UC will never be useful in pve and in pvp your aegis might as well not exist.
Like … WHAT? UC is probably the best passive damage boost trait IN THE GAME, not only to mention that the other traits in that spot aren’t the best either … it’s pretty much a free damage boost. PVP , that’s probably true though.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Let’s use some logic for a second shall we?
1. Some people have multiple accounts for Mystic Coins
2. Extra accounts cost money, that money goes to Anet
Explain to me why Anet would fix MC’s based on the fact that people get more from multiple accounts? I can’t see why they would.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
So it hits a lot, for not so much damage, but it kills you if you use it stupidly.
Fixed that for you.
Thank you for the very objective and serious argumentation.
Is there any skill comparable in other professions? (Other skill where retaliation of AoE kills you if you “use it stupidly”?)
I already provides LOTS of argumentation in this very thread and others on why this isn’t a problem related to FT. Not may fault if you didn’t bother to read it. Bad decisions and stupid actions should result in losing in PVP. That’s why there isn’t a problem here. That’s the way it SHOULD work.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I don’t see why this is a re-occuring issue with this game. Since day 1 there have been items that people want that are obscenely expensive to craft because of an expensive material. This situation isn’t exceptional and I see no reason for Anet to do anything about it because it’s clearly not a mistake.
If you want something exceptional like this, you need to do something exceptional to get it. Not a new concept in this game.
So it hits a lot, for not so much damage, but it kills you if you use it stupidly.
Fixed that for you.
Oh well, that’s why there is 8 other professions you can play.
What I find interesting about this isn’t the numbers, it’s the fact that this should have been the FIRST place anyone looking at financial data to establish a hypothesis about the state of the game should have went.
Does ranger’s or ele’s AoEs suffer as much as FT?
I don’t know … what ones are you thinking about? If you don’t really want to be specific, I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I’m starting to think that Anet correlates revenues with severly overdone outfits. Not to say it’s bad but some of these things start looking rather garish.
I can tell you what if: People would complain that the RS buff is not in the right trait line … or that it shouldn’t be in a traitline at all, it should be a signet.
Highly disappointing… just ugly blocks of ice
ANet should’ve just given us sacks of coal since we’ve apparently been naughty
THAT is ice? Where do these people live? Arizona?
Retal needs minor adjustments, i’ll agree to that, but i dont think it hurts FT as much as people thinks it does.
That’s summed up right there. There is no reason to make some big adjustment to FT AA for the frequency retal is encountered, EVEN if it kills you. There is no substitute for playing smart and making intelligent decisions. Unloading a ranged AOE AA into a group of people is a massively risky move in ANY MMO PVP setting. Why it should be different in GW2, no one can seem to explain, though it is obvious it will enable less skilled players a great deal.
@ greener
Cant you understand what im getting at?
I mean come on, the only reason i dont have mystic coins is because Anet forced the Guild Halls on us.
Oh boy … yeah, so FORCED. I mean, can’t do anything without one right? ><
Hold on … you can claim problems are real for the people that play the game, but the practical reality is that it’s only the problems that ANET thinks exist that get fixed. That’s a universal MMO dev truth, not just unique to Anet. If you want to pontificate problems that only exist in players’ minds, then I see little point in doing so.
Nike is right. Anet never targeted ‘equal’ as a goal for anything, so appealing to arguments that we should have equivalent (within reason) but different feeling builds where equivalence isn’t a goal is a bit ‘so what’ … especially if we actually have it already. I still can’t quite figure out what you want accomplished in this thread, other than a very specific buff to Warrior LBow.
I guess your point of view is different than mine. Maybe you think there should be no consequences to choices you make; I don’t get that irresponsible thinking. Maybe you think it’s OK making bad choices can complain about the results; I think that lacks maturity.
When you say that FT is designed for hitting large groups of people in PVP, I think that’s just a poor assumption. Why do you assume this weapon was designed as a capable PVP weapon in the first place? Other than ‘weapons design philosophy’, no one really seems to have an answer … or consider it was never intended to be.
