Why do skilled roamers avoid fighting other skilled roamers? - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Why do skilled roamers avoid fighting other skilled roamers?

2

Comments

  • SpellOfIniquity.1780SpellOfIniquity.1780 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 12, 2019

    @lodjur.1284 said:
    Playing objectives is the opposite of roaming. Especially if taking them doesn't lead to a fight.

    That's the thing with community defined rules. They can vary from person to person. I consider this roaming as long as you're doing it alone or with >5 friends. It only becomes havoc when you're deliberately trying to snipe undefended objectives.

    Trying to take defended objectives, or soloing them, is still roaming to me in the sense that you're trying to pull fights and being a nuisance. I used to do this almost exclusively pre-HoT when I would roam on my trapper Ranger. Soloing towers/camps, destroying siege in towers/keeps and hanging around enemy spawns/keeps was how I roamed. I'm not sure what else that could be called because I've never heard of solo havoc and PPT roaming is pretty much another phrase for it.

    @lodjur.1284 said:
    Yet quite a few people are just interested in having good fights and think the score is just a number they personally can't affect (to a relevant degree).

    Also, @MUDse.7623 might just do the same thing I used to do. It's not about the score, it's about being such a colossal pest that pugs will dedicate a small army to your presence when you become infamous enough. All someone needs to do is say "that ( guild tag/rank/profession here ) is at X tower again" and 10+ people will show up because they hate you.

    After I stopped trying to solo towers, I became a sniper with Engi Magnet in zergs. I would pull everyone I could manage and would snipe commanders if I had permission from my own. I know lots of people hated it but that's the point. It makes them dedicate players to my presence and it becomes fun for them when they kill me. I don't care if they siege bury me, I have fun being annoying and I know when they finally murder me they're suddenly having fun too. This is a little different than roaming but, to me, a successful roamer is an annoying one. And that can be through various means such as stealing towers/camps, perma-contesting keeps, harassing spawns and forcing multiple players to waste a ton of time chasing you around.

    [HUNT] [Blep] [CTH] | Necromancer 💀, Ranger 🏹, Warrior 💪, Engineer 🛠️, Revenant ⚔️ | Maguuma | 💎 Legend
    Do you mean what you say? Do you say what you mean ... ♫

  • lodjur.1284lodjur.1284 Member ✭✭✭

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    I build to roam which means taking objectives and maybe killing players when I can. But I need to be confident of the kill, cause if I lose I have to run back to get the objectives again.

    Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing).

    in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention.

    Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights).

    no, just taking objectives is not the goal. taking the objective from someone is the goal. so i like to take objectives that my opponent wants to protect. that doesnt have to inculde an actually fight tho. and i usually go for towers/keeps. camps are just for supplies and sentries to help me track opponents, i dont see how taking them would be anything worth a primary goal - its just too easy, like killing other players.

    Well if you're talking keeps that's def not roaming. Playing objectives is the opposite of roaming. Especially if taking them doesn't lead to a fight.

    Killing other players here generally means finding satisfying fights, that can be a 1v3 vs bads or an 1v1 with a good player or w/e else kinda PvP one finds fun, even if it's something not challenging like instabursting semi-afk people from stealth.

    How is easy or not isn't really relevant to what it is, roaming is just a name for when you're very few people (max 2 maybe 3) and your goal is to find fights and you couldn't care less for the objectives/scoreboard.

    thats what roaming is to you. but that i guess is a big issue on this forum, there is no definition of what roaming is, that everyone does agree on. that makes it very hard to discuss anything roaming related.

    Well very few people refer to objective players really when talking roamers. Most discussions I see are related to the size of the group.

    if its just groupsize, then i am a roamer tho. even when playing for objectives.

    I am not saying it's groupsize primarily. I am saying what people disagree on when it comes to roaming is generally groupsize.

    However the vast majority of discussions I see come with the viewpoint that roaming is the opposite of playing for objectives.

    i dont think opposite is the correct term for it, but i guess i understand your view.
    that explains why people are so upset with 'roaming balance', if you play by your own rules within a set mode you cant really expect it to be balanced around your rules.
    as said above the fight as such is nearly impossible to balance as it will mostly be decided by kiting ability/range advantage. now one can be upset about that, if that is the only thing you care for. but once you play for objectives, once you play for score regardless of groupsize, then the professions are much more balanced and mostly the population inbalance will be your issue. and you can 'win' in your goals despite losing a fight.

    Yet quite a few people are just interested in having good fights and think the score is just a number they personally can't affect (to a relevant degree).

    You must realize a lot of roamers don't even stomp but just cleave downs after winning fights because they just genuinely couldn't care less about the scoreboard. I am included in this category.

    The problem is if there's no scoreboard/objectives etc there's noone to fight. But roaming balance doesn't have to be at odds with objective balance, the changes needed to the dominant classes in roaming could be compensated with changes that make them better at objective fighting (mostly more tankiness at the cost of mobility/range).

