Guild Wars 2

insanemaniac.2456:

Solstice.1097:

hmmm this brings up an interesting thought… what if certain sigils should be made mutually exclusive with certain weapons. for example air/fire sigils don’t work on thief dagger, mesmer GS, or ranger LB. energy sigils dont work on thf SB, ele dagger or warrior warhorn,. can be done with runes/amulets too like soldier amulet doesn’t work with turret traits, balthazar runes don’t work with incindiary powder.

if not every class had the same choices, it would be 100x easier to balance things that need balancing without creating so many unintended consequences.

an example of this would be remember how Lyssa runes were nerfed? Well instead of nerfing them across the board, they could have just made them not work with basilisk venom or signet of rage.

adding in a bunch of (potentially undocumented) exceptions is opposite the direction the devs want with balance.. it drastically raises the barrier to entry for new blood

or one could say the opposite, and that by Anet’s own logic having fewer things to choose from makes it easier.

what? you think every stomp attempt you are going to get multiple CCs on you?

why can’t you just start the stomp to bait out their cc’s and then dodge? also, doesn’t this go both ways and also make it harder to rez a downed player?

the only impact i see this having on downed state play is more often preferring to cleave over stomp (which most teams would be wise to do anyway)

hmmm this brings up an interesting thought… what if certain sigils should be made mutually exclusive with certain weapons. for example air/fire sigils don’t work on thief dagger, mesmer GS, or ranger LB. energy sigils dont work on thf SB, ele dagger or warrior warhorn,. can be done with runes/amulets too like soldier amulet doesn’t work with turret traits, balthazar runes don’t work with incindiary powder.

if not every class had the same choices, it would be 100x easier to balance things that need balancing without creating so many unintended consequences.

an example of this would be remember how Lyssa runes were nerfed? Well instead of nerfing them across the board, they could have just made them not work with basilisk venom or signet of rage.

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

Solstice.1097:

we need doom sigil to counter the current meta bruiser builds.

we need more anti-boon sigils tbh. (50% chance on hit to remove 1 boon from target and yourself, no CD)

That idea would be OP on Necros. They don’t care about losing boons (since they typically only have one or two), so they wouldn’t really suffer a drawback while removing every boon they come across.

necros could use some love imo

we need doom sigil to counter the current meta bruiser builds.

we need more anti-boon sigils tbh. (50% chance on hit to remove 1 boon from target and yourself, no CD)

also someone was pointing out ele and engi using on swap sigils more often which is not balanced…. just wanted to point out that they only get 2 sigils instead of 4 like everyone else.

Applying the current mechanics to the stability change tells us that any boon removal/strip/steal will remove ALL stacks of stability, not a certain amount of stacks.

Just like might works now – it’s all or nothing. It’s one boon no matter how many stacks it is.

So stability stripping will be no different than it currently is, however for skills that give very few stacks of stability, players will now be able to cc chain/burst through the stability stacks.

WvW is going to feel this change 100x harder than PvP does.

I do think the # of sources of stability should be increased. I also think it would be nice if there was an easier way of reading stability. Like a visual effect I can easily see rather than having to check their buffs.

maybe if somehow you threw a ranged attack, that got reflected, and somehow the reflected projectile hit your ally, so somehow YOU shot your ally? and then they die and rally you?

im just trying to think of how a bug like that could even exist.

tevoro.1587:

So does this mean hambow is going to just auto win forever now? Because with their ability to chain stuns and knockdowns there is no way anyone could have enough stabilities/stunbreakers to beat it.

huh? their first hit did NOT stun you, and you still allowed them to land the rest of their chain? fighting hambow isn’t so much about stability as it is about stun breakers and saving your dodge/blind/blocks for when they swap into hammer.

also you’re going to have the same amount of stun breaks and stability sources as you did before.

the issue will be coordinated CC+bursts – if a team pops like 6 CCs on someone there will be literally nothing that can be done to escape, whereas right now stability has no limit how many things it can negate during its duration.

and this will make the game more zergy because getting caught outnumbered will mean locked down and gg

that’s my reaction without thinking too much about it >.<

gotta love it when you have an ally warrior who runs rifle, goes far at temple, stands above the point on the ledge firing down at the enemy, lets them cap it, they cap the point, go up on the ledge, kill him, and then he goes afk and dc’s.

and THEN the very next match he is on the enemy team running shoutbow and playing decently!

