additions would improve longbow ranger quality of life greatly.

All of them might be a bit much, but very, very fun.

These would also impact PvP and WvW, especially s3 alternative and my suggestions for s5.

I like this guy. Most of these Rangers posts under the impression that the class is just pure useless when they post in CDI. Been reading your post, good stuff. Though LB 4 CD increased to compensate I dont agree on, this is our only gap increaser in game. If LB auto is changed sure. Was thinking ANet should lower CD from this skill actually. I love point blank, using this after your auto animation is just too good plus the the knock back. I do agree this should be on a 1200 range though. Good stuff

I like this guy too.

Ltomato’s proposed changes are far simpler and direct than most of the “re-invent the wheel” suggestions regarding LB. And btw, to me, the whole, “more damage the farther you are concept” is IMO nuts.

LB 1 does not need (or should have) an added CC component, but rather, and as suggested, a slightly faster reliable-consistent-and flat damage component. Also, the much maligned LB 2 is actually near perfect – it does not need to be re-invented, the problem is the channel time and CD. I also like Ltomato’s LB 3 alternate suggestion of, “In addition to current functionality, add Apply Revealed on target on hit.” The only suggestion I did not like was LB5 – personally I would love to see it have a 3-sec retaliation added so it becomes the ranged version of Axe 5.

Great suggestions Ltomato, +1

Op, you made some good points. But to be fair, you have to look and see how many folks posted over and over.

For example, early on in that CDI one particular poster spam commented over and over again with what amounted to no more than, “pets sux, pets sux, we need more dps, we need more dps”. He would make ridiculous assertions about the pet is 100% useless, it hurts more than it helps, it dies from a breeze ect … (yes pets need work, but obviously exaggerated negative claims repeated endlessly are not constructive suggestions, but are no more than a forum temper-tantrum). Then somewhere inside his endless tantrums he actually made a semi-plausible suggestion, and Allie made the mistake of actually quoting him. Oh God, then he really never shut up … it became impossible to post any pet suggestion that was not “perma-stow, and give me 30% more dps” without his trolling you that your suggestion was garbage, and the ONLY solution to Ranger is a no-pet option with lots and lots of MORE DPS, MORE DPS.

It was obvious by his posts that what this player wanted was an ultra high-damage long ranged sniper style WvW toon, and everyone else be kitten ed. And there were a few others like this as well, jumping in with exaggerated claims of Ranger being “completely useless”, “totally 100% broken” and so forth. As a result, a CDI created to help a class profession that is in fact in need of some Dev attention and mechanics tweaks, ends up flooded with dooms-day melodramatic nonsense.

So don’t let the 39 pages of “suggestions” fool ya, because a good half of that was spam posting by a small group of people with a singular agenda.

Prysin.8542:

and i will counter your “brilliant” counter with a simple fact;
The wast wast wast majority of all players in GW2 resides in the section most commonly known as “Player versus Enviroment”. These are the folks that buy perma harvest tools, gems, skins, fun items, swap gems for gold. These are the folks paying for YOUR game. Because whatever me and you invest in this game, our part does not even come close to what PvE players provide.

HOWEVER, GW2 was designed to take the casual player into consideration. This is why PvE balance is fairly lax. The PvP aspect of the game was intended to be a esport, however it seems they have gone back on this endeavor for now. Yet, PvP is supposed to be a “Fair combat mode”. Therefore the game is, as unfortunate as it is, balanced with PvP in mind. This is because PvP is similar to WvW, just smaller and more fast paced, yet there is extreme differences.

The unfortunate bit about the game being balanced from a PvP perspective, or rather 5 man “performance” group, perspective, is that certain skills which should have been split, is not. The reason is that they are fine in PvP, irrelevant or completely useless in PvE and a pain in the kitten to the players in WvW, but WvW is neglected either way.

So while spirits are OP in PvP, they are at the very same time barely viable in PvE and somewhat functioning but very self limiting in WvW. So if their nerfed for the sake of PvP, they will be broken in WvW and PvE.

Same with healing signet for warriors. While it is OP in most game modes, it is easy to counter in PvP, and not very hard to counter in WvW, but completely brokenly OP in PvE. So once again, rebalancing for one mode will make the others suffer.

The reason skills are not split is simple; each time a skill it split, it will take up more physical disk space on OUR end, require more code work on the devs end. Balance complaints will be more and more confusing as players usually cry over PvP/WvW matters and if these two are split from PvE but the fact not properly being made clear, then players Q-Q about horribly OP mechanics which is not horribly OP in PvE too.
Why? because this is what forum warriors do. They Q-Q when they can, if they can.

So because the game itself is not sustained by PvP in any way at all, it is unfair and quite unreasonable that 5 man group performance in PvP is the deciding factor, however, it is what it is.

Again, this is a MMO with a PvP “addition”. It is NOT a PvP game with a PvE addition.

Prysin, excellent post. +1

Allie Murdock.8152:

Hey everyone,

Before things get out of hand, I want to address the aspect idea so we can move on. First of all, it’s a great idea, but there are many current issues with the profession that need to be addressed first. Our priorities to make the pet a more viable option will likely remain higher than giving an option to “permastow” the pet.

We recognize there are a number of issues with the pet AI and general functionality, so that is something that will come first. Rangers are first and foremost a pet class, but they are also great skirmishers and some of the best sustained long range damage.

I don’t want you to think we’re going to ignore the idea or the feedback around the pet, but it could very well be the case that fixing some of the major nagging issues with the pet would make it a more desirable aspect of the Ranger.

That said, if you would like to consider discussing the aspect idea, I ask that you start a thread outside of the CDI to brainstorm.

Thanks so much for all the great, constructive feedback everyone! Let’s keep it coming!

Allie, Bravo!