In my opinion, an auto attack that does AOE at range is some of the most broken PVP concept you could ever come across in a game … and you think it should be fixed so you can trounce around and melt people with it with no consequence? You are not thinking objectively about how an FT AA change would affect the game. Even if you reduced the number of hits, you still wouldn’t be able to recklessly go and BBQ a group of people with retal. The solution here for now is to make good weapon choices.
If this is even close to what you believe should be happening, I think we have little left to say to each other. As someone else said, it’s obvious to me you just want to abuse a ranged autoattack AOE. Clearly, that’s not the opinion of anyone who cares about the health of the game.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Sure, but that’s not true. We do have choice and even non-meta choices can be very close to performance you get with optimal builds. I can remember when metapushers would tell me Hammer Gaurdian was not good because it wasn’t meta … then they would present data that showed it was within a few percent of the meta build. That’s not unique to Guardian either. Many classes have a similar situation … so it’s not like we don’t have choice like you say.
So again, what is your purpose in this thread? I mean, if you want variety and performance that is within a reasonable range of the performance you get with the meta, we have it in most cases. Is it 100%? No, but to claim it is 0% is definitely not true. I know you don’t want to discuss meta but … you can’t avoid it if you want a variety of similar builds … we already have great variety in lots of crap builds …
Yeah it’s not 0%, my example does imply that & that is incorrect, you’re right.
I’ll just focus on your specific critique of my idea. You say that “I don’t think just having unique weapon skills is going to ensure that the weapons feel different enough to fool anyone in thinking they have meaningful choices for different builds.” For me, with this suggestion, weapon choices would feel more meaningful in a variety of ways. I would think the choice would feel more meaningful from a role-playing standpoint (my guy looks and behaves the way I want him to), from a functional standpoint (I can do more with the specific choices I make), and from a variety standpoint (there is a little more wiggle room to accommodate a larger variety of play-styles). From my perspective, if this suggestion were implemented, I would not only have more options, but more meaningful options. If I want to compete on a top level as a warrior, for instance, my choice to play as a warrior feels more meaningful as I feel less restricted to play as a specific kind of warrior at that level or for that content. Even though the meta stays in a bunch of other ways, I would think this change would still make my choices more meaningful. This is the intended purpose of this thread.
First, even if you don’t agree, does that reasoning make some sense? Second, again in your view, how do weapons feel different enough now in a way that wouldn’t if this were implemented? If the meta does not restrict us to use specific weapons and we really do have a meaningful choice as is, how so? What specific functionality are you talking about here?
The problem with weapons is the simple approach of their basic design in the game. There are really just two main things that make a weapon feel different:
1. Application of damage – i.e., weapon is condi or direct damage
2. Range
Anything else, while it might have a practical difference, does not make the weapon feel different. For example, whether the weapon gives protection boon or apply vuln … it still feels the same. Whether it has AOE attacks or not, again, not much difference in feel. The two things I mentioned actually differentiate more than any other factors how you play your character when you equip weapons with those different flavours.
So when I see suggestions to give more power flavour to a condi weapon, or change range on something so it’s ‘useful’, I simply see that as a degradation of the fundamental parameters that give the weapon it’s feel ans style of play. I think your suggestion with might proc on LBow does this. Perhaps not completely to the point of making it the same as GS, but I think the goal should be to maintain the flavours weapons have, not push them to be all the same good one.
Frankly, I would rather see Lbow lose more of it’s power flavour and get many more conditions. I think that would be a really fun way to play the game … as a ranged condition user that could hold it’s own more than other ranged condi users.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I don’t see how that comparison is relevant. Staff on Guardian doesn’t do the same thing or give the same bonus as FT on Engineer. FT on Engineer isn’t designed based on what staff Guardian does.
The why is simple … because that’s it’s design. A less dismissive answer … because you have to be smart if you want to get the benefit of playing FT in PVP. Is that too much to ask anymore? Players make responsible decisions and deal with the with the consequences in a mature manner? I’m just going to hammer on this over and over: If FT isn’t appropriate for the situation, you don’t use it.
