Guild Wars 2

Grimreaper.5370:

I feel like the “downed state” idea had some potential but with how it was implemented into this game, it became one of the biggest flaws in GW2’s pvp combat.

IMO, the downed state (in pvp) should not:

-Let players get back up and re-join a fight as quickly as it does now (with the aid of an ally)

-give players such a huge health pool while downed

-allow cc effects (Unless you want to sacrifice some of your downed state hp)

-allow you to get back up if you (or your ally) finishes off the enemy you were fighting

---

Let us hear your guys thoughts on the subject.

1. There are already ways to prevent that from happening.
2. The health pool has to be large for the Downed Penalty to make sense as a penalty.
3. Why not? The CC skills in downed state are only effective if they are timed perfectly. And unless you’re a complete rookie, you should know which classes can deny your stomp and how.
4. Then how would you get up? If you nerf the healing and the ability to Rally when you kill your enemy, that leaves you extending your arm on the ground. In case you don’t know, at that point it’s quite often easier to just let yourself die and respawn.

chemiclord.3978:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Ironically, this is more likely to happen if substantial numbers of MMO customers stop demanding that MMO’s fill their every free moment.

There is so much truth in this statement. The level of expectations some swaths of players demand from MMOs is simply beyond absurd (and its not just GW2). I see quite frequently complaints of “I’ve spent 1500+ hours on this game, and now I’m bored! I need more stuff to do!”

It’s ridiculous, and it reinforces the idea that MMO players are whiny, entitled brats. There is NO other form of entertainment where that amount of time sink would be considered a waste of money or effort. Only MMOs.

It’s no wonder there are groups that are chronically disappointed with every game and MMO they play. What they expect and demand is impossible in every way, shape, and form.

It gets even more ridiculous when you start comparing an MMO to almost any single player game. Most single player games don’t last 100 hours per playthrough, which would be tiny in comparison to what most people spend in any given MMO.

And then there’s the classic “pro-subscription” argument of comparing the 12€ sub fee to a visit to the movies, which definitely does not last 3 hours.

So on one hand, we have MMO players who demand hundreds or thousands of hours of gameplay and on the other we the same people saying “well we get more than 3 hours of gameplay per month so it’s totally worth it!”

By the way, does it take more than 90 minutes for a regularly player to complete all of an episode of a Living Story without using a guide? Because that would mean that Living Story is giving >3 hours of gameplay per month…

JETWING.2759:

The reason because most of warrior uses Bow… Those Burst skills are hard to land.
I agree with improvements to these skills.
ex:

Eviscerate: Needs cleaves. May be also increase range according adrenaline.
Skill Crack: Really needs cleaves, or with some rework, become less hard to lands. This skill misses all time due the range, cast time, animation, lack of gap closer with mace, etc… Tremor still being the best mace’s skill.
Kill Shot: Could have his cast time scaling with adrenaline level (lv1 = 3s; lv2 = 2s; and lv3 = 1s) or stat a toggle ability at use, this toggle stay up while channeling (full channeling lasts 3s, how more channeling more damage). The toggle ability cancels the channeling and releases the shot.

Some thing like those to improve some burst skills.

How would making skills cleave make them easier to hit against an enemy that blinds you? Or an enemy that is dodging your burst?

Flurry and Earthshaker cleave, yet no one is advocating them for condi cleansing.

Infiltrator’s Strike is far from an “infinite” teleport:

1. It costs 3 initiative, meaning it has a 3s cooldown
2. It changes into Infiltrator’s Return for 15 seconds
3. Infiltrator’s Return has a 0.5s cast time

Smart usage of Infiltrator’s Strike is one of the defining characteristics of a good S/D thief.

Lol, the screenshot is quite hilarious.

With the current trait system, unless your character is level 80, you cannot really claim to have played it to an extent that gives you enough experience to make balance-related commentary.

I also find it rather hilarious that the OP is complaining about utility skills that have 60s and 120s cooldowns, when he can only find two of them. He completely ignored Signet of Mercy, which has a 150s cooldown. Not to mention Retreat, Save Yourselves, Bow of Truth and Shield of Anger, all of which have 60s cooldowns.

Prysin.8542:

Olba.5376:

dancingmonkey.4902:

iSpook.5612:

when did cooldowns become trivial? I’m pretty sure all cooldowns aren’t fun.

I just think people would have a different perspective if thiefs had to build upto a steal, rangers had to build up to a pet skill, guardians had to build up to agies, ele had to build up before changing atunements etc (all these things are just cooldowns, not two hoops to jump through)

im just saying this is going to be pretty rough on warriors

Well if you would rather have cooldowns instead of building up a resource, I can tell you I am absolutely all for a 30s-60s ICD on cleansing ire. That would put it on par with the other professions ICD on traits to remove conditions. Purity, Absolute resolution, Transmute, and what not.

Purity is 1 condition on a 10s CD. Transmute is 1 condition on a 15s CD.

If you think that Cleansing Ire should be 30s or kitten just because it removes up to 3 conditions, you’re nuts. The difference between Cleansing Ire and Absolute Resolution is that the latter is only triggered when you want to trigger it. Triggering Virtue of Resolve isn’t anything like using a Burst skill on a warrior, so don’t compare the two like they were the same thing.

Spoiler: Warriors use their burst skills for something other than procing Cleansing Ire.

Right, they totally use LB for the damage on Combustive Shot. Yeah, totally.

As if.

Until the patch day warriors use their adren only for two things (well, meta builds does) – triggering CI or AOE stun.

CI is simply icing on the cake. Take Melandru/Hoelbrak runes and warhorn. Then tell me if condies is still a prob in PvP. If they are, you are doing something wrong.

So Combustive Shot does not give you a fire field that you can blast with Arcing Arrow and Earthshaker for long stacks of might?

So specs other than Hambow do not exist whatsoever?

Note that you cannot salvage the temple armor to extract the rune. The only thing you can do is replace it.

dancingmonkey.4902:

iSpook.5612:

when did cooldowns become trivial? I’m pretty sure all cooldowns aren’t fun.

