GW3 is needed with new classes and new skills and new skill system and armors etc etc. An entire new GW3 not a few mini story lines every 6 months -1 year..
GW3 is needed with new classes and new skills and new skill system and armors etc etc. An entire new GW3 not a few mini story lines every 6 months -1 year..
Will never happen. As new classes will not fit in the lore, etc. That is one thing that A.Net has done fairly well, is keep in with the lore of the Universe they set up.
GW3 - I don't think NCSoft will allow that to happen.
GW3 is needed with new classes and new skills and new skill system and armors etc etc. An entire new GW3 not a few mini story lines every 6 months -1 year..
Will never happen. As new classes will not fit in the lore, etc. That is one thing that A.Net has done fairly well, is keep in with the lore of the Universe they set up.
GW3 - I don't think NCSoft will allow that to happen.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. New classes don't have to "fit the lore" of a sequel (that will never happen). Arenanet added new classes to GW2 that would not fit the lore of GW1 (the Engineer), while entirely changing existing classes (Monk/Paragon -> Guardian) and removing classes (Ritualist and Dervish).
They also added lore to GW2 to add an entirely new class to GW2 (the Revenant).
The lore is subject to change based on the classes they want to add, not vice versa.
The problem is, the moment you start asking yourself what meaningful, non-repetitive thing can I next do in GW, the soap bubble bursts and you realize you are playing the wrong game.
Just my two cents.
That sums up my time in GW2. Just had no holding power, nothing to keep my wanting to log in to progress something.
I absolutely hated GW's group instance content. Was absolute dog shit. The big zone events was fun but the instanced group content i fuckin hated. Was done so poorly it was just a cluster fuck of epic proportions. The group content is what made me stop playing this game. It was like they asked a 5 year old to make dungeon content. Was just shit all over the place, zero structure, poorly made mess.
I think the game got off on the wrong foot. They were supposed to aleviate so much of what was wrong with WoW, but they didn't IMO. I still recall sitting in LA on my Non Meta class trying to get a dungeon seeing chat spam by with things like "CoF Speed Runs" "Heavies Only" and/or "Link Gear" They loved the term "Innovation" when really what they wanted was to reinvent the wheel. That said, I felt like the got their act together and the game dramatically improved over time. Until HoT. I actually preferred the Living Seasons over the expansion. PoF wasn't that bad IMO. The LS that followed PoF were no where near as good as LS before. Then fiannly this latest season with the whole Elder Dragon Envy issue made no sense. Like saying.... If Jormag is so easy to subdue, why would you need to fear Aurene? That story line held zero interest for me.
My thought process is that perhaps they never should have had instanced group content. The game is at its best in the open world, and I don't think the combat system they made really shines at group dynamics.
Fractals and raids were never a change in direction. If you read the pre-release articles, it was clear that dungeons were meant to be difficult high-end content, but they flubbed them so grievously that they just became exploit-ridden speed clears.
No, I'd raise you that it was always a mistake, even back in the dungeon age. Meta chains are the life blood of the PvE experience, and they needed to pool all of their resources into making the open world as fun and rewarding as possible. Maybe if they hadn't spread themselves thin on multi-path dungeons and multi-path personal stories, the game would have impressed right out of the gate.
(And that comes from someone who really doesn't care all that much for open world games. I much preferred the instanced approach of the first game, and I wish the sequel had been more like it. But I have to acknowledge that I had the best experience while just exploring the world and doing dynamic events.)
My thought process is that perhaps they never should have had instanced group content. The game is at its best in the open world, and I don't think the combat system they made really shines at group dynamics.
Fractals and raids were never a change in direction. If you read the pre-release articles, it was clear that dungeons were meant to be difficult high-end content, but they flubbed them so grievously that they just became exploit-ridden speed clears.
No, I'd raise you that it was always a mistake, even back in the dungeon age. Meta chains are the life blood of the PvE experience, and they needed to pool all of their resources into making the open world as fun and rewarding as possible. Maybe if they hadn't spread themselves thin on multi-path dungeons and multi-path personal stories, the game would have impressed right out of the gate.
(And that comes from someone who really doesn't care all that much for open world games. I much preferred the instanced approach of the first game, and I wish the sequel had been more like it. But I have to acknowledge that I had the best experience while just exploring the world and doing dynamic events.)