Mireles Lore.5942:

I think a dev said if you leave the game for any reason and come back you dont get credit… I think this might only apply to the leaderboard… should be for all rewards.

this is no longer true unless you are gone for 1 min total combined during the game. so for example if you can swap in less than 20 seconds, then you can swap at least 3x with no penalty.

if my team comp isnt working ill swap mid-game. but im not doing it for CD abuse. lol why not just have a team with 3 players that each have 6 different necros, and 2 players with several warriors each.

then they can just keep swapping toons to get infinite lich form + war banners.

unless multiple toons of same class share CD of same skills? i wouldn’t know since I have never swapped between 2 toons of the same class.

Arahzor.1832:

So why would i get punished if i play with some friends that suddenly dcs and have to authorize network due to some issues with their isp that takes longer then the grace period?

DCs happens from time to time, but why punish the entire party for one person who cant do much about dcing?

If you and me lived in the same house, i then suddenly decide to scam people on money, the police finds out and comes to get me, you have no idea about this, you were never involved in this – but you get sent to jail as well. Do you think that is a fair act?

Does this encourage me to not play with friends? Do you think this is fair Justin?

“GW2 is rewarding to play with other people, unless you go spvp with your friends and they dc then your entire team is the bandits in this drama” thats how it is now.

Now i questioned my 6 year old cousin, he said “not fair” – i do agree.

A yes or no will be enough to answer the question; Do you think it is fair?

without this rule, teams could have a designated player just quit whenever they aren’t winning so the rest of them dont lose LB points.

its not intended to punish you for ally DCs. although that can potentially happen, it should be rare enough that -3 LB points isn’t going to ruin your day is it? if it’s not rare, then maybe you should stop queuing with that person or at least do unranked or something until you’re stable.

Roe.3679:

Actually the worst is when you make a mistake and have the wrong weapon or traits.

yea that’s happened to me a few times lol… i also learned the hard way how long it takes me by trying to swap builds with 25-30 sec left and not having enough time…. then I end up traited for 1 weapon but equipped with another or something stupid. or like traited for shouts but still running stances…. epic

it still doesn’t make sense. the queues are going to have to be split.

Otherwise what…. if you don’t buy the expansion you can no longer queue for PvP because one of the maps in rotation you can’t access?? I’m pretty certain that they can’t even legally do that.

NeXeD.3042:

I agree it is extremely difficult to click the little thing at the top of my screen and change a few things in the amount of time the q pop takes since it’s insta q and the amount of time it takes for the game to start is just not enough for me to change amulets.

you have barely over a 1 minute window to change builds, and that’s if you don’t need to swap toons. just swapping between 2 different warrior builds takes me about 35 seconds or so (weapons, sigils, runes, amulet, traits, utilities, elite)

also, if you try to make the point that swapping builds is so EZ, then that just reinforces how EZ it should be to implement build-saving.

If you like TDM it’s more of a “would you rather” question…

Would you rather:

Get to play TDM whenever you want in its own queue, but with only 1 map

OR

It’s pretty much random when you play it, and a lot of the people in there don’t want to be there (oh, and still only 1 map)

i disagree as I don’t believe the map itself should be a big factor in a TDM mode. i do, however, believe you should not be forced to play any mode you aren’t intending to play, and that this is a more important consideration.

a lot of the time, pvp is fun gasp

You can either eat it or let it melt.

With expansion we have an opportunity to take GW2 competition to the next level so please consider the following! I’m pretty sure most of these would be very welcome and improve QoL for us all!

1. allow queueing from other places besides hotm, increase accept timer to 30 seconds, and reduce ‘waiting for players’ segment of game by 15 seconds to compensate for increased timer. We made strides to decrease queue time but completely negated those benefits by making being in queue much less bearable.