And thank you, thank you.

Bran.7425:

Ision.3207:

Bran.7425:

I think they are trying to green line removing the pet in lieu of that aspect idea.
Basically test the waters with the stow and a few patches later…pets gone. Though that would be trading time spent on reworking the AI on pet to time redesigning most of the trait lines, the signets, the shouts and so on. Kind of scary that that might just be less work.

Perhaps, but I don’t think so.

Because despite the forum outrage, the Ranger is still one of the top most popular and played classes. And trust me, among those thousands and thousands of Ranger players, the overwhelming vast majority rolled a Ranger specifically in order to have a strong aggro-ing pet. I doubt they will risk alienating all those folks just because me and a few hundred WvWers are razing cain in the forums.

Won’t be your WvWer’s that get that change through it will be the esport crowd, as they can’t get spirit destroyed they might settle for the pet.
We were not told how they came across those number, (characters created, hours played, dart on a dartboard) so the popularity is debatable, and with so many adverse changes/fixes (balanced or otherwise) there still will be rangers that stick with it. I could counter the ‘aggro-ing pet’ appeal with archer-fanboys, the flavor of sword, animations, the list goes on.

Like I said, perhaps you are right.

But it’s not just the esport guys (although you are correct, they are a factor), as the zerg-ball WvWers also shout loudly about not wanting a pet. As to popularity, well we don’t have the metrics, and I will admit that antidotal evidence is the most specious of any form of evidence; but according to my eyes, there are a whole heaping ton of Rangers, compared to say, Necros, Engi’s or Mesmers. All that said, I would be surprised if they “evolve” the GW2 Ranger class in a totally non-pet centric direction. But hey, ya never know! ;-)

Regardless, we will certainly soon find out.

Bran.7425:

I think they are trying to green line removing the pet in lieu of that aspect idea.
Basically test the waters with the stow and a few patches later…pets gone. Though that would be trading time spent on reworking the AI on pet to time redesigning most of the trait lines, the signets, the shouts and so on. Kind of scary that that might just be less work.

Perhaps, but I don’t think so.

Because despite the forum outrage, the Ranger is still one of the top most popular and played classes. And trust me, among those thousands and thousands of Ranger players, the overwhelming vast majority rolled a Ranger specifically in order to have a strong aggro-ing pet. I doubt they will risk alienating all those folks just because me and a few hundred WvWers are razing cain in the forums.

Allie, while I have no problem with you folks considering implementing a perma-stowed petless Ranger option, I am however somewhat concerned in the general direction the CDI has now taken. By that I mean, that it now appears to be the central focus of this CDI, as opposed to suggestions that would help the core Ranger mechanic of our current Pet abilities.

Primarily the 3 most outstanding issues being:
1. Providing our current pets a mechanic to help mitigate AOE damage in Dungeons/Fractels and WvW (such as the suggestion for an innate pet mitigation of X% to AOE damage in dungeons and wvw).
2. Adjusting the pet mechanics to allow for a greater ability to hit moving targets.
and
3. Improving pet command (F2) responsiveness.

While it’s fine to explore many avenues, I hope you guys do not lose sight of these 3 core issues. Because for those less interested in a “pet-less” Ranger option, these issues are very important, and the “pet-less” option does not really address them at all, but rather, it merely provides an “opt-out” to having actual Pets. And if in fact Anet decides to go down the route of a strong pet-less Ranger option, while not addressing the original core pet mechanics, then the class will have evolved in a direction that few players desired when they originally chose to roll the Ranger class.

I’ve little doubt that there are many options on he table that you folks could take to address these 3 core issues (some of those suggestions have already been made in this thread) that do NOT require a complete AI overhaul or profession redesign. Pet-less Ranger option – sure, explore away – but please don’t forget that portion of the player-base that wants to roll WITH their actual pets, and not just an “aspect/aura” of them.

Thank you.

Prysin.8542:

Sorry, but let me correct you in some areas;

Resilient =/= being able to stand in one spot and facetank every single point of damage coming at you.

Ranger has Medium armor, Medium HP and a metric ton of evades. Timing, insight of enemy attacks, Resilience is simply the ability to hang on even in a very tough time, and rangers certainly have that ability without the shadow of a doubt.

Rangers does indeed have poor condition management, and little can be done with that as is. However we can manage it somehow, at the expense of our own performance.

Ranger’s CC ability is without the shadow of a doubt, much greater then most other professions. We have easy access to immobilize, chill, cripple, knockdown, knockback, stun/daze and fear. Not only can we apply these conditions, but we can do this with surprising ease. CC is one of the few things rangers never have been bad at, yet the circumstances of how we apply this CC could be better under some circumstances.

Single Target sustained damage is indeed without any competition the best. Thieves have much stronger single target burst, warriors too have strong single target burst, but their sustained damage is nowhere near the ranger.

The ranger are indeed in need of a lot of QoL improvements along with several rebalances, and minor fixes. In scandinavian language (or rather danish/norwegian) we got a saying; Mange bekker små blir én stor å.
Translating this you get; Many small streams become one large river.
This is probably the best description of the ranger profession. There is no need for massive overturns, however a large number of small fixes collaborate to create a huge mess which plague the profession.

Prysin, excellent post.

+1

xallever.1874:

Zatoichi.1049:

So its been about 24 hours at at this point, 7 pages of proposals, and very little response (pratically none) to said proposals from devs. I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly?) that devs would be active proponents in the advancement of the discussion in this forum. So far what im mostly seeing is people posting their own ideas and ignoring/bypassing the ideas of others. We honestly need some sort of moderation in here, motivation if you will, on the part of the devs, to move this thread in a direction of discussion, other wise by tommorow well be 20 pages in, floating in a sea of lost and forgotten proposals. Are the ideas good so far? are they way off base? What aspects of the proposals so far are peaking your intrest? More dev involvment please from here on out please.