We do agree.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
The game was fun and unique before the expansions ,fractals and raid crap. The base game is what people seem to like more and if it didn't go f2p i bet it would have shut down. They need to get back to basics and stop with all the story stuff. Really miss the ideas in that old manifesto. But no they had to cave to the ex wow crowd who hated wow but wanted the game to be like wow.
I never played GW1 and so I went into GW2, at launch, with no expectations. The art was amazing and the story was far more interesting than WOW. The dynamic events in each zone were fun until I realized that they were just on a rotation.
I tried a dungeon while leveling and it was designed horrendously. There wasn't enough room to properly maneuver, yet they wanted people to combine skills with others. It was a huge turnoff.
The combat itself never felt like an improvement over other MMOs. I understand what they were going for but it jsut never worked for me.
Anyway, I really enjoyed exploring in that game. which is something I never bothered to do in any other MMO, even LOTRO. Once I hit the cap I tried the world bosses, which were just laughable zergfests and WvWvW which was just as bad.
I quit soon after. I eventually bought Heart of Thorns but a year after launch. It was impossible to find people for world mobs for stars, or whatever they were called. the multi-level zones got annoying quite quickly. I remember reaching the final boss who bugged out and was unkillable. It then set me back to a point where I needed to do three long fights that led to them. I rage quit and never felt like returning.
If Path of Fire was $5 or so I may try it, but even that's unlikely.
GW3 is needed with new classes and new skills and new skill system and armors etc etc. An entire new GW3 not a few mini story lines every 6 months -1 year..
Will never happen. As new classes will not fit in the lore, etc. That is one thing that A.Net has done fairly well, is keep in with the lore of the Universe they set up.
GW3 - I don't think NCSoft will allow that to happen.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. New classes don't have to "fit the lore" of a sequel (that will never happen). Arenanet added new classes to GW2 that would not fit the lore of GW1 (the Engineer), while entirely changing existing classes (Monk/Paragon -> Guardian) and removing classes (Ritualist and Dervish).
They also added lore to GW2 to add an entirely new class to GW2 (the Revenant).
The lore is subject to change based on the classes they want to add, not vice versa.
They also changed the entire atmosphere of the game. While GW 1 was zany at times, it was overall MUCH more serious and consistent than GW 2. I mean, in GW 2 you have Asura with almost Star Trek tech, Charr with tanks, cars and blimps and Humans in medieval armor and dragons. You also have super silly quests. All of that was deliberately done so it could resemble WoW more. It's MUCH more random and inconsistent than GW 1.
Look, I know fully well. I played a shit ton of GW 1, I was there when only bits and snippets of GW 2 were available(I still remember the old logo for one). GW 2 is ... it's best when it's you consider it just as a new game set in GW franchise. Because it is NOT a sequel of GW 1 in anything except lore and names...the IP stuff.
GW3 is needed with new classes and new skills and new skill system and armors etc etc. An entire new GW3 not a few mini story lines every 6 months -1 year..
Will never happen. As new classes will not fit in the lore, etc. That is one thing that A.Net has done fairly well, is keep in with the lore of the Universe they set up.
GW3 - I don't think NCSoft will allow that to happen.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. New classes don't have to "fit the lore" of a sequel (that will never happen). Arenanet added new classes to GW2 that would not fit the lore of GW1 (the Engineer), while entirely changing existing classes (Monk/Paragon -> Guardian) and removing classes (Ritualist and Dervish).
They also added lore to GW2 to add an entirely new class to GW2 (the Revenant).
The lore is subject to change based on the classes they want to add, not vice versa.
They also changed the entire atmosphere of the game. While GW 1 was zany at times, it was overall MUCH more serious and consistent than GW 2. I mean, in GW 2 you have Asura with almost Star Trek tech, Charr with tanks, cars and blimps and Humans in medieval armor and dragons. You also have super silly quests. All of that was deliberately done so it could resemble WoW more. It's MUCH more random and inconsistent than GW 1.
Look, I know fully well. I played a shit ton of GW 1, I was there when only bits and snippets of GW 2 were available(I still remember the old logo for one). GW 2 is ... it's best when it's you consider it just as a new game set in GW franchise. Because it is NOT a sequel of GW 1 in anything except lore and names...the IP stuff.
I agree. And I'd have been happy with that arrangement if both the original and the non-sequel received content and balance updates, but the way GW1 fans like myself were dicked over isn't something I can easily forgive.
*Queue the typical jackass who was never a GW1 fan telling GW1 fans that they should just live with it in 3.... 2....*
GW3 is needed with new classes and new skills and new skill system and armors etc etc. An entire new GW3 not a few mini story lines every 6 months -1 year..
