Guild Wars 2

Esplen.3940:

TheKillerAngel.3596:

Esplen.3940:

What players typically do (at least for CoF p1) is bump in a few players who participate in those parts.

In CoF P1, you can port for all 3 boulders, but then you can’t open the gate. Have 4 people open the gate for you while you kill and proceed to continue soloing.

CoE lasers are impossible to solo. It’s possible to solo one side of it, but not the entirety.

I don’t think it’s possible to solo the Searing Effigy. 1 person can’t bring enough DPS.

It might have been possible before for a Mesmer to Arcane Thievery his regen. He also doesn’t respawn his crystals that fast, but I agree, it would be a really, really long fight if it were to happen and I doubt a Mesmer would be able to deal that damage.

Who knows, perhaps I’ll set up a community challenge with a monetary reward for doing it.

Esplen.3940:

What players typically do (at least for CoF p1) is bump in a few players who participate in those parts.

In CoF P1, you can port for all 3 boulders, but then you can’t open the gate. Have 4 people open the gate for you while you kill and proceed to continue soloing.

CoE lasers are impossible to solo. It’s possible to solo one side of it, but not the entirety.

I don’t think it’s possible to solo the Searing Effigy. 1 person can’t bring enough DPS.

Yeah, this is a real problem. +1

Viking Jorun.5413:

You always have the option to solo any dungeon, they’ve all been soloed. It’s significantly more difficult, but possible all the same.

Some dungeon paths are impossible to 100% solo (CoF 1, Arah P4, CoE) due to mechanics that require a group. These include puzzles that require multiple members or high DPS checks.

Awesome, thanks.

AntiGw.9367:

TheKillerAngel.3596:

AntiGw.9367:

This will not get implemented.

The reason it hasn’t been already is obvious. The items are destroyed because of intentional design, not because the devs “forgot” or “haven’t thought of” a Perfect Salvage Kit.

That doesn’t preclude the possibility of future addition.

Well, when you intentionally don’t put something in the game for gold sinking reasons, it’s a safe bet to say it will not be added in the future.

That’s like asking them for a magical stone that lets you use waypoints for free.

I do not think infinite mining picks/sickles/axes were expected at launch.

AntiGw.9367:

This will not get implemented.

The reason it hasn’t been already is obvious. The items are destroyed because of intentional design, not because the devs “forgot” or “haven’t thought of” a Perfect Salvage Kit.

That doesn’t preclude the possibility of future addition.

Discuss them here.

Pro:
The summary section which shows nearly completed achievements is nice and it gives a direction on where to go/what to do if I’m a bit uncertain at the moment.

Con:
Personally I’m not too fond of past unattainable achievements no longer being displayed if they weren’t maxed. Even if my progress was incomplete, I like to know what it was.

I’m also more partial to minimal UIs.

What do you like/dislike?

The price of silk is back down. The problem I see with this strategy goes deeper than the supply of the material – there is simply no sustained demand for t5 silk and leather, unlike mithril and wood (which can be used to craft/mystic toilet weapons). Rare armor is basically not worth making.

Does portal entre have a distance limit on the z axis, or is it capable of transporting people between two points regardless of vertical distance, so long as they are within the appropriate map radius?

Ursan.7846:

http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/19729

From, 9.7 million leather in supply to ~840k.

kitten !

Refined materials (silk and leather that has been processed) is still too cheap. Look at bolts of silk and cured thick leather sections.

Bolts of silk and cured thick leather sections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I suggest a few of you read this, particularly those of you who are taking 3 words and blowing them completely out of proportion. I never made the claim that combat mechanics in GW2 should be strictly defined by realistic physics and equivalents. I simply believe that some ideas, aside from damage, can be used to balance ranged vs. melee combat.

Going back to the topic:

Aristio.2784:

No one will ever “balance” ranged vs. melee because balance is impossible.