I just think people would have a different perspective if thiefs had to build upto a steal, rangers had to build up to a pet skill, guardians had to build up to agies, ele had to build up before changing atunements etc (all these things are just cooldowns, not two hoops to jump through)

im just saying this is going to be pretty rough on warriors

Well if you would rather have cooldowns instead of building up a resource, I can tell you I am absolutely all for a 30s-60s ICD on cleansing ire. That would put it on par with the other professions ICD on traits to remove conditions. Purity, Absolute resolution, Transmute, and what not.

Purity is 1 condition on a 10s CD. Transmute is 1 condition on a 15s CD.

If you think that Cleansing Ire should be 30s or kitten just because it removes up to 3 conditions, you’re nuts. The difference between Cleansing Ire and Absolute Resolution is that the latter is only triggered when you want to trigger it. Triggering Virtue of Resolve isn’t anything like using a Burst skill on a warrior, so don’t compare the two like they were the same thing.

Spoiler: Warriors use their burst skills for something other than procing Cleansing Ire.

I don’t think we should talk about changes to fix a change that has yet to happen.

Until it’s live and you actually play with it, the best you can do it theorycraft about it, which isn’t particularly effective in this case.

And let me be honest, it’s quite fair that a hammer warrior won’t be able to open on you with Earthshaker. That and hambow will be further kitten by its slow attack speed, which is good. Not to mention that losing adrenaline between fights really cements that “build up adrenaline for a big hit” philosophy, rather than “open with eviscerate and /dance because your enemy died”

Substance E.4852:

Olba.5376:

Katanas are not one-handed swords.

And the last thing I want to see is some idiot dual wielding katanas.

Simspons Gw1 did it…

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Katana

So are you cool with giant metal surfboard great swords and Thieves rapidfiring flintlock pistols? Just to get a metric on what real world rules apply here…

I am not fine with the large greatswords and I don’t ever use any of them. I use Cobalt.

As for Thieves, I don’t mind the pistols (though I would prefer more revolvers), as long as they don’t bring in stupid modern pistols in. No to Glocks and Desert Eagles.

Black Box.9312:

Olba.5376:

Basically, if a contest between a veteran and a new comer ends with 100-0 for the veteran, there’s a problem. Heck, even 10-0 is pushing it.

A new comer should have the possibility of beating their opponent, regardless of how long they have played.

There is. Even veteran players make mistakes. But that’s the point; human error should be the only factor that can give an unskilled player a victory over a skilled one. When you implement game mechanics that reward new players over experienced ones, you are punishing players for working harder to improve themselves, which is completely counter-intuitive.

Of course everyone makes mistakes. The thing is, a new comer isn’t someone with the ability to recognize and take advantage of that mistake. Someone capable of that is already beyond being a new comer and well into being an experienced player.

And I think you’re still not quite grasping what I’m getting at. I am not saying that a newcomer should be able to consistently beat a veteran just by using a “newbie friendly build”. I am saying that there should be some builds that allow for a newcomer to get an occasional win, even against a veteran player.

You should never, ever judge balance on a single encounter. Just because a newcomer manages a win over a veteran once due to their build doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t mean anything because there will be far, far more numerous encounters where the veteran will win.

I do agree that people should learn by competing against players of like skill. It’s not fun getting trounced 100 times in a row by a player better than you, so it’s good to work your way up. At the same time a lot can be learned from those losses, as well. Sometimes a loss means more than a win for the growth of a player.

Of course, losing is important. Losing shows you that there is still something that you could improve on, something you could have changed. But losing over and over again, even if those losses are due to a single flaw that you’re not grasping, is just going to make you walk away.

Carighan.6758:

Black Box.9312:

Olba.5376:

A veteran player should not be able to stomp a new comer all day.

That will only create an environment that cannot grow.

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read all day. If an experienced player isn’t meant to be able to beat a new player, then there’s no incentive to learn the game in the first place.

You didn’t correctly read the post you quoted.
He (she?) said “a veteran player should not be able to stomp a new comer all day”.
You then said, “if an experienced player isn’t meant to be able to beat a new player”.

That’s quite a large difference in what the lines actually say. There’s also the difference in implied meaning between “stomp” (implying an easy or complete victory) and “beat” (implying nothing, the victory may be close or easy or whatever). But that’s minor compared to the always vs at-all explicit component.

This is exactly what I was trying to point out.

Basically, if a contest between a veteran and a new comer ends with 100-0 for the veteran, there’s a problem. Heck, even 10-0 is pushing it.

A new comer should have the possibility of beating their opponent, regardless of how long they have played.

If you have an environment where a new comer has no chance against a more experienced player, you’re doomed:

• If you do not separate the players into strict tiers, you end up with the new comers quitting because they get dominated over and over again by the veterans.
• If you do separate the players into strict tiers, you will end up with players manipulating their position once they reach the upper limit of the current tier.

If you don’t believe that this would happen, I advice you to look at WvW during the tournaments. We had whole servers dropping their ranking so that they could be the top dog in a lower tier rather than fight against similar servers in their current ranking.

That’s irrelevant, because a player who knows the ins and outs of a game should always have the upper hand against someone who does not

They already do. By being a veteran, they have an inherent advantage in knowledge and experience.

I’ll leave this episode of Extra Credits that talks about the point I am making. Please try to avoid falling into the pit traps of fallaciously arguing that the video is wrong because you think one of the examples they provide is not a good example.

Katanas are not one-handed swords.

And the last thing I want to see is some idiot dual wielding katanas.

Neptune.2570:

Olba.5376:

Mayama.1854:

The risk reward is not equal on all classes, thats the reason why we see warriors and guardians on every team.

There is a need for different risk:reward ratios in this game.

Firstly, you need to have something that is low risk with decent reward as an entry way for new players. Otherwise you’ll see PvP dwindle to just the same people because anyone new gets stomped by the pros instantly.

Secondly, some people crave to play high risk with high reward. You can’t just take that away “because balance”.

Thirdly, an equal risk:reward ratio has nothing to do with inter-class balance. After all, how do you decide who wins when you have a low risk:low reward spec, such as a tank, against a high risk:high reward build such as a glass cannon? Based on just that one parameter, you can’t do kitten.

Newer players shouldn’t be highly rewarded though. Sure there should be safer specs which work well for newer or less skilled players, but they should not be highly rewarding and more influential then a large skill gap.
Currently high risk = practically no reward, practically no risk = decent reward for most specs. It has nothing to do with new or old players. It’s reflected across all players and it’s why we’re stuck in this stale meta.