This. +1

Otherwise, CDI or not…

They say you should never judge a person too harshly until you’ve walked a mile their shoes.

I think Allie has her hands full in just trying to juggle, organize and edit these “walls-of-text” suggestions of ours. This CDI has been up just a little over a day, so perhaps we can be a bit more patient.

lushy.5310:

I am really surprised with 90% of these posts. They show that most players just do not know how to play a ranger. Since…
- Pets are Rangers, Rangers are Pets. Take another profession if you do not like to control 2 things (the pet and the ranger) at the same time.
- Pets do not die if you play well (not in Wurrm, Teq or any fractals 50)
- Ranger+Pet do an amazing direct dps in PVE [note: I am full berserker, full ascended, full infused (with +5p and +5 T in armour) SSS ranger (sword, spotter, spirit)]
Please, do not make rangers as easy to play as other professions.

Lushy – c’mon man, be reasonable.

Okay, while it’s obvious that some of the “pets are terrible and useless” comments are nothing more than overstated hyperbole in order to buttress arguments, the same is true in reverse. The “pets are fine, L2P” argument is equally as ridiculous.

Somewhere between the goofy claims that pets die from a breeze and actually hurt more than they help, and the equally false claims that pets are great, just add a “save pet name option” is all they need … somewhere between those 2 extremes lies the truth.

True, there are people here that actually believe that if they describe Ranger issues in the most dire manner that Anet is going to do a 100% overhaul of the Ranger so that they can play the massive ranged damage “pet-less ranger” they would prefer – but it’s just not going to happen. Because there is no way Anet is going to redesign the 3rd most popular class into something that is so far removed from what a massive amount of the Ranger player-base had in mind when they chose to roll a Ranger, that they would alienate them all to please a vocal minority of forum posters. Not to mention the time and resources needed in order to “re-invent the wheel” so-to-speak.

On the other hand, Lushy, we are NOT imagining things .. there is a pet F2 responsiveness issue, there does exist an issue from pets being too vulnerable to AOE in dungeons and WvW zergs, and there is an issue with pets being able to effectively hit moving targets … these are real issues, and not some imaginary stories made up by people that need to “L2P”.

Allie, when it comes to suggestions advocating a separate “pet dodge” mechanic, please keep in mind that often it’s difficult enough to know exactly when you need to dodge in order to avoid some damage; with a pet dodge you’d be required to not only keep track of your own position, but also your pet’s exact position. On top of that, you are also trying to see your pet amongst all of the particle effects and spell graphics surrounding bosses, seeing red circles on the floor which may be behind the boss since that’s where your pet is, camera angles etc and the list goes on and on. In addition you’d also have to hit your own dodge key as well as an additional F key or any other key bind you have.

Basically, a separate pet dodge mechanic would be of little to no use for the overwhelming majority of the Ranger player base, and most especially useless during particle-effect heavy Dungeon boss encounters and large scale open-world events.

Given this, I believe the best approach to pet survival from AOE is the often suggested pets have an innate 50% mitigation to all AOE attacks.

Allie Murdock.8152:quote

Removing the pet was something that was discussed in initial design of the class, but it is such an integral part of the Ranger’s design and philosophy.

There might be some ways that we can redesign the pet and it’s AI, but those are big projects. For the time being, we are happy to take any suggestions regarding the pet.

Thanks for clearing this up Allie.

And yes, the pet is very much integral to the Ranger design philosophy. What’s more, it is integral to why a huge number of people rolled Ranger in the first place; so despite the desires of a dozen or so forum regulars, any excessive diminishment of its role would have a very negative impact on the Ranger player base as a whole.

Race change? — NO .. no no no …

You don’t need it (according to me), so NO, you can’t have it …
I can’t afford to buy gems, and I’m dripping with envy of those that can, so NO, you can’t have it …
I know it has absolutely nothing to do with me and is 100% none of my business, but still, NO …
Although I am not a video game developer, I will pretend that I know for a fact that the coding and work required to implement it is too difficult, and say NO …
I don’t like the idea, and what I like and don’t like should be enough, so, NO, you can’t have it …
Personally I would never change my own race, so because of that, you should not have the option to, so NO …
I will ask you why you went 80 levels before figuring out that your current race was not for you; although I really don’t care what your reasons are, and just want to ridicule your reasons and say NO you should not have that option …
Also, there are other threads about this, so that should be enough for me to say NO …
While I’m as lazy as the day is long myself, I will call you lazy and claim that you need to “work” for it, so NO …
Although saying, “don’t be lazy, just roll another toon and level the race you would prefer”, is presumptuous of me and rude, I’ll say it anyway, and follow up with yet another, NO you can’t have that option …

And last but not least, even though I don’t want to change my own race, so this thread should be of no importance to me whatsoever, I will pop into your thread anyway, just so I can say, NO …

;-)

evilapprentice.6379:

Thank you for inching us 1 skill closer to the “Every single skill/ability/trait associated with thief is OP” singularity. I’ve got it on good authority that once every single thing related to thief has been called OP on the boards, the class will be deleted. You’re going to have a tough time with Vital shot and Hard to Catch though.

ROFL – funny as all heck … thanks!

+1

Nat.4029:

I’d rather have a Race Change than a Class Change, but both would be nice. They talk about all the complications with the personal story if you were to change races, but screw the personal story. If you change your race, just reset the personal story, and if we want to do it again we can. (at no XP or Item gain) If we don’t want to bother with it, then we don’t have to. The personal story is pretty insignificant in the long run anyway. I’ve wasted too much money over the years on these types of services. I name/alliance/race changed way too many times in WoW.