    I can personally feel satisfied after losing a fight too if I got the opportunity to play well and did so (and it some degree mattered). However losing a fight after not getting the opportunity to actually play well is insanely frustrating in a way that makes you not wanna bother to continue posting while losing a fight when you had the opportunity to play well but didn't is frustrating in a completely different and much less exhausting way.

    but dont you see that the only reason it is frustrating is because you only care about the fight and not about the reason to fight? the moment you priorize the objectives, you will approach fights differently and IMO as the professions are much more balanced that way it is less frustrating, wich usually results in more fun. having more tankiness at the cost of mobility / range will force you to approach objectives in a different way, you basically limit the diversity and options you have only to cater to people who ignore half of the mode they play.

    Well given that WvW doesn't actually reward you for "winning" with anything else than pride/satisfaction/fun it is a bit weird to say someone is playing it wrong. It's a gamemode where everyone sets their own goals kinda, it's not like there aren't quite a few roamers, even if it's ofc less than objective players.

    To me the only fun part about wvw is having encounters where a combination of my build, my skill, my knowledge and my teamwork (when applicable) matters. This very often means taking towers or whatever, but I have lost many objectives and still imo won. Objective playing is just to me the opposite of this, I don't judge anyone for liking it, but I really can't stomach it.

    Would changing this to some degree reduce build diversity, in some scenarios possibly, but it would also massively increase it in other scenarios. Roaming is dominated by these professions to an almost ridiculous degree, I don't by any means demand perfect balance, just something more balanced and less obnoxious than this 2-shot hit-n-run meta.

    It's okay with me if the balance isn't great or even good, but no class should be able to pick all their encounters nor should any class have 5+ matchups that are in the 95/5 range. Nor should any class be able to disengage from basically every fight they lose without any risk.

    TL;DR I can't find objectives fun and I want how I play to matter in more fights.

    Ögonen omges av vita och svarta penseldrag som gör att de ser större ut än vad de egentligen är. Baksidan av lodjurets öron kantas av svart päls som slutar i den karaktäristiska tofsen högst upp på örat. Lodjurets svans är kortare än de flesta andra kattdjurs.

  • lodjur.1284lodjur.1284 Member ✭✭✭

    @SpellOfIniquity.1780 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:
    Playing objectives is the opposite of roaming. Especially if taking them doesn't lead to a fight.

    That's the thing with community defined rules. They can vary from person to person. I consider this roaming as long as you're doing it alone or with >5 friends. It only becomes havoc when you're deliberately trying to snipe undefended objectives.

    Trying to take defended objectives, or soloing them, is still roaming to me in the sense that you're trying to pull fights and being a nuisance. I used to do this almost exclusively pre-HoT when I would roam on my trapper Ranger. Soloing towers/camps, destroying siege in towers/keeps and hanging around enemy spawns/keeps was how I roamed. I'm not sure what else that could be called because I've never heard of solo havoc and PPT roaming is pretty much another phrase for it.

    @lodjur.1284 said:
    Yet quite a few people are just interested in having good fights and think the score is just a number they personally can't affect (to a relevant degree).

    Also, @MUDse.7623 might just do the same thing I used to do. It's not about the score, it's about being such a colossal pest that pugs will dedicate a small army to your presence when you become infamous enough. All someone needs to do is say "that ( guild tag/rank/profession here ) is at X tower again" and 10+ people will show up because they hate you.

    After I stopped trying to solo towers, I became a sniper with Engi Magnet in zergs. I would pull everyone I could manage and would snipe commanders if I had permission from my own. I know lots of people hated it but that's the point. It makes them dedicate players to my presence and it becomes fun for them when they kill me. I don't care if they siege bury me, I have fun being annoying and I know when they finally murder me they're suddenly having fun too. This is a little different than roaming but, to me, a successful roamer is an annoying one. And that can be through various means such as stealing towers/camps, perma-contesting keeps, harassing spawns and forcing multiple players to waste a ton of time chasing you around.

    Imo to me you're basically describing the one person player version of a havoc group, you play the objectives by making people waste 5+ players chasing down 1 person. PPT roaming also works I suppose but then there's no term for the kinda roaming most people mean, which is quite different.

    Ögonen omges av vita och svarta penseldrag som gör att de ser större ut än vad de egentligen är. Baksidan av lodjurets öron kantas av svart päls som slutar i den karaktäristiska tofsen högst upp på örat. Lodjurets svans är kortare än de flesta andra kattdjurs.

  • MUDse.7623MUDse.7623 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    I build to roam which means taking objectives and maybe killing players when I can. But I need to be confident of the kill, cause if I lose I have to run back to get the objectives again.

    Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing).

    in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention.

    Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights).

    no, just taking objectives is not the goal. taking the objective from someone is the goal. so i like to take objectives that my opponent wants to protect. that doesnt have to inculde an actually fight tho. and i usually go for towers/keeps. camps are just for supplies and sentries to help me track opponents, i dont see how taking them would be anything worth a primary goal - its just too easy, like killing other players.

