Guild Wars 2

*Agree to dueling.

*Disagree with the Commander thing. You’re essentially asking for trivialization of content.

*Agree to houses and guild halls.

*We already have 3 different stat sets for gear from each dungeon. Check the vendors.

*Love the Quiver idea. I think we need more “back slot” designs. Capes included

*Legendary “cost” is a little high for my taste. That’s why I’m not bothering.

*Previewing items on the BLTC is needed immediately imo.

*Flying Travel with a waiting time: You mean like a WoW and EQ2 “WindRider” systems? It could only really work when auto-travelling between two points in the same zone (because of the design of the game being centred around individual instances for each zone, unlike in WoW where each continent is one complete instance). So it has limited application. For internal zone use, I don’t see why it couldn’t be included. People don’t HAVE to use it if they don’t want to.

Side note: Land based player owned mounts are a different story. Players could buy them once and not be forced to use the waypoint system, and yet have a form of travel that isn’t as slow as running. That would address the issue you raised in regards to having to pay for traveling through the world faster than walking.

zbrkesbr.4173:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I’ve seen so many good free games killed by premium account systems that its just not worth discussing.

And yet, many MMO’s that went F2P kept their premium subscription systems in place and seem to help with bolstering the income for the game.

Which MMO’s have you seen that have been “killed” by premium account systems?

Well, the Bank tab of the “Account Vault” already has a search entry box at the top. Above the slots. Not sure about the Guild Bank though.

The collections tab of the “Account Vault” doesn’t have a search entry box though.

It’s a pain yes, but it’s a standard mechanic used in a quite a few MMO’s. Its to ensure that you can’t outrun a mob, so you are forced to actually kill the thing that you have aggroed (regardless of its skillset), rather than just train it around the zone until it leashes back. That is, unless you are already at sufficient range to manage to outrun it at the slower speed.

In short: its a necessary evil to make you consider your immediate surroundings. Just like how repair costs make you consider the consequences of your actions.

Its the same for some of the DE’s. Such as the “Claw of Jormag” fight.
The reward just isn’t worthy of the effort majority of the time.

GummiBear.2756:

Bahamadude.4925:

I’m pretty sure the OP is suggesting an OPTIONAL fee. You can still play without paying, but you can cough up 15 bucks for gems hears Record Scratch sound effect Wait a minute. What? Why not just buy 15$ worth of gems? Something else would have to be added example, customizable fashion, a dungeon or 2 that can only be accessed if the party leader is a subber, a pet that follows you around and picks up loot automatically, one extra bar of endurance, and maybe a side quest line that’s different from the main quest (doesn’t offer much in the way of exp but decent karma maybe?) i’m sure there are other things that can be added to give subbers, grants what ever it is must not give them a ground shattering edge.

NO NO NO NO NO, every single thing you mention maybe except the fashion thing would be “pay to win”

If you want to support the game every month just buy gems, if you do’nt looking for extra benefits or anyting like that, i don’t see the freaking difference

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the term “pay to win”. Having a pet that “auto-loots” isn’t pay to win. How can auto-looting give a player an advantage over another to the point whereby they “win”? It doesn’t. “Pledge” Players having access to extra dungeon isn’t pay to win. It’s akin to an “adventure pack” found in other games.

Besides, the player you quoted is just offering suggestions.

Personally, I see no reason why Anet couldn’t setup an optional (emphasis on that word) “monthly pledge” system whereby those who use it receive a gift (e.g. gems).

After all, it would be optional.

I have to agree with the others, a sound effect could end up being annoying to the point whereby people switch it off.

However, having it as an option (to aid those with colour blindness) is a good point though.

I do think that the current style of the visual indicator of an incoming AOE isn’t good enough. I think the colour needs to be brighter, and the border needs to be thicker.

I’d love to see varied and more noticeable weather in the game too.

Fair enough, whatever “floats your boat”

Just remember that you can’t put soulbound items in the guild bank

Well, as I’ve always thought that Elem’s need weapon swapping which is tied to attunement swapping, this naturally gets my vote.

It’s a minor thing but I miss seeing my character ACTUALLY interact with the crafting station, not just stand there looking at it.