You ask why almost with a tone like Anet has to change it if their isn’t a good answer. You will learn soon enough that there is always an answer to Why, even if you don’t like it.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
30 hits of retaliation per autoattack aren’t just “a few hits”. That retaliation damage usually end up being far more than the damage dealt by the engineer itself. And given that the autoattack is supposed to be used versus groups – it’s a cone autoattack with a relatively good range – you’re essentially saying you shouldn’t use an aoe autoattack in situations where it is supposed to be used for, all because of a boon that’s far too easily applicable in group situations.
The “slow weapons” you mention doesn’t suffer from the same issue, so what’s the point of even mentioning them?
Those are all things you should already know, anyway. Frankly speaking, it doesn’t seem like you want to acknowledge these issues, for whatever reason.
Slow weapons do not suffere from the same issue because you can react … unless you’re really slow to begin with. You see, the problem here is the idea you have that a player shouldn’t think. Regardless of how retal is implemented, clearly you don’t want to exercise your choice to not use it if there is a chance that using it gets you killed on retal.
I mean, you can create whatever scenario you want to kill yourself with retal on FT AA … it’s not hard, we know this. But if your going to come into this discussion that even one scenario exists where retal can kill you …. and that’s a problem that renders it unusable DESPITE acknowledging you have options against players with retal that don’t get you killed … then you’re just not being realistic about how player choice impacts successful PVP encounters. For me, that’s a sign of being really obtuse. It’s a non sequitur.
There should absolutely be SEVERE consequences to anyone that take a FT and sinks a full AA into a group of people. That’s just a dumb thing to do. I don’t know about you, but I see little reason to relieve players of the consequences of their dumb actions in a competitive environment.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I like how Dulfy writes about upcoming weaponskins or gemshop items or so..
BUT :
why are they making an achievement guide and explain everything ?!They are spoilering around and thats boring..
Why?!
The only why is … why are you reading it if you don’t want to be spoiled?
If you think it’s an issue that you would eat a few retals because you hit someone with retal, then there is NO solution to this for you. I mean, even someone using a slow weapons will have to eat a retal every once in a while. That’s certainly not a problem.
There are arguments it would have worked out better, there are some where it’s worse. I do know that a sub based model would significantly impact development and content releases and since I think people that currently play are more or less pleased with paid content, free content and items in the Gemstore, I don’t think that impact would be positive to them.
At this point, there is no reason for threads like this. Gem store is a business decision and no data we have access to suggests it was a bad one … or a good one. It just IS. Granted, there have been games that move to different business models, but if anyone is under the illusion that moving away from the Gemstore at this point would be a good idea, they are going to be highly mistaken. In fact, the Gemstore is an integral part of what makes the game work. It CAN’T go. It needs to continue to grow.
Personally, I would not pay a sub for this game because Anet has shown they can provide good content without it, as well as interesting items with value in the Gemstore. Any introduction to a sub to play would be a significant screw over to loyal customers.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Personally, I don’t think just having unique weapon skills is going to ensure that the weapons feel different enough to fool anyone in thinking they have meaningful choices for different builds, even if they do perform the same; people interested in performance will always find the one that performs the best, even if it’s only a few percent from the next lowest performing build.
The fact will always remain that this game is simply conceived as a DPS race with any opponent; you win by killing them first. The presence of a few different effects here or there will not change this. In the end, those effects are just flavour, but make no mistake, it’s the same meal. This is why no matter what you can conceive, the change will be insignificant unless encounters changes with it. I mean, you have a noble intentions, but both the class AND the encounters must change to widen player interests in non-meta builds.
That’s very possible, but again I would say that a meaningless choice is better than no choice at all, which is one way the meta typically restricts players.
Sure, but that’s not true. We do have choice and even non-meta choices can be very close to performance you get with optimal builds. I can remember when metapushers would tell me Hammer Gaurdian was not good because it wasn’t meta … then they would present data that showed it was within a few percent of the meta build. That’s not unique to Guardian either. Many classes have a similar situation … so it’s not like we don’t have choice like you say.