A veteran player should not be able to stomp a new comer all day.

That will only create an environment that cannot grow.

The reason why high risk does not amount to high reward is because of Quickness. We used to have Bull’s Charge>100 blades with Frenzy as a combination that would kill most others instantly, but if countered it would also die easily. And ANet said that they do not want a meta where you get stomped over and over again before you can react.

Mayama.1854:

Olba.5376:

Mayama.1854:

The risk reward is not equal on all classes, thats the reason why we see warriors and guardians on every team.

There is a need for different risk:reward ratios in this game.

Firstly, you need to have something that is low risk with decent reward as an entry way for new players. Otherwise you’ll see PvP dwindle to just the same people because anyone new gets stomped by the pros instantly.

Secondly, some people crave to play high risk with high reward. You can’t just take that away “because balance”.

Thirdly, an equal risk:reward ratio has nothing to do with inter-class balance. After all, how do you decide who wins when you have a low risk:low reward spec, such as a tank, against a high risk:high reward build such as a glass cannon? Based on just that one parameter, you can’t do kitten.

Did you read my post? The problem isnt mediocre risk/decent reward versus high risk/high reward its that some professions offer high reward/low risk compared to the other classes.

Did you read my post? I said that there needs to exist at least one such setup to allow easy entry for new players.

Mayama.1854:

The risk reward is not equal on all classes, thats the reason why we see warriors and guardians on every team.

There is a need for different risk:reward ratios in this game.

Firstly, you need to have something that is low risk with decent reward as an entry way for new players. Otherwise you’ll see PvP dwindle to just the same people because anyone new gets stomped by the pros instantly.

Secondly, some people crave to play high risk with high reward. You can’t just take that away “because balance”.

Thirdly, an equal risk:reward ratio has nothing to do with inter-class balance. After all, how do you decide who wins when you have a low risk:low reward spec, such as a tank, against a high risk:high reward build such as a glass cannon? Based on just that one parameter, you can’t do kitten.

First let me say one thing: If you want to talk about removing offensive stats, at least make it only apply to your armor. Your weapon is meant to deal damage.

As for removing all offensive stats, that’s a pretty big deal. This means complete removal of +Power, +Precision, +Ferocity, +Condition Damage, +Condition Duration%. Looking at the list, I’m counting 22 stat combinations total, of which 20 have one of the aforementioned stats. You’d be left with just Nomad’s and Giver’s.

And yes, if you’re going to be removing offensive stats, you remove them all, not just the ones that you perceive to be a “problem”.

And no, that still wouldn’t fix anything. The new meta would be Giver’s, because Boon Duration% can be used to gain DPS via increasing uptime on Fury and Might.

Yamsandjams.3267:

The way the trait is phrased is “Remove a condition for every bar of adrenaline spent”. As long as the bars are spent, the condis should be removed.

Thus, it seems to me that all burst skills will remove conditions even if the burst misses, meaning all the other burst skills will now be brought in line with combustive shot in terms of how it interacts with cleansing ire. The longbow used to be superior in this regard because it was a guaranteed condi cleanse, but now it might not be as necessary since you can do the same thing with, say, the hammer.

Nope. Karl said in the chat during the live that Cleansing Ire won’t proc on a missed burst.

Which is exactly why Combustive Shot is in a confusing spot.

Filaha.1678:

Right.

That’s why I’m saying there shouldn’t be a fee to do a secure item-for-item trade. Because it’s unnecessary.

It’s not unnecessary. Coin sinks are very much necessary to keep the inflation down.

Regardless, what it actually suggests to me is that they recognized that not everyone would want to do the required unlock requirements and gave an alternative option. Not that they necessarily thought it would be a significantly popular option.

Could be. Doesn’t change the fact that the coin sink from retraiting has effectively been moved to trait acquisition instead.

So you think we should get rid of our passwords because a minority of people using them are insecure, and you think that secure things that a minority of people will insecurely use are irrelevant.

No, I think that some people are stupid. Simple as that.

If I want to trade 1000G worth of a product for 1000G worth of a product, give me a good reason why I should have to pay another 150G so my 1000G of product actually cost me 1150G. Why should my 1000G of product not be worth another person’s 1000G of product?

Well, the listing fee isn’t on place only to be a coin sink. It’s also there to prevent people from using the TP as a storage. Of course, part of that issue is rooted in the fact that the TP does not have an expiration for offers, which has a few other issues.

The thing is, the coin sink will never go away. It’s the most effective place to put a coin sink in. The only real question here is: Where should that coin sink be? Currently, the seller pays extra for the listing. You could just as well make it so that instead of paying extra for the list, they simply receive less. Selling your 1000G item would net you 850G.

So if you want to make that 15% go away, you’ll have to come up with another place to put it in.

1. Would you like higher waypoint fees?
2. Would you like repair fees to come back with a revenge?
3. Bring back the trait reset fees with a major increase?
4. How about fees to crafting?
5. Needing to pay to open up a dungeon?
6. What about making everything you buy from an NPC cost Gold, even if it already requires another currency as well?

Tell me, can you see the problems that each of these suggestions would have?

And again, how am I suggesting buying items at cheaper prices if gold is not a part of the trade at all?

Because that’s one of the things that item-for-item trading would enable.

Filaha.1678:

How is an ineffective coin sink more of a hindrance than an effective one? If I want to trade Dusk to someone for Dawn and have to pay 15% tax (225G) on the Dusk to do it, how is that less of a hindrance to me than having to pay a few silver for a repair?

All coin sinks are a hindrance to the players. An ineffective coin sink might not be more of a hindrance, but it’s an unnecessary hindrance since it’s not achieving its intended goal. Unnecessary hindrances should be eliminated.

Yes you did. You specifically said that a lot of people would spend on the traits rather than working to unlock them. You used yourself as an example of someone who did. So I asked you to prove that it applies to more than you, to a degree where it’s “worth” having, since according to you, they’re only worth having in as gold sinks if it’s a significant amount.

Oh come on. The simple fact that they are even offering an option to outright buy the traits tells you that ANet had reason to believe that there would be a significant number of people who would buy the unlocks.