    Well if you're talking keeps that's def not roaming. Playing objectives is the opposite of roaming. Especially if taking them doesn't lead to a fight.

    Killing other players here generally means finding satisfying fights, that can be a 1v3 vs bads or an 1v1 with a good player or w/e else kinda PvP one finds fun, even if it's something not challenging like instabursting semi-afk people from stealth.

    How is easy or not isn't really relevant to what it is, roaming is just a name for when you're very few people (max 2 maybe 3) and your goal is to find fights and you couldn't care less for the objectives/scoreboard.

    thats what roaming is to you. but that i guess is a big issue on this forum, there is no definition of what roaming is, that everyone does agree on. that makes it very hard to discuss anything roaming related.

    Well very few people refer to objective players really when talking roamers. Most discussions I see are related to the size of the group.

    if its just groupsize, then i am a roamer tho. even when playing for objectives.

    I am not saying it's groupsize primarily. I am saying what people disagree on when it comes to roaming is generally groupsize.

    However the vast majority of discussions I see come with the viewpoint that roaming is the opposite of playing for objectives.

    i dont think opposite is the correct term for it, but i guess i understand your view.
    that explains why people are so upset with 'roaming balance', if you play by your own rules within a set mode you cant really expect it to be balanced around your rules.
    as said above the fight as such is nearly impossible to balance as it will mostly be decided by kiting ability/range advantage. now one can be upset about that, if that is the only thing you care for. but once you play for objectives, once you play for score regardless of groupsize, then the professions are much more balanced and mostly the population inbalance will be your issue. and you can 'win' in your goals despite losing a fight.

    Yet quite a few people are just interested in having good fights and think the score is just a number they personally can't affect (to a relevant degree).

    You must realize a lot of roamers don't even stomp but just cleave downs after winning fights because they just genuinely couldn't care less about the scoreboard. I am included in this category.

    The problem is if there's no scoreboard/objectives etc there's noone to fight. But roaming balance doesn't have to be at odds with objective balance, the changes needed to the dominant classes in roaming could be compensated with changes that make them better at objective fighting (mostly more tankiness at the cost of mobility/range).

    I can personally feel satisfied after losing a fight too if I got the opportunity to play well and did so (and it some degree mattered). However losing a fight after not getting the opportunity to actually play well is insanely frustrating in a way that makes you not wanna bother to continue posting while losing a fight when you had the opportunity to play well but didn't is frustrating in a completely different and much less exhausting way.

    but dont you see that the only reason it is frustrating is because you only care about the fight and not about the reason to fight? the moment you priorize the objectives, you will approach fights differently and IMO as the professions are much more balanced that way it is less frustrating, wich usually results in more fun. having more tankiness at the cost of mobility / range will force you to approach objectives in a different way, you basically limit the diversity and options you have only to cater to people who ignore half of the mode they play.

    Well given that WvW doesn't actually reward you for "winning" with anything else than pride/satisfaction/fun it is a bit weird to say someone is playing it wrong. It's a gamemode where everyone sets their own goals kinda, it's not like there aren't quite a few roamers, even if it's ofc less than objective players.

    winning doesnt have to reward you for it to be the thing the game is balanced around.

    the main reason winning cannot reward you is because of a dilemma situation with the population/coverage, it is nearly impossible to grant balanced coverage of these large teams wich would be required for a balanced match over 168 hours. yet reducing the match duration and making new 'balanced' teams for shorter matches (example 2 hours), would destroy too much of the community that has been build. maybe alliances is the first step to enable faster matches with balanced teams in the long run.

    playing efficiently towards 'winning' the match has still more sense in it that running around looking for 'good' fights. because given what restrictions a fight has to be considered 'good' by many, they can be lucky if they get 1 per matchup. that doesnt mean that it is 'wrong' to only go for fights, i mean its your buisness, but IMO the chances that you enjoy that mode are much higher if you embrace all of it, just give it a try.

    read this, become a better player now.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 13, 2019

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:
    The roaming community is small and for veteran roamers, many of the above average roaming players and guilds are pretty much well known across all the servers.
    One trend I've been seeing though, while playing and watching live streams on twitch, is that skilled roamers avoid fighting each other a lot.
    They run around the map, bump into each other, recognize each other from guild tag, looks etc. and move pass or detour without fighting.
    Then when they encounter a pug who might just be a zergling or a less skilled roamer, they jump on them and stomp them into the ground and thump their chest howling in victory.

    The vibe I get from skilled roamers who avoid fighting each other is like "Hey I know you're good and you know I'm good. So lets not risk fighting each other."
    Its like...why?!
    Isn't it more exciting to fight another skilled roamer than to stomp on a pug?

    Question... what difference does it make what a person does, or does not do, when they log in to play? why are you asking us on the forums anyway? who knows what an individual streamer is thinking, so you could just ask them directly on their twitch streams right?