You want a free bank tab when purchasing 5 character slots? Whilst I dont really have a problem with that, I have to ask:

Why in hecks do you need that many characters?

Btw, you DO know you can buy more bank slots on the BLTC don’t you?

Agree, we need a “multi-speccing” option.

To the wow-haters I say this: yes, it was in WoW……get over it. It worked and was useful.

i agree with others:

1) Give us a Duel option
2) Also give us a toggle in the options to auto decline duels.

Completely agree.

Aga.8641:

God….people are so lazy.

If you really don’t like exploring then don’t go for 100%. If you do want 100% then check the maps on wiki, i’m pretty sure they’ll have the areas you miss, or is that too much work?!

I’d suggest you think about what you’re saying before calling people lazy.

When you’re trying to complete every map to get the “World Completion” to 100%, you have no way of knowing which zones might have the odd skill point / POI / vista which you might have previously overlooked, or was bugging out previously that prevented you from completing the zone.

And UNTIL you actually ENTER into that zone to check it, you don’t know what you might have left to complete.

Having a list of the map zones and the completion % is hardly “lazy”. It’s intuitive UI design.

Aria.4817:

I would really like to see the option to buy a authenticator, as someone who does not see the need for a smart/cell phone I would love to have the option to just buy one for 5-10$.

Anyone else feel this way also?

I agree completely. I don’t own a smartphone. But I DO want access to an authentication system.

I’m somewhat bewildered how Anet borrowed Google’s authentication system, and yet, Gmail allows authentication using ordinary phones (it sends a code to one that you setup) whilst the system Anet are using does not.

Just generally preventing people from server jumping isn’t the answer, however someone else made a good suggestion:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/suggestions/Limit-free-server-transfers-to-once-every-two-weeks/first#post423869

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Limiting transfers hurt PvE players, so any solution should address the needs of PvE and WvW The 1x/day cap means I can no longer play with friends who have guilds on different worlds, as was possible during the first few weeks.

If the issue is increasing stability for WvW, then how about limiting the benefits of people who jump worlds.

• They get no Power of the Mists from any world until the matches reset.
• They cannot play WvW from the two worlds competing against their original server.

This prevents griefing and spying, while allowing people to look for WvW servers with reduced queuing time. It also has little impact on PvE.

And it’s completely compatible with guesting.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Limiting transfers hurt PvE players, so any solution should address the needs of PvE and WvW The 1x/day cap means I can no longer play with friends who have guilds on different worlds, as was possible during the first few weeks.

If the issue is increasing stability for WvW, then how about limiting the benefits of people who jump worlds.

• They get no Power of the Mists from any world until the matches reset.
• They cannot play WvW from the two worlds competing against their original server.

This prevents griefing and spying, while allowing people to look for WvW servers with reduced queuing time. It also has little impact on PvE.

And it’s completely compatible with guesting.

Sounds plausible, it forces PVP players to reconsider the ramifications of server jumping, without affecting the needs of PVE players.

Onshidesigns.1069:

Once you get your high level gear, what do you do them?

Here are some other ideas you might agree with.
*High level recipes should include some low level crafting mats

As mentioned earlier, this is something I agree with.

*High level drops for downscaled players need to happen more often

Well SOME DE’s already do this (e.g. the large boss fight in the swamp in the human area). But yes, more DE’s rewarding “level appropriate” rewards would be better as it would further encourage players of ALL levels to visit any zone they choose.

Make karma vendors also collector vendors
*Offers rewards if you bring them what they want.
*If for a silver fee would make it a cash sink.
*Npc asks for: items + fee to make it a cash sink.
*Should be unlocked
*Some might require items more than one zone.
*Collector NPC ask for trophies

Such a suggestion isn’t rigidly tied to your original arguments, which is good. In other words, they could implement such a suggestion, thus finding a “solution” to the “problem”, without affecting the level number system in the way you originally suggested.

As I’ve always said:

More good quality gameplay options = happier playerbase.

And what if the server that a person is on happens to be one that the majority of the playerbase doesn’t care to win at WvWvW, or even take part in it in the first place?