Except they’re not. People will download keyloggers and viruses and/or share their passwords. Does that make passwords “irrelevant”?

A password that is not functioning as a password is, by definition, irrelevant.

You mean exactly like I suggested?

I took the word “additional” as meaning a separate tab, which would effectively hide the information from view. That is not what I want. The information needs to be clearly, obviously visible.

And why have I not said that? Because my suggestion and argument is not about simple player-to-player trading, but item-for-item trading. Not selling. Not discounting. Trading. Whether it’s equal value or not is, and should be, up to the player.

And I keep telling you that item-to-item trading can already be done in the TP if you’re willing to pay the honest asking price and the TP listing fee. Asking for item-to-item trading basically amounts to you saying that you do not want to pay the TP fee or that you want to buy items at prices cheaper than the market price.

Which is why I don’t care what he said. Appeal to authority is a fallacy. A secure trading system does not open up any more shady business than is currently possible in the game. If one could fall for a scam when they have a secure trading option, they could also fall for a scam through mail as well.

John Smith is not committing a fallacy of any kind by letting the players know ANet’s official stance on player-to-player trading.

I would be guilty of being fallacious if I simply believed what John Smith says because he’s from ANet. I don’t, I saw the reasons that he put out and saw that they made good sense.

Filaha.1678:

I was kind enough to give examples. What are yours?

Unnecessary. I was simply stating that I have experienced games where drop rates truly are worse if you’re killing lower level enemies.

No, I’m trying to keep it in the context of my question. To reiterate, if coin sinks are so important, why are they being removed, regardless of effectiveness? Even if only 100G a month is removed through repairs, that’s still 100G not floating around.

Coin sinks are important, but an ineffective coin sink is just a hindrance to the players. Something that is ineffective and hinders the experience should be removed. ANet made the right choice of removing an ineffective coin sink.

That’s you. I now request your evidence that a large amount of people who didn’t already have the traits have the extra money and skill points to simply buy them all, specifically enough to make it “worth” having.

Go fish. I never said any of those things.

Irrelevant to what?

Irrelevant as “security measures”. They function in an ideal, theoretical scenario. They function if you’re dealing with robots or AI. They won’t function when dealing with humans.

Can. Except everyone has access to the TP to check the price of the items in question, making it, again, simply a matter of carelessness.

In fact, simple fix to satisfy your complaint of potential shadiness in this regard: Since everyone has access to the TP anyways, have an additional section on the trade UI that shows the current highest buy price and current lowest sell price for the item(s) offered in the trade window. That way, there are undeniable figures put right in front of the person’s face to make sure they know relative values.

Amazing what 10 seconds of thought can come up with.

No, still not quite good enough. If you want item-for-item trading, here’s what I would imagine it to be:

• It would be in the TP and would function like the current TP: No seller or buyer IDs visible.
• It would not allow you to place a trade offer that you could currently make in the TP, e.g. trading a Dawn (buy offer 1500g) for a Dusk (sale offer 1400g).
• It would not allow you to trade more than 1 item for 1 item, e.g. you cannot trade a Dawn and 250 Orichalcum Ingots for a Dusk.
• It would not allow you to place a trade offer that would result in a significant loss for anyone accepting your trade.
• Any trade offer would list the prices of the traded items in the same window

What I am getting at here is that you need to make the information visible rather than just available.

Which doesn’t have anything to do with what I said, and in fact in this very thread, I said that they could even remove gold from the item-for-item trade system expressly so that people who want to trade for gold cannot skip the tax. I would ask that if you’re going to try to refute my points, you stick to my points, not arguments made by other people.

If you think that I am only arguing with you, you’re overestimating yourself by quite a factor. I don’t care about what you have said. I care about what you have said. And what you have not said is one of the reasons why people player-to-player trading: to sell items at a “discount”.

Correct. Let me put it this way.

If you were debating buying a car but weren’t sure if it was a good buy, whose advice would you seek? A dealer whose job it is to sell you that car and will obviously be saying whatever it takes, factual or not, to make that car look good to you, or people who have actually owned that car?

He works for them. He gets paid by them. To trust that he has the liberty to enumerate any and all flaws with the system is naive. Even if the system was inherently flawed, he is unlikely to have the liberty to say it is, since that would be counter-productive to their marketing. Plenty of people complain about the writing of the lore and story, but do you think the writers will say “Yeah, we’re really just phoning it in now”?

So no, I do not care what someone who is paid to defend their system has to say about it when I’m asking the players, the people actually affected by the system, to defend it, and to not simply fallaciously parrot his information.

Except that John Smith is not trying to sell you any product. You’re also not forced to go through him to get to the game, whereas you can’t buy a car from a dealership without talking to a salesperson.

And besides, the context in which I have mentioned John Smith here has been the “shadyness” thing. That part represents ANet’s stance on the issue as expressed by their chosen representative on the topic, John Smith.

Filaha.1678:

Funny, because most MMOs I’ve played have better economies for the same amount of time they’ve been out. GW2 suffers from scaling loot. You can’t get some materials consistently past a certain leveling point, resulting in artificially increased rarity. See my cloth example. Games like FF14 and SW:TOR, though? You can get the same materials no matter how far you are, and SW:TOR probably has the best economy I’ve seen so far, simply because you can get low level materials not only as easily as you can get high end ones, but, in fact, easier with higher gathering professions. It keeps a good supply coming into the game which keeps low level materials low enough that people can afford them for use, but not so low that they’re worthless.

I have experienced the opposite. In Guild Wars 2, you can get low level items by going to a low level area and killing things. I have been in games where your drop rate of a lower level item approaches zero as your level gets higher. You know, the kind where you have to make an alt if you want to farm mid-level items because your high level character can only get 1 of them in an hour whereas a mid-level character gets 5 times that.

1. Irrelevant. They’re still removing something that, according to most people here, was part of something really important.
2. Except not necessarily, because people can also unlock them for free.

1. The effect of a coin sink is undeniably important. A good coin sink is is unobtrusive while removing enough coin from the pool to be a significant contributor. You’re arguing about the semantics of a coin sink, I am arguing about the effectiveness of specific coin sinks. Please get on the same page with me here.
2. They can, but a lot of people won’t. Personally, I bought all of the new GM traits on all of my characters on the day they were released without even looking at what their effects were.