  • lodjur.1284lodjur.1284 Member ✭✭✭

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    I build to roam which means taking objectives and maybe killing players when I can. But I need to be confident of the kill, cause if I lose I have to run back to get the objectives again.

    Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing).

    in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention.

    Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights).

    no, just taking objectives is not the goal. taking the objective from someone is the goal. so i like to take objectives that my opponent wants to protect. that doesnt have to inculde an actually fight tho. and i usually go for towers/keeps. camps are just for supplies and sentries to help me track opponents, i dont see how taking them would be anything worth a primary goal - its just too easy, like killing other players.

    Well if you're talking keeps that's def not roaming. Playing objectives is the opposite of roaming. Especially if taking them doesn't lead to a fight.

    Killing other players here generally means finding satisfying fights, that can be a 1v3 vs bads or an 1v1 with a good player or w/e else kinda PvP one finds fun, even if it's something not challenging like instabursting semi-afk people from stealth.

    How is easy or not isn't really relevant to what it is, roaming is just a name for when you're very few people (max 2 maybe 3) and your goal is to find fights and you couldn't care less for the objectives/scoreboard.

    thats what roaming is to you. but that i guess is a big issue on this forum, there is no definition of what roaming is, that everyone does agree on. that makes it very hard to discuss anything roaming related.

    Well very few people refer to objective players really when talking roamers. Most discussions I see are related to the size of the group.

    if its just groupsize, then i am a roamer tho. even when playing for objectives.

    I am not saying it's groupsize primarily. I am saying what people disagree on when it comes to roaming is generally groupsize.

    However the vast majority of discussions I see come with the viewpoint that roaming is the opposite of playing for objectives.

    i dont think opposite is the correct term for it, but i guess i understand your view.
    that explains why people are so upset with 'roaming balance', if you play by your own rules within a set mode you cant really expect it to be balanced around your rules.
    as said above the fight as such is nearly impossible to balance as it will mostly be decided by kiting ability/range advantage. now one can be upset about that, if that is the only thing you care for. but once you play for objectives, once you play for score regardless of groupsize, then the professions are much more balanced and mostly the population inbalance will be your issue. and you can 'win' in your goals despite losing a fight.

    Yet quite a few people are just interested in having good fights and think the score is just a number they personally can't affect (to a relevant degree).

    You must realize a lot of roamers don't even stomp but just cleave downs after winning fights because they just genuinely couldn't care less about the scoreboard. I am included in this category.

    The problem is if there's no scoreboard/objectives etc there's noone to fight. But roaming balance doesn't have to be at odds with objective balance, the changes needed to the dominant classes in roaming could be compensated with changes that make them better at objective fighting (mostly more tankiness at the cost of mobility/range).

    I can personally feel satisfied after losing a fight too if I got the opportunity to play well and did so (and it some degree mattered). However losing a fight after not getting the opportunity to actually play well is insanely frustrating in a way that makes you not wanna bother to continue posting while losing a fight when you had the opportunity to play well but didn't is frustrating in a completely different and much less exhausting way.

    but dont you see that the only reason it is frustrating is because you only care about the fight and not about the reason to fight? the moment you priorize the objectives, you will approach fights differently and IMO as the professions are much more balanced that way it is less frustrating, wich usually results in more fun. having more tankiness at the cost of mobility / range will force you to approach objectives in a different way, you basically limit the diversity and options you have only to cater to people who ignore half of the mode they play.

    Well given that WvW doesn't actually reward you for "winning" with anything else than pride/satisfaction/fun it is a bit weird to say someone is playing it wrong. It's a gamemode where everyone sets their own goals kinda, it's not like there aren't quite a few roamers, even if it's ofc less than objective players.

    winning doesnt have to reward you for it to be the thing the game is balanced around.

    I'd say the game isn't that balanced, every situation is heavily imbalanced, just in different directions, 10 wrongs doesn't make a right. Also WvW is basically PvE balance with half of the sPvP changes, saying it is balanced around anything (in WvW) is a pretty big stretch.

    Even disregarding classes just by playing solo you're being inefficient, which imo isn't a problem.

    the main reason winning cannot reward you is because of a dilemma situation with the population/coverage, it is nearly impossible to grant balanced coverage of these large teams wich would be required for a balanced match over 168 hours. yet reducing the match duration and making new 'balanced' teams for shorter matches (example 2 hours), would destroy too much of the community that has been build. maybe alliances is the first step to enable faster matches with balanced teams in the long run.

    One of the many many many reasons I could never find caring about the score fun.

    playing efficiently towards 'winning' the match has still more sense in it that running around looking for 'good' fights. because given what restrictions a fight has to be considered 'good' by many, they can be lucky if they get 1 per matchup. that doesnt mean that it is 'wrong' to only go for fights, i mean its your buisness, but IMO the chances that you enjoy that mode are much higher if you embrace all of it, just give it a try.