So again, what is your purpose in this thread? I mean, if you want variety and performance that is within a reasonable range of the performance you get with the meta, we have it in most cases. Is it 100%? No, but to claim it is 0% is definitely not true. I know you don’t want to discuss meta but … you can’t avoid it if you want a variety of similar builds … we already have great variety in lots of crap builds …
(edited by Obtena.7952)
No matter what I read in this thread, not a single person can compare how a non-Gemstore version of GW2 would have faired against the current version; speculation is fun, but it’s not real, especially when it’s made on such thin data as what is available to us.
What I do know is that I’ve never seen anyone make a thread complaining that the game is free to play … think about that for a minute.
Retaliation is far too easy to apply in group situations to talk about risk and rewards. Maybe if they toned down heavily its application it would be different, but right now it just makes no sense….
Now THAT is an intelligent way to think of what’s wrong here. Let’s be frank … boons in general are thrown around the game far too easily, to the point where people take for granted a 25 might stack or pseudo-permanence for things like protection, etc…
The solution to this problem isn’t to nerf FT AA. It’s a much broader, gamewide issue than that. For instance, retal could be based on # of hits instead of duration. That gives it a much more defined application.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Personally, I don’t think just having unique weapon skills is going to ensure that the weapons feel different enough to fool anyone in thinking they have meaningful choices for different builds, even if they do perform the same; people interested in performance will always find the one that performs the best, even if it’s only a few percent from the next lowest performing build.
The fact will always remain that this game is simply conceived as a DPS race with any opponent; you win by killing them first. The presence of a few different effects here or there will not change this. In the end, those effects are just flavour, but make no mistake, it’s the same meal. This is why no matter what you can conceive, the change will be insignificant unless encounters changes with it. I mean, you have a noble intentions, but both the class AND the encounters must change to widen player interests in non-meta builds.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
So you’re basically telling me you just want to abuse AoE Auto Attacks.
Yes exactly what I was thinking … people want all the rewards of using an FT, but none of the risk. Again, I’m still waiting for someone to give us a practical reason for why this should change, given that Engi’s have other options for PVP/WvW settings that don’t get their faces melted off because of retal … I doubt we will see one either because these complaints don’t recognize that the ability to choose IS the answer to not melting to retal.
The issue is that retaliation unfairly punishes certain skills more than others. Why should Flamethrower take 5x more retaliation damage per second than a greatsword swing?
Let’s be honest here if we are going to continue the conversation; if there isn’t a consensus on the risk/reward structure of this weapon, there is little point in discussing whether it needs a change … or a nerf. If you are the kind of player that uses this weapon in that situation, then I wouldn’t exactly call that punishment unfair … I think it’s fits the situation perfectly. I’ve already said it many times; maybe it’s worth repeating; don’t use FT on people with retal. It’s not like this game doesn’t have boon clearing in it … the more we talk about it, the more it seems to me that FT rewards players that think about their situations more than any other weapon Engi has and right punishes those that faceroll. I think that’s a great weapon design.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I can’t answer that without actual outputs from implemented changes but from a general point of view, I would consider LBow and GS to be too similar if LBow just did what GS does at a longer range. I don’t know if your suggested changes do that … likely not. But then, let’s not pretend you’re suggestion is based on dismantling meta builds if it doesn’t. I mean, to be frank, your thread title is massively misleading. Really, what you want is just some boosts to LBow. I don’t know why you’ve taken this route to suggest it.
weakness, soft cc, ranged weapons, minions.
yes open world pve is easycheesy on necro but slow dps and non-existent mobility is not gonna be fun for long
Even non-existent mobility isn’t an issue because you have access to lots of RS buff and as long as you camp range, go full minion skill bar and spec minion condition transfer, everything ignores you and mobility has never been an issue anyways.
And yes, that is correct what you say about the easycheesy. The build is too easy, itls slow and it’s boring to play. It’s the “watching Netflix” build for sure.
If Anet did say that, I would like to see it. Yes please do find it.
Personally, i don’t see this as a pressing issue anyways, even if that is their stated design philosophy. I don’t deny it was said, but the practical reality of the game is that they are limited by what is worth doing and even if they want to make all skills useful for PVP, I think that’s a naive goal to have. It’s obvious to me that we are 4+ years later and … where are they at with such a goal? I would say not even close.
