Jump to content
  • Sign Up

MatyrGustav.6210

Members
  • Posts

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

MatyrGustav.6210's Achievements

  1. GW3 would be a seperate game, so any investments in GW2 will be in GW2. The game will live on even if GW3 is out. I dont understand this feeling that we wasted our time just because 3 comes out. GW2 will get to a point when its considered finished, not abandoned, but finished.
  2. This would amazing. Structured pvp could get a taste of a small scale version of WvWvW battles without the Zerg and trampling by the team with the highest numbers. Anet should definitely expand Structured PVP.
  3. I agree. I was thinking about that. In other games like Overwatch or Paladins your enemies that are within your mission area halts any progress for your team. Defeating them would continue mission progress, you would also gain additional points for kills. So you would definitely need some damage in there.
  4. Guild Wars 2 has great team oriented combat, but most of the Structured PvP game types promote splitting up to capture points. I think it would be awesome if we got a few game modes that promote Team Play. That being Said, I also think we need a 1 vs 1 game mode to please Duelists as well. I added some popular game modes that are staples of multiple games. Please comment.
  5. The energy costs definitely need to be reworked if the system is to remain the same. One other way to solve this is if you have energy, your weapon function as normal, if you don't you may still use the weapon with a lower effect. As an example lets look at Revenant Greatsword skill. Mist Unleashed - Hurl forces from the Mists in front of you, rendering foes vulnerable. With energy it functions as normal, Without energy it doesn't apply Vulnerable. The thing is the Revenant class is already in a state with big problems in my opinion. Its like they tried soo hard to make it different. I don't think it will be that hard to make it function like the other classes since its a system already established with most other professions. The way I see it is, currently you have unlimited energy if you keep swapping legends as you run out. So as balancing goes, what would be the difference? You will be allowed to choose or stay in your legend based on tactical reasons and not just energy retrieval. If there are any skills that feels strong since all the energy can be used on utility skills , Anet could just increase the energy costs to compensate now that the weapons skills aren't using energy. To me it just feels silly that i cant use my weapon if I don't have energy. The revenant weapon skills don't feel better than the other professions, so I don't really see the reason for an energy cost as well. Firebrand tomes were slowed down to be used in a more tactical sense. Before you could spam and now all tomes charges are shared. you have to think on which to use, It was a refreshing change. Im looking for a similar change for Revenant.
  6. I agree, i also play a support build. Its been nerfed so much that players that use support builds are punished. I've been really feeling this in Structured PVP. I cant heal anything, nor kill anything. I have to run an offensive build to do anything. Like if i run a full support healing build it means I don't have good damage. After nerfing the healing my build isn't up to par. Like i understand if Anet was nerfing healing if all builds are hybrid in the same way, but they aren't so this means all players aren't using characters with the same effectiveness as another player. *Example below (Percents are representative of effectiveness just as an example.). Hybrid Build 40% Damage, 40% Defense, and 20% healing ----> After Healing Nerf (50%) ----> 40% Damage, 40% Defense, and 10% healing (90% effectiveness) Healing Build 20% Damage, 20% Defense, and 60% healing ----> After Healing Nerf (50%) ----> 20% Damage, 20% Defense, and 30% healing (70% effectiveness) or 10% Damage, 10% Defense, and 80% healing ----> After Healing Nerf (50%) ----> 10% Damage, 10% Defense, and 40% healing (60% effectiveness) Just for conversation sake, this example is represented as a Hypothetical 50% healing nerf. What I am saying is that you're not running a character at 100% effectiveness if you are utilizing a percentage of healing specialized in your build which places you at a disadvantage the more of a healing spec you're using.
  7. I kind of agree, I was feeling the same way. The Spec has basically 2 legends in 1. It has more utility, than the other legends especially since using 1 utility skill doesn't effect the cooldown on the other Vindicator stance. As far as evades go, i think 2 is ideal since choosing the spec doesn't necessarily mean you'll have the Alliance Stance equipped.
  8. People should be allowed to say they want change even if they don't necessarily know what change will be. Its the devs that will choose something. We the gamers can say hey "This isn't working", and just because we wont know how to make it better doesn't take away the validity of the feedback. I for one, firmly believe Revenant will function better as a reverse Thief, with Weapon skills having cooldown only, and utilities utilizing energy. The balance can come from adjusting the energy costs. I truly believe the class will function a lot better with the below implemented for all build types. - 100% Energy to start - Swapping Legends do not give energy / reset energy. Same mist energy is used for both legends. - Weapon Skills do not use energy
  9. Ive explained many times. its wild that an observation bothers you soo much. What i said about the poll is not necessarily an opinion its an observation. The numbers of the poll, and the cooldown numbers are factual. Its there for you to see. I do understand balancing, but thats ultimately up to the devs. Stop trying to act like they are incapable of balancing, that if you cant see a way, they cant either.
  10. Facts are facts. I understand that option 3 is the winner based on popularity to a multiple choice poll, theres no argument there. I was just saying that more people want change than not. This poll was designed for data and not necessarily the winning response is the only factor. Just look how many people voted on the survey, and how many didnt vote for option 3. I was just making a factual observation. If you dont like it i dont know what to tell you. Facts are Facts. Also my recent post, also facts. They are cooldown data i got from the game. Many people are saying that the energy costs allow for lower cooldowns. My post proves its not true. So how about you stop trying to make me out to be something with your assumption on why im doing what im doing just because you dont like what youre reading, and talk about the facts in front of you.
  11. I just wanted to add that I was reviewing the cooldowns on professions that are also Melee oriented, and I really do not see the need for both Cooldown & Energy. The cooldowns are very similar, but the other professions do not have an energy cost. My conclusion is that the energy costs on weapons are just a gimmick that forces you to swap legends to get energy back. Truth is, if the Revenant had "Lower Cooldowns" because of energy costs, they would be OP compared to other classes since the energy costs do not prevent you from attacking if you are switching legends. I don't really see the narrative that energy costs on weapon skills are for balance, when cooldowns aren't lower because of energy costs. Below is a sword comparison with the cooldowns on the right. GUARDIAN - Sword - Main Hand Symbol of Blades 8 Zealot's Defense 12 - Offhand Executioner's Calling 12 (PVP 15) Advancing Strike 20 WARRIOR- Sword - Main Hand Savage Leap 8 Final Thrust 12 - Offhand Impale 15 Riposte 15 RANGER- Sword - Main Hand Pounce 6 (PVP 8 ) Serpent's Strike 8 (PVP 16) REVENANT- Sword - Main Hand Chilling Isolation 5 Unrelenting Assault 12 (PVP 15) - Offhand Shackling Wave 15 Deathstrike 15 (PVP 18)
  12. You cant really assume that if cooldown only was implemented, that those that voted for energy only will be unsatisfied. There are many people including myself that would like either or, as long as its not kept the way it is. All im saying is that, more people want change, than not. If youre not voting for option 3, it means you dont want to keep things the same. Its obvious and clear cut. Youre over here dissecting. Relax.
×
×
  • Create New...