I’d take a CoE precursor over more GW1 retcons any day of the week.
I’d take gw1 lore over any lore gw2 related any day. While gw1 lore and story telling aren’t premium, its way better than anything in gw2 at this time.
GW2 feels like a saturday morning cartoon, maybe a bit like Scooby Doo.
So then why would you want the gw2 team to write gw1 lore?
So Kiel supporters…
How does it feel to have supported the Scarlet fractal?You have no proof that scarlet would be absent from fractals if evon won.
It has been established that Scarlet being a part of the Reactor fractal makes perfect sense lore wise and her involvement could have been predicted from various blog posts from the past.
Tying her into the Abbadon fractal would be impossible without committing some seriously crimes against storytelling, since the entire Sylvari race didn’t exist at the time.
I can’t make definitive statements regarding what is now a hypothetical entity, but a little bit of inductive reasoning is all you need to realize that the chance of Scarlet appearing in the Abbadon fractal would be slim to none.
But don’t let that keep you from the denial. As an Evon supporter, it’s pure entertainment.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
So Kiel supporters…
How does it feel to have supported the Scarlet fractal?
This is definitely one of the worst problems plaguing the game right now.
Stagnation of aesthetics choices is not healthy for a game whose endgame is based mostly on grinding for aesthetics.
See my signature for what I think would be the ideal solution:
TL;DR: Give the community the tools and infrastructure, and we’ll make better skins at a faster pace than any professional team of artists anyone can possibly assemble, as has been proven in other games like Dota 2 and TF2. Players will have an endless supply of great skins to choose from and progress towards. Content Creators get acclaim and income from popular skin creations. And ANet gets a majority share of the revenue from selling skins on the Gem store, and can turn their in-house artists’ focus to creating timed content-related skins and artwork, which is a much better use of their time.
The snipping comment was from me Pan, I guess Kaon considers that a poor analogy to line cutting. But this argument boils down to objective Vs subjective. Those asking for a minimum increment based on cost are arguing that a 1c increment for an item with a high asking price is because they see the ask as subjectively the same so it’s line cutting. But objectively it’s still higher if it’s by 1c or 1g.
And while a scalable increment could converge the price faster it doesn’t prevent another player from going “and 1” to the previous high bid. But what it does mean is it will provide fewer opportunities to rebid before all profits are squeezed out. And in the end the one out bid still loses, just now they feel better about it simply because the amount they lost by is larger.
This is what the whole topic is about, feeling better when you lose because you lost by more than 1c on a multi-gold item. Sure it’s window dressed up by saying the player on the other side of the transaction is benefiting because the price is higher than just 1c and the difference between ask and bid with close quicker but the real reason is so they don’t feel like they got shafted by a single copper.
The bottom line is the current system is both objectively inefficient and subjectively unfair (to most market participants that don’t engage in automated trading).
The system can clearly be improved to become both objectively more efficient (reach equilibrium and minimize spreads faster) and subjectively more fair (no more getting shafted by 1 copper in highly priced items, higher cost barrier and more risk for automated traders). Even your own suggestion accomplishes this.
If you can improve both aspects with a single change, why not?
(edited by Kaon.7192)
Yes but the ebb and flow of supply and demand in the TP will be much more efficient (i.e. reach equilibrium and minimize spreads much faster) if it didn’t have very the same noise issues most auctions would face if they had no minimum increments implemented.
Well why not make that argument instead of talking about sniping?
See the quote I was responding to.
I did. You’re arguing about FIFO and fairness, not equilibrium and spreads. I’m just curious why you would go down that path instead of arguing from what I think is a stronger position.
I have been arguing for that position in every single one of my posts in this thread prior to that one, so you’ll have to excuse me for forgetting to restate it yet again in a reply that’s specifically directed at what I felt was an inapt comparison to ebay sniping… =P
Why must you pick on the one time I try to be specific and not post in a wall of text… =/
(edited by Kaon.7192)
The TP isn’t an auction house, it’s a commodities market. There is no sniping of one unique and special item up for sale, there is only the ebb and flow of supply and demand.
Yes but the ebb and flow of supply and demand in the TP will be much more efficient (i.e. reach equilibrium and minimize spreads much faster) if it didn’t have very the same noise issues most auctions would face if they had no minimum increments implemented.
Well why not make that argument instead of talking about sniping?
See the quote I was responding to.