Will never happen. As new classes will not fit in the lore, etc. That is one thing that A.Net has done fairly well, is keep in with the lore of the Universe they set up.
GW3 - I don't think NCSoft will allow that to happen.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. New classes don't have to "fit the lore" of a sequel (that will never happen). Arenanet added new classes to GW2 that would not fit the lore of GW1 (the Engineer), while entirely changing existing classes (Monk/Paragon -> Guardian) and removing classes (Ritualist and Dervish).
They also added lore to GW2 to add an entirely new class to GW2 (the Revenant).
The lore is subject to change based on the classes they want to add, not vice versa.
They also changed the entire atmosphere of the game. While GW 1 was zany at times, it was overall MUCH more serious and consistent than GW 2. I mean, in GW 2 you have Asura with almost Star Trek tech, Charr with tanks, cars and blimps and Humans in medieval armor and dragons. You also have super silly quests. All of that was deliberately done so it could resemble WoW more. It's MUCH more random and inconsistent than GW 1.
Look, I know fully well. I played a shit ton of GW 1, I was there when only bits and snippets of GW 2 were available(I still remember the old logo for one). GW 2 is ... it's best when it's you consider it just as a new game set in GW franchise. Because it is NOT a sequel of GW 1 in anything except lore and names...the IP stuff.
I agree. And I'd have been happy with that arrangement if both the original and the non-sequel received content and balance updates, but the way GW1 fans like myself were dicked over isn't something I can easily forgive.
*Queue the typical jackass who was never a GW1 fan telling GW1 fans that they should just live with it in 3.... 2....*
Gonna bet they were planning to do it again.. and then something went wrong and their years long background project that took half their staff.. suddenly.. vanished.
I would have bet cold hard cash that was GW3, and they were planning to Maintenance Mode GW2, just like they did to GW1.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
GW3 is needed with new classes and new skills and new skill system and armors etc etc. An entire new GW3 not a few mini story lines every 6 months -1 year..
Will never happen. As new classes will not fit in the lore, etc. That is one thing that A.Net has done fairly well, is keep in with the lore of the Universe they set up.
GW3 - I don't think NCSoft will allow that to happen.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. New classes don't have to "fit the lore" of a sequel (that will never happen). Arenanet added new classes to GW2 that would not fit the lore of GW1 (the Engineer), while entirely changing existing classes (Monk/Paragon -> Guardian) and removing classes (Ritualist and Dervish).
They also added lore to GW2 to add an entirely new class to GW2 (the Revenant).
The lore is subject to change based on the classes they want to add, not vice versa.
They also changed the entire atmosphere of the game. While GW 1 was zany at times, it was overall MUCH more serious and consistent than GW 2. I mean, in GW 2 you have Asura with almost Star Trek tech, Charr with tanks, cars and blimps and Humans in medieval armor and dragons. You also have super silly quests. All of that was deliberately done so it could resemble WoW more. It's MUCH more random and inconsistent than GW 1.
Look, I know fully well. I played a shit ton of GW 1, I was there when only bits and snippets of GW 2 were available(I still remember the old logo for one). GW 2 is ... it's best when it's you consider it just as a new game set in GW franchise. Because it is NOT a sequel of GW 1 in anything except lore and names...the IP stuff.
I agree. And I'd have been happy with that arrangement if both the original and the non-sequel received content and balance updates, but the way GW1 fans like myself were dicked over isn't something I can easily forgive.
*Queue the typical jackass who was never a GW1 fan telling GW1 fans that they should just live with it in 3.... 2....*
Though, tbh, how much is there left to balance in GW 1? There will always be better and worse skills(if nothing else, then contextually), but imo, the attributes that deserve a look at:
-> Command: Just feels kinda superficial, both in PvE and PvP
-> Motivation: You need to be extra careful with this, lest the Paragonball returns. Imo, a Paragon should receive a (slight) rework, kinda like Dervish or Ele did. Leadership is ok, but more the effect than the skills.
-> Tactics: It's just a weird sorta tanking attribute in a game that de-emphasizes tanking...it also has too many Stances and is thus used more by non Wars than by Wars themselves(O.o). War itself could use a soft rework.
-> Wilderness Survival: For a pointless, this is pointless. The only good thing that ever came out of this were running builds, without those...uh...yeah. Both Ranger Spirits and Traps shoould receive a rework. Stances are ok.