What you are suggesting is essentially telling that player “tough schnitt buddy”.

And whilst you could possibly argue that a player should have done some research before deciding on a server, just remember that perhaps that player didn’t originally intend to get involved in WvWvW.

In short: the situation is a double edged sword. However, I believe that server transfers have a cooldown don’t they?

Onshidesigns.1069:

People are stuck in this mindset that they must get to endgame content and only play end game content. But this game is not designed for that. It’s designed for the whole game to be played at level 80. But people look at this stupid level number and think they should only be in those areas.

On the contrary, the game ISN’T designed for the whole game to be played at level 80.

Let me ask you a question: At level 80 where do you get the most level appropriate crafting mats? That’s right: Cursed Shore and Frost Gorge Sound.

How is this question relevant? Well, if crafters want to make items for themselves they either buy it from the TP or farm it themselves. Which puts them in the 80 zones. If people want to make money, they will inevitably try to sell the highest level / best quality gear.

Now, IF crafting required lower end mats as well…well that might change things just a bit. But not change things altogether mind you. Because people could still buy the mats from the TP.

The fact is that whether you like it or not, the game hasn’t actually been designed with the Utopian “play everywhere and you’ll get level appropriate rewards” design in mind. Don’t get me wrong, in certain circumstances it does stick to that notion. But in others, it doesn’t.

And removing the level number from view will not change anything in that regard. All you are suggesting is substituting a numeric system with one based on symbols and colours. Nothing actually changes. The mindset is STILL about getting better gear, which is precisely what it should be about.

An informed playerbase is happier than one that is kept in the dark.

Hiding the level number will not change anything imo. Players already look at stats on gear. All you’re doing is hiding information about mobs that would be beneficial to the player, purely on the assumption that the level number is the root of all evil. it isn’t.

I know there’s some coming in the coming weeks, but I don’t think you can ever have enough in the game. Ranging from the “small” ones (e.g. escorting DE’s etc) to the “Claw of Jormag” type ones.

I don’t know about anyone else but I think the Claw fight is probably the best dragon fight of the three…..the rewards however, well that’s a different matter. I think the rewards of those type of events need to be better (not just a random assortment of greens and blues with the odd yellow thrown in every now and then).

Btw, why not have some DE’s in the cities? You could have non-combat ones if necessary e.g. finding items, escorting dignitaries, crafting DE’s, etc, etc.

Imo, the dungeon system needs additional layers:

“Duo/Trio” Mode: Obviously allows 2 players to experience the dungeon, but the mobs and rewards are scaled down accordingly.

“Normal” Story and Exploration Modes: As they are now.

“Hard” Story and Exploration Modes. More Challenge (inc. lock outs for all boss fights if you have to respawn at a Waypoint). Rewards obviously scaled accordingly.

Wasabi Kitty.8247:

Actually Anet is fine with people grinding. That’s a completely idiotic response.

I’m not sure about that. The diminishing returns on farming an area puts you off trying.

I agree that the boss chest / boss drops are pityful to say the least….

Spend ages taking one of the dragons down…and the majority you get is blues and greens.

It turns people off getting involved in them.

Bonzoso.7014:

coffeemancer.2450:

“Yes the lack of trading is annoying but they need to make money also.”

Are you really, honestly, SERIOUSLY justifying the gutted trade infrastructure with the business excuse?

That doesn’t even make sense. How are they making money by not letting people trade?

They probably aren’t, but the theory behind it is sound. The idea is that, because they take a 5% fee when you post an item on the TP and another 10% when you sell it, they are removing currency from the players by funneling every sale through the TP. And by taking more money from the players, they are hoping that more players will spend real-world money on gems when they don’t have enough in-game gold to exchange.

There are design decisions all around this game that were obviously made in order to encourage purchases on the BLTC (perhaps among other reasons, as well). I’m betting this is one of them.

Whilst I will agree that what you propose is indeed possible. I think it’s just more likely that they want to keep a strangle hold on the economy for now. Not necessarily banking on people buying gems from the BLTC, but simply to ensure that the economy doesn’t inflate too quickly.