To snipe an item on ebay or most other auction sites, you need to outbid by more than the minimum increment that scales according to the current max bid of the item. This is precisely to preserve the notion of “fairness” for its bidders and because an 1c difference on a $1000 item is in fact considered noise as far as ebay is concerned.
The TP isn’t an auction house, it’s a commodities market. There is no sniping of one unique and special item up for sale, there is only the ebb and flow of supply and demand.
Yes but the ebb and flow of supply and demand in the TP will be much more efficient (i.e. reach equilibrium and minimize spreads much faster) if it didn’t have very the same noise issues most auctions would face if they had no minimum increments implemented.
I also wanted to comment specifically on this part:
The problem with fixed size increments is whoever gets closest to the 15% margin first wins because the next increment would make flipping unprofitable.
This is where FIFO comes into play. Isn’t it only fair that the person who posts to a certain price first gets his order filled first? Anyone coming in later can simply place the order behind him in the queue if that is the limit of the profit margin, since in this new system, queuing up is now a viable way to place orders.
And now we circle back to the problem I have with this whole notion, that is what’s “fair”. Because objectively what’s fair is the player offering the most money or selling at the lowest price, even if it’s only 1c IS the winner. Your subjective argument is that 1c difference is “noise” and all the players tacking 1c on after your “legitimate” offer is simply cutting in front of you but that’s no different than someone sniping an auction in the last seconds on eBay. Their offer is just as legitimate as yours because they aren’t welshing on it and the seller or buyer is getting more money or paying less, even if it is just a few coppers.
To snipe an item on ebay or most other auction sites, you need to outbid by more than the minimum increment that scales according to the current max bid of the item. This is precisely to preserve the notion of “fairness” for its bidders and because an 1c difference on a $1000 item is in fact considered noise as far as ebay is concerned.
1v1 as in anything goes?
Warrior, closely followed by Thief, since these two can reset vs any other class if things go bad, and that hammer and/or mace Warrior builds are extremely effective against Thieves in 1v1.
1v1 as in a proper duel?
Perplexity Condi PU Mesmers, Perplexity Condi Bomb/Nade Engy, Perplexity Condi Dhuumfire Necro, Perplexity Condi Hambow Warriors, Perplexity Condi Trap Rangers, Perplexity Condi Trickery Thieves, etc.
So glad this crap is getting nerfed.
My suggestion is as follows:
Listings (bids and asks) on the market should only be possible in the following price increments:
1s and below -> increments of 1c
10s and below -> increments of 10c
1g and below -> increments of 1s
10g and below -> increments of 10s
…If 1% granularity is not low enough this can be debated, but essentially what we need is to make costs of undercutting relative to the cost of the item traded, so that prices can actually move toward equilibrium in a meaningful way with every competitive bid, and that every non-competitive bid will be filled in proper FIFO order.
And I suggested as a compromise an minimum increment that’s 5% of the difference between ask and bid, rounded down, minimum of 1c. It’s not a fixed increment, you aren’t limited to say 5s/10s/15s bids if the value was 5s but you could bid 5s3c if you want. The dynamic nature also allows finer tweaking of the price as the two prices close in on one another. The problem with fixed size increments is whoever gets closest to the 15% margin first wins because the next increment would make flipping unprofitable.
I thought about something like this too, but I couldn’t really figure out how bids for items without asks would work. The extra calculations will be more difficult to implement as well and possibly have performance implications at the scale that the current TP is operating at.
There is also the issue of how to transition from the current system to the new system for existing orders that don’t adhere to it. The process can get rather complicated with a dynamic incrementing system, while with a fixed increment you only need to pool together orders by rounding up/down and refunding the difference to the lister.
The system you suggested could probably work if all the details can be worked out, but whether or not the additional complexity is worthwhile is debatable.
I also wanted to comment specifically on this part:
The problem with fixed size increments is whoever gets closest to the 15% margin first wins because the next increment would make flipping unprofitable.
This is where FIFO comes into play. Isn’t it only fair that the person who posts to a certain price first gets his order filled first? Anyone coming in later can simply place the order behind him in the queue if that is the limit of the profit margin, since in this new system, queuing up is now a viable way to place orders.
It’s not an AH…….
You don’t bid stuffs….