    A very big problem with caring about winning a match has to do how little you contribute to it and how little control you have over it. It's also why the amount of fun I have drastically drops as soon as my group did exceeds five until I afk as it reaches 9 people. If you consider the match as your goal then you're playing with a few hundred strangers and at best contributing 1-2% and that'd be pretty extreme.

    Another one is that it's just not challenging, or at least not in a "I can improve and get better at it" kinda way, it's mainly tedious and revolves very little about fighting, it's kinda like sPvP (where the optimal is to never have any challenging fights) which I loathe with a passion.

    You can usually get in at least 2-3 decent fights an hour against most servers, bit less vs some. Varying ofc with time of day and so on.

    Ögonen omges av vita och svarta penseldrag som gör att de ser större ut än vad de egentligen är. Baksidan av lodjurets öron kantas av svart päls som slutar i den karaktäristiska tofsen högst upp på örat. Lodjurets svans är kortare än de flesta andra kattdjurs.

  • MUDse.7623MUDse.7623 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 13, 2019

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    playing efficiently towards 'winning' the match has still more sense in it that running around looking for 'good' fights. because given what restrictions a fight has to be considered 'good' by many, they can be lucky if they get 1 per matchup. that doesnt mean that it is 'wrong' to only go for fights, i mean its your buisness, but IMO the chances that you enjoy that mode are much higher if you embrace all of it, just give it a try.

    A very big problem with caring about winning a match has to do how little you contribute to it and how little control you have over it. It's also why the amount of fun I have drastically drops as soon as my group did exceeds five until I afk as it reaches 9 people. If you consider the match as your goal then you're playing with a few hundred strangers and at best contributing 1-2% and that'd be pretty extreme.

    you have little control over the actual outcome of a match but you have control over your personal contribution to it. i dont care if my server does win matches, but i do care if i did contribute or not.

    Another one is that it's just not challenging, or at least not in a "I can improve and get better at it" kinda way, it's mainly tedious and revolves very little about fighting, it's kinda like sPvP (where the optimal is to never have any challenging fights) which I loathe with a passion.

    You can usually get in at least 2-3 decent fights an hour against most servers, bit less vs some. Varying ofc with time of day and so on.

    it is correct that it is optimal to never engage in a challanging fight, your performance in the fight as such is not what makes you win them mostly, its the selection of the encounters. but you surely can improve and get better at it. your infight performance is also a part of it but its just that: a part, not all. if it is challenging or not depends on both your opponents and the maximum you possibly could contribute. IMO fights alone are much less challenging as they are usually determined by build or envoiremental advantage, sure you can overcome build and envoiremental disadvantage with more 'skill', but is the fight really depending on your skill then or on your opponents lack of it? think about it. i dont think its 'challanging' to have the luck that my opponent is bad. it is more challanging to ensure getting many advantageous fights and obviously win them. an example: how do you see the difference between a bad and a good deadeye? everyone can run around on a deadeye and can have a really good k/d as the 'skill' requirement to avoid fights is minimal. yet bad deadeyes will be much more limited in the encounters they can choose as advantageous and then they actually have to engage in them and not be too afraid. most deadeyes i have seen are playing way too carefully without reason.

    read this, become a better player now.

  • enkidu.5937enkidu.5937 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 13, 2019

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:
    This pretty much right here is why the mode has turned into a meme joke (like the ANet attempt at eSports). The builds matter more than the skill levels. Cause Power Creep sells expansions.

    Until WvW also uses the Pvp build system (or a variant) there will never be any attempt at balance.

    I build to roam which means taking objectives and maybe killing players when I can. But I need to be confident of the kill, cause if I lose I have to run back to get the objectives again.

    You're confusing roamer builds with dueling builds, which are different things.

    Thats exactly what makes true duelling quite uninteresting. Some run pure duell builds, some run roaming builds. At least, with a duelling build you can make other roamers leave the map, or quit because of frustration, and then take the objectives for yourself xD

    I guess, Anet designed WvW as a big-scale mode, where everyone can just jump in with his / her PvE-gear on (at least some ppl are doing this). So, I wouldn't expect Anet to introduce the PvP build system in WvW.

    @lodjur.1284 said:
    Yet quite a few people are just interested in having good fights and think the score is just a number they personally can't affect (to a relevant degree).

    You must realize a lot of roamers don't even stomp but just cleave downs after winning fights because they just genuinely couldn't care less about the scoreboard. I am included in this category.

    So, naturally, you are at an advantage with your duelling build vs. a true roaming build. How does that make duelling interesting? You ignore most of the objectives, a roamer has, and just focus on a 1vs1 build? So, you trade extra mobility, 1vsX capability, and some ppl also build flexibility for more 1vs1 skills. Mabye, these true duellers would get much more challenging fights, if they would use a roamer build, giving them the same 1vs1 handicaps the enemy roamer has.