2. make each game mode its own queue (deathmatch, stronghold, conquest) with its own leaderboard, but also allow players to queue for multiple modes at once (if you like the variety and random aspect then queue for all modes – first match that you get abandons you from the other queues.

3. fix the leaderboard too – it should match MMR, and if that doesn’t make it very accurate then it just means MMR calculation is wrong, so fix the MMR calculation instead of basing the LB off of games played/grinding which goes completely against GW entire philosophy…. It doesn’t make sense that one system (MMR) thinks A is the best player while other system (LB) thinks B is the best.

4. build templates! make it a feature available for sale in the gem store if you really need to justify it financially, but seriously it cannot be THAT hard to implement…..

5. increase balance frequency. meta gets stale after about 1-2 months, so that’s how often we need balance updates to keep the game fresh.

6. offer public stats. a public log of every ranked match played and the results and the classes etc etc. the community will do wonders with this data! we like data.

7. make it easier for new players to figure out wtf is going on! if nothing is really in-game then at LEAST direct them to the new players sticky on the forums. or maybe a more creative method of engaging new players, whatever, but right now the transition into PvP is unacceptably overwhelming for new players.

you can swap before match starts, or even during a match. it counts towards your 1 minute grace period for DC’s. if after loading the map you have a total of 1 minute that you are not connected to the game then it does count as desertion.

yea level does not matter in pvp.

when you check out the meta builds, check out ALL of them regardless of what you are going to play, that way you will also understand what you are up against most of the time.

when new to pvp, the thing I cannot stress enough is to get used to watching the mini-map, your team’s health bars, the kill indicator, the score, and the node status indicator – basically what is going on everywhere, and being used to paying attention to that stuff while you are fighting

after awhile it becomes second nature. but if you don’t do this you’re flying blind a lot of the time. for example you’re fighting 1v1 at far. your team gets wiped at mid. if you’re paying attention then you know you’re about to get collapsed on, so you know to either GTFO or start playing more defensively and save your CDs for when more show up. If you aren’t paying attention and just focused on the 1v1, you’re going to get a nice surprise and die.

as i asked in another post, if you don’t buy the expansion and queue for pvp, what will happen when stronghold comes up as the map?

will we be forced to buy the expansion to pvp at all, and is that Anet’s logic of why they want it to be in the same queue?

vee wee you used to be so frandly now you are so salty.

come back to us frand

Iason Evan.3806:

Solstice.1097:

maybe this has been asked but….

if you don’t buy the expansion and queue for PvP, what happens when stronghold comes up?

i don’t see how they can add stronghold to regular map rotation without forcing people to buy the expansion.

This is the most salient point yet. If you only play PvP, maybe there isn’t a reason to buy the x-pac sans the specializations and new class. If it locks people out of the Stronghold rotation that just splinters the community anyways. I am looking for an upside to this and it eludes me.

i was just pointing out that it cannot work this way.

they are going to change their minds before release and somehow separate it.

if i’m wrong, shoot me, but I’m probably right

maybe this has been asked but….

if you don’t buy the expansion and queue for PvP, what happens when stronghold comes up?

i don’t see how they can add stronghold to regular map rotation without forcing people to buy the expansion.

stronghold will not be the same queue.

the feedback is str0nk

i dont like using fear me with shoutbow because it’s my ONLY hard CC and pretty much everyone I ever run into has a stunbreak with a shorter CD than fear me.

it is good sometimes in team fights

but balanced stance for stomps and rezzes always seems to come in handy much more often.

are there some uses of fear me that maybe I’m missing, or is balanced stance just a better option?

im talking about pvp by the way

we’ll want to build differently depending on the game mode.

that’s the main reason it should be separate queues. there are a lot of other reasons as well though.

if it’s the same queue, that’s a bad idea, but it would at least be BETTER if you also added build-saving to swap easily.

Confirmed Stronghold will be added as a map to the unranked and ranked arena rotations. So you will queue not knowing whether you will play conquest or stronghold mode. So people who don’t currently like conquest will be forced to play conquest in order to try out Stronghold.