And? That doesn’t mean it’s not secure, it means people don’t use the security. That’s their fault. Are you saying that having a lock on a car is not security because people leave their cars unlocked?

I am saying that the security measures you put in are irrelevant because there will be people who ignore them. A system that requires human involvement is never truly secure.

1. Which isn’t shady when it’s item-for-item. You shouldn’t have to pay a fee to give one item to another person and receive another item in return.
2. How is this shady? If I’m willing to trade a Dusk for enough Bolts of Damask to craft a couple ascended armour sets, on whose part is that shady?
3. Firstly, again, how is this shady? And secondly, this proves to me that you don’t understand what “item-for-item” trading is, because you’re saying “lower price” and “selling”. Item-for-item trades are not selling. They’re trading one item for another item (or items). For example, 5 Bolts of Damask for 12 Deldrimor Steel.

All three were examples where shady activity can happen. And that’s what makes it shady.

Trading item-for-item directly can result in someone getting less value for their item. That’s an avenue that “crafty” or “skilled” traders can and will take advantage of. Which is quite shady.

The example about trading an item for gold was something that a lot of people who ask for player-to-player trading are making: they want to give a “deal” to someone they don’t quite trust, such as a member of their faction.

The reason I am using the word “item-for-item” rather than “player-to-player” is because the former can be implemented without the latter. Also, item-for-item trading is at least a bit more arguable than player-to-player trading.

Also, I clearly don’t care what John Smith said. I’m asking for justification from the players, not from the people responsible for the system who will, of course, argue that their system works. They wouldn’t use the system if they thought it was bad (I hope).

So you don’t care about what the expert with all the tools and knowledge says because he’s getting paid for his expertise?

Warlord.9074:

At least Daecollo has foresight enough to grasp the problems of ANET introducing such a change without changing the burst skills themselves.

We chatted about it for awhile and both agreed that that the way burst skills are currently designed and implemented is incompatible with the change ANET is proposing. Currently warrior burst skills are designed and implemented to not only give obvious tells, most of them are designed to be challenging to land because of the obvious tells and clunky design.

You’re overstating the problem here. Some burst skills have obvious animations, not all of them. Hammer is the go-to example, but then again Hammer is entirely about being telegraphed but being awesome if you manage to get the combo off. Basically Hammer sucks for clueless people, but if you know what you’re doing, it’s awesome. And yet you don’t see Sir Daecollo proposing anything to do to it. Why does he think everything but the most telegraphed weapon we have is telegraphed?

Heck, why is Flurry on that list? Flurry isn’t exactly telegraphed, it roots you. And the rooting can be circumvented for awesome effect by stowing your weapon, something that good Warriors have been doing for ages.

Skull Crack was specifically made more telegraphed because it was hard to distinguish from the autoattack and the prize for connecting Skull Crack is still huge.

Eviscerate? I might agree on giving it a bit more range. Or making the leap a bit faster. But Eviscerate does not need to cleave: Axe already has the best cleaving potential of all of our weapons. Making Eviscerate cleave would make it superior to Final Thrust in every way: It would have a less obvious animation, it would be better at dealing its damage, it’d cleave the same way, it’d be on a weapon that already has good damage.

Thus the impact of not updating burst skills to make them compatible with let me be clear as said in another thread “they are being held to a standard that doesn’t exist for other classes.” in that other classes skills simply go on CD hit or miss, warriors will lose all adrenaline in addition too where they lose the ability to cleanse conditions, sustain themselves through passive healing, and output damage generated from adrenal based passives like heightened focus.

Have you ever heard of this profession called “Thief”? Because they are a profession whose most notorious, most damaging skill requires that they be in stealth and behind their enemy in melee range. The same thing applies to the second most notorious Thief weapon set, S/D. The stealth skill gives you blind from front and a daze from behind. So why is he not suggesting fixing Thief stealth skill mechanics as well?

Filaha.1678:

And it shouldn’t be. If I want to swap Xbox games with a friend, should I have to send $10 to the government?

The reason it should be taxed is because the most common reason for asking for item-to-item trading is because someone doesn’t want to pay the listing fee for an expensive item, such as as a precursor. And yes, it’s a “want”, not a “can’t”.

What is it about the GW2 economy that makes it so precariously balanced that adding a trade option would destroy everything, yet there are countless other MMOs with trade options which have healthy economies?

As a follow-up, do you not think that a fragile system such as this should be fixed, rather than continuing to rely on such a precious balance?

It’s not that it would destroy the whole economy, it’s that it would remove a lot of items from the taxable items pool. If you think that item-for-item trading would not result in most expensive items being removed from the TP entirely and replaced by trade spam, you’re a pretty big dreamer.

And my experience is that GW2 has one of the healthiest economies I have seen in an online game. Good things are still affordable, while luxuries are expensive but not at a gold cap price.

And as asked earlier in the post and further to those questions, if gold sinks are so necessary and shouldn’t possibly be removed because destruction for everyone’s money, why do you think they’re actively removing gold sinks? Since April, they’ve removed repair costs, they’ve removed trait respec costs, and they’ve offered an extra crafting slot for purchase which, if purchased, allows for an extra slot so that you don’t have to pay to switch up to three professions, for examples. Those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.

• Repair costs were a minor coin sink to begin with, so removing that doesn’t really change much.
• Trait respeccing became cheaper for people who retrait a lot of times. For most people, they don’t do that. A lot of the costs for retraiting was put towards the costs of unlocking traits in the first place. For most people, the costs for unlocking all traits is going to be much, much more than they would have ever spent on retraiting, thus making it an effective coin sink.
• Switching your crafting profession wasn’t exactly a major coin sink either. Most people learn crafting professions that fit their character and instead swapped characters for crafting.

And finally, why do you accept that you should have to pay for security in trades compared to a vast majority of MMOs which would allow you security in trading as a basic right? Is it solely because you think it’s a necessary evil, or do you really not see a problem in that?

Security in trading? The games that I have played have had the systems that you think are secure (double confirmation, dialogue boxes listing item names) and I have seen people getting scammed fairly often.