  • babazhook.6805babazhook.6805 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 13, 2019

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    I build to roam which means taking objectives and maybe killing players when I can. But I need to be confident of the kill, cause if I lose I have to run back to get the objectives again.

    Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing).

    in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention.

    Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights).

    I do not see the "goal" of a roamer as finding fights. I see it as objective based and information based. As example swords go up on a friendly tower or keep and I am roaming . I see it as my goal to get to that objective and ascertain the threat level so as to call in people as needed. If en-route to said objective I get involved with a long drawn out fight because I ran into someone on the way, I might get to that objective too late to prevent a flip.

    The same is true of camps and especially when one has been upgraded to Speedy Yaks or some such so as to get an asset upgraded to the next tier as quickly as possible. When i note on the map that an enemy force is moving towards a given camp , I will try and get there first, raise the alarm and try to hold that position until allies arrive.

    I will also often tail a zerg at the request of a commander on map so as to give details on numbers and the direction they are headed so that forces can be gathered to meet them. If a commander is flipping a keep with a force of 15 and I see a Zerg of 30 enemies headed from spawn towards that keep to defend it, I will raise the alarm. Oftimes a small group will break off from our group to engage and distract long enough for a flip to happen.

    As a roamer I also take it on myself when using WPS to get closer to a camp I might want to flip to do things like reset siege in those places. Most of the roamers I am familiar with do the same types of things.

    This does not mean I avoid all fights. In fact I look forward to those very few opportunities where I can engage in a 1v1. It only means I do not see this as priority.

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 13, 2019

    @enkidu.5937 said:

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:
    This pretty much right here is why the mode has turned into a meme joke (like the ANet attempt at eSports). The builds matter more than the skill levels. Cause Power Creep sells expansions.

    Until WvW also uses the Pvp build system (or a variant) there will never be any attempt at balance.

    I build to roam which means taking objectives and maybe killing players when I can. But I need to be confident of the kill, cause if I lose I have to run back to get the objectives again.

    You're confusing roamer builds with dueling builds, which are different things.

    Thats exactly what makes true duelling quite uninteresting. Some run pure duell builds, some run roaming builds. At least, with a duelling build you can make other roamers leave the map, or quit because of frustration, and then take the objectives for yourself xD

    I guess, Anet designed WvW as a big-scale mode, where everyone can just jump in with his / her PvE-gear on (at least some ppl are doing this). So, I wouldn't expect Anet to introduce the PvP build system in WvW.

    Emphasis mine, just to point out, the use of PvE gear in WvW has been my biggest block to recruiting more players to the mode. They look at what it costs to gear up in even exotic of some of the meta types (Trailblazer, Commander, or Kitten Forbid Minstrel) and nope right out of the mode.

    It's not really an issue for vets. We got the resources needed to gear up. But if we want new blood and the mode to not die, we either go for PvP build system or say kitten the economy to lower these prices.

    How many times we gotta tell you GRIND IS NOT CONTENT there ANet?

    Leader of Tyrian Adventure Corp [TACO], [RaW][TACO] Alliance, Kaineng.

  • lodjur.1284lodjur.1284 Member ✭✭✭

    @enkidu.5937 said:

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:
    This pretty much right here is why the mode has turned into a meme joke (like the ANet attempt at eSports). The builds matter more than the skill levels. Cause Power Creep sells expansions.

    Until WvW also uses the Pvp build system (or a variant) there will never be any attempt at balance.

    I build to roam which means taking objectives and maybe killing players when I can. But I need to be confident of the kill, cause if I lose I have to run back to get the objectives again.

    You're confusing roamer builds with dueling builds, which are different things.

    Thats exactly what makes true duelling quite uninteresting. Some run pure duell builds, some run roaming builds. At least, with a duelling build you can make other roamers leave the map, or quit because of frustration, and then take the objectives for yourself xD

    There's basically no difference.

    I guess, Anet designed WvW as a big-scale mode, where everyone can just jump in with his / her PvE-gear on (at least some ppl are doing this). So, I wouldn't expect Anet to introduce the PvP build system in WvW.

    @lodjur.1284 said:
    Yet quite a few people are just interested in having good fights and think the score is just a number they personally can't affect (to a relevant degree).

    You must realize a lot of roamers don't even stomp but just cleave downs after winning fights because they just genuinely couldn't care less about the scoreboard. I am included in this category.

    So, naturally, you are at an advantage with your duelling build vs. a true roaming build. How does that make duelling interesting? You ignore most of the objectives, a roamer has, and just focus on a 1vs1 build? So, you trade extra mobility, 1vsX capability, and some ppl also build flexibility for more 1vs1 skills. Mabye, these true duellers would get much more challenging fights, if they would use a roamer build, giving them the same 1vs1 handicaps the enemy roamer has.

    I don't even know what you're on about but all the top tier dueling builds are stacked with multiple mobility skills FYI, which is incidentally the same as the roaming meta. I also don't know who said dueling is actually interesting, cause it sure wasn't me.