Add a map veto option when queueing, and have the map vote BEFORE queueing not after match is found.

Here’s how it works from the player perspective

I go into queue settings.

I veto whatever maps I want to veto. This means I will NOT get a match on that map

Of the maps I don’t veto, I select which one I vote for

The matchmaker will only try to match me with other people who have non-vetoed maps in common. For example if someone vetoes all the maps I have enabled, there will be no way I can get put in a match with that person.

The matchmaker will put together 10 players that all have at least 1 map in common. If they have more than 1 map in common, it will use the votes to determine the map that will be played.

The players will have to make a decision. If they want short queues they can veto 0 maps and get a match quickly. If they absolutely don’t want to play certain maps, they can veto them, but they understand that is going to make their queue longer.

This way there is an incentive (shorter queues) to play all modes, but there is no forcing game modes on players that don’t want to play it.

Or maybe we just need a separate queue for each of the 3 game modes, and a separate LB for each.

i agree but also mesmers. it looks like, as of now, that thieves and mesmers will definitely be meta in stronghold.

but one of my questions is will SH use the same PvP build menu, and will it use the same PvP balance (like how some skills work differently in pve than pvp, will stronghold have its own balancing as well separate from pvp?).

so you are saying we should play bad builds because it makes the game harder?

i see good turret engis jumping off ledges and placing their turrets floating up in the sky so they can’t even be attacked by melee.

i dont see how floating turrets can be intended by design.

Junkpile.7439:

If game is balanced 5 vs 5 why there is many objectives? Many objectives means that players need to split up and then fight isn’t 5 vs 5 and thing get unbalanced.

so that it requires both macro and micro skills to win.

not just fast fingers but also strategy.

xDudisx.5914:

Aomine.5012:

Johje Holan.4607:

witcher.3197:

Johje Holan.4607:

I think if they want to attract the max amount of players to Stronghold, they really need two different versions.

5v5 is too small for casual PvP’ers. But anything over 5v5 is too many for competitive PvP’ers.

Custom arenas are ok but it just splits the community too much. Two versions would be better.

A competitive bracket with 5v5. A non-competitive or casual bracket with 8-12v8-12.

The article highlighted that there will be some casual/PvE-friendly role(s) in this gamemode, there is no further reason to minimalize the need for individual skill by increasing the team sizes imo.

So play the competitive 5v5 bracket. I’m telling you casual players like larger teams. 5 is too small.

Casuals like bigger numbers because they want to slack off and still have a chance of competing, because the larger the group size, the less impact on each individual’s skills, so 1 of 8 people being bad is not as bad as 1 of 5 people being bad.

By that logic Soccer and Football wound’t be competitve because they have much more then 5 players on the team? You are using flawed logic.

there is truth to his logic. newbs would rather run with a large “flock” and have strength in numbers to make up for lack of skill. the most skilled players tend to be the small groups.

soccer and football may have more players on the field, but only 1 person at a time has the ball, so it’s easier to follow and watch the ball and players around the ball instead of every single person on the field. in gw2 pvp there is no 1 person with “the ball” everything that is going on matters on any side of the map.

these weird comparisons make it easy to lose sight of what the point was supposed to be lol.

witcher.3197:

I’m still amazed that WvW people “created” their own version of “GvG” completely ignoring the official gamemode established in GW1, and when that gamemode gets a successor in GW2 they say “it’s not real GvG” because it’s not the zergfest they created. I’m just speechless.

I’m not amazed. The game is called “Guild Wars” but didn’t come with a GvG game mode or any way to tell who the best guilds are. So the community created their own competition between guilds, and have invested 2-3 years worth of time and energy into it. As far as them claiming it’s not real GvG… that just becomes a matter of opinion. Some people think 5 players is not enough to represent a guild of 500. Other guilds might only have 6 people and don’t think it’s fair that you have to have 10, 15, 20+ to compete.

But at the end of the day who really cares what people are saying about it? At this point we’re still at 90%+ speculation and nothing that’s being discussed now is going to matter later (aside from feedback to Anet that they may consider)

Terrorsquad.2349:

GhOst.4019:

A lot of the questions on here have been answered in the past already. So let me answer a couple for you so they don’t waste time during the cast; double stating what they have already told us.