The thing is, the use cases for item-for-item trading are mostly about shady practices (even John Smith has said this in the past):

• Avoiding TP fees on expensive items such as precursors or Legendaries
• Trading a higher valued item for a lower valued item (such as precursor-for-precursor trading)
• Selling an item at a lower price to a person who you don’t trust enough to do mail trading with

Warlord.9074:

Adrenal Health:
Heal yourself when you gain a bar of Adrenaline.
Healing: 360 (0.5*hp)?

This change makes it so adrenal health isn’t a passive heal, you have to skillfully build around and constantly channel your rage and use skills to build it up to heal yourself, rather then just waiting and sitting on it. It also fixes the problem of it being too weak.

That would be far too strong in PvE. Slap on Axes, take Sharpened Axes and some Healing Power and you’d be at a point where Healing Signet looks weak.

Flurry:
Immobilize your foe and gain quickness. Effect increases with adrenaline level.
Damage: 256
Level 1 immobilize and quickness: 2 s
Level 2 immobilize and quickness: 3 s
Level 3 immobilize and quickness: 4 s
Range: 160

This turns flurry into a self buff that also immobilizes your target, the quickness will allow you to get the same stack of bleeds you would have if you used the normal skills anyways with the autoattack. However you are now fully mobile. Its a unique idea that makes it skillful and adds counter play as well.

As always, Daecollo is crazy. You could literally just bust out Flurry, stow, swap and pull off a 100 blades. Or if you felt like it, a kittenton of bleeds from the Sword auto. Heck, you could probably swap over to Axe with Sharpened Axes and fill your adrenaline in those 4 seconds with autoattacks.

Skull Crack:
Stun your foe with a skull crack. Effect increases with adrenaline level.
Damage: 434 (1.5)?
Stun: 1 s
Stun: 2 s
Stun: 3 s
Range: 200

Skull crack now cleaves up to 3 targets and has a range increase. This is to increase usability and punish people who stand close to eachother in PvP.

Yeah because a long duration aoe stun worked so well for Hammer.

Eviserate:
Leap at your foe with a devastating attack. Effect increases with adrenaline level.
Damage Level 1 damage: 672 (2.0)?
Damage Level 2 damage: 840 (2.5)?
Damage Level 3 damage: 1,008 (3.0)?
Combo Finisher: Leap
Range: 600

Range of the attack doubled and now cleaves up to 3 targets. However it remains just as slow. Tracking should also be improved because of this. There is a bug right now because of its low range that it can miss simply by running into the player who uses it.

No. This would make Final Thrust obsolete. Currently, the only advantage Final Thrust has over Eviscerate is the cleave.

The thing is, there is no need for face to face trading. You could literally just add a section to the TP where you could put item-for-item trade offers. That would also eliminate the concern about being scammed.

However, that will never happen. Simplest reason is that item-for-item trading cannot be taxed in any sane way. However, you can achieve the same effect and get taxes by making the player trade their item for gold and then trade that gold for the other item.

The TP is the most effective coin sink in the game because most goods that you might want to buy can be found on the TP and everything on the TP is taxed. The goods that are not on the TP are non-tradeables, lot of which are bought from NPCs, so they are already doing their part. Any suggestion that would hinder the TP as a coin sink is insanity.

Um… Wouldn’t a griefer be categorized as a random schizophrenic person or something along those lines? Or someone who’s on drugs?

I have nothing against role players, but I don’t see how a toggle like this would fix anything. There would still be people who’d toggle in just to grief you. Heck, I have seen griefers on this forum outright saying that they would do exactly that. Further more, more menu options means more confusion for new comers. And I don’t just mean people new to the game, I mean people new to games in general, people new to MMOs and people new to online games.

And a toggle like this would just make people ask for other kind of toggles. Toggles for your language. Toggles for your server. Toggles for your guild. Toggles for your friend list. Implement one and there is very little you can argue against implementing the others. And then you’re back to the starting point: Everyone is separated by their choice of toggles, rather than brought together. Not to mention that a bunch of toggles for server-related operations wouldn’t exactly be an easy thing to do, as you’d doubtless end up having to alter a lot of sorting algorithms and server architectures.

It’s not going to become useless just because someone can block Flanking Strike to deny you from getting Larcenous Strike.

The idea behind Larcenous Strike being unblockable is that your enemy can’t just start blocking as soon as they get hit with Flanking Strike to avoid the boon steal. This is particularly true because Larcenous Strike has a huge telegraph in the form of Flanking Strike, even more so now that you’ll have to connect with Flanking Strike.

RyuDragnier.9476:

And tone down Choking Gas? The move only gave poison, it did nothing outside of that. Now it can’t be used in WvW due to the fact that now it gives revealed, AND it will proc retaliation from people.

The issue with Choking Gas was that you could use it while in stealth without getting revealed.

Choking Gas has poison and a field which you can blast for AoE weakness. I don’t see how Choking Gas revealing you if you are in stealth is such a big deal. It’s not like it puts Revealed on you if you’re not in stealth.

For Warriors, we got:

• Arcing Slice is now an AoE that deals increased damage against enemies with <50% hp
• 100 Blades and Whirlwind Attack damage reduced
• Adrenaline will be spent when you miss a burst skill. Missing won’t proc Cleansing Ire.
• Impale had it’s Torment duration reduced from 12s to 8s
• Mace autoattack 3rd hit got a slight speed boost
• Rifle autoattack changed to not apply bleed and instead deal increased damage against targets with vulnerability
• Banner sprint skill doesn’t attack anymore
• Rousing Resilience had its duration increased
• Signet of Rage had the boons reduced by 5 seconds
• Rampage got some buffs

Domey.9804:

Very happy. Does it mean we now backstab 2 targets? ( didnt get it in the vid).

Nope. The cleave only applies to Double Strike, Wild Strike and Lotus Strike.

Dual Wield Agility is pretty good in PvE. Not everything needs to be meta in PvP.

Vatlaaw Fierceshot.5713:

I don’t quite understand your first point about it being similar to laurels. Think prestige like in cod. It’s purely cosmetic and a grind for titles, skins, and other prestigious items; hence “prestige mode/levels”.

Now that just sounds like Achievement points.

That’s why it would be limited to max level players and, of course, the prestigious items would be totally different than what you find at the laurel vendor. As for the karma,gold, and magic find; they would be large sums of permanent account bonuses- again something you cannot find at a laurel vendor.