Situation:
1) Make Ranged and Melee be comparatively the same
2) Everyone plays range because it’s easier and safer
3) Increase melee damage to get people to go melee
4) Everyone complains that they are forced into melee to be competitive
5) Give ranged class utility/mobility to make up for lower dps
6) Melee complain that they can’t catch ranged
7) Give melee players utility to catch ranged players
8) Ranged complaining they do less damage and can’t run from melee
9) Lower melee damage, effectively making melee and ranged the same again
10) Repeat ad infinum

You can’t balance it.

In my ideal world:
Ranged DPS is lower by 15% than Melee DPS.
Give both equal gap closers/gap openers.
Punish Ranged players for being ranged in 35% of the PVE enounters.

I disagree. They can deal similar damage while having drawbacks in other regards.

2) Everyone plays range because it’s easier and safer

This wouldn’t necessarily happen if range had to sacrifice some mobility for damage or there were many effective defenses against ranged attacks (blocks, mobile reflects, etc).

CryxTryx.9208:

TheKillerAngel.3596:

What you need to keep in mind is that while ranged weapons might be taking in these new disadvantages, they would also be gaining some substantial advantages, such as much greater damage (I would give the Ranger’s longbow 3-5x its current damage, increasing its default range to 1500, but give its 1, 2, 3, and 5 skills a 600 range minimum while making the 1 skill stationary)

CryxTryx.9208:

When ever you start an debate about MMO mechanics with “In real life..” you’re on the wrong track.

Reducsing long range accuracy and creating forced misses is going to lower the over all dps of ranged weapons even more. Misses combined with dodges in blocks could mean you could go with out doing damage for an extended period of time. It would also be an incredably frustrating mechanic.

I disagree. The original Guild Wars, I think, had much better balance between melee vs ranged combat (even though the same philosophy still applied). With the proper setups, ranged weapons were capable of doing quite substantial damage (Barrage + splinter weapon = holy numbers galore). Additionally, different types of bows, depending on the situation, had tradeoffs. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Bow summarizes it better than I can.

No one is using a sniper rifile in GW2, no one is even using a scoped weapon. Having a close range dead zone would create incredable class inbalances and any time a gap closer was used it would force the ranged user to switch to a melee weapon. This is helping ranged balance how?

Arrow carts in WvW have minimum range, but nobody calls them useless.

What I would do is a radical overhaul of 75% of the combat mechanics in this game so that “dead zones” or “ineffective zones” would not be a class imbalance. We can go into that another day.

Adding ammunition only adds tedium. No one actually runs out, it just takes up space. This also doesn’t add balance at all. It only adds an extra requirement for using the ranged weapon at all, not balancing it while it is being used.

That’s because ammunition, in most games, “just takes up space” rather than being meaningful. If the ammunition limit is meaningful while keeping ranged weapons appropriately powerful it can be balanced.

I’m not sure how the arrow cart comparison is relavent. I don’t feel I should even have to point out the reasons why.

The only way that I could see a meaningful way to add ammunition to combat is to make a reload time similar to an FPS. That could be an idea, personally I think that may make the comat feel a little clunky but it could work.

The arrow cart comparison is to show that minimum range requirement’s don’t automatically make a ranged weapon useless. A high enough volume of fire will repel an assault and damage the attackers meaningfully by the time they reach the defender.

Anyway, I don’t see anything wrong with a ranger switching to a backup melee weapon if an enemy uses a gap closer after taking a few shots at range. Some ranged weapons, such as the longbow and thief’s pistol offhand, have ways to counter melee damage (knockbacks, blind fields).

What I really want to emphasize is that ranged weapons and melee weapons needs more distinct roles. Perhaps rifles and longbows might lose a substantial amount of effectiveness at close range, but that’s not their point – their purpose is to fight an enemy at range and excel at that.

CryxTryx.9208:

TheKillerAngel.3596:

Stonehead.5108:

In real life……

/facepalm

What’s wrong with that? Some real life principles and concepts can be effectively applied in game design.