1: Yes, you can solo Q into the game mode.
2: Yes it will have its own Q’s
3: Yes it will have its own leader board
4: When time runs out, if both lords are up, the team with the most points wins. This is how it already works in the event of a tie and how it will continue to work.
5: No, this is not GvG so stop saying that. It is sPvP.

What’s the GvG then? All I hear is Stronghold being the new GvG?

they are saying that because along with it will come a guild leaderboard

TheGrimm.5624:

Nabrok.9023:

My questions …

1. Will the map be included in the standard rotation for unranked or is it a separate queue for this game mode?
2. If it is the same queue, this mode would seem to require different builds than conquest but you discourage switching characters at game start … build templates??
3. Although you’re testing in 5v5, you seem open to different team sizes. How will larger team sizes work with the current party queuing system?
4. Communication seems very important in this game mode, more-so than in conquest. Are you concerned that pre-formed groups with voice comms will have an even more distinct advantage in this mode?

Will be interesting to see what the say. But if you think about it as an expansion, and since they called it a different game mode, I am beating its not mixed since you need to keep the people with and without expansion separate. Just a guess till we get the real word. Good hunting!

you need to keep people with and without expansion separate?

so if I don’t buy the expansion, then I won’t have to face Revenants in conquest?

lol yea right even if you dont BUY the expansion, your client will still DOWNLOAD it – it just won’t let you actually ACCESS any of the new features until you’ve paid.

i want to know why the heck the “rangers need some balancing” thread got closed but all of the turret engi threads where there is much harder qq’ing going on stay open.

here’s what i would think off the top of my head. haven’t tried all of these though it just seems like should work

if war is a hambow i’d say a shatter mesmer or thief or LB ranger or power necro – someone who can do a big burst when the warrior lands his hammer CCs

if the war is a shoutbow then i’d say a medi guard with hammer is a pretty darn good choice, or a condi fear necro. i say medi guard because good hard CC with the hammer and with the warrior’s shoutheals and fury it allows the guard to trait and play very offensively.

if the war is condi type then I would think condi engi, fearmancer, d/d ele. needs to be someone fairly survivable on their own that also adds their own condi pressure and some CCs.

if the war is glassy then a bunker guard or bunker engi or someone who can give the warrior lots of boons/heals while CC’ing the enemy.

timmyf.1490:

Okay, so serious question. Let’s say you burn both your dodges to avoid that Rapid Fire. You have zero endurance now. Assuming they started attacking from 1500 range, you have to close some of that range, right?

Now you have no endurance and they have Point Blank Shot. So if you close distance and don’t have a 3rd dodge ready, they can knock you back again. And by this time, Rapid Fire’s back, you have to eat at least half of it.

Let’s say you have Vigor or something and get a 3rd dodge by the time you close distance and dodge the PBS. Now you have zero endurance again and, oh look, Rapid Fire is off cooldown because it’s 8s traited.

And even if you manage to get to them, they have Signet of Stone for 6s of invuln which is practically enough time to get Rapid Fire back off cooldown again.

Anyway, I totally get the “dodge the big attack” thing, but in the end, that big attack requires more dodges than you have (without vigor) and leaves you vulnerable to other attacks.

(The real lesson for me is that I need gap closers as I have none. I’m just saying that “l2dodge nub” isn’t necessarily workable advice. Especially if you add a second Ranger in the mix.)

What you are describing is walking up to a ranger in plain sight which is a really dumb idea. Use your stealth, LOS, and map vision. YOU start the fight, not the ranger. If the ranger starts the fight at 1500 range then you already need to reset the fight.