Again: What makes level 80 so prestigious? And wait… you’re seriously suggesting >20% passive bonuses to GF/MF/Karma?

I didn’t say you couldn’t do old content with the current system. But right now, there’s little reason to. With that being said, I don’t see the harm in Introducing a system that entices players even more to revisit old content. Also, I am confused as to how one would be a “OP powerhouse” if their effective level and stats were to be reset to that of a level 1?

So first you say that you want to play with your friends… and then you say that playing with your friends is not reason enough? You know, that would have worked in a game that did not scale levels (thus requiring rolling an alt with them), but that doesn’t make much sense in this game.

As for the “OP powerhouse”, I was simply referring to the fact that due to level scaling, you do not need to make an alt to enjoy low level content with your friends. Level scaling along with voluntary things like buying lower gear and not using traits makes you just as weak as your lowbie friends.

Tell me, if a friend calls you over for a visit, do you ask them to provide you with drinks and food (or cash) or you won’t participate?

Vatlaaw Fierceshot.5713:

Imagine a store full of awesome goodies like New weapon/armor skins, Permanent gold/magic/karma find, Exclusive Mini pets, Exclusive tonics, Exclusive recipes, Titles, etc at the cost of prestige points!

Laurels offer tonics, pets and permanent gold/magic/karma increase in the form of an infusion.

Method 1: Prestige points would be unlocked by leveling 80 times past level 80. Progress would be tracked under the achievement tab.

Method 2: Effective level reset to 1. Re-play old content with low level guildies and revisit everything and have some fun! Prestige point unlocked as soon as level 80 is reached again.

1. How would this be any different from Laurels, except being locked to level 80? And why should it be locked to level 80 in the first place? What’s it about the level cap that makes it “prestigious”?
2. We already have a pretty decent level scaler and you can totally do old content without being an OP powerhouse.

Arcades.4689:

And, btw, an axe/lb war has absolutely no mobility. An Axe/gs war has no way to connect effectively with 100b, and no way to remove conditions while using the gs, so both of them aren’t really mobile, powerful and tanky builds.

And that is exactly why I said no one uses Axe/GS. I try running Axe/LB in WvW once a while, but it just ends with people kiting the kitten out of me. LB doesn’t work too well against kiting since most of its power comes from Arcing Arrow, which requires a somewhat stationary target.

As for Axe/GS, I think that anyone who gets killed by that is still living in 2012, because by 2013 everyone had figured dodging Bull’s Charge makes 100 blades a joke.

There’s a reason why LB became an instant hit when we got Cleansing Ire.

What is the effective power on other meta builds on other classes besides hambow? I’d like to see how they compare lol.

You cannot compare effective power across professions. Different professions function differently, so the measure loses its meaning.

Olba, its not the lack of evades. The problem is that a warrior still does more damage inbetween those evades to me than i do to him. I never complain about lack of evades when i have Feline Grace and Vigor most of the time. But going conditions… well, i´d rather uninstall the game before i touch condition builds. Those are cheap seeing how conditions rule small group and solo Meta.

So basically you choose not to use the one build that would utterly destroy a glass cannon warrior… and then complain that the glass cannon warrior is too strong?

And in case you’re not seeing it: S/D Thief gets evades in exchange for damage. Just like a glass cannon warrior gets tons of damage for sacrificing all of their defenses. The only difference between a glass cannon Warrior and any other glass cannon is that Warrior has better base survivability. And Warrior doesn’t have anywhere close to the best damage in the game.

TheBandicoot.5294:

@Narkodx – its mostly the player behind the build, but some builds have a big impact on the battle. That said, i won´t go so far and call Axe/Shield and GS a cheesebuild. Its just the composition of stuff and the way Eviscerate, Healing Signet etc work which makes it throw balance out of the window —-> NO L2P issue. I´m fine if a better player beats me. Thats L2P, right? but if i more or less have to fight the build or have to play cheese myself, then something must be wrong.

You don’t have to play “cheese”, whatever the hell that means, you just have to play a build that works against the enemy you are facing.

An actual full glass Axe+Sh/GS Warrior has very few ways to deal with condi damage. That build has an effective power of 6135. If they go with full condi defense they’re looking at 4972. So just to survive conditions, a Warrior sacrifices 20% of their damage.

And I don’t want to see a Thief complaining about lack of evades. You got more evades than any other profession in the game with S/D, Sigil of Energy and Feline Grace. That’s more than enough to evade all Eviscerates from today until the end of time.

Godzzila.3752:

Olba.5376:

Godzzila.3752:

Vayne.8563:

Godzzila.3752:

Allaraina.8614:

I think every single one of these suggestions has been requested…. MANY times in these forums before. I’d love all of them (especially a first person camera option). Hopefully in the future we’ll get at least some of them.

I don’t even think this forum is read by anyone with “power” to take decisions. The only anet workers going around here just seem to keep the forum from going to far on verbal abuse and such things…

That’s probably very much the case. This is how it works in many companies.

A huge percentage of all forum posts are a waste of time from a production point of view. People yelling to nerf this or nerf that and other people telling them to learn to play. People saying that dungeons are too hard. Plenty of stuff that makes no real sense to pay attention to.

So taking a dev that has authority and making him troll through thousands of posts to find dozens of useful ones is a bad business decision.

Instead you have works who aren’t as vital to the game go through them and make lists of the stuff they should look at/pay attention to.

It works the same way in publishing. You get 1000 submissions a month, 100 of which aren’t crap. It’s called the slush pile. You get a junior editor to go through the slush pile and reject the crap. Then they go through the 100 and weed out the ones that fit the criteria you can actually buy and maybe 20-30 of them get to the editor’s desk, of which he’ll choose five.

I don’t think there are such things as a list, I think that the forums and every suggestion that comes from them are 100% ignored by the devs (unless they are stuff like bugs that are really messing things up)

Numerous changes that have been made to the game, both in balance and elsewhere, have appeared in the Suggestion forum months before they were in the game.

This means nothing. Some balancing issues are just straight up obvious and you wouldn’t need feedback to notice them. The fact that it takes MONTHS from being said in the forums to actually something being made about it is just another example of nothing you say or do in this forum has any relevance…

Well, among other things, the following were in the Suggestions:

• 4s Revealed
• Wallet
• Cleansing Ire
• Burst Recharge% for Discipline
• Ferocity
• Burst Mastery

Wolfield.9812:

Eviscerate 1 shots me. I do not fight axe warriors because of this. My backstab hits them for 4-7k + sigil damage. They hit me for 15k + sigil damage.