-> Smiting Prayers: Finish what was started, that's all. The godray can't hold the entire attribute(actually it can and it does in its arc.echo form, but it'd be nice if they finished what they started).
-> Inspiration Magic: Mostly feels unnecessary, both in PvE and PvP(though it's better in PvP where you can actually run e-denial builds).
-> Shadow Arts: These are ok-ish, but also feel like they could use a look at.
/
While that seems a lot, the only class that really needs a look at is Paragon. Everything else can be handled by a strategic buffs of a several key skills.
GW3 is needed with new classes and new skills and new skill system and armors etc etc. An entire new GW3 not a few mini story lines every 6 months -1 year..
Will never happen. As new classes will not fit in the lore, etc. That is one thing that A.Net has done fairly well, is keep in with the lore of the Universe they set up.
GW3 - I don't think NCSoft will allow that to happen.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. New classes don't have to "fit the lore" of a sequel (that will never happen). Arenanet added new classes to GW2 that would not fit the lore of GW1 (the Engineer), while entirely changing existing classes (Monk/Paragon -> Guardian) and removing classes (Ritualist and Dervish).
They also added lore to GW2 to add an entirely new class to GW2 (the Revenant).
The lore is subject to change based on the classes they want to add, not vice versa.
They also changed the entire atmosphere of the game. While GW 1 was zany at times, it was overall MUCH more serious and consistent than GW 2. I mean, in GW 2 you have Asura with almost Star Trek tech, Charr with tanks, cars and blimps and Humans in medieval armor and dragons. You also have super silly quests. All of that was deliberately done so it could resemble WoW more. It's MUCH more random and inconsistent than GW 1.
Look, I know fully well. I played a shit ton of GW 1, I was there when only bits and snippets of GW 2 were available(I still remember the old logo for one). GW 2 is ... it's best when it's you consider it just as a new game set in GW franchise. Because it is NOT a sequel of GW 1 in anything except lore and names...the IP stuff.
I agree. And I'd have been happy with that arrangement if both the original and the non-sequel received content and balance updates, but the way GW1 fans like myself were dicked over isn't something I can easily forgive.
*Queue the typical jackass who was never a GW1 fan telling GW1 fans that they should just live with it in 3.... 2....*
Though, tbh, how much is there left to balance in GW 1? There will always be better and worse skills(if nothing else, then contextually), but imo, the attributes that deserve a look at:
-> Command: Just feels kinda superficial, both in PvE and PvP
-> Motivation: You need to be extra careful with this, lest the Paragonball returns. Imo, a Paragon should receive a (slight) rework, kinda like Dervish or Ele did. Leadership is ok, but more the effect than the skills.
-> Tactics: It's just a weird sorta tanking attribute in a game that de-emphasizes tanking...it also has too many Stances and is thus used more by non Wars than by Wars themselves(O.o). War itself could use a soft rework.
-> Wilderness Survival: For a pointless, this is pointless. The only good thing that ever came out of this were running builds, without those...uh...yeah. Both Ranger Spirits and Traps shoould receive a rework. Stances are ok.
-> Smiting Prayers: Finish what was started, that's all. The godray can't hold the entire attribute(actually it can and it does in its arc.echo form, but it'd be nice if they finished what they started).
-> Inspiration Magic: Mostly feels unnecessary, both in PvE and PvP(though it's better in PvP where you can actually run e-denial builds).
-> Shadow Arts: These are ok-ish, but also feel like they could use a look at.
/
While that seems a lot, the only class that really needs a look at is Paragon. Everything else can be handled by a strategic buffs of a several key skills.
The purpose of balance updates is never actually to balance a game. A perfectly balanced game would theoretically stagnate.
The purpose of balance updates is to keep things fresh by intentionally unbalancing the game in different (hopefully reasonable) ways. A changing metagame leads to a lively PvP scene, and ensures that buildcrafters (an important part of the GW1 fanbase) are always on their feet.
GW3 is needed with new classes and new skills and new skill system and armors etc etc. An entire new GW3 not a few mini story lines every 6 months -1 year..
Will never happen. As new classes will not fit in the lore, etc. That is one thing that A.Net has done fairly well, is keep in with the lore of the Universe they set up.
GW3 - I don't think NCSoft will allow that to happen.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. New classes don't have to "fit the lore" of a sequel (that will never happen). Arenanet added new classes to GW2 that would not fit the lore of GW1 (the Engineer), while entirely changing existing classes (Monk/Paragon -> Guardian) and removing classes (Ritualist and Dervish).
