“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.”
-Albert EinsteinYou might be thinking:
My ideas are so good and important, I NEED more than 200 words.Instead we should all be challenging ourselves this way:
If my ideas are TRULY good and important, I should be able to say them in under 200 words.my ideas involve specific weapon, trait, and skills changes, with proper rationale for everything. If I put all these proposed changes into one post, it would certainly exceed 200 words, by a lot, so I wont do that. Ill certainly break them up the best I can…
That being said, I applaud your optimism in supporting Anet’s proposed format for this topic, but at the same time, lets not ostracize those with well thought out, complex, lengthy and organized proposals, simply because it results in a “wall of text.” Anet is asking for specific, detailed responses, not floppy philosophical generalizations.
A proposal can be well-thought out, complex, and organized without being lengthy. The reason we’re concerned about length is because of the huge number of 3-4 posts in a row, wall of text, no whitespace stream-of-consciousness posts by many people in the CDI.
Also: (caps because it’s important) PROPOSALS DO NOT HAVE WORD LIMITS. (But spoiler tags if it’s reallllly long might be good.)
Responses to proposals, the discussion posts, are where word limits are being suggested.
ah thanks for pointing that out for me. You are correct about the limit on RESPONSE posts. Goo to know
I do however stand by my defense of “walls of text” in general. I actually agree with you 100%, I myself feel like shorter can be impactful and efficient, but I would rather see everyone comfortable with their preferred method of expression, be it short and sweet, or lengthy and involved. This is an important topic and I don’t want anyone to feel restricted. I think its best for people to just keep the formatting/length suggestion in mind, but know its not set in stone. I’m already predicting people being called out for bypassing it once we go live, and that can lead to negativity, something we need to make sure doesn’t make its way into the discussion.
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.”
-Albert EinsteinYou might be thinking:
My ideas are so good and important, I NEED more than 200 words.Instead we should all be challenging ourselves this way:
If my ideas are TRULY good and important, I should be able to say them in under 200 words.
my ideas involve specific weapon, trait, and skills changes, with proper rationale for everything. If I put all these proposed changes into one post, it would certainly exceed 200 words, by a lot, so I wont do that. Ill certainly break them up the best I can…
That being said, I applaud your optimism in supporting Anet’s proposed format for this topic, but at the same time, lets not ostracize those with well thought out, complex, lengthy and organized proposals, simply because it results in a “wall of text.” Anet is asking for specific, detailed responses, not floppy philosophical generalizations.
Although I feel like this is a strong format, I’m not sure if I can abide by the length restrictions, as I too have a variety of topics to discuss. I will try my best to break them up slightly into different posts though. Cheers
I would be very happy with a trait that provides better range for spirit effects to proc. That way they could be placed more strategically away from battle (something that seems ranger-esque imo). I could care less about Spirits Unbound as a Grandmaster trait, its pretty weak for GM trait anyway, so that could be changed to “Spirit skills have longer range,” maybe even “and recharge 20% faster,” but thats probably pushing it. They wouldnt even really need to change the name.
But thats wishful thinking and wont happen…so heres to hoping they do something about their survivability at the very least.
Sorry if this is the incorrect forum.
Tier 3 cultural armor – Assassins armor, has serious weapon clipping issues on female characters.
Weapons at the hip (pistols, daggers, swords), clip through the physical form of the character considerably. Smaller weapons clip so badly you can barely even see them. This is a highly desirable and expensive set of armor, and to have such a distracting graphic glitch saddens me as I had a strong desire for this armor before I discovered problem. I would like to see it fixed so I can feel better about purchasing this armor.
The same glitch also occurs on the exotic duelist armor as well, another armor set i like, leading me to believe the glitch is associated with the more “skin tight” armor sets.
aside from the bugs, the key words/phrases were “lack of build diversity,” “sub par utility skills” and “feel/pacing” on weapons.
“lack of build diversity” means to me they will most likely not, for example, remold our signets to favor more popular buffs such as power or precision. that doesnt really diversify the profession. So when they do revisit signets, i would expect the unexpected.
I’m not sure what will happen to shouts, but a general complaint is that rangers dont have enough party support in dungeons and whatnot, so we may see shouts revisited to apply boons to allies, further supplamenting support builds that use warhorn.
In gw1 spirits were still pretty squishy, but had fantastic range. I believe they will focus more on the range, and perhaps only slightly address their squishyness. with a greater range you can simply put them in safer places.
I feel like pet attacks are difficult to address. Such changes have a high risk of causing significant balance concerns, and require a serious amount of programming and testing. The best thing they could do to get pets going in the right direction right now, is to reduce the amount of damage they take from AoE. I suspect they might address that first.
feel/pacing on weapons probably means a buff to longbow speed, unrooting the sword 1, and perhaps slightly adjusting the shortbows 2,4,5 so were not just spamming them when they are live. I’m not sure we will get a straight power buff on GS but perhaps a slight change in feel to make it more effective. Maybe all we really need to make GS more effective is a general change to the ranger profession.
on a side note, i too want trap traits moved away from the skirmishing line, and put into survival. it just makes much more sense.
(edited by Zatoichi.1049)
oh dear god thank you. Thank you very much just please make good on it and follow through.
(edited by Zatoichi.1049)
I have a female theif that would look awesome in the Profane armor skin available at the gem store. The styling is reminiscent of, and undoubtedly derived from, at least to some extent, the Assassins of guild wars 1.
Problem is, gem store skins are armor class specific (light/medium/heavy).
From my perspective, the Profane set is fitting of an ‘assassin-esque’ thief. I might go so far to argue that the Profane set has a generic enough appearence and implied weight, to be classified under all 3 armor classes.
Let it be known, I accept that as a theif, as per the normal restrictions, i cannot wear other armor classes outside of medium. Nor do I expect to have access to such appearences in the future.
I do however suggest that unique gem-store skins be handled differently in the future, with less restrictions.
I am also suggesting, that the Profane armor skin more specifically, and perhaps even the Krytan armor skin, be applicable to other armor classes. Thanks.
-Ichi