Bid in the context of bids/asks is a term used in markets in general, not just auctions.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
My suggestion is as follows:
Listings (bids and asks) on the market should only be possible in the following price increments:
1s and below -> increments of 1c
10s and below -> increments of 10c
1g and below -> increments of 1s
10g and below -> increments of 10s
…
If 1% granularity is not low enough this can be debated, but essentially what we need is to make costs of undercutting relative to the cost of the item traded, so that prices can actually move toward equilibrium in a meaningful way with every competitive bid, and that every non-competitive bid will be filled in proper FIFO order.
I don’t expect everyone at Anet to be able to play well. Heck I don’t even expect the Devs to be able to play well.
But if they don’t have some testers they can use to showcase the content that are are experts at the game, that is where they loose my respect.
How can I have faith that you will develop content with the players in mind if there are no ‘players’ in the company.
This is basically my sentiment as well.
I don’t expect every Dev or Tester to be awesome at their job AND be experts at the game. But if you’re going to showcase content, the least you could do is show that you can put together a team with some basic understanding of builds and skills available to their class, making use of weapons/utilities that are appropriate for the encounter, that can work well together as a team, and understand basic game mechanics like weaponswap.
I remember a few similar threads regarding the 1c overbidding/undercutting before.
Has John replied to any of them? Anything definitive regarding ANet’s stance on the current state of affairs?
Not having done anything about it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re cool with the status quo.
There are always enormous technical and logistics hurdles that must be overcome when overhauling a system as large and complicated as the TP, and that takes time and resources that they might not be able to spare at the moment, or ever even.
I’m just interested in what the official stance is.
http://www.twitch.tv/guildwars2/c/3299578
Enjoy the many P/P deaths…
Hopefully this will signal the Devs to do something about it…
Hi, I turned into a casual player recently (played a lot during the summer) and melee obviously requires more skill than ranged, and I’m a bit rusty atm, so I’m thinking about going P/P, but I’m worried about people kicking me because I suck or something.
Are there any viable P/P builds that don’t suck?
Only time I think it’s been seen as acceptable in fractals is during the dredge boss whete you can headshot the heal (if your group messes up), spam 3 in between buckets, and spam 2 under buckets now to keep the boss there. You might just play lower levels until you get used to it again (especially with the change they are making to fractals soon).
Personally I wouldn’t kick you but “optimal/experienced groups” might.
No need for headshot even in this case since Basilisk can interrupt the heal through Defiance. =)
The dev in the livestream today was running P/P with no alternate set…
Let’s just say things didn’t work out well for him.
That Thief was running Dual Pistol with no alternate weaponset. Seriously.
He doesn’t bring Refuge or any kind of team utility except Scorpion Wire which, asides from being rather useless in dungeons, he did not activate a single time as far as I could see.
WHY would they showcase content with this kind of horrible build/play?
Because FIFO is no protection when someone who posts later can get his order filled earlier by posting 1c less, regardless of what your original asking price was (including if your original order was 2c less to begin with).
Allowing higher bids and lower asks to be filled earlier is meant to encourage competition to drive prices toward equilibrium and lower spreads. But the abundance of 1c price difference orders on the market do not meaningfully move the price point or reduce spreads on highly priced items.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
Flippers provide liquidity. They provide both coin and items for those aren’t willing or to lazy to enter bids themselves, letting players trade waiting for immediate coin or item.
They are the natural byproduct of an inefficient system. They are the equivalent of the butcher who buys game from hunters to sell to the townsfolk because the hunter doesn’t want to bother with that.
Flippers do make markets more efficient by competing with each other to make a profit, and in doing so reducing spreads and driving items toward equilibrium pricing, which is good for actual users of the market.
But right now, the speed at which they are performing their intended function is appalling because most of what they do in the status quo involves outbidding by 1c on highly priced items, so they aren’t moving the price point or reducing spreads in any meaningful way.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
1) Custom playlists
2) Engaging combat system and mechanics
3) Mostly horizontal progression
4) Exploring the world was an amazing experience while it lasted (I wish they would release more new maps)
5) Buy to play
Before you start saying you can choose to bid in more than 1c increments, it is completely irrational to do so in the current market climate
Your idea of increasing the bids increments for high prices would just put expensive items even more out of reach of most players other than the super rich.
It would make each competitive bid tangibly drive prices toward equilibrium. Whether it be higher or lower than the status quo is up to the current level of demand. It is impossible to judge where the actual equilibrium lies for certain items precisely because of the lack of agility in current market prices.