Is it worth fixing FT AA because of their weapon design focus around PVP? Engi’s have other options for PVP/WvW, so I don’t think a philosophical issue is reason to change FT AA. Again, Engi isn’t unique as a class because they have some weapon options that aren’t ideal for WvW/PvP; I think every class has weapons they wouldn’t use in PVP, so the reason to fix it has to be more significant than this.
If the philosophical issue is real, then the argument isn’t if, it’s when because FT AA is competing with hundreds of other weapons and class skills that are also not well suited for PVP.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Anet makes mistakes, but I don’t see anything there that suggests a mistake … it’s not 100 hits or .275 seconds. All the parameters of the skill are within reason of any other skills. You can attribute the values of that skill to any mistake you like, but the fact is that it works well and no one really presents any reason to change it other than “Want to use FT in PVP/WvW”. That’s just ignoring the fact that weapons have purpose and may not be fit for those activities. That’s not some exceptional thing either. All professions have questionable weapons for specific game activities. FT is very normal in that respect that it’s not a be all weapon for PVE, PVP and WvW. I don’t even understand why anyone would either assume it should be … you people do play this game right? You are aware that not every weapon on every class is good in all three of those types of game play right? You can easily conclude that Anet’s doesn’t target to make every weapons on every class to be good in all three of those types of game play right? I mean, it’s so blatantly obvious to me that I can only conclude that people that make these threads are being very obtuse.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Not sure if you’re serious or not … the logic here is not complicated. Don’t use FT on targets that have retal. If retal is so prevalent that it makes FT unusable … well, I shouldn’t have to say it a third time should I?
I get you WANT to use FT in PVP/WvW but how is want a compelling reason to change it? What makes you think what you want is inline with what Anet thinks FT should be?
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I would venture to guess that people don’t regard this as a problem because as long as you have a good option, having more equivalent options to the good one is redundant. In addition, all classes have weapons that demonstrate limited application, just like non-Fire attunements on Ele. In the end, it’s a consistent application of weapons design philosophy.
Personally, i would like to see some reason to bust out of Fire once in a while, for reasons other than breaking CC bars but in the general game design, Anet still has to design encounters so that every class can succeed. The overall game design doesn’t give much reason to use anything but Fire. Does that warrant a complete attunement revamp? Hard to say.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Throwing nades on 1 player without retal, then throwing nades on a group with retal. In 3-4 throws, my health drops 50% just from the absurd retal. Flamethrower is potentially even worse.
Yes we know that … so don’t use it on groups with retal.
I really like the idea of making the chain of attacks less frequent with FT AA, that would help a lot. Midontto explains my point very well too.
Except that’s the selling point of FT. Do you think Anet just accidentally made FT AA a 10x hits over 2.75 seconds? I don’t. It’s intentional and if you use it intentionally, it works great.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
If FT gets you killed in WvW, then why would you want to use it? Sounds a little contradictory to me … unless you like making junk builds that get you killed. Maybe FT is only intended to be useful in open world. Ever think of that?
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I don’t understand this outburst. The learning curve and capabilities of each class is different. Anet understands this; it seems most players don’t. I don’t think the OP did. I can understand where the anger emerges if you have a simplistic view of the game or tunnel vision.
Learning curve in this game is by far smaller than most games i played.
Sure but that doesn’t changes what I said. What Anet says is true about Rev, so if your telling me the learning curve is small, I can only assume you believe you’ve reached the pinnacle of your performance. Time to find a new class if Rev doesn’t work for you.
I’m not so unhappy that we can’t get legendary kits with the visuals and stuff, but I am disappointed that the base kit damage is not affected by the level of the equipped weapon. I’m pretty sure that kits base damage aren’t balanced around the base damage of a legendary/ascended weapon.
I think it’s insincere to say this is an ignored aspect of engineers. I’ve seen the posts and I hope Anet continues to ‘ignore’ FT because some excellent effects can be taken advantage of based on how FT AA works. IF Retal kills you, don’t use FT when your opponent has retal. It should go without saying that good players can adapt to their situations. You have multiple options for kits and weapons.