In real life, as ranged weaponry has become 1. more affordable and accessible 2. easier to use 3. easier to manufacture 4. more reliable and 5. more deadly it has displaced melee combat. Infantry today use their knives mostly as utilities rather than weapons. We can take some of the advantages and disadvantages ranged weapons have had through history and current practice and combine them to create balanced combat that does not start with the premise that “ranged weapons should always do less damage.”

How many arrows can you carry in real life?

Hunters today typically carry a quiver with 3-6 arrows, 12 at the most. Archers back then would carry 24+.

Stonehead.5108:

In real life……

/facepalm

What’s wrong with that? Some real life principles and concepts can be effectively applied in game design.

In real life, as ranged weaponry has become 1. more affordable and accessible 2. easier to use 3. easier to manufacture 4. more reliable and 5. more deadly it has displaced melee combat. Infantry today use their knives mostly as utilities rather than weapons. We can take some of the advantages and disadvantages ranged weapons have had through history and current practice and combine them to create balanced combat that does not start with the premise that “ranged weapons should always do less damage.”

What you need to keep in mind is that while ranged weapons might be taking in these new disadvantages, they would also be gaining some substantial advantages, such as much greater damage (I would give the Ranger’s longbow 3-5x its current damage, increasing its default range to 1500, but give its 1, 2, 3, and 5 skills a 600 range minimum while making the 1 skill stationary)

CryxTryx.9208:

When ever you start an debate about MMO mechanics with “In real life..” you’re on the wrong track.

Reducsing long range accuracy and creating forced misses is going to lower the over all dps of ranged weapons even more. Misses combined with dodges in blocks could mean you could go with out doing damage for an extended period of time. It would also be an incredably frustrating mechanic.

I disagree. The original Guild Wars, I think, had much better balance between melee vs ranged combat (even though the same philosophy still applied). With the proper setups, ranged weapons were capable of doing quite substantial damage (Barrage + splinter weapon = holy numbers galore). Additionally, different types of bows, depending on the situation, had tradeoffs. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Bow summarizes it better than I can.

No one is using a sniper rifile in GW2, no one is even using a scoped weapon. Having a close range dead zone would create incredable class inbalances and any time a gap closer was used it would force the ranged user to switch to a melee weapon. This is helping ranged balance how?

Arrow carts in WvW have minimum range, but nobody calls them useless.

What I would do is a radical overhaul of 75% of the combat mechanics in this game so that “dead zones” or “ineffective zones” would not be a class imbalance. We can go into that another day.

Adding ammunition only adds tedium. No one actually runs out, it just takes up space. This also doesn’t add balance at all. It only adds an extra requirement for using the ranged weapon at all, not balancing it while it is being used.

That’s because ammunition, in most games, “just takes up space” rather than being meaningful. If the ammunition limit is meaningful while keeping ranged weapons appropriately powerful it can be balanced.

I’m pretty sure the post was sarcastic.

One of the key elements in Guild Wars 2’s balance among weapons is that ranged weapons will always do lower DPS than melee weapons. The reasoning is explained as such, typically in terms of risk and reward: Being in melee puts you at higher risk, while being at range is safer. Ergo, melee weapons and attacks should do more damage to be balanced.

I’ll straight up say it: this is an ineffective way of balancng ranged vs. melee combat and is a contributor to some major class imbalance we right now. It is entirely possible to give ranged and melee weapons similar sustained DPS while keeping them “balanced.”

The most important thing to consider is that damage is only one element of the balance equation. Ranged and melee weapons can deal similar damage while having drawbacks in other areas. The obvious drawback of melee weapons is that you have to get into your enemy’s face.

As stated before, the chief drawback to ranged weapons is that you will deal lower damage. However, this drawback can be shifted to other areas to maintain balance even if they deal similar damage. Here are a few:

1. Mobility. In real life, accurately shooting while moving is very, very difficult. It is also very difficult to shoot moving targets. Ranged weapons can be less accurate against moving targets (this is already the case with some weapons), less accurate while you are moving, and in some cases, unable to be fired while moving.