This will reduce spread and reduce (but not remove) the opportunity for profit in flipping for high priced, low volume items. That is the whole point of this change.
A lower spread benefits everyone except traders that depend on spreads to flip items and turn a profit, because actual buyers can buy immediately at lower prices and actual sellers can sell immediately to higher buy orders. And everyone will be getting closer to what the market deems to be a fair price i.e. the equilibrium price point.
Of course I don’t expect flippers to agree with this change due to conflicts of interest, but I’m sure most reasonable people can understand that having more items closer to equilibrium pricing is healthier for the game economy as a whole.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
I was wondering why all these people are defending the clearly broken and unfair status quo that allows people to cut in front of queues with negligible costs…
Define “negligible costs”. What is “negligible”? What is “negligible” for me may not be “negligible” for you and different for someone else. How much should “negligible cost” be, exactly?
Again having a fixed percentage of 5% does not work in all situations as I have pointed out. If you want to propose a blanket-wide TP modification then you have to ensure that your proposal works on ALL items, not just some items.
Listings on the market should only be possible in the following price increments:
1s and below -> increments of 1c
10s and below -> increments of 10c
1g and below -> increments of 1s
10g and below -> increments of 10s
…
What you and I believe to be negligible doesn’t matter. What matters is the overall agility of the market.
The market mechanism of competitive bidding is intended to drive prices as quickly as possible toward equilibrium through competition. With a 1c minimum order on a 1000g item in the status quo, it is possible for 1000 “competitive” bids to move the price of the item by only 0.01%. This is not an efficient market by any definition.
Before you start saying you can choose to bid in more than 1c increments, it is completely irrational to do so in the current market climate on higher priced items because the abundance of trading post bots and notifiers means that your order will be beaten by 1c soon after you place it regardless how large your increment is, as long as there is still a spread larger than the profit margin.
This new system will ensure that every 100 competitive bids will move the price by at least an order of magnitude, and that non-competitive bids will be filled on a FIFO basis as it should be.
The option of buying from sell orders or selling from buy orders on highly priced, low volume items will become more feasible once market prices can move at a faster pace and spread becomes more reasonable as a result.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
Passive builds -> less room for error
Less room for error -> less risk
Less risk + same or better reward -> better
Passive builds + same or better reward -> better
As you can see it’s not passive builds alone that we have problems with. It’s the fact that most passive builds in this game are at least as effective, if not more so, compared to their high skill ceiling counterparts.
I hope nobody takes offense to this, but statistically speaking, it is likely that most devs are, in fact, bad players. And this can be reflected in many of the previous balance changes they’ve implemented and their general inability to predict the effects of their changes on the high level competitive meta, as well as their tendency to favor passive, easy to play builds over those with a high skill ceiling.
Its about time they swallowed their pride and started getting input from high level competitive teams on balance changes by letting them test them out in preview servers before releasing them into the wild.
Before this game strays too far from what a competitive game should play like.
From one of my previous posts:
I really don’t think ANet’s internal testers can play at the same level as top-tier competitive teams do in the external meta.
Traditionally, testers are hired based on their professional skills in terms of testing experience, efficiency, and attention to detail, and not solely on their GW2 gameplay ability. Statistically speaking, the number of people who possess both the necessary professional skills as well as the ability to play GW2 at a high level will be relatively few. And to be honest it’s not reasonable to replace testers simply because they’re not top tier players when they can perform their real work flawlessly.
This gap in skill and experience level between internal and external teams can be evident from the last few patches where several changes have had detrimental effects to the competitive meta that ANet was not able to foresee. The fact that passive builds like Healing Signet Warrior, Spirit Ranger, etc have been favored in balance changes over builds with a high skill ceiling is likely also a direct effect of this gap. This gap will only widen, and its effect amplified, as time goes on, because the large majority of competitve players have much more time to play and master the game than internal testers do.
Bottom line is: ANet needs to start consulting top competitive teams and players when making balance changes, and give them access to playable preview builds to get their feedback before release. This is standard practice in game development for ESport worthy games, and it’s about time ANet started as well.
I haven’t talked with one competent ele who thinks this trait is anything but broken.
The sad thing is, the devs seem to love it and bad players even think 90% is weak or even worthless.
Please rethink this trait.