They also added lore to GW2 to add an entirely new class to GW2 (the Revenant).
The lore is subject to change based on the classes they want to add, not vice versa.
They also changed the entire atmosphere of the game. While GW 1 was zany at times, it was overall MUCH more serious and consistent than GW 2. I mean, in GW 2 you have Asura with almost Star Trek tech, Charr with tanks, cars and blimps and Humans in medieval armor and dragons. You also have super silly quests. All of that was deliberately done so it could resemble WoW more. It's MUCH more random and inconsistent than GW 1.
Look, I know fully well. I played a shit ton of GW 1, I was there when only bits and snippets of GW 2 were available(I still remember the old logo for one). GW 2 is ... it's best when it's you consider it just as a new game set in GW franchise. Because it is NOT a sequel of GW 1 in anything except lore and names...the IP stuff.
I agree. And I'd have been happy with that arrangement if both the original and the non-sequel received content and balance updates, but the way GW1 fans like myself were dicked over isn't something I can easily forgive.
*Queue the typical jackass who was never a GW1 fan telling GW1 fans that they should just live with it in 3.... 2....*
Though, tbh, how much is there left to balance in GW 1? There will always be better and worse skills(if nothing else, then contextually), but imo, the attributes that deserve a look at:
-> Command: Just feels kinda superficial, both in PvE and PvP
-> Motivation: You need to be extra careful with this, lest the Paragonball returns. Imo, a Paragon should receive a (slight) rework, kinda like Dervish or Ele did. Leadership is ok, but more the effect than the skills.
-> Tactics: It's just a weird sorta tanking attribute in a game that de-emphasizes tanking...it also has too many Stances and is thus used more by non Wars than by Wars themselves(O.o). War itself could use a soft rework.
-> Wilderness Survival: For a pointless, this is pointless. The only good thing that ever came out of this were running builds, without those...uh...yeah. Both Ranger Spirits and Traps shoould receive a rework. Stances are ok.
-> Smiting Prayers: Finish what was started, that's all. The godray can't hold the entire attribute(actually it can and it does in its arc.echo form, but it'd be nice if they finished what they started).
-> Inspiration Magic: Mostly feels unnecessary, both in PvE and PvP(though it's better in PvP where you can actually run e-denial builds).
-> Shadow Arts: These are ok-ish, but also feel like they could use a look at.
/
While that seems a lot, the only class that really needs a look at is Paragon. Everything else can be handled by a strategic buffs of a several key skills.
The purpose of balance updates is never actually to balance a game. A perfectly balanced game would theoretically stagnate.
The purpose of balance updates is to keep things fresh by intentionally unbalancing the game in different (hopefully reasonable) ways. A changing metagame leads to a lively PvP scene, and ensures that buildcrafters (an important part of the GW1 fanbase) are always on their feet.
Oh, this again. Yeah, I guess there are two things people flog under the generic "balance" term. First is the ideal situation where everything is equally viable, powerful etc. This is a pipe dream and would lead to stagnation and boredom(see: Pillars of Eternity 1). Second is the situation where things aren't equally powerful, but are equally viable. That solution is far easier to reach.
And I was talking about the solution #2(what's the point of most of Attributes I mentioned? They're either antiquated or overnerfed). The goal is to keep things playable, but unique / different. Not needlessly interrupt and shake up meta like Izzy used to do. Because, yeah, he was totally well respected as a Lead Balance.
Hit that wall myself soon after icebrood, was forcing myself to log in and play, story is not engaging me at all, just discontents me from the game, logged in recently to do the event & waiting for the anniversary reward, then am out until the next annual event or perhaps whenever I feel like playing. I felt this way twice sine the game launched, first time on the release of fractals, and the second time on HoT, couldn't make myself play each time, it was horrible, only after few years came back and got deep into the game again (not fractals though, still hate it), maybe I just need another break for a few more years
I'm curious, if you don't mind expanding on it, why you don't like fractals?
Hit that wall myself soon after icebrood, was forcing myself to log in and play, story is not engaging me at all, just discontents me from the game, logged in recently to do the event & waiting for the anniversary reward, then am out until the next annual event or perhaps whenever I feel like playing. I felt this way twice sine the game launched, first time on the release of fractals, and the second time on HoT, couldn't make myself play each time, it was horrible, only after few years came back and got deep into the game again (not fractals though, still hate it), maybe I just need another break for a few more years
I'm curious, if you don't mind expanding on it, why you don't like fractals?