2. Effective range. In real life, at certain distances between you and your attacker, a ranged weapon may be ineffective. Ever heard of the 21 foot rule? Look it up. There is a reason police and SWAT don’t use sniper rifles in room clearings – they’re too big for the job. Similarly, large ranged weapons can have a minimum effective range while smaller ranged weapons are more maneuverable (The Ranger’s longbow already has some implementation like this, but I think it’s absolutely horrible).

3. Boss encounters and fight design. There are plenty of bosses that punish ranged/immobile styles of combat. If you aren’t constantly moving/dodging while fighting a boss like Lupicus you’re going to be dead very quickly. A few bosses use reflects, but this isn’t very common. It’s entirely possible to design boss encounters that are equally challenging to both ranged and Melee combatants (Lupicus is an example, while Subject Alpha is arguably more dangerous to ranged fighters).

4. Limited ammunition. This one might be very unpopular, but it’s absolutely realistic. Melee weapons need to be maintained, but a dull sword is still minimally functional. In contrast, a pistol or bow without ammunition is just a big paperweight. Damage of ranged weapons can be balanced by a limited ammunition supply.

These are just a few ways of balancing ranged vs. melee combat without making ranged weapons’ damage intrinsically lower than melee weapons by default.

Shiren.9532:

GW2 is one of the few games where melee is clearly superior to ranged. In League of Legends (a game the GW2 devs naively claimed they intended to make combat similair to prior to game launch) there are both melee and ranged carries and there are no “melee is obviously better than ranged” issues. If they can’t balance melee and ranged to be equally viable (or even closely) without gimping ranged DPS, they have no business making a game with ranged combat (the same goes for the pet unfortunately).

I’m surprised few people haven’t quoted this post more, because it seems so very accurate. It is absolutely possible to have melee and ranged attacks deal similar DPS without upending balance, and other games have done it.

Something to keep in mind is that damage is only one element of the equation. I think one way to balance ranged/melee while keeping them similar in overall damage would be that firing ranged weapons while moving substantially decreases their accuracy (or is just not possible in certain cases, since you wouldn’t be able to aim if you were constantly running). However, firing a ranged weapon stationary will end up providing the same, and possibility more, damage potential as a melee weapon (more time to aim = better shot). I think this makes sense from both a logic/balance perspective.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Best what, exactly?

Class.

Kichwas.7152:

Azure Prower.8701:

I find it amusing people think Thieves are the worst open world PVE class.

Forum readers base opinions on forums they have read – rather than play. This is also why the ranger comes in so low on opinions…

Having leveled a ranger, thief, warrior, mesmer, and guardian to 80 I can definitely agree that the ranger brings less to the table than these other 4 classes. I cannot think of 1 ranger utility skill that surpasses something like Wall of Reflection, Stand Your Ground, For Great Justice, or Portal Entre in terms of value. This would be acceptable if the Ranger had exceptional damage, but this simply is not the case outside of very specific environments.

Best, defined as: “That which is the most excellent, outstanding, or desirable in performing or achieving the specified task.”

Survey here: http://kwiksurveys.com/s.asp?sid=vtli6a8nuc4y5yz179943

I will post results after 1000 votes.

If you are interested in my previous survey, “Vote for the worst!” check it out here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/I-present-Vote-for-the-worst-Results/first

LoneWolfie.1852:

Oddly if you think about it, the amount of QQ on thieves is actually quite accurate. Thieves suck in WvW large scale battles, but they do very well in small scale battles (at least not a lot voted thieves suck on small scale battles.). killerAngel, can you do a vote for the best any time soon?

I will do a vote for the best.

Jamais vu.5284:

jcbroe.4329:

So well done, this is definitely something that ANet needs to bring up in a meeting, all look at together, and try to figure out what they can fix.