Personally, i think they’re being a little overly cautious with it. The DR restrictions on farming for items + costs for repairs and WP’s + other costs seems (to me) to be a little too overly cautious. Maybe they’ll relinquish their grasp in the future? Who knows.

However, coming back to the original subject, there’s no reason why a “tax” couldn’t be put on COD mailing. After all, it’s a transaction. And governments love to tax everything they can.

Benefit: being able to mail goods with a COD option.
Drawback: Tax on anything sold.

You’re in a dungeon and you’re team mate finds a decent item. So he links it, and offers it to someone in the group, they accept…..

So what does he do?

He puts it in the mail, it goes around the world faster than a speeding bullet, and then lands in the “mailbox” of the person standing beside him.

It’s downright ridiculous.

I also agree that COD would be beneficial in the game.

Agreed. Anet could even put it in the BLTC.

helladoom.4317:

Tarkaroshe.8370:

Ari Kagura.9182:

They have been rebooting weekly on a Monday night or Tuesday morning, but having it reboot more often might be a simple band-aid fix for some of the bugged events and skill points until something more reliable can be put into place.

Ari, if they ARE rebooting them on a weekly basis it isn’t actually having any effect on the “bugged” state of certain DE’s and skill points.

Problem is that insofar that it has an effect on bugged content, it bugs out again very soon (within one or two days) after. That’s why some people say daily resets are in order as a temporary workaround until the actual bugs are fixed.

I agree.

In short / TL,DR: Although at first glance the inclusion of mounts in the game may be considered as a “waste of resources” based purely on the notion that not everyone would use them, in the mid-long term if such items proved to be popular on the BLTC, they could be turned into yet another source of income for Anet. More variety could then be added to increase potential sales.

More sales = more money for Anet = potentially more development time / money spent on the game.

doittoit.1974:

Tarkaroshe.8370:

I’ve nothing against people using the WP system, but to argue for the exclusion of something simply because that person wouldn’t use it, is just plain invalid.

It’s about resource allocation. Spending time on a mechanic that wouldn’t be used is a waste of resources that could be used to strengthen a more important aspect of the game, or generate new content. The fallacy in your argument, Tarkaroshe, is why not include everything you possibly can as long as it won’t directly hurt the game experince. It should be obvious a game/company can’t do this for several reasons such as the stress on the game, expense, and the time to create and install all said items.

That being said I wouldn’t mind mounts as a cheaper alternative to waypoints. Waypoints can get pretty expensive and not sure why the cost of way points aren’t static to the location rather then increasing with a characters level.

Who said it wouldn’t be used? Sorry, but you appear to be taking my quote out of context and jumping to wild conclusions here.

A person said that they didn’t want mounts in the game, because THEY wouldn’t use them, because they found the WP system convenient. That’s not a good justification for excluding something for everyone else. That’s just basically a case of being selfish.

Now, IF the devs had agreed with the notion of only including things that everyone / the majority would use, then in all likelihood we wouldn’t see a lot of the features that are in the game….For instance, PVP may have been left out. After all, we know that only a portion of the playerbase actually takes part in it and therefore it could be potentially considered as a “waste of resources” using your own logic.

But as we know, regardless of how many take part in PVP, it is still expected to be included in an MMO today. It is part of the “foundation” of a typical MMO in today’s industry. But that expectation flies in the face of the very logic you are using.

The point I’m trying to make here is that something doesn’t HAVE to be used by everyone, in order to have enough justification for it’s inclusion in the game.

In fact, sometimes even the features and items in games that aren’t heavily used by the majority can actually still benefit the game. Just look at WoW and its “sparkle ponies” that blizzard sells on its store. Those things sell in unbelievable quantities, making Blizzard quite a tidy bit of money. Don’t you think that Anet should therefore consider selling mounts on the BLTC, regardless of how often the players would actually use them in the game? After all, more money for Anet has got to be good for the game, wouldn’t it? Also, part of the development costs for introducing mounts into the game could potentially be offset by selling some particular ones on the BLTC.

As for my own arguments, I am fully aware of the ramifications of resource allocation. But remember, no one is demanding their inclusion as a matter of highest priority. And any speculation regarding the amount of effort required to introduce mounts into the game is futile unless we have concrete figures to hand, which are verified by the devs themselves.