Thief is the best counter for LB ranger. He isn’t supposed to see you coming. if there are 5 LB rangers then lol… I’d suggest your team play sides (rangers tend to be the most annoying/strong at mid, depending on map)

99:1 odds against this being a coincidence… surprised i didn’t realize this sooner!

someone told me that when a rev does /laugh it does 50 AoE damage but only if it’s in /say chat so it can’t really be spammed or change anything in combat because of suppression… maybe just a way to interrupt a commune idk what else would be the point…..

but it wont matter long because the aliens are almost here

how do we think tournaments will work when there is technically 3 game modes (conquest, deathmatch, and stronghold)?

Even if you don’t count deathmatch (courtyard), then same question for 2 game modes.

Personally I think it would be a very interesting idea to combine them and have tournament where the matches are best of 3, one match per game mode, first game mode chosen at random, loser of match 1 chooses next match’s game mode. And the caveat would be you can’t change builds in between – so you’d have to find team builds that can be effectively in all 3 modes, which would add SO MUCH depth to the overall “meta”

nah, once people get into pvp a good percentage of them stick with it for good. it’s the entry barrier that is scary to most who have never played competitively. if Anet can get a large amount of WvW and PvE players in, a lot of them will stay for a long time.

unless of course the game mode sux, but anyone who is saying either way is purely speculating and means nothing.

Will we be able to apply for a beta like we did with EotM?

Will conquest and Stronghold be balanced separately? For example if one class is OP at Stronghold but weak in conquest… like how SH is so vertical and no capture points could mean that ranged and stealth classes have a significant advantage that they don’t currently have.

Will our SH and Conquest builds be separate, or will I have to re-do my build whenever I switch between the two?

Is the treb mechanic different than the ones Kyhlo and if so how?

What sort of progression will there be besides the leaderboard? Will there be rank 1-80 with titles, finishers, and achievements similar to conquest? Will it be completely separate from your conquest rank/stats, will both sPvP modes share the same rank etc?

Will we still queue from HotM and will the queue system work the same way?

actually i think i remember reading that there will be a beta.

it’s just a question whether it will be open to more than just internal testers.

Solstice.1097:

Prysin.8542:

Solstice.1097:

if RTW increases range it should show that on the tooltip at the very least. otherwise it appears as an unintended oversight.

for crying out loud. READ THE WIND DOES NOT CHANCE THE BOW’S RANGE. IT SIMPLY DOES ONE THING IN TERMS OF AFFECTING THE PROJECTILE. IT INCREASES THE SPEED OF THE ARROW SO YOU CAN NO LONGER SPAM ADADADADADADADADADADADA TO AVOID ALL THE LB’S DAMAGE

Only trait that INCREASES range for longbow is EAGLE EYE

Eagle Eye has given rangers THE SAME RANGE SINCE DAY ONE. THEY HAVE ALWAYS HAD THAT RANGE, IT WAS NOT SOMETHING GIVEN TO THEM BY MISTAKE.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RANGER PRIOR TO RTW AND NOW, IS THAT PRIOR TO RTW, ANY SHOT BEYOND 1000 RANGE WAS VERY LIKELY TO MISS UNLESS THE ENEMY STOOD COMPLETELY STILL. THAT WAS BECAUSE THE ARROW IS SO SLOW UNTRAITED THAT SIMPLY WALKING CAN MAKE THE SHOT MISS

Now shove this into your thick skulls and get real.

just like a non RTW ranger shooting beyond 1k range, you are missing the point

the point is we only know this stuff through experimentation. it’s not in tooltips etc. its a general problem with the game that’s always been there. buggy skills, unintended results, lack of clarification on how it’s supposed to actually work.

this is just another example of dozens of skills across all classes that are either buggy or very questionable whether they are working as intended. has an Anet dev ever confirmed that quickly strafing was ever intended to make projectiles miss?

also if you couldn’t tell I was referring to jportell who is saying he tested it and gets “out of range” without RTW. if you’re saying his mistaken then argue that with him.