Shouldn’t run glass cannon against a glass cannon and complain when you lose.

I run 50:50 Berserker:Knight and I rarely see Eviscerate going over 10k under my own power.

ProtoGunner.4953:

GW2 is the most un-further-developed MMO I have ever seen. After almost two years there is lack of typical stuff like:
-new playable races
-new classes
-new crafting disciplines
-new skills
-new weapon types
-new dungeons
-new raids
-new pvp modes (WTF!?!?! I found 1 mode ridiculous during release, but after two years it’s just embarassing)
-new campaign/continent (Elona, Cantha)
-…

Let’s see about that. Currently, there’s simply no space for a new crafting discipline without adding a whole new category of items. And that would be kind of silly, adding a whole new category of items just so that you can craft them. We have gotten tons of recipes and Ascended crafting added to the game.

As for dungeons, we have gotten Fractals of the Mists. Unless that doesn’t count because you don’t like it or something?

They have added new areas to the game in the form of the Zephyrite Sanctum, Southsun Cove and most recently, Dry Top.

ANet has also offered explanations for the lack of most of the things on your list. New professions are less likely than new weapons, which in turn are less likely than giving the current professions more access to the current weapons. ANet wants encounters like Tequatl and Triple Trouble to be the “raid-like content” in GW2. In GW1, having a lot of PvP modes split the PvP population too thin over too many modes for ANet’s liking.

This is like saying ,I read harry potter philosopher’s stone and it was amazing.
Now i just read Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and it was terrible.
Then why didn’t you just read the first book Again?
Keep in mind guild wars 1 is a 10 year old game. It doesn’t mean its bad.

Doesn’t mean that you should implement it. WoW has more sales than any other MMO ever, I would say that’s pretty good argument for it not being a “bad” game. So with that, how would you feel if we copypasted WoW and called in Guild Wars 2?

You can’t just say “something isn’t bad so we should have it in this game”.

Godzzila.3752:

Vayne.8563:

Godzzila.3752:

Allaraina.8614:

I think every single one of these suggestions has been requested…. MANY times in these forums before. I’d love all of them (especially a first person camera option). Hopefully in the future we’ll get at least some of them.

I don’t even think this forum is read by anyone with “power” to take decisions. The only anet workers going around here just seem to keep the forum from going to far on verbal abuse and such things…

That’s probably very much the case. This is how it works in many companies.

A huge percentage of all forum posts are a waste of time from a production point of view. People yelling to nerf this or nerf that and other people telling them to learn to play. People saying that dungeons are too hard. Plenty of stuff that makes no real sense to pay attention to.

So taking a dev that has authority and making him troll through thousands of posts to find dozens of useful ones is a bad business decision.

Instead you have works who aren’t as vital to the game go through them and make lists of the stuff they should look at/pay attention to.

It works the same way in publishing. You get 1000 submissions a month, 100 of which aren’t crap. It’s called the slush pile. You get a junior editor to go through the slush pile and reject the crap. Then they go through the 100 and weed out the ones that fit the criteria you can actually buy and maybe 20-30 of them get to the editor’s desk, of which he’ll choose five.

I don’t think there are such things as a list, I think that the forums and every suggestion that comes from them are 100% ignored by the devs (unless they are stuff like bugs that are really messing things up)

Numerous changes that have been made to the game, both in balance and elsewhere, have appeared in the Suggestion forum months before they were in the game.

That’s basically a monthly fee for a bunch of items that have very limited supply and are worth thousands of gold on the BLTP.

So basically your complaint is that Guild Wars 2 is not Guild Wars 1.

Why Great Fortitude instead of Dual Wielding?

And your food is a waste of time unless you really are getting 1 kill every 30 seconds to keep it up.

silentnight warrior.2714:

Mayama.1854:

TheBandicoot.5294:

Eviscerate needs to be toned down, tbh its the overall damage which is too much for a warrior´s tankyness and sustain. Or, what i also already said, just make warriors slow/reduce their mobility.

Thats what really bothers me in GW2, its the only mmorpg where kiting classes/builds cant kite. We dont need frostmage WoW level of dominating kiting but something is wrong if a warrior can sit 90% of the time on my face even if I slot every kiting skill on a mage, engi or ranger

What is wrong = Melandru runes and food. Fix them and problem solved

Only if you also “fix” Runes of Krait and +condi duration% food.

And for the record, Runes of Melandru aren’t that much better than Rune of Hoelbrak. Heck, there’s Rune of Antitoxin, which is a condi damage version of Rune of Melandru.

Brother Grimm.5176:

I think you found the reason most players don’t use that Sigil…..

Condition duration increases rounds DOWN to the next lowest FULL second. Burning is typically so short it takes a LOT of increase to meet that criteria. (you would have to be applying 5s of burn to use that Sigil and get any increase).

The fractions do still show up in the tooltip, though. The OP says it’s not happening with Sigil of Smoldering.

I tested it in Heart of the Mists and observed that the tooltip changed even with a 1s burn duration, showing a 1.25s duration with Sigil of Smoldering.

And yet we have the occasional WoW person who comes here pretty much saying “This game isn’t enough like WoW, when will you make it like WoW?”

The Sigils that add condition duration should show up in the tooltips. I tested that in the Mists with Cripple, Vulnerability and Bleeding and they all showed up just fine.

However, Sigil of Force (+5% damage) has never shown up in any form. The +crit% and +condition damage% sigils show up in your Equipment submenu stats.

It is.

This has come up in the past with a few events, where not fulfilling the objective meant endless waves of mobs spawning.

However, it’s a very grey area because the difference between legitimately being unable to complete an event and intentionally failing an event is mostly in the intent.

Crit chance is just that: a probability. Probabilities are inherently capped at 100%.

Every time ANet says anything about “the future”, people take is as guaranteed promises that cannot, will not and could not be broken under any condition. Once those views on the future turn out to be untrue or not as beautiful as ANet envisioned, people will hate ANet for it. People will call them liars. And then… people will start asking for more.