Middzz.1490:

Tarkaroshe.8370:

All the issues which people use against the inclusion of mounts, have in the most part been successfully dealt with in other games.

Its that simple.

The most part ………..a rather dismissive and unmeasured term .
What you require mounts means a lot of redesign and work its not as simple as you try to portray it .
Scale at present is designed balanced on walk explore discover .
The ranges space of events creatures is also based on this.,the speeds reactions ranges of monsters also.
Inclusion of mounts would require a lot of rebalancing and rescaling which is far from simple .And would always have the ability to seriously hinder systems that work at present .
Just think through the effect of speed ….can an animal attack a mount ..can the mount outrun ….if the speed is adjusted can the player on foot escape ..how far will the creature chase …how do you limit range how far chase before retreat …..do you keep slow reaction ranges as now ..simply make horses fast invunerable means of travel …how do you limit the effect player running one event another when in a close area …do we change the scale events ..the timing events …the distances between ….and we can go on and on and on .

No simply the problems with mounts have not been answered just ignored it seems .

The fact is that what you are describing is commonly referred to as the act of being “dismounted” in many MMO’s that feature mounted travel. Something that both has been addressed and works fine in other games. Meanwhile said games STILL allow players to run around all they like on foot, and the game still works fine. Go figure

Now, unless a dev says otherwise, any arguments connected with the notion of “major reworks” of mechanics is purely speculation, and therefore cannot be used as concrete justification against the inclusion of mounts in the game. Incidentally, I’m not saying that the inclusion of mounts in the game would be a really simple task either. For that reason, I do not try to speculate as to the amount of work required.

However, just because the amount of effort involved isn’t known, that doesn’t mean that people cannot / should not offer suggestions for things to be included in the game.

Dwarfstar.4928:

Tarkaroshe.8370:

Dwarfstar.4928:

I’m indifferent to mounts in this game. I loved collecting them in LotRO, however. IMHO, if they introduced mounts in this game it would have to be conditional. For instance: Once you buy a mount, you would be able to ride it in a given zone only after you have unlocked all the way points in that zone. If you have NOT unlocked ALL the waypoints, then you would only be able to ‘walk’ (lead by it’s reins) through the zone with it. In this way the mount would still be useful as extra storage until you’ve unlocked all the way points. That would be a nice compromise. Also, the mounts could only be obtained from the shop for say $10-$20 depending on the creature ( or from a special vendor) at extravagant cost to Karma.

That makes very little sense. What would be the reasoning behind stopping people from actually riding a mount in a zone when they haven’t unlocked ALL of the waypoints in that zone? What you are suggesting is just to make the situation cumbersome for people for no good reason.

Yes, someone who has a mount could possibly get to the waypoints and unlock them before someone who hasn’t got a mount. But so what? After that, said same person who doesn’t have a mount will undoubtedly use the WP system. Thus getting to where they want to go faster than the person who rides their mount to get there.

So if the justification for such a suggestion is centred around creating some kind of “balance” or “fairness”, it already exists.

Incidentally, have you tried to get all the waypoints in places like the zones in Orr? It’s not possible to do that solo.

Is this not a “suggestion” area? I thought I was making a suggestion not debating anything. LOL Calm the kitten down. =)

You mistake my interest in your post as a sign of being emotionally upset. I am not.

Dwarfstar.4928:

I’m indifferent to mounts in this game. I loved collecting them in LotRO, however. IMHO, if they introduced mounts in this game it would have to be conditional. For instance: Once you buy a mount, you would be able to ride it in a given zone only after you have unlocked all the way points in that zone. If you have NOT unlocked ALL the waypoints, then you would only be able to ‘walk’ (lead by it’s reins) through the zone with it. In this way the mount would still be useful as extra storage until you’ve unlocked all the way points. That would be a nice compromise. Also, the mounts could only be obtained from the shop for say $10-$20 depending on the creature ( or from a special vendor) at extravagant cost to Karma.