If you think a survey like this is a good venue for that you’ll be disappointed. Rather they should (as they already do) read the forum threads that contain actual opinions and sometimes suggestions rather than thougtless clicks.

It’s also a self-evident truth that with such surveys, the classes with the highest wide appeal:ease to master discrepancy always fare the worst. Ranger isn’t one of them, they truly don’t have a role in PVE, but thieves (rogues) and elementalists (classic mages) fit that as seen here. Though with ele it has thankfully ebbed a bit since release.

Erasculio.2914:

The archetype thieves comes from is basically the “ganker” – the dual wielding low armor high damage profession meant to use stealth to gank unsuspecting people and run away quickly if the gank doesn’t work. It’s a concept suited for open world PvP, but it does look odd everywhere else.

Well you don’t have to play that way as thief.

I would say the results actually show Elementalists, along with Guardians and Mesmers, are one of the “least worst” classes in the game.

Zacchary.6183:

wolfshirt.8459:

lmao. no way, dude.

Use stealth-heal at full HP. Press Dagger 1 on someone.

Then heal again if youre going to die.

If you really believe its that simple then maybe you should try that on WvW.

A thief who opens with Hide in Shadows is a terribad thief.

Leo G.4501:

1. You underestimate the resources and boredom of people on the internet. Someone could throw a hundred or so votes out easy and you wouldn’t be able to tell.

It’s possible, but unlikely. Someone could strap a rocket to a pig and give truth to the saying “pigs fly” but nobody’s doing it because there’s nothing to gain out of it.

Did you tally up and report on the “I don’t know”s? I highly doubt the majority of people taking the poll have enough personal experience to make a well informed opinion on what is bad. Which leads to the last point…

You can see how many people voted “I don’t know” in each category, and it’s actually quite large in some cases.

[quote=2325110;Leo G.4501:]

I have updated the results with 1800 votes.

The Mexican Cookie.3690:

I think what this poll really showed us, is how defensive people can get when their class is ‘called out’ as being a poopy one.

Ha, true. I’ve leveled 5 classes to 80 (war, guard, mes, thief, ranger) working on an engineer and I have some disagreement with the results but there are valid arguments behind them.

FlamingFoxx.1305:

TheKillerAngel.3596:

Split skill balance between PvP/PvE.

They’ve said that from this point on they are looking at balancing skills functions differently between PvE and PvP and I think there might be a few skills already with split functions

They need to do a much better job, pronto.

Split skill balance between PvP/PvE.

Leo G.4501:

Conncept.7638:

Leo G.4501:

TheKillerAngel.3596:

Leo G.4501:

SkyChef.5432:

Erasculio.2914:

OP, the issue with your poll is that it was done right after a huge nerf to rangers. It’s only to be expected that people would have a knee-jerk reaction and claim rangers are the world profession in the game.

…

That’s a speculation w/ confirmation bias undertone and no statistical importance attached to it. Secondly, you assume 45% of people voting out of 1500 voters are emotional less stable than you. Which I think you take yourself too seriously.
The OP could enhance his survey to cover that but ranger class was considered a poor class in dungeons and other contents even before the Search & Rescue fixed.

Please don’t pretend this poll proves anything. What you’re basically looking at is ‘forum consensus’ which is hardly analytical. And it’s not even the full forum consensus, just those that feel limited internet polls provide any statistical integrity.

I don’t think the results would be much different if the poll were conducted purely in game or on GW2G or reddit.

And what do you think you gain from gathering bias opinions?

Aren’t opinions, by definition, biased?

A bias is defined as prejudice in an unjust light. One should strive for unbiased opinion or at least express that one is being biased.

But there are several things that leave the poll unreliable:

1. You can vote as much as you want and skew the overall votes.

2. ‘Worst’ isn’t defined. Is it offensiveness? Defensiveness? Versatility? Concept? Aesthetics? Fun factor?

3. No background or processing of the votes. I could vote for Necromancer as worst in PvE because of the state of stacking conditions hindering their specialty, but then I’ve never played Necro and am basing my opinion on inexperience and ignorance.