NO .. no no no …

You don’t need it (according to me), so NO, you can’t have it …
I can’t afford to buy gems, and I’m dripping with envy of those that can, so NO, you can’t have it …
I know it has absolutely nothing to do with me and is 100% none of my business, but still, NO …
Although I am not a video game developer, I will pretend that I know for a fact that the coding and work required to implement it is too difficult, and say NO …
I don’t like the idea, and what I like and don’t like should be enough, so, NO, you can’t have it …
Personally I would never change my own class, so because of that, you should not have the option to, so NO …
I will ask you why you went 80 levels before figuring out that your curent race/class was not for you; although I really don’t care what your reasons are, and just want to say NO you should not have that option …
Also, there are other threads about this, so that should be enough for me to say NO …
While I’m as lazy as the day is long myself, I will call you lazy and claim that you need to “work” for it, so NO …
Although saying, “don’t be lazy, just roll another toon and level the race/class you would prefer”, is presumptuous of me and rude, I’ll say it anyway, and follow up with yet another, NO you can’t have that option …

And last but not least, even though I don’t want to change my own race/class, so this thread should be of no importance to me whatsoever, I will pop into your thread anyway, just to say, NO …

;-)

TChalla.7146:

I have never worried about gear in an MMORPG. At the end of the day, I still suck at the game. With ascended gear, I’d still suck.

ROFL – now that was priceless!

Congratz on the funny as hell self-deprecating humor.

Astralporing.1957:

Because they panicked when the locust started to leave the game. Of course, the locust left anyway – ascended was nowhere close to keep that crowd interested. So, in the end Anet might have retained a tiny fraction of the community the game wasn’t intended for, by introducing content that was at the same time poisonous to a part of the original target group, and useless for the rest.
They also fractured the community, with severe consequences that can be seen even now.

I’ve quite often read people post here that the reason Anet ran with Ascended gear was because of the loud outcry of people wanting it, and because of the loss of players. This is a perfectly legitimate argument, and perhaps it is in fact the case.

Personally, I’ve always felt it was for the exact opposite reason. I’ve always suspected that what actually happened was that the game exceeded even their expectations with pre-orders and initial sales. And once having got that core group firmly within their hands (the money), someone in the top level hierarchy decided to go after the WoW teenagers as well, thus forcing the Devs towards vertical progression. In other words, someone got greedy.

So the Devs had to drag out their “always intended” ascended gear, except I suspect they added a stat progression to that “always intended” gear that was not there originally. Of course a backlash was expected, but I believe they felt it would blow over relatively quickly. But even if it did not blow over quickly, and some of the original buyers storm off, no big deal – because that money is already had, and the newly added players would generate even more revenue.

Of course this is all just pure speculation on my part, and nothing more than that. Truth is, we will never really know for sure, as Anet, and Anet alone has the metrics for the game for those mere 2 months after release.

Hex.6371:

I started playing Guild Wars 2 shortly before its release date. I bought my Digital Deluxe package and eagerly waited to log on, before being presented with a new interface that was foreign to me but elegantly designed and captivating as I was greeted and casually merged with players everywhere. I don’t know what made me lose interest so fast, and I remember enjoying my time with it but… I put it down, and now I want to pick it right back up.

The trouble is, I’ve been out of the loop. Overlooking people passing in and out of the game with their subtle opinions, but I’ve always heard the same thing.
“It was fun when it was first released, but <patch> ruined it and I couldn’t keep playing.” But now as I stare, once again updating my game as I prepare to give it another go, I wonder what actually was wrong with it, and I suppose there’s no better place to ask that kind of thing than at the source.

I assume most people reading this would be playing the game, would have been playing it for some time and have a view which is relatively strong in terms of the depth and integrity of its mechanics. I guess I need to just ask a question, with the background of my experience set in place…

What was so good about Guild Wars 2 when it first launched in comparison to now, why does everyone seem to be sour towards its updated content, and do I have a reason to be excited about sitting down and getting back into it?

I think it has more to do with the fact that more and more reverse-trolls use these forums because they never tire of showering contempt on the forum community as a whole. The amount of contemptuous trolling has most likely not really increased, but it may seem like it due to nearly every thread having one of these finger-wagging “self-appointed” forum moderators posting nonsense in them.

Whoa now, let’s not simply use the word “hardcore” as if it had only one singular meaning.

So let’s put many of these so-called “hardcores” in their proper category – they are hardcore “grinders”, not hardcore competitive players. A hardcore grinder is all about loot (gold), unique gear (posing) and having a stat advantage over others (an edge). While a hardcore competitive player is all about combat skill, efficiency (min-maxing), and despises stat advantages because he wants a level-playing field (or as close as you can get to it). The former type of “hardcore” is primarily only a measure of time spent in-game doing easy repetitive tasks (like farming the easiest path of the fastest dungeon or WvW 4 on 1 ganking), – while the latter purposefully seeks difficulty to test his skills.

Never confuse a hardcore grinder with a skilled competitive player – they are not one in the same.

silvermember.8941:

Arenanet made that game but within the first month realized that a lot more people actually wanted grind in their MMORPG because once they hit level cap, they had nothing to work on. the people they were trying to attract with the no grind, were not significant enough to sustain the game long term and to generate profit, so they did what any company that wants to stay in business do, they change and gave the people want they wanted. for example, a lot of gw1 players did not transition due to the changes in the combat system and click to move, others wanted gw1 but with updated graphics, the point being gw1 fans became insignificant to the success with gw2 adn once they realized that began cutting all threads relating to it except the b2p model. They also thought that dynamic event was going to be endgame, but people only seem to care about DE when there is some type of reward attached to it. The point being their design intentions did not match the reality of the market.