That makes very little sense. What would be the reasoning behind stopping people from actually riding a mount in a zone when they haven’t unlocked ALL of the waypoints in that zone? What you are suggesting is just to make the situation cumbersome for people for no good reason.

Yes, someone who has a mount could possibly get to the waypoints and unlock them before someone who hasn’t got a mount. But so what? After that, said same person who doesn’t have a mount will undoubtedly use the WP system. Thus getting to where they want to go faster than the person who rides their mount to get there.

So if the justification for such a suggestion is centred around creating some kind of “balance” or “fairness”, it already exists.

Incidentally, have you tried to get all the waypoints in places like the zones in Orr? It’s not possible to do that solo.

All the issues which people use against the inclusion of mounts, have in the most part been successfully dealt with in other games.

Its that simple.

Belcross.6127:

I made a very lengthy post, as to why GW2 does not have a mount implemented and ways to go around it.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/suggestions/Mounts-in-Detail-and-how-to-properly-get-DEV-support-on-it/first#post345385

It is more then just because GW1 didn’t have one that GW2 won’t. It has a lot to do with the game mechanics itself and how the mount can throw off everything. That is why I made very lengthy post pointing out features in which the mount would cause problems and how we should change the mount in order for it to be implemented and yet at the same time not change the game-mechanics, especially since many character classes depend on certain “Speed skills.”

However, most people aren’t willing to read a 4 page post, pointing out many major issues with implementing mounts. If people really did want mounts they would read my post and although they may or may not agree with my idea of how to implement mounts, they could atleast understand some of the main reasons why mounts have not or may not be implemented. Once they understand these things, atleast we can then start to huddle up and figure out ways to balance mounts and get them in game vs. sitting here and saying put mounts in.

If I had time, I’d read your post. But there’s one thing that destroys all these arguments against their inclusion:

All these arguments about blocking npcs, difference in sizes, skipping content, yadda, yadda, yadda. All has been dealt with in other games.

And to those who say “GW1 didn’t have mounts!”. That argument holds no weight. This isn’t GW1, which was a co-operative game with much smaller zones.
This is GW2. An MMO with a gigantic world.

It’s a different game, with different rules that apply.

I’m all for mounts. There are plenty of reasons for their inclusion. Plus, the economy would benefit from them. The distance between WP’s allows for them.

If you don’t want to use them / own them, fine, use the WP system and pay the fee that comes as a consequence of that decision. The rest of us who like / own mounts would have already paid our reasonable fees to purchase one, won’t be forced into using the WP system, just as you aren’t forced to use a mount.

Everyone is happy.

More options in everything in the game = potentially happier playerbase.

lynspottery.6529:

…sigh…. everyone has their own opinion on mounts and I am no different. I, however, do not want mounts. My reason is simple…I find the way point travel to be much simpler and more convenient. I would like the cost of the way points to be lowered some but other than that, no mounts.

And how would the inclusion of having mounts in the game change your use of waypoints? it wouldn’t

I’ve nothing against people using the WP system, but to argue for the exclusion of something simply because that person wouldn’t use it, is just plain invalid.

Ari Kagura.9182:

They have been rebooting weekly on a Monday night or Tuesday morning, but having it reboot more often might be a simple band-aid fix for some of the bugged events and skill points until something more reliable can be put into place.

Ari, if they ARE rebooting them on a weekly basis it isn’t actually having any effect on the “bugged” state of certain DE’s and skill points. My thoughts are that they aren’t rebooting the servers at all, simply because they don’t need to reboot them when they launch a patch (apparently the technology allows them to do this). If that is true, then that explains how the DE’s and skill points remain in a “bugged” state even after patches have been launched.

Now, yes rebooting the servers is a “band aid” fix. That’s the whole point. it’s obvious that certain issues with the game cannot be fixed within a week time frame. However, during that time in which the devs are presumably working on it, server reboots may help those who want to progress in the game.

As Zyrhan so rightly puts it, the tendency for events and skill points to bug out has become increasingly obvious and fun-destroying.

Just to point out, a dev posted :

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/elementalist/Some-improvements-I-d-like-to-see-to-D-D-Ele/first#content

“We do have some improvements in mind for the elementalist’s main-hand dagger, along with reworking the downed state a bit. Keep in mind that you might not see this for a bit, but it is in the works.”