    @babazhook.6805 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    I build to roam which means taking objectives and maybe killing players when I can. But I need to be confident of the kill, cause if I lose I have to run back to get the objectives again.

    Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing).

    in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention.

    Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights).

    I do not see the "goal" of a roamer as finding fights. I see it as objective based and information based. As example swords go up on a friendly tower or keep and I am roaming . I see it as my goal to get to that objective and ascertain the threat level so as to call in people as needed. If en-route to said objective I get involved with a long drawn out fight because I ran into someone on the way, I might get to that objective too late to prevent a flip.

    The same is true of camps and especially when one has been upgraded to Speedy Yaks or some such so as to get an asset upgraded to the next tier as quickly as possible. When i note on the map that an enemy force is moving towards a given camp , I will try and get there first, raise the alarm and try to hold that position until allies arrive.

    I will also often tail a zerg at the request of a commander on map so as to give details on numbers and the direction they are headed so that forces can be gathered to meet them. If a commander is flipping a keep with a force of 15 and I see a Zerg of 30 enemies headed from spawn towards that keep to defend it, I will raise the alarm. Oftimes a small group will break off from our group to engage and distract long enough for a flip to happen.

    As a roamer I also take it on myself when using WPS to get closer to a camp I might want to flip to do things like reset siege in those places. Most of the roamers I am familiar with do the same types of things.

    This does not mean I avoid all fights. In fact I look forward to those very few opportunities where I can engage in a 1v1. It only means I do not see this as priority.

    That was an almost prefect description of scouting.

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:
    You must realize a lot of roamers don't even stomp but just cleave downs after winning fights because they just genuinely couldn't care less about the scoreboard. I am included in this category.

    Eh that's often because roamers are usually still dangerous when downed. Trying to weigh in that with the act of roaming and how they view the scoreboard is pointless.

    A downed player in 1v1 is mostly harmless, stomping gives score, cleaving doesn't. Stomping is just more effort.

    Anyway, we've already had this argument a million times. Everyones view on it is different. To me it's still very simple:

    Any good roamer work like an interceptor - you got to actively stop the enemy movement and maintain control of the battlefield. Capping objectives, defending objectives, killing enemies solo, bringing reinforcements for smallscale, scouting, its all just a means to an end to engage the enemy before they engage you. Fail at any individual part and you fail at roaming.

    You're trying to make everything that isn't zerging into roaming, that's not the case.

    And if you say "but wait, isnt that just... playing WvW?" then yes, you'd be correct. A roamer plays WvW, unlike a duelist that only got his eyes set on each individual fight while disregarding the war. For the question on when this roaming turns into zerging, it's equally simple: When you stop thinking.

    Then you exclude a very big part of the roaming community. The only roamers I have met never cap objectives except as a way to lure people, same with defending, would rarely join someone they don't know in a fight, have never in their life called anything in map chat (scouting) and just couldn't care less about these things.

    Nope dueling is a very specific kind of playing. It only contains 1v1s. Roaming is very often impromptu 1-3vX .

    But roaming is a particular playstyle focused less around objectives.

    "Roaming refers to the act of wandering or travelling freely and with no specific destination." would be the definition of the word, now ofc that could be a slightly different term in the game, but the general idea is the same, you have no particular destination in mind (objectives).

    Zerging has to do exclusively with numbers, being brain afk is a consequence of that, not the other way around.

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    playing efficiently towards 'winning' the match has still more sense in it that running around looking for 'good' fights. because given what restrictions a fight has to be considered 'good' by many, they can be lucky if they get 1 per matchup. that doesnt mean that it is 'wrong' to only go for fights, i mean its your buisness, but IMO the chances that you enjoy that mode are much higher if you embrace all of it, just give it a try.

    A very big problem with caring about winning a match has to do how little you contribute to it and how little control you have over it. It's also why the amount of fun I have drastically drops as soon as my group did exceeds five until I afk as it reaches 9 people. If you consider the match as your goal then you're playing with a few hundred strangers and at best contributing 1-2% and that'd be pretty extreme.

    you have little control over the actual outcome of a match but you have control over your personal contribution to it. i dont care if my server does win matches, but i do care if i did contribute or not.

    Another one is that it's just not challenging, or at least not in a "I can improve and get better at it" kinda way, it's mainly tedious and revolves very little about fighting, it's kinda like sPvP (where the optimal is to never have any challenging fights) which I loathe with a passion.