4. Not everyone plays every part of the game.

5. The game just underwent large changes that changed the effectiveness of the professions.

I’ve got no problem with people taking a poll for fun and posting the results, but again, you can’t really expect it to be held as a significant data point.

1. Out of ~1700 votes, I do not think a handful of people voting multiple times is going to make a statistically significant difference. I can’t think of anyone who would seriously be interested in wasting their time voting over and over and over again. If I really wanted to, I could look over every single one of the 1700 votes so far to see if they were submitted by the same user but that does not appear to be the case.

2. “Worst” is generally understood as weakest performing and this is obvious to the vast majority of people taking the poll.

3. I don’t quite get that point.

4. There is an “I don’t know” option for that.

5. True.

I think the community’s perception of class balance (which in this case appears to be strong) is an important thing for developers to consider.

There are over 1700 votes now, and trends so far are the same.

Leo G.4501:

SkyChef.5432:

Erasculio.2914:

OP, the issue with your poll is that it was done right after a huge nerf to rangers. It’s only to be expected that people would have a knee-jerk reaction and claim rangers are the world profession in the game.

…

That’s a speculation w/ confirmation bias undertone and no statistical importance attached to it. Secondly, you assume 45% of people voting out of 1500 voters are emotional less stable than you. Which I think you take yourself too seriously.
The OP could enhance his survey to cover that but ranger class was considered a poor class in dungeons and other contents even before the Search & Rescue fixed.

Please don’t pretend this poll proves anything. What you’re basically looking at is ‘forum consensus’ which is hardly analytical. And it’s not even the full forum consensus, just those that feel limited internet polls provide any statistical integrity.

I don’t think the results would be much different if the poll were conducted purely in game or on GW2G or reddit.

Now I have ~1600 votes. I’ll do another update of the results when I get 2000.

MasterYoda.8563:

Im Mudbone.1437:

AndrewSX.3794:

Unless you’re splitting in the 3 game modes, this survey is meaningless.

Remember that Anet balance stuff basing on spvp, not on pve/wvw.

So the “worst pve (and/or wvw) class” can easily be the one getting nerfs due to spvp perfomance – cough ranger cough – or the opposite.

So, you’re saying Rangers were nerfed because they were OP in sPvP, that is ludicrous.

You do Know that Anet can balance skills for spvp seperate from PVE/WvWvW right? Meaning they can change skills in one game type and not affect other game types.

They can but they don’t because they lack the manpower.

maddoctor.2738:

My only complain is that the Ranger is considered bad in sPVP, seriously? Maybe it’s because there were very very recent nerfs to Rangers that affected sPVP and people still haven’t recovered, but Ranger isn’t weak in sPVP

just my 2 cents

The Warrior is considered a lot worse in sPvP than the Ranger. What I really do think is interesting is that three classes – Guardian, Mesmer, and Elementalist – almost consistently got very few votes. Perhaps they are in a relatively “sweet spot” as far as balance is concerned?

Results are here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/I-present-Vote-for-the-worst-Results/first#post2321466

Results are here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/I-present-Vote-for-the-worst-Results/first#post2321466

Results are here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/I-present-Vote-for-the-worst-Results/first#post2321466

It allows me to centralize discussion of the results in one thread as opposed to multiple forums. Results are here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/I-present-Vote-for-the-worst-Results/first#post2321466

I have close to 1500 votes now, and will be posting the results in a new thread.

Over a thousand votes now. I can wait a bit or publish results now.

Urrid.4593:

How do we see results?

I will publish them after I have a large enough number.

~950 votes so far, and I’d say that there while are clear picks for “worst class” in each category, some of these classes also seem to be considered strong in other areas.

800 responses now, getting closer to 1000.

800 responses now, getting closer to 1000.

Prior to this poll I was not aware of which were considered the weakest WvW roaming classes or the weakest sPvP classes.