I’ve quite often read people post here that the reason Anet ran with Ascended gear was because of the loud outcry of people wanting it, and because of the loss of players. This is a perfectly legitimate argument, and perhaps it is in fact the case.

Personally, I’ve always felt it was for the exact opposite reason. I’ve always suspected that what actually happened was that the game exceeded even their expectations with initial sales; and having got that core group firmly within their hands (the money), they decided to go after the WoW teenagers as well. In other words, they got greedy.

So they dragged out the “always intended” ascended gear, except I suspect they added a stat progression to that “always intended” gear that was not there originally. Of course a backlash was expected, but I believe they felt it would blow over relatively quickly. But even if it did not blow over quickly, and some of the original buyers storm off, no big deal – because that money is already had, and the newly added players would generate even more revenue.

Of course this is all just pure speculation on my part, and nothing more than that. Truth is, we will never really know for sure, as Anet, and Anet alone has the metrics for the game for those mere 2 months after release.

I too would really like to see a return to the original running animation. It perfectly suited my young, feminine, slim and beautiful character.

Now I realize that a few prefer their ugly fatties with man-jaws; just don’t force your choices on me.

So at the very least they should give us the option to go back to the original running animation.

Fascinating thread, and the comments made by the majority of posters is fascinating as well. Just imagine the majority response to this topic a mere 12 months ago …

So my oh my, just look how the demographics of the Gw2 player base have changed since November of 2012!

Well done Anet; you pulled it off.

Interceptor.2653:

^ Mel’s and Lemongrass are a good answer to conditions if you are a profession that’s forced to stay in fights and tough it out. Thieves have our best condition removal in stealth, which is a disengage, and we also rely on having good damage to do work most of the time, so those runes/food sort of conflict with that goal.

Although you’ll see a Thief using Saffron-scented Poultry Soup on occasion, because it has really excellent synergy with Withdraw.

Thank you for the response, it was helpful.

I notice that many classes run Melandru Runes and Lemongrass/Poultry soup, but rarely see this set-up recommended for Thieves? Any specific reason(s)?

1. Ranger
2. Thief
3. Elementalist

I notice that many classes run Melandru Runes and Lemongrass/Poultry soup, but rarely see this set-up recommended for Thieves? Any specific reason(s)?

Razor.6392:

Something needs to be done. These 2 brainless strategies take the fun and any possibility of a challenge out of the game.

Quick explanation.

Stacking: Commonly done in PvE. The act of having your entire group or even your open world bunch stand in one place (preferably against terrain) during an entire encounter against enemy npcs.
Doing so makes it easy to abuse boon stacking, heals, combo fields and even evade some mechanics that would only be performed at range. It is not only boring and takes away the already minimal challenge that pve provides, it’s also anticlimactic and pathetic.

Fixes:
1. Make enemy npcs stack boons by default when they are at 150 range from each other or lower. (Might, Retaliation and Protection every 2 seconds)

2. In the case of isolated of bosses, give them potent point-blank aoe’s to ALL of them. I’m talking about 5k dps at the very least if you choose to stand in their pbaoe.

---

---

Zerging: A silly strategy consisting in literally putting dozens of people together with a common objective, reducing the risk of failure significantly while hiding any possible lack of individual skill for the most part. Because it’s no longer a bunch of players together, it’s an entity of its own instead, a button mashing FX-overload cluster where higher numbers usually win.

It’s not exclusive to WvW, people also do it in PvE. But I don’t think anything can be done in PvE unless Arenanet somehow develops the tech to have bosses only use certain devastating skills if a player threshold is reached, or to have its npcs damage switch on the fly as more players join up (no, adds barely help).

Anyway,

WvW fixes:

1. Add diminishing returns on structures and enemy server npcs if there are more than X players bunched up together.

2. Have an additional kind of Outmanned buff, available when you’re against ridiculous odds in a certain range. The buff would be proportional to the enemy:ally player ratio in the field nearby. (This buff would add bonus % damage reduction). It gets dispelled as soon as you leave the zone.

I know these ideas need work and are probably very primitive, but seriously something needs to be done. Change the way in which this game is played, right now people just abuse whats easiest (as it always has been) to get an edge on others and that’s okay, but these specific strats are just not fun. I’m sure some others playstyles would develop if these 2 were to be destroyed.

Razor, your heart is in the right place. And I agree with a great deal of your post. Whether your solutions are practical or not, I don’t know – but I like the spirit behind it.

However, here is where you went wrong, it’s when you said, "… while hiding any possible lack of individual skill for the most part. " That single line will always touch a nerve on some people, it shouldn’t, but it commonly does. I’m always astonished with the viscerally angry reaction some folks have to anyone who suggest “smarting up” the game, instead of “dumbing it down” … but that’s just the way it is.

So Razor, piece of advice, learn to make your suggestion posts directed solely to Anet and the Devs, and avoid fruitless debates with folks that are irritated that you had the gall to even suggest something in the first place.

Players complaining about other players who complain about trivial things in the forums.

Chewablesleeptablet.3185:

This is one thing Guild Wars 2 does right. If everyone is fighting the same enemy they all get their own chance at loot as if they were soloing it.

This gameplay mechanic is one of the sole reasons why I can’t play any other MMO out there. When I am out in the world I can help out other players or hit the same mobs and not anger that player. In other MMOs it feels very lonely in their PvE worlds even though you see people waiting around their “spot” to kill the same mob over and over again.

Great job on this decision Anet. Here comes a list of things you did wrong by other posts from haters.

Agreed.

This is an area that the Gw2 devs did very-very right, and have not back-tracked on. +1

Dark Catalyst.1028:

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Way too many problems with the Personal Story line. I think it’s the first 20 quests are race related. Somehow changing all that with a race change ticket would be a ton of work.

I’m not apologizing for Anet here, just being realistic.