I hope nobody takes offense to this, but statistically speaking, it is likely that most devs are, in fact, bad players. And this can be reflected in many of the previous balance changes they’ve implemented and their general inability to predict the effects of their changes on the high level competitive meta, as well as their tendency to favor passive, easy to play builds over those with a high skill ceiling.
Its about time they swallowed their pride and started getting input from high level competitive teams on balance changes by letting them test them out in preview servers before releasing them into the wild.
Before this game strays too far from what a competitive game should play like.
From one of my previous posts:
I really don’t think ANet’s internal testers can play at the same level as top-tier competitive teams do in the external meta.
Traditionally, testers are hired based on their professional skills in terms of testing experience, efficiency, and attention to detail, and not solely on their GW2 gameplay ability. Statistically speaking, the number of people who possess both the necessary professional skills as well as the ability to play GW2 at a high level will be relatively few. And to be honest it’s not reasonable to replace testers simply because they’re not top tier players when they can perform their real work flawlessly.
This gap in skill and experience level between internal and external teams can be evident from the last few patches where several changes have had detrimental effects to the competitive meta that ANet was not able to foresee. The fact that passive builds like Healing Signet Warrior, Spirit Ranger, etc have been favored in balance changes over builds with a high skill ceiling is likely also a direct effect of this gap. This gap will only widen, and its effect amplified, as time goes on, because the large majority of competitve players have much more time to play and master the game than internal testers do.
Bottom line is: ANet needs to start consulting top competitive teams and players when making balance changes, and give them access to playable preview builds to get their feedback before release. This is standard practice in game development for ESport worthy games, and it’s about time ANet started as well.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
Well… at least PvE is still fun…
Even the thought of competitive play for GW2 is laughable in its current state.
Or better yet, each one is categorized into short/medium/long and you have to get one of each. Then it’ll average it out versus having those short ones where you get swamp, snow and volcanic, and then the long one with cliffside, asura, and dredge.
That’s what they are doing this patch.
“Fractals are now weighted according to their length and difficulty. Easier fractals will always show up earlier in the run, with more difficult ones coming later.”
The issue with this is that the “long” ones are all inflated in length with artificial time gates that do nothing besides waste players’ time. They need to be rebalanced to make it 15 minutes of very engaging and dynamic content, not 15 minutes of fun content plus 30 minutes of mindless boss DPS’ing and trash slapping.
Of course don’t implement a time limit like the Tequatl revamp. That’d only be artificial difficulty and shouldn’t be implemented at least until condi DPS is fixed and support made much more potent in PvE.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
I was wondering why all these people are defending the clearly broken and unfair status quo that allows people to cut in front of queues with negligible costs…
Of course the people who exploit this weakness in the system to cut in line are the first to defend it.
I really should have known this forum would be dominated by trading post bot/notifier users that make most of their profit from high spreads and the lack of agility of the current system in bringing prices to equilibrium.
ANet really needs to clearly state their official stance on these programs and start to detect suspicious trading post activity. Because the status quo is pretty far from what should be their ideal of a fair, competitive, and efficient market, at least for those who don’t use these programs.
That should be the first step. I bet the sentiment toward a minimum order increment feature would naturally change once this aspect of the market is removed.
muahahahaha……… More like punishment match! you stack on a server to win your league! So now enjoy getting farmed or having nothing to do besides sitting on a ballista by their spawn!
Now that you put it that way… I’m beginning to like this idea. =D
Too bad nobody can do that to BG…
….. >.> make the most fun to have in the game…. Shorter?
I respect your opinion, but I would like to request this not happen…
Instead, fix bugs like harpy invulnerability and such… But keep it challenging and fun so we can still feel amazing after finishing.
The “fun” parts of every Fractal can definitely be condensed into 15 minutes or less. The rest of it is just mindless tanking and spanking trash or giant DPS sponge bosses, i.e. filler content.
Aiming for a ~50 to 60 minute completion time for a full set of Fractals (for levels 30 and below at least) is the reasonable thing to do.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
Dual Pistol Thief.
I lol’d and then remembered how badly I wanted to play one back when this game first released…
Actually, by the time you leave Stealth you’d have regained 3 out of the 6 spent ini if you’re heavily specced into SA. So in practice you can chain a lot more than just 2 in a row, and even more if you also have Infusion of Shadow.
In fact, post Dec 10, you can chain it indefinitely with 0 initiative deficit if you have Infusion of Shadow, i.e. regain 2 ini on use, another 4 ini for 4 seconds in Stealth.