I'll take a wild stab, they don't fit the entire Guild Wars franchise?
Hit that wall myself soon after icebrood, was forcing myself to log in and play, story is not engaging me at all, just discontents me from the game, logged in recently to do the event & waiting for the anniversary reward, then am out until the next annual event or perhaps whenever I feel like playing. I felt this way twice sine the game launched, first time on the release of fractals, and the second time on HoT, couldn't make myself play each time, it was horrible, only after few years came back and got deep into the game again (not fractals though, still hate it), maybe I just need another break for a few more years
I'm curious, if you don't mind expanding on it, why you don't like fractals?
I would wager because they are primarily zerg fests, run by elitist that demand that you run meta and already know the quest by heart.
Which is how they were for the longest time.
The new system of a single fractal and being able to set the scale has dullened the elitist scumbag population for T1 and T2 at least, but they are still alive and well among the T3 and T4 (last I looked, which was a while ago)
But that would just be a guess on my part.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
GW3 - I don't think NCSoft will allow that to happen.
They also added lore to GW2 to add an entirely new class to GW2 (the Revenant).
The lore is subject to change based on the classes they want to add, not vice versa.
Fractals and raids were never a change in direction. If you read the pre-release articles, it was clear that dungeons were meant to be difficult high-end content, but they flubbed them so grievously that they just became exploit-ridden speed clears.
No, I'd raise you that it was always a mistake, even back in the dungeon age. Meta chains are the life blood of the PvE experience, and they needed to pool all of their resources into making the open world as fun and rewarding as possible. Maybe if they hadn't spread themselves thin on multi-path dungeons and multi-path personal stories, the game would have impressed right out of the gate.
(And that comes from someone who really doesn't care all that much for open world games. I much preferred the instanced approach of the first game, and I wish the sequel had been more like it. But I have to acknowledge that I had the best experience while just exploring the world and doing dynamic events.)
You sir, are so right about that!
Look, I know fully well. I played a shit ton of GW 1, I was there when only bits and snippets of GW 2 were available(I still remember the old logo for one). GW 2 is ... it's best when it's you consider it just as a new game set in GW franchise. Because it is NOT a sequel of GW 1 in anything except lore and names...the IP stuff.
*Queue the typical jackass who was never a GW1 fan telling GW1 fans that they should just live with it in 3.... 2....*
I would have bet cold hard cash that was GW3, and they were planning to Maintenance Mode GW2, just like they did to GW1.
-> Command: Just feels kinda superficial, both in PvE and PvP
-> Motivation: You need to be extra careful with this, lest the Paragonball returns. Imo, a Paragon should receive a (slight) rework, kinda like Dervish or Ele did. Leadership is ok, but more the effect than the skills.
-> Tactics: It's just a weird sorta tanking attribute in a game that de-emphasizes tanking...it also has too many Stances and is thus used more by non Wars than by Wars themselves(O.o). War itself could use a soft rework.
-> Wilderness Survival: For a pointless, this is pointless. The only good thing that ever came out of this were running builds, without those...uh...yeah. Both Ranger Spirits and Traps shoould receive a rework. Stances are ok.
-> Smiting Prayers: Finish what was started, that's all. The godray can't hold the entire attribute(actually it can and it does in its arc.echo form, but it'd be nice if they finished what they started).
-> Inspiration Magic: Mostly feels unnecessary, both in PvE and PvP(though it's better in PvP where you can actually run e-denial builds).
-> Shadow Arts: These are ok-ish, but also feel like they could use a look at.
/
While that seems a lot, the only class that really needs a look at is Paragon. Everything else can be handled by a strategic buffs of a several key skills.
The purpose of balance updates is to keep things fresh by intentionally unbalancing the game in different (hopefully reasonable) ways. A changing metagame leads to a lively PvP scene, and ensures that buildcrafters (an important part of the GW1 fanbase) are always on their feet.
And I was talking about the solution #2(what's the point of most of Attributes I mentioned? They're either antiquated or overnerfed). The goal is to keep things playable, but unique / different. Not needlessly interrupt and shake up meta like Izzy used to do. Because, yeah, he was totally well respected as a Lead Balance.
I'm curious, if you don't mind expanding on it, why you don't like fractals?
Which is how they were for the longest time.
The new system of a single fractal and being able to set the scale has dullened the elitist scumbag population for T1 and T2 at least, but they are still alive and well among the T3 and T4 (last I looked, which was a while ago)
But that would just be a guess on my part.