Who cares about the personal story?

A lot of people do.

But this should in NO way whatsoever prohibit those who do not, to have a race change option.

The bottom line is, that it’s really absolutely none of anyones business how you spend your money, or whether you choose to have a race or gender change on your toon. Just as long as the options offered by Anet do not offer any statistical advantage in combat, no one should really be bothered by this option.

But you always have to account for the envy of those that can’t afford it, and the anger of those that take cartoon video games too seriously – so there will be backlash. And this is why whenever people ask for Anet to have an “option” that can be paid for, even if it has 100% totally no effect whatsoever on their own gameplay, you will still get the finger-wagging crowd yelling NO and calling you “lazy”. You just have to ignore them.

MithranArkanere.8957:

The main issue is the personal story.

It’s not prepared for a race change.

If they let you change race, you could play personal story again and get all the rewards again with a fully geared character.

Race change would only be possible if you had to replay all the story again at least until the parts that are not unique to race, but also forfeiting their rewards so you can’t get them twice.

Actually, no, not really.

They could create a standard “default” completed personal storyline for each race. And when you accept race change for your 1000 gems, you accept the standard default settings (with zero rewards) for the race chosen. Period, Done.

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Way too many problems with the Personal Story line. I think it’s the first 20 quests are race related. Somehow changing all that with a race change ticket would be a ton of work.

I’m not apologizing for Anet here, just being realistic.

Actually, no, not really.

They could create a standard “default” completed personal storyline for each race. And when you accept race change for your 1000 gems, you accept the standard default settings (with zero rewards) for the race chosen. Period, Done.

Below are a couple of future posts I would love to see, but doubt I ever will – lol

" For Christ sake, not ANOTHER Rangers are OP post! (facepalm)"

“These polls don’t mean anything. And what did you expect, of course Engineers are the most played class, because they’re totally easy-mode. Also, Warriors being in last place in popularity does not mean the class is broken; it’s just a very difficult and nuanced class that most people can’t handle. "

“Once again the new skins have a ton of clipping issues on my Human and Norn toons. I guess I should have rolled a Charr or Asura in order to have decent looking armor.”

IndigoSundown.5419:

[Why Transcended Gear is Bad for the Game!]

But it’s not bad for the game! Stop your QQing, you noob fail.

It’s only a measly 5% increase, and maybe 1% more from the Transcended Infusions. I have 2 Transcended Legendary Divine weapons from just playing the game normally with no grind or problem at all. It only took me 5 months, at10 hours a day, 7-days a week and 275 gold to get one piece of Transcended. So stop crying. Anet needs to please ALL of its customer base, including us WoW teenagers. Besides, us WoW teens are now the majority of players, so get with the program noob.

VOLKON.1290:

Primordius is too hard! Needs nerf!

Good one.

Hey Anet, you really need to look into un-banning Julio.6666.

He is NOT buying Gold.

He made that 67,000 gold legitimately by selling sprockets he mined with his new Watchwork pick.

Please look into this.

Expect to see the below post (and it’s variants) over and over again in the future:

OP, your comment is demonstrably false.

Just because YOU want that does not mean everyone does. I’m, having a great time in GW2, and I also think Anet has done the right thing in regards to “………” (basically, almost everything). When WoW first started I remember how terrible … When Rift was released it was a bugged filled … Your comparisons to Gw1 are all wrong, I spent 20,000 hours there, and never … so, although I have my criticisms of Gw2 , I think Anet has done a wonderful, superlative, and fantastic job.

You see I have a background in business (and teaching, and brain surgery, and nuclear physics), and learned about business decisions, like the good one Anet just made, after I sold my best-selling novel, cured cancer and won a Nobel peace prize. Since then I have taken up MMOs. So given my background you really should worship me like the GW2 “Guru” that I am.

As to your comment about me being an, “attention seeking nut job, that lives on the forums and has decided to make himself a self-appointed forum moderator”, I really don’t care. You’re not the audience that I write my posts for anyway.

Maybe GW2 just isn’t the right game for you.

Why do people keep suggesting ruining DT with ground-targeting? Dragon’s tooth is pretty solid even as it is. The reason its on an extremely short CD is to allow for it to be used to create a lot of pressure in risk vs reward situations. By design it’s supposed to build pressure and force your opponents to move, or otherwise get smacked hard; or conversely, it fits perfectly as the final shot of a well executed attack/skill rotation preceded by CC application.

Besides, making Dragon’s Tooth ground-targeted isn’t going to solve the issue that some people have in others being able to easily dodge the long hovering animation; in fact, it may make matters even worse. What’s more, I would bet that changing this skill to ground-targeted would ALSO be accompanied with a nerf to DTs overall damage. So be very careful what you ask for, because you just might get it.

And I also don’t like the idea of it being ground targeted simply because it would make using a second ground targeted ability (phoenix) right behind it a little difficult and clunky to get used to.

So please Devs, do not add yet another GT skill to the Scepter weapon set.

Besides, slightly reducing the hovering animation time would correct what everyone hates about this skill. In effect, slightly reducing the hovering animation time would not be adding yet another ground-targeted skill while still allowing the possibility of people being able to avoid the attack if they react quickly enough.

So while DT does need to be tweaked, it only needs a tiny change, not a sledgehammer approach.

Ascended gear matters a great deal. And taken as a whole, it’s far from a mere 5% increase. But the real bottom line is, that for highly competitive players, a + or minus whatever percentage is in fact important. However I can understand how a very casual open-world PvE player (or strictly “zerg” WvW player) might not care.

How about this …

Spirit pet toggle/option.

When the toggle is not activated, the pet remains just as it is now, and continues to draw aggro and provide a “meat shield” of sorts to players. And the AI continues to control all pet abilities except F2.