While new Sigils and Runes for sPvP would be nice, have you seen how horribly broken some of the new Runes have been so far?
What would the meta be like if they just dumped Perplexity into sPvP as is?
5x Perplexity Hambow Warriors anyone?
This idea was not particularly well received in the Thief forums, but I honestly still think it could work.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/thief/Stealth-Mechanic-Without-100-Invisibility/
Lol yes I remember this Thief clone thing…
Not sure if it’s a bug or not, but it happens when you reflect a Mesmer’s third hit in the Scepter auto chain. Hilarious when it does happen.
Nice video btw.
Chaining of C&D immediately after Stealth wears off is a bit of a cheap tactic but I guess you gotta do what you gotta do in a 4v1. Regardless, I think this is something that probably needs to be changed since it makes attrition builds have access to way too much sustain in target rich environments like these.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
Not easier to play than d/p lol.
It’s a different playstyle. Having played both (I don’t play shadow arts) I would say each is difficult in its own way. Perma stealth is cheese. Extremely forgiving, easy to play, very rotation based. If you play glass cannon on a D/P set it has one of the highest skill ceilings in the game, if not the highest. P/D isn’t easy either, but because of different reasons, you can do more on a D/P set so playing it to its potential is the part that takes work. However playing P/D with the cast time and hit box of Shadow Strike can be extremely annoying against good players. That and Cloak and Dagger has one of the most obnoxious cast animations in the game – people see it a mile away.
If I had to choose one over the other in terms of difficulty I’d say playing D/P to its potential is harder than playing P/D to its potential. Again though, I don’t play Shadow Arts, that’s for little girls who need handicaps <3
Edit for grammar, it’s too early for me
Agreed on skill ceiling of full burst D/P builds.
In terms of skill floor, however, I guess in the end it depends on what you’re fighting.
Playing P/D attrition builds (I’m talking about the ones that makes liberal use of SA to reset HP, not whatever yolo baller zerker P/D builds you might have come up with =P) is at least as easy as D/P permastealth against any melee build (that isn’t hammer+mace/shield warrior with its insane AoE CC + condi removal + sustain), because you can simply kite them around until you want to land a C&D, and time their melee chains to guarantee landing one.
Against primarily ranged builds that try to kite you around however, it definitely becomes exponentially harder than D/P permastealth because you won’t be able to reliably land your C&D’s.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
Completely agreed with OP.
Outbidding with a negligible increment allows people to essentially bypass the FIFO queue for orders on the TP.
If a buyer or seller wants to buy or sell an item faster than everyone that has placed the order earlier, he needs to be willing to take a loss that is significant relative to the price of the item. 1c on a 10g item is not a significant loss by any measure, and makes a complete joke out of the FIFO order queuing system.
There is simply no reason to adhere to the queue (on any item that costs over a few silvers) by posting an order after the existing ones at a certain price point, because you can simply cut ahead of everyone else for 1c.
Instead of having real productive competitive bidding to quickly drive prices toward equilibrium, we have countless filler orders that are essentially the same price point to potential buyers/sellers, that do nothing except cheat early listers out of their rightful timing in order fulfillment.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
These P/D condi attrition builds will probably become the new most hated Thief build post Dec 10 (a spot that used to belong to D/P permastealth).
They’re easier to play and even more frustrating to play against because they slowly outlast you from range rather than relying on melee bursts. And when played well they’re just as difficult to kill.
I’ll probably still be running Quick Pockets after Dec 10 so it won’t affect me much personally, but Assassin’s Reward normalizes to around 100/s healing, which is quite a lackluster sustain option for a Grandmaster trait. Work a condi removal component into the trait, or just increase the healing further and we might have something worthwhile.
Quick pockets would be so much better if it also reduced weaponswap cooldown to be on par with Warriors’ 15pt minor, but this doesn’t seem to be something they’re considering at the moment.
As a boon steal it’s a bit crippled compared to most others. But in combination with Daze on Steal it becomes an instant 1-button Stability stomp counter, which is very powerful, especially considering with that trait setup it comes with a 21.5s cooldown.
Roaming-Teamfight-CC-DPS-Bunker-CondiPressure Warrior says: ALL YOUR ROLES ARE BELONGS TO ME.
We typically do T1 bounty with 3-4 players these weeks.