Prysin.8542:

Solstice.1097:

if RTW increases range it should show that on the tooltip at the very least. otherwise it appears as an unintended oversight.

for crying out loud. READ THE WIND DOES NOT CHANCE THE BOW’S RANGE. IT SIMPLY DOES ONE THING IN TERMS OF AFFECTING THE PROJECTILE. IT INCREASES THE SPEED OF THE ARROW SO YOU CAN NO LONGER SPAM ADADADADADADADADADADADA TO AVOID ALL THE LB’S DAMAGE

Only trait that INCREASES range for longbow is EAGLE EYE

Eagle Eye has given rangers THE SAME RANGE SINCE DAY ONE. THEY HAVE ALWAYS HAD THAT RANGE, IT WAS NOT SOMETHING GIVEN TO THEM BY MISTAKE.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RANGER PRIOR TO RTW AND NOW, IS THAT PRIOR TO RTW, ANY SHOT BEYOND 1000 RANGE WAS VERY LIKELY TO MISS UNLESS THE ENEMY STOOD COMPLETELY STILL. THAT WAS BECAUSE THE ARROW IS SO SLOW UNTRAITED THAT SIMPLY WALKING CAN MAKE THE SHOT MISS

Now shove this into your thick skulls and get real.

just like a non RTW ranger shooting beyond 1k range, you are missing the point

the point is we only know this stuff through experimentation. it’s not in tooltips etc. its a general problem with the game that’s always been there. buggy skills, unintended results, lack of clarification on how it’s supposed to actually work.

this is just another example of dozens of skills across all classes that are either buggy or very questionable whether they are working as intended. has an Anet dev ever confirmed that quickly strafing was ever intended to make projectiles miss?

Zenos Osgorma.2936:

jportell.2197:

Zenos Osgorma.2936:

jportell.2197:

sminkiottone.6972:

jportell.2197:

As a necro I despise pew pew rangers. I play a class that is least equipped to deal with an 1800 range pew pew, as read the wind artificially increases the range on an already traited longbow. It really depends on you class you play when facing the ranger on my mesmer or guard I’m fine, thief as well. That being said I think the only problem with pew pew ranger is it forces you to work as a team to get one guy down (this should be the norm however it is not sadly.), and the fact that read the wind increases range and velocity.

Also for those that say Power ranger is not the meta, the community disagrees with you:

http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Ranger_-_Read_the_Wind_Power_Ranger

Read the wind does not increase range, you should at least inform yourself a little bit.

http://metabattle.com/wiki/MetaBattle_Wiki – look carefully, where do you see ranger in the meta ? it is not there, its in great builds, and there are a lot of build in that section, some are not even good, like read the wind ranger.

Yes read the wind does artificially increase range. Looking at the range indicator on skills if i don’t have read the wind. The arrows get the “out of range” signal when I my range indicator is red. If I do have read the wind, then my arrows hit when the range indicator is red. I am informed and that is my biggest issue with pew pew ranger is a bug that causes the arrows to fly further and hence do more damage than what they should.

yep and have you ever heard of calculating distance speed time , the faster the object the futher it travels , this is a core machanic for all Projectile attacks , increasing its speed and Range improves its distance one way or onther . complain all you like Projectiles are not changing.

Except in a video game there should be a way to fix that. Such as programming in a way that when read the wind is traited “range is reduced by 300” thereby keeping it at its normal intended range.

so you think that a game that includes projectiles should ignore the rules of physics and arithmetic calculations because that is how they calculate distance and range or how far a spell or projectile can fire , you simply can’t put a limiter on this kinda of calculation unless you want to break all the game machanics , the core Range indicator is still there reguardless of reducing it by 300 or what ever you want it to be .

if they programmed this game to deal with realistic projectile effects , every other attack over shoots (if fire ball had a Speed increase its range will be modified to match that in its algorithm , you can’t limit Range on these kind of calculations since it effects the other 2 , and the only thing you can do is Reduce the core of Lbs range by 300 to fix the Alterations of the results of the out come.

essentially turning the Lb into shortbow range , and then the traits increase that increase its effectiveness maxing its range out to 1500yards thats the only way to change its input to get a different output . when it comes to graphical coding and inputting code it working its steps untill the end and there is no editing the end result because that is the end of the algorithm then it restarts and repeats.

better think it through unless you want to cripple the LB again.

if RTW increases range it should show that on the tooltip at the very least. otherwise it appears as an unintended oversight.