But when the toggle is activated, the pet becomes an invulnerable non-aggro “spirit-pet”.

1. The pets basic attack dps in converted into a flat dps increase to the Ranger’s weapon skill 1, (With each pet family having its own dps conversion formula for what that increase will be).

2. The pets 3 and 4 abilities are now active abilities controlled by the player, and with their own F3 to F4 slots. (when the toggle is not activated, the F3 and F4 skill slots are blank).

3. Unlike non-spirit pets, spirit pets, once summoned (toggled), are up 30 secs, and then go on a 15 sec cooldown before you can re-summon them. The idea being to create a trade off for the advantages (invulnerable/non-aggro) of spirit-pets over non-spirit pets.

4. Unlike regular pets, once toggled to spirit pet mode, you can NOT switch pets, and this function is disabled until the spirit pet goes on cool-down..

I’m sure there’s a dozen problems with this idea, but I’m just throwing this out there as a starting point for discussion. What I do like about this idea is that it does NOT require a complete overhaul of the current Ranger trait tree, and the Beastmaster trait line is still relevant for both regular pets and spirit pets.

Dardamaniac.1295:

totally agree..
Perma stow aint an option..
Ppl saying that 40% is transfered to our pets is untrue..

But still the current design is bad..And they said that it was worst a few patches before so i dont see a fix in the near future.Anet must make something drastic with pets, must find an easy and fast solution so pets wont feel a burden..

To be honest, I really don’t believe it’s a viable option either. BUT, I could very well be wrong, and some bright mind here might show me/devs how it might be done, WITHOUT: 1. Requiring a complete overhaul of the Ranger trait tree, 2. Totally disenfranchising the “pet” Rangers, and 3. with a reasonable “formula” for how the dps increase will be determined for the “petless” Ranger.

I want to make it clear up-front that I have no dog in this debate. I’m neither terribly bothered by the Ranger as it stands right now, nor entrenched in the “must have pet” camp. Although I mained a Ranger for quite some time, I main an Engi now, so it’s not a big a deal for me. I throw out the following questions/hypotheticals only for the purpose of seeing the suggestions and to induce a debate that might be constructive to the Devs.

So, Okay folks, let’s pretend …

Lets pretend that Anet does what many here in the forums have suggested, and allow Rangers a perma-stow pet option in exchange for more dps. If so, wouldn’t they open a HUGE can of worms by doing so?

How much dps by percentage? Jaguar/Hawk dps, or Bear/Moa dps?

How about a flat number regardless of pet? Okay, what if it’s 10%; won’t there be an endless hue and cry demanding more? How about 40% more dps, I’ve seen people claim this is the proper amount; would that not be OP? Imagine a 40% dps increase to the LB 1 or Axe 5, or …. how would that pan out?

And what about dungeons after this change? Despite the exaggerated claims of auto-kicked for being Ranger, there is some substance to the claim. However, if you think there is a lot of auto-kick Ranger going on now, just imagine a casual trying to join a pug WITH a pet, after the perma-stow pet option is introduced. Ah, but, “so what” you might say; well believe it or not, I’m willing to wager a HUGE number of non-forum posters that rolled Ranger did so primarily because they wanted a pet. Of course you can shrug it all off by saying, “hey let them join a guild that does dungeons and does not mind pets” … okie dokie, but that stock answer to everything doesn’t always fly in reality.

And once introduced, would it not require a massive overhaul of the entire Ranger trait tree? Or am I supposed to believe, that once introduced, and the X% of increased dps is added, there won’t be an endless forum QQ (as loud and as intense as the current one about pets) demanding new skills, utilities and elite skills for those of us that have gone “petless”?

I throw all the negatives out there just to see if someone can address these in a rational manner that actually makes this option possible, without requiring Anet to completely reinvent the wheel in regards to Rangers. And can it be done without the “pet” Rangers being turned into total dungeon/hard encounter pariahs (but they are already, you say; I call BS to anyone with that over-the-top claim, but they are little bit, that I know).

Just throwing this out there to see what happens …. So okay ladies and gentlemen, opine and wax eloquent – lol.

PS: And please, PLEASE try and remember that Anet must take into account the average player, and the average skill set … not just the tiny percentage of people that are WvW solo/small-group roamers and the PvP folks.

Very nice indeed!

Thankfully, no fattie with a man-jaw in those pics!

She looks sexy and beautiful. Well done.

coglin.1867:

ArmageddonAsh.6430:

It is Overpowered, that should be enough for the condition food to be looked at.

Based on what fact? Just blurting out statements like this based on uneducated opinion is pointless. This is just as foolish as suggesting the devs jump at every crazy statement. Under your own expectation, Your account should be banned simply because I state that your a gold seller. Apparently based on this thread, information or fact is not required. A simple blind accusation should suffice. At least that is what you appear to expect.

I do not understand some of the blind statement being made here. It appears to me that a great many here appear to be okay with making uneducated statements.

Take any profession and put it in full “dire” gear, then list its damage out and explain how you calculate the damage per second. I will then build the same profession with soldiers gear, and show you haw the damage is comparable.

If you like and can show how zerker damage compares. Or even Rabid. But I can tell you one thing, it is very clear some of you speak out of totally ignorance to the knowledge of how much damage is actually done.

I challenge any of you to present an actual fact, to support the power of the heavens that some of you so blindly say condition damage is. A player has to reach 50% condition duration to even think about touching the damage of a P/V/T build, much less a zerker one. And still condi builds cannot do damage to objects, siege or doors.

Just for the record, blindly stating “40% is to much for just food.” is not a fact. I am curious just how 40% condition duration is too much. Please explain it.

Please present some numbers for us on a 50% condi duration builds damage compared to other direct damage builds.