I don’t understand this outburst. The learning curve and capabilities of each class is different. Anet understands this; it seems most players don’t. I don’t think the OP did. I can understand where the anger emerges if you have a simplistic view of the game or tunnel vision.
If a player is unhappy with this game for whatever reason, its extremely unlikley that Anet is going to change the game just to suit the unhappy player, so the options are to keep playing the game and stay unhappy or find a better game , so the suggestion to play another game is the best option available.
Telling people they should play another game is just a way to dismiss the person’s suggestion or opinion in a passively aggressive way.
Of course I don’t have a problem with people saying why something wouldn’t or would work but to tell someone to go (away) to another game is just harsh. I would think that most people are more than capable of deciding if a game has enough to keep them there or move on but to prod them to go away is rude.
It most definitely is … but then again, I find it equally rude when some people complain about things that aren’t going to change either. I don’t think it’s completely unreasonable that people think about what they would like changed and ask themselves if that’s a realistic change that can be made ingame, especially when it’s in direct opposition to something Anet has done.
Personally, I find most complaints and suggestions have a very bad sense of realistic goals. Things like removing map downleveling (as some other poster mentioned); it would be completely nonsensical to think Anet would remove it at this point.
I think Anet put it pretty well … if you want to be good at Rev, L2P. If you aren’t good at a class, there are others. You should leave the game if you don’t like it because of your performance.
For transparency, im a TP player and what some may consider a TP whale, despite having not played for 2 years, and just got back im still in the 1% of gold worth even by today’s standards so there will be some bias but suggestions is made with valid concerns.
Please release some comestic item that cost 1000g-5000g Liquid Gold with some 50g-100g for the smaller players.
It has to purchase from a vendor as its the only direct and effective means of removing gold from the economy.This will drain some gold from the richer because the TP fees cant keep up inflation.
Having less gold in the system means players can purchase more for less, something that benefit YOU, the consumer.
Please cite your evidence that currency inflation is an issue and that greater gold sinks are therefore necessary.
Gold to gem steady increase is the best indication that inflation is not only real, it places heavy burden for newer and casual players to experience the richer features of the game. This extends to the overall TP. Things become more expensive as an overall trend. Newer players takes the hit as more things become more out of reach. While TP whales like me may have their currency a bit less valuable, we ultimately will still be able to afford anything and everything that catches our fancy.
Inflation is real, but so is the ability to obtain gold. You can’t just cite inflation being a problem without looking at other factors. Inflation is not a problem as long as it’s controlled. You haven’t provided evidence and Anet does have and use methods to control inflation. In addition, Anet does do things similar to what you are asking …
My thoughts are that what you ask is not possible without making weapons much more generic in application than they are presently. I mean, sure you can imagine specific changes that could make either of those weapons appeal more in a non-optimal build, but that doesn’t change the fact that meta will continue to exist and likely not include those weapons any longer because of the changes to them.
This just goes back to what I was saying previously; if you want more weapons applicable with similar performance, then the devs can only do that by making those weapons more like each other. Eventually, they are different in name only. For instance, you want to generate might on LBow, so it’s more appealing in power, so it feels better with a GS power build setup … the next step is what? GS applying some conditions so it feels better paired up wtih a LBow condi setup … then you use Vipers and then what do you have … some middleground between pure condi and power; people refer to this as a hybrid build. You’re just blurring the differences between the two weapons and the game styles you are trying to target; generic.
This whole thread is rather misleading because the existence of the meta has nothing to do with how Anet comes up with the concepts of these weapons. It’s not like they have a meta target, then they see how each weapon relates to that. Personally, I get what you are talking about; I would love ot be able to choose any weapon I want, then decide how I want to play, but GW2 just doesn’t work like that. It’s simpler; If you want a specific style, you are locked into a subset of your available weapons. Anything else would require a huge rethink … to the point of being too disruptive to consider in the current game.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
What about that makes them lazy? That’s an irrational conclusion.
