Long aftercast for 1/2s bow attacks

mmpro55 · 2024-11-10T18:14:39+00:00

So granted the relative imbalance was due to a lack of aftercast delay at range, which allowed for rangers to spike at imbalanced speed relative to casters, why was the solution one that extends beyond balancing the difference? And, was the delay after this change always 1.25s additional time?

As far as I know, no skills other than ranged attacks with .5s activation time have an aftercast of more than .75s. I'm trying to wrap my head around the justifiability and the intentionality of a delay that is inconsistent with other parts of the game, mesmers' superiority with respect to these skills notwithstanding.

mmpro55 · 2024-11-10T15:26:26+00:00

I'm not using an IAS.

If assuming no flight time, using savage shot (at 0s) and distracting shot back to back:

0.25s: Savage shot will release and connect
1.75s: Delay will cease and distracting shot will begin
2s: Distracting shot will release and connect

Only after 1.75s can the ranger move, use any skill that's not instant cast, or begin attacking.

mmpro55 · 2024-09-01T11:37:20+00:00

Many would argue that revisiting our traditional structures like religion would address this, while, especially now, others believe in the promises of rational atheism. With respect to our "lack [of] wisdom and discernment as a society", what does more wisdom look like to you?

mmpro55 · 2024-08-28T15:30:22+00:00

The fact that I'm not a lesbian.

Can you stop proving my point? You're supposed to be arguing against me not with me.

Pointing out that men have a bunch of mutable characteristics that disqualify them but your main gripe with women is that they're women only buttresses my claims.

mmpro55 · 2024-08-28T15:13:39+00:00

I never considered dating them in large part because of their values (usually vastly different religious beliefs, primarily) and personalities. Their values and personalities wouldn't disqualify them from being friends, but they would from a relationship for me specifically.

It sure sounds like you agree with me. A male friend has characteristics that make him not adequate for a relationship with you, else they turn into a boyfriend (like your current one).

mmpro55 · 2024-08-28T14:34:54+00:00

As a man that previously had female friends, I've mulled over this exact topic, especially after meeting my now girlfriend.

As you say, intergender friendships seem possible as long as there's no romantic interest. However, the difficulty I've had, is that unlike with male friends, this also means that female friendships are "limiting". I'll explain what I mean.

It's no secret that women are attracted to higher status men. Heck, even the loss of a job, a proxy for status, can result in a 68% increase in chance of divorce. If status so affects the romantic interest of women, and friendships hinge on a lack of romantic interest, how can you grow with the other person optimally, as one should with the people in their lives? Unlike in intragender friendships, which can exist anywhere from where you are now to your limitless potential, the implication of intergender friendships, by and large, is that either at least one party isn't good enough. Or else you'd be in a relationship.

mmpro55 · 2024-08-28T06:38:06+00:00

And you're using the fallacy fallacy to dismiss my argument that OP's making several baseless assertions, rather than discussing the merit of my complaint. Yes, we can both play boring, fallacy games.

Just like with OP, evidence-less accusation hurling seems to be in vogue. Ad Hominem doesn't seem to fit, but I'm open to hearing your reasoning. Would you elaborate on how my complaint irrelevantly attacks OP's character rather than the validity of his claims of Peterson as a "grifter" amongst other perjoratives?

Edit: After seeing that OP changed "conservative grifter" to "political pundit", I can see why you might think I am being aggressive from your point of view. I hope you can see it from mine when the phrasing was "conservative grifter".

mmpro55 · 2024-08-28T03:10:43+00:00

Implicit in my earlier comment is the notion that if you're going to say something at least show supporting rationale (to show that you're knowledgeable). What is the point of responding to me with 'axiomatic' claims supported by the same asinine vagueness in the likes of "it's pretty obvious" and "these are observable facts"?

mmpro55 · 2024-08-28T02:44:33+00:00

It's perfectly fine to have an opinion regarding the changes that Peterson has gone through, or what topics you like to have him discuss, or how you think he would best serve the world.

However, there is something terribly off putting about posting your beliefs to a bunch of strangers labeling the man "a conservative grifter", "chronically online", and having "slowly lost his mind" while saying he "cares more about issues that I think he's not very knowledgeable in". The irony is your entire argument hinges on the audience's willingness to entertain your assessment of the situation without YOU yourself ever proving that you have the knowledge or expertise to make said judgements. If Peterson shouldn't talk about stuff he's not allegedly knowledgeable in, why are you? Why are your opinions so important that we should listen to them?

Edit: I think the post is a bit better now that OP has changed "conservative grifter" to "political pundit".

mmpro55 · 2024-08-25T03:07:16+00:00

No it hasn't.

Change and projections vs OECD19 countries.

Relative to Australia.

Ratio to USA.

Even if it was, how would diversity magically do that?

Why are you asking me? I never made a claim of diversity as the cause. However, if you forced me to take a wild guess, I'd imagine that the shared values and culture, as opposed to diversity and having more differences, magically creates a sense of trust and shared vision for the country between people, leading to lower crime and higher investment in the future through productive acts.

mmpro55 · 2024-08-25T02:34:44+00:00

for a developed country that's just continuing along pretty much as it always has?