Rock solid post. Bravo +1

And it’s laughable how comparisons are being made between +40% condition duration and the, “imagine +40% crit chance or damage” …. wow, talk about comparing apples to oranges!

It’s a ludicrous comparison that requires a person to completely drop all the context of the differences between damage types, and their actual form of application and resulting damage over time. The +/- food is fine, and far-far from overpowered.

Gulesave.5073:

Note: I am NOT suggesting this to nerf crits or evasion. I just think it could be a fun occasional counterplay.

Ineptitude: Outgoing critical hits become glancing blows. Attacks you dodge become glancing blows instead being evaded.

As with weakness, you still get your critical damage bonus, applied alongside the glancing blow reduction. 250% damage becomes 125%, for example.

The duration would be short, reapplying would only refresh instead of stack duration, and it wouldn’t be widely available. This could replace weakness on a few skills, to make that condition less universal.

Sadly, the current state of PvE would make this useless there, but I still wanted to toss the idea around for discussion.

Oh, thank God!

For a moment, after I read the thread title, “Suggested new condition: Ineptitude”, I thought the topic was going to be “bear-bow” Rangers in Dungeons.

SrebX.6498:

This is something thats been bugging me for a while…. why is there no race change?
I mean yea, it’s probably a bit troublesome with the personal story and everything but this can be solved for sure. Or maybe just make this option available only after the completion of the personal story all together…

I have a Charr Guardian that I’ve put a lot of time and money in, and I’ve been wanting to make him a Norn for a lot of time now… [Armors on Charr are awful]

Also, there’s this weird concept of soulbinding everything to the character meaning that even if I’m willing to spend all the time and effort to reroll a character, I also have to regear him for some reason that is unclear to me… it seems kittened really >< I never understood why everything in this is soulbound…..

Anyhow, I know that it’s a troublesome function to implant, but I’m sure it’s a handy one that a lot of people will use and pay a lot for

Do you agree?

Don’t worry, eventually it will happen. Its one of those things that’s win-win (Money for Anet, and You’re happy). And it’s very doable, won’t break the game, won’t destroy immersion (no more than sex change does), and has absolutely zero effect on anyone other than yourself.

That said, there’s a new breed of finger-wagging schoolmarms in games now, that if anyone else somewhere in the universe would like an option they don’t like (or can’t afford) – they throw a forum tantrum. Learn to just ignore them; these busybodies can’t be reasoned with.

So I honestly think that eventually you will see it. The process and details would however be time consuming for Anet. So look for a large gem/cash charge for it, and a short wait after ordering the change, due to the individual recoding that would be involved.

MonMalthias.4763:

The problem with GW2 dungeons is not the lack of trinity at all. That assertion makes absolutely no sense when GW2 was designed from the ground up to eliminate the necessity of the Trinity.

It’s like saying that WoW’s success as an MMO was due to the graphics at the time. It is a complete non-sequitur.

What is the problem with GW2’s PvE is 2 things: Defiance, and slow, instagib attacks.

Defiance: It was a slapdash bandaid solution to bosses being stunlocked to death since the public betas and it has never been re-addressed since. Defiance single handedly eliminated the support/control archetype from dungeon running builds. Content designers have since designed around the Defiance mechanic also, further entrenching this halfway house solution. There are practically no worthy attacks to interrupt because you can just DPS race the boss down before the sequence initiates. Interrupting is also not rewarded with a shorter encounter either – which further erodes support/control

Slow, instagib attacks – Bosses attack slowly and hit extremely hard, often meaning that Toughness is essentially a wasted stat because it slows you down. What attacks there are are therefore one-shot mechanics to punish players that don’t dodge. Again, this further reinforces the DPS race meta.

What should be done is:

• Reworking defiance to re-introduce Support/Control. Interrupting a key boss attack should be rewarded with bonus damage to shorten the encounter – the boss should not simply repeat the attack with 5 extra defiance stacks to completely negate your CC efforts. This is an interim solution that requires no extra AI – just scripting for the boss to delay its next attack, and for a percentage of its health to drop off and make the encounter easier.

• Bosses must attack faster, but hit softer. Toughness is a wasted stat at the moment. Semi-tanky builds are numerically inferior to Glass cannons. With this change, Toughness does have a value in surviving an encounter along with all the other support stats like Boon Duration or Healing Power. Before you start, Agony is not this mechanic as Agony is a Gear check.

Anyway, thanks for the non-sequitur.

Happy travails!

Outstanding post, bravo. +1

In that interview they quote Johnason as saying, “Some of our players believe that because we are doing this Living World seasons, and these features or these big feature-builds, that it means that the features you would traditionally get in an expansion, or the content you would traditionally get in an expansion, is not something that will get added to Guild Wars 2. And that is not true at all.”

Oh dear … features and content you would traditionally get in an expansion? Let me see, what am I used to seeing in mmo expansions? Hmmm … well there is usually a new dungeon or 2, and there is usually a new zone or 2, sometimes a new profession, and almost always new skills for each class …

Let’s see, anything else I’m traditionally used to used to seeing in an mmo expansion? Oh yeah, I almost forgot … traditionally, mmo expansions usually include 5 to 10 new levels to grind, and traditionally they also include a new higher-stat tier of gear to grind …

Of course it’s all just speculation, and we really don’t know. But later on Johanson gives us a small hint, when he says, “… but we absolutely are going to do sweeping new features that you would traditionally only get in expansions – large regions, content and progression additions to your characters in the form of growth and professions and races. Those are all things that you will see in the lifespan of Guild Wars 2.”

I understand what progression additions in the form of professions and races is, but the progression additions in the form of “growth” … now that one is a bit ambiguous to me?

Oh well, I’m sure it will all turn out very well, and the changes will be consistent with the tradition of the GW franchise.