For finding Bounties we just send all players to the one that’s easier to find, follow the path and hope for the best. If we didn’t take too long with the first, then we go to the second and repeat the process.
Usually, if we can find it, we can kill it, but the finding part is boring, tedious and serves no real purpose outside of wasting players’ time and making it exponentially harder for smaller guilds to successfully complete bounties.
It doesn’t look like Guild Mission revamp is much of a priority for ANet though…
Please add Jade Maw and the daily chest to all Fractal Levels, not just the even ones.
The biggest reason why our guild stopped trying to progress on Fractals is that we simply don’t have the time to run 2 sets of Fractals on most days, and that simply running a single odd level feels like a complete waste of time due to the lack of a daily chest.
The even level only requirement for Jade Maw is arbitrary and doesn’t serve any real purpose other than devaluing players’ time investment. Please consider changing this when you add the new Fractals and revamp Fractal rewards.
I really don’t think ANet’s internal testers can play at the same level as top-tier competitive teams do in the external meta.
Traditionally, testers are hired based on their professional skills in terms of testing experience, efficiency, and attention to detail, and not solely on their GW2 gameplay ability. Statistically speaking, the number of people who possess both the necessary professional skills as well as the ability to play GW2 at a high level will be relatively few. And to be honest it’s not reasonable to replace testers simply because they’re not top tier players when they can perform their real work flawlessly.
This gap in skill and experience level between internal and external teams can be evident from the last few patches where several changes have had detrimental effects to the competitive meta that ANet was not able to foresee. The fact that passive builds like Healing Signet Warrior, Spirit Ranger, etc have been favored in balance changes over builds with a high skill ceiling is likely also a direct effect of this gap. This gap will only widen, and its effect amplified, as time goes on, because the large majority of competitve players have much more time to play and master the game than internal testers do.
Bottom line is: ANet needs to start consulting top competitive teams and players when making balance changes, and give them access to playable preview builds to get their feedback before release. This is standard practice in game development for ESport worthy games, and it’s about time ANet started as well.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
Immobilize and Fear are much more powerful CC’s than Daze.
When Dazed you can still move and dodge, whereas when Immobilized or Feared you can do neither.
Fear, while being labeled a condition, is treated like a CC, as it should be, in that it’s breakable using a Stun breaker and not stackable (duration refreshes instead of stacking).
Immobilize needs to be treated the same way.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
If they repair the broken wall back up, you can break it again to get even more credit.
So you have one side trebbing for the demolition achieve while the other furiously repairs for the repair achieve!
Balance!
/sarcasm
On topic, Demolition is not working for me anymore even if I melee auto the doors for the entire duration with a power build. Doing the exact same in the first few matchups of the season did get me credit, however. I think they might have ninja raised the damage threshold.
I ended up biting the bullet and buying my way to Ram mastery lvl2 and buying 50 superior rams to place for myself.
Re: Merc Camp. Whoever designed this achievement (and the Repair achievement) should really not be allowed any input in designing achievements in future seasons…
(edited by Kaon.7192)
Hammer and/or Mace/Shield Warriors are most Thief builds’ worst nightmare.
You literally do not have enough stun breakers to break all their available CC even if you fill your utility bar with Stun Breakers. To win you need to completely outplay them by avoiding all of their CC in Melee.
Keeping distance with Shortbow won’t work either outside of an opening to stack some poison with 4, because it simply doesn’t have enough damage to overcome the ridiculous sustain these kinds of builds can bring.
Only S/x builds really have a chance against them at the moment thanks to Infil Return, but we all know where that’s headed.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
Yes it can be a situational buff to chasing, in exchange for the nerf to disengage availability. I feel this is fair since Sword sets are rather mediocre at chasing compared to D/P or SB to begin with.
… instead of adding a cast time.
Around 5 seconds would be ideal. The Thief will have to choose between staying past 5 seconds to keep up pressure, or to disengage and re-engage using Infil Return and spending extra Ini.
There will be an Ini deficit if the Thief uses it to engage and disengage continously because, 5 seconds is how long it takes to refill 5 ini post buff, but Infil Return needs to be used within 5 seconds under this new availability window.
Cast time on a skill makes reactive use impossible for everything but the most heavily telegraphed skills, and Thieves need this mechanic to stay instant to actively displace themselves before/while CC’d because we have no passive immunity to CC or passive damage mitigation.
(edited by Kaon.7192)