Shockwave.1230:

Tarkaroshe.8370:

How does NOT using a frequently cycling ability reduce the ele’s effectiveness? I find that constant attunement swapping is both a right royal pain in the butt and gives very little reward in a solo PVE situation.

Your findings are your own and apply to you being effective.

Players who utilize frequent attunement swapping are simply dishing out more powerful effects. Skill 1 is weak. Skills 2-5 are much stronger.

Elementalist players who know all 20 skills in their weapon/attunement matrix and can effeciently swap between attunements hitting their damage oriented skills on cool down deal the dps most efficiently.

Furthermore players who know their 20 skills and can properly identify when to use their crowd control skills are the most efficiently at damage mitigation.

That’s what it comes down to, and the challenging fast pace combo based effectiveness is what people love about the profession.

Hmmm. I know all about the combo’s, however I find that frequently using certain 1 skills (the Fire 1 skill which for me appears to be dishing more damage than the numbers you posted earlier) appear to be more effective in a solo situation than going through the motions of attunement switching just to use a skill with a cooldown on another attunement.

Perhaps it partly comes down to how “nimble” someone is at constant attunement switching + activating a skill. But to me, in a solo situation it largely seems like a waste of time due to swift countdowns on debuffs and what I percieve to be poor rewards for actually trying to make use of certain combos when soloing.

To each their own I guess.

Of course, all that will probably change in a group or pvp based situation.

Merchant: Seraph Outfitter Eva.
Server: Piken Square [EU]

As can be seen at the top of the list in the screenie, it seems that the Precision, Toughness, Condition Dmg based Nobles gloves are being listed in its place.

Those same gloves are also listed further down in the same section as the rest of the Precision, Toughness, Condition Dmg based items.

Before people even think about screaming “nerf” they need to read the walk through.

This is less about an elementalist solo’ing a dungeon and more about a player “creatively using” the general game mechanics and the entire dungeon to kite mobs.

“Skill 1 should be used infrequently regardless of attunement in order to maximize the ele’s effectiveness”

How does NOT using a frequently cycling ability reduce the ele’s effectiveness? I find that constant attunement swapping is both a right royal pain in the butt and gives very little reward in a solo PVE situation.

@OP: Personally i think the arc size for DC should be reduced, thereby allowing all three projectiles to hit the target without having to stand on top of it.

In my opinon, the Elem’s damage is just above mediocre at best IF you don’t use extreme measures to combat that problem (e.g. combinations of complex skill rotations and gear heavily stacked for crit). To me, relying on players going to extreme measures IS a problem.

Accordingly to Anet (see below) we are supposed to be glass cannons, but when the dmg is mediocre at best that means we’re not glass cannons, more like glass pistols.

Let’s not forget Anet’s OWN WORDS when describing the Elementalist:

“Elementalists are multi-faceted spellcasters that channel elemental forces, making fire, air, earth, and water do their bidding. What they lack in physical toughness, they make up in versatility and the ability to inflict massive damage in a single attack.”

Unfortunately, the last 10 words of that paragraph don’t accurately describe the Elem in all situations when compared to the damage output of certain other classes. At least in my opinion.

I’m guessing the OP is speaking from a PVP perspective, because my opinions differ on a few things.

Personally I think it’s VERY odd for a ranged class to be expected to be “up close and personal” using what are essentially “focus” items. I only use D/D myself simply because the set of abilities for the other weapons are, in my own opinion, lack a certain degree of synergy. And the staff (I love staffs in other MMO’s) is just a plain niche weapon that is awful for solo’ing with (my opinion of course).

Dragons Claw: This relies on the player being as close as they can get to the target in order to do maximum damage. Which isn’t a good situation for a supposed “glass cannon” to be in. If the “arc” was smaller, then maximum damage could possibly be achieved without having to be practically stood on top of the mob (assuming a small target).

Dragons Breath: For me, is mostly ok because I’ve learned to NOT use it when kiting sideways, but to use it when the target and myself are running either towards one another or away. The same goes for Fire Grab.