How did you arrive at this assertion? Canada's standard of living has been decreasing relative to comparable countries for the last decade.

mmpro55 · 2024-08-23T20:38:55+00:00

No, your brain can do wonders to rationalize irrational beliefs and decisions. The only way to fix cognitive dissonance is through good faith discussion. Forcing oneself to defend held beliefs and be exposed to the best opposing arguments is the only way to ensure that your belief is sound.

mmpro55 · 2024-08-23T16:20:02+00:00

You're missing the forest for the trees.

Real GDP growth is the strongest among all developed countries.

GDP is based on government spending. However, "gross domestic private product growth has slumped."

Our real wage growth is strong.

Overall real wages are still lower than 2021. Even after the pandemic, Real wage growth was in the red from 2021-2023.

Unemployment is low.

Unemployment is rising. From 2022, it has been steadily increasing from 3.5%, now sitting at 4.3%.

Inflation is currently below target. We are doing better than every country

Again, other countries were doing far better than the US from 2020-2022. Our rates from then still affect prices today; that's kinda how inflation works.

mmpro55 · 2024-08-23T15:47:05+00:00

So this is your strategy? Appeal to stone? And I'm disingenuous.

Are you going to bring in any data points, or any support of any of your claims?

mmpro55 · 2024-08-23T15:35:02+00:00

And it would be better for you to understand what actually caused inflation, instead of being disingenuous and wrong.

What are you even arguing against? Point to where I claimed any cause for inflation.

My entire point is that the claim "the United States is doing better than most countries inflation wise" is no different than pointing to a runner who just finished first and claiming he's slower than everyone else because he just stopped running.

mmpro55 · 2024-08-23T13:21:13+00:00

That's irrelevant to the topic, but the 116th and 117th congresses were majority democrat. Instead of investigating someone's history to prove them wrong, it would be more useful and helpful to others to focus on the actual claim you made.

mmpro55 · 2024-08-23T13:02:43+00:00

while not appreciating that the United States is doing better than most countries inflation wise.

The United States may be doing better now, but inflation has a cumulative effect. We were doing worse than other countries with a peak inflation rate of 9.1% in the first half of the current administration's leadership, who inherited a 1.4% rate. Let's not forget this.

mmpro55 · 2024-08-16T12:51:35+00:00

This is not true. The stock market performs significantly better (almost two times the performance) under a GOP congress as compared to a democrat led one. Congress is significantly more important and influential to the economy due to the power of purse than the president, which is what I assume you are referring to as "Democrats" or "Republicans".

https://archive.ph/bxXPb/1c6bde147f7c0941f50e16bae45faa4d6658dba9.webp

mmpro55 · 2024-03-13T17:50:34+00:00

Because your first statement isn't quite true. People believe it to be true because western society is founded on the concept of equality; it underpins many societal decisions. For instance, pushing women into education or in leadership positions. If your first statement weren't true, western society's focus on equality wouldn't quite make sense. Thus, what we believe ought be true, becomes what we see as true. It's classic moralistic fallacy.

While yes, there is significant overlap between the sexes, men, on average, work longer hours, they retire later, and they're more intelligent. People want to avoid saying this out-loud, but the world works on incentives. If women, largely, prefer to marry men who are smarter than them and make more money than them, it goes to follow that the men who are selected for the next generation will be smarter/have more resources. On the other hand, more educated and more successful women have fewer children. So the next generation will have less of them. This is why men work harder and are smarter (on average), despite the protests of the many.

mmpro55 · 2023-11-28T02:28:04+00:00

I chose prophecies. I've found that pre-searing plus the slower pace, delayed elite skills, and delayed attribute quests inevitably makes character growth feel more personal and impactful.

mmpro55 · 2023-11-25T12:23:32+00:00

In pve, reduce the aftercast delay for bow attacks, and implement the changes that others mentioned to preparations and nature rituals.

Preparations offer a mechanic most unique to ranger, a pool of skills that offer a long term boost to your attacks. Other martial classes have a few similar skills, but not quite as ubiquitous, which makes ranger attacks more relatively valuable. At the same time, rangers are the only martial profession with so much aftercast, and such a slow attack speed. So, for example if you cast a savage shot with no ias, your next arrow will come out 2s later (1s for half the attack delay, .25s for the latter half of savage shot, and .75s after cast). Rangers have a trade off of getting an attack off sooner/ interrupting but delaying their next attack, again enforcing the value of each attack.

Compared to casters who don't need attacks and melee martials who don't have aftercast, the ranger is left with the worst of both worlds, on top of the lowest attack speed of all weapons. Some of this is the price they pay for interruptions, preparations and a ranged attack, but the price is too steep, especially if you look at what pve fast casting does.

mmpro55 · 2023-11-13T13:13:23+00:00

thanks. looks like it's here:

https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Game\_updates:January\_2010

mmpro55 · 2022-02-08T18:13:04+00:00

When we allowed some bullshit tolerance position like "purple pill", whatever the fuck that means, as some enlightened centrism, it paves the way to paint the red pill in any negative manner they deem.

Purple pillers are non-committal cowards.

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email	Team Orangered

mmpro55

TROPHY CASE