Well, in that case, we are there on most classes anyways. We have the first and second things for most classes. I mean, I get damage very close using different weapons and builds for almost all the classes. Unless you have a very specific case you want to talk about, I think you need to go check and convince yourself that’s the case. The only way the meta restricts people is because they DON’T go and convince themselves there are other options very close to meta. They just assume what they have been told is the best builds and everything else is garbage. It’s meta-pusher propaganda.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
I get that, and unless the devs SPECIFICALLY target numbers between weapons to match damage outputs, the answer to that question is no.
Think of it this way … Anet could have done that but I don’t see much evidence in game they have. Ask yourself why? I think it’s obvious; why would they provide numerous weapons all producing the same DPS? I don’t see any reason for them to do that because you don’t actually have any meaningful variety; you just have numerous weapons all doing the same damage output that simply have different names and maybe a few minor effect differences. People see through that thin veil of ‘variety’ when choices aren’t meaningful. We know when something is different by name only. It’s just a waste of time to do that.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
No. Decent groups will complain about people not kicking (similiar to CC) and attacking the wrong enemy. The “DPS meter” tool is capable to show such stats.
Wait what?
A DPS meter (that doesn’t exist in live game) is capable of showing stats on kicking and attacking the wrong enemy? … because DPS meters can differentiate what the ‘correct’ enemy a person is doing DPS on? … or because DPS meters track non-DPS functions?
Let’s not ‘invent’ what a non-existent DPS meter could do to help players, just to justify having one in game.
What? Not sure what your point is but that’s exactly the things you can do with a “damage meter” in WoW. And thats the game the person I responded to was taking as his example. Of course it does not say “Player A is doing something wrong” but instead you can see it by looking at the stats. You can for example set it to to see how much everybody kicked in the fight (in a list/ranking) and even see who they kicked by clicking on their name in that list.
Now techinally they aren’t just a “DPS meter” or “damage meter” but EVERYBODY calls them that because that’s their main function.
Also not sure what you mean with “non-existent”. Looking at the PvP end scoreboard the foundation is already there even in GW2!
This isn’t WoW though, so again … you are ‘inventing’ what a non-existent DPS meter could do to help players in GW2, just to justify having one in game. GW2 doesn’t have one and if it did, you can’t assume it would do the things the WoW DPS meter does and you can’t assume that players would use it with it’s intended function, or use it for non-aggressive reasons.
Bottomline: What a DPS could do is not relevant to justifying putting one in GW2. That’s especially true if people play successfully without having it.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Restricted weapon access by class is not a result of meta, so changing that doesn’t affect meta existence. The proof is already in game … we gained more access to weapons through elite specs … but there is still builds for each class optimal for content. The idea that you can remove meta without changing the fundamental way the game works is absurd. You can’t sprinkle classes with some new skills/weapons/traits and pretend that has a profound impact on increasing number of optimal builds. We would need orders of magnitude increase in access to new skills/weapon/traits in order to get a chance that any combination of those new things would mimic top performance of any other build.
So the meta effects more than just what build you should take, it often effects what weapons you should take. Ex: a ps warrior needs to use greatsword. My suggestion wouldn’t effect the meta by increasing the number of optimal builds, but it would effect the meta by increasing the number of viable weapons you can use within a meta build.
Yeah I’m not denying you can CHANGE the meta by offering a few more choices for builds or changing existing skills/weapons/etc…. ; that happens all the time.
The question here is if making these new offers or changes adds more builds that are ‘meta-like’; my claim is that unless many hundreds more things are added, the answer is no. It’s my understanding that’s the whole point of the thread.
I expect we COULD get elite specs with some kind of paid content as well, though I think that’s more wishful thinking on my part. If we have to wait for an expansion for a new elite spec, I don’t have much faith that we will see too many of them in the life of this game.
Like I said, if any reasonable person would work with the information we have, they would realize they don’t have enough to make plausible theories. You can almost make any outrageous theory you want and we have so little information that no one could refute it.
Frankly, I think if you want to wax academic with any theory you have, you can, but that’s not the impression I get from the purpose of this thread. My impression “See, I’m right. I predicted the downfall and it’s because of these bad things that I just happen to not like.”
(edited by Obtena.7952)