Side note: Just like how CoC doesn’t apply any vulnerabilty buff or chilled effect on targets, DB doesn’t seem to apply the Pyromancer’s Puissance buff from the Fire Trait. Which I find odd.

Vapour Blade: This is one thing I find odd about the OP’s comments. They want to change Dragons Breath because it misses, but think that Vapour Blade is fine even though that misses too for the same reasons.

Cone of Cold: As mentioned earlier (see DB above), CoC doesn’t apply any vulnerabilty buff or chilled effect on target. Unlike Water 1 and 3 respectively. Surely it should apply a debuff to the target?

Impale: I do agree that this needs to have the same range as Fire 1 D/D.

Churning Earth: Far too long a cast time in my opinion. When you try to use it immediately after Earth 4 (the knockdown) then the mob is already on its feet and beating on you whilst you are still casting CE. Perhaps it should be a 3 second cast time.

Last note: Give us the option to weapon swap, but have the weapon slots bound to specific attunements. For example: Slot 1 could be fire attunement with D/D in it. Slot 2 could be Earth attunement with S/D. This way, the Elem is given the flexibility of weapon swapping, but is bound to a specific set of weapon abilities linked to a specific attunement.

So, in other words, Elem’s should be given 2 options that are only changable out of combat:

Option 1: Just as it is now. Benefit: More flexibility in attunement swapping. Drawback: No weapon swapping during combat.

Option 2: Benefit: Weapon Swapping allowed. Drawback: Each slot is locked to an attunement of the player’s choosing.

Kellhus.8071:

The issue with Eles is the same with every class: if you do high damage, you’re made out of paper — and if you can take a hit well, your damage is lower.. and every class complains about the same.

Where the Ele shines is when you don’t go 30 points into any trait line, but spread out and play all your attunements to their strengths. No, earth and water are not powerhouse damage lines — but what they can do is amazing in the context of a fight because we get 20 abilities in any build.. and because of the crazy number of available abilities we can access, people cannot faceroll their keyboard and expect to do well like with a warrior, thief, or guardian who plays a single role based on build. I love my warrior, but on him I play hammer / mace+shield and he’s a CC beast, with lots of self healing. No real damage of note, but I’m great when paired with someone who can. On my ele, however, no one can clear a point like him with earth dagger 4, stability, 5 (huge AOE people will either stand in and take solid damage, or run to get out of thus buying me time). I can leap into the middle of a fight on him to save a team member with lightning dagger 4 (gap close + damage), then 5 (KB + swiftness), attune ice dagger and 3 (3 second AE chill), circle strafe 2 (cone damage + heal allies), then turn on the fire and light everything up to start bringing damage.

The best thing about an ele is that there is no situation to which I cannot bring benefit, which is something I can say is not the case on my other pvp toons who, quite frequently, are just overkill to a fight.

Please stop with the spouting the standard “you’re glass cannons, deal with it” line. Also, please try to look at the Elementalist not only from a PVP perspective, but from a PVE one too.

If the situation was as per other games (i.e. the class was actually a glass cannon), then yes claims about elementalists being glass cannons would apply. And in such circumstances Elementalists would then actually be in line with how Arenanet describe the Elementalist on their own website:

“Elementalists are multi-faceted spellcasters that channel elemental forces, making fire, air, earth, and water do their bidding. What they lack in physical toughness, they make up in versatility and the ability to inflict massive damage in a single attack.”

The last bit is what is most important here. “…the ability to inflict massive damage on a single attack”. That is just not true when you compare Elementalist’s to certain other classes.

But the reality is that if a class’s dmg output is such that it is below par, then it is no longer a case of “you’re a glass cannon”, more like “you’re a glass peashooter” in certain situations. So, in essence, Elem’s cannot be described as glass cannons at all.

Side note: What certain posters in this thread need to realise is that whilst Elem’s do indeed bring a wider variety of abilities to the table, and yes they CAN heal, they are NOT just supposed to be a support class only. Therefore claiming that an Elementalist is “fine” purely on the grounds that it can be placed in a support role is just not good enough argument. Especially considering many other classes can ALSO be placed in a support role and yet do better damage when not used in a support role.