    You can usually get in at least 2-3 decent fights an hour against most servers, bit less vs some. Varying ofc with time of day and so on.

    it is correct that it is optimal to never engage in a challanging fight, your performance in the fight as such is not what makes you win them mostly, its the selection of the encounters. but you surely can improve and get better at it. your infight performance is also a part of it but its just that: a part, not all. if it is challenging or not depends on both your opponents and the maximum you possibly could contribute. IMO fights alone are much less challenging as they are usually determined by build or envoiremental advantage, sure you can overcome build and envoiremental disadvantage with more 'skill', but is the fight really depending on your skill then or on your opponents lack of it? think about it. i dont think its 'challanging' to have the luck that my opponent is bad. it is more challanging to ensure getting many advantageous fights and obviously win them. an example: how do you see the difference between a bad and a good deadeye? everyone can run around on a deadeye and can have a really good k/d as the 'skill' requirement to avoid fights is minimal. yet bad deadeyes will be much more limited in the encounters they can choose as advantageous and then they actually have to engage in them and not be too afraid. most deadeyes i have seen are playing way too carefully without reason.

    Except you can have a fight that's challenging even if your opponents are terrible (when you're outnumbered). Winning these fights can be challenging and the result can depend on your skill, I have had fights vs multiple bad players where I after watching playback realize I misplaced and could have won, meaning I died cause of what I did.

    Anyone can pick their battles, espec when you can just disengage if you turn out to be wrong. To me that's about as interesting as sieging.

    To me at least, only the fights are actually interesting and that's the way everyone I play with also sees it. > @Kylden Ar.3724 said:

    @enkidu.5937 said:

    @Kylden Ar.3724 said:
    This pretty much right here is why the mode has turned into a meme joke (like the ANet attempt at eSports). The builds matter more than the skill levels. Cause Power Creep sells expansions.

    Until WvW also uses the Pvp build system (or a variant) there will never be any attempt at balance.

    I build to roam which means taking objectives and maybe killing players when I can. But I need to be confident of the kill, cause if I lose I have to run back to get the objectives again.

    You're confusing roamer builds with dueling builds, which are different things.

    Thats exactly what makes true duelling quite uninteresting. Some run pure duell builds, some run roaming builds. At least, with a duelling build you can make other roamers leave the map, or quit because of frustration, and then take the objectives for yourself xD

    I guess, Anet designed WvW as a big-scale mode, where everyone can just jump in with his / her PvE-gear on (at least some ppl are doing this). So, I wouldn't expect Anet to introduce the PvP build system in WvW.

    Emphasis mine, just to point out, the use of PvE gear in WvW has been my biggest block to recruiting more players to the mode. They look at what it costs to gear up in even exotic of some of the meta types (Trailblazer, Commander, or Kitten Forbid Minstrel) and nope right out of the mode.

    Commander isn't meta anywhere, least of all WvW.

    It's not really an issue for vets. We got the resources needed to gear up. But if we want new blood and the mode to not die, we either go for PvP build system or say kitten the economy to lower these prices.

    Prices are low, getting a full set of ascended Minstrel gear isn't nearly as expensive as you make it out to be, not that I am against cheaper ascended armor tvo. Not had anyone I tried recruiting to WvW or the game on general blocked by the gold cost of gear. Amulet system would kill WvW.

    The only problems with the gearing system is how stupidly hard trinkets are to get for new players. Which could easily be fixed. They aren't a cost issue though.

    Ögonen omges av vita och svarta penseldrag som gör att de ser större ut än vad de egentligen är. Baksidan av lodjurets öron kantas av svart päls som slutar i den karaktäristiska tofsen högst upp på örat. Lodjurets svans är kortare än de flesta andra kattdjurs.

  • When you meet a person that can sustain dmg and not die straight away, those fights can go on for so long u can end up losing participation instead of gaining anything. Its usually better for your participation to run off and whack the next newbie in da face instead. And those 1vs3 are almost impossible due to not only having more players, but the downstate mechanics ontop of that, its like 9 times more tricky just because of that mech.

    Competitive fights just isn't rewarding enough unfortunately.

  • MUDse.7623MUDse.7623 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    playing efficiently towards 'winning' the match has still more sense in it that running around looking for 'good' fights. because given what restrictions a fight has to be considered 'good' by many, they can be lucky if they get 1 per matchup. that doesnt mean that it is 'wrong' to only go for fights, i mean its your buisness, but IMO the chances that you enjoy that mode are much higher if you embrace all of it, just give it a try.

    A very big problem with caring about winning a match has to do how little you contribute to it and how little control you have over it. It's also why the amount of fun I have drastically drops as soon as my group did exceeds five until I afk as it reaches 9 people. If you consider the match as your goal then you're playing with a few hundred strangers and at best contributing 1-2% and that'd be pretty extreme.

    you have little control over the actual outcome of a match but you have control over your personal contribution to it. i dont care if my server does win matches, but i do care if i did contribute or not.

    Another one is that it's just not challenging, or at least not in a "I can improve and get better at it" kinda way, it's mainly tedious and revolves very little about fighting, it's kinda like sPvP (where the optimal is to never have any challenging fights) which I loathe with a passion.

    You can usually get in at least 2-3 decent fights an hour against most servers, bit less vs some. Varying ofc with time of day and so on.

    it is correct that it is optimal to never engage in a challanging fight, your performance in the fight as such is not what makes you win them mostly, its the selection of the encounters. but you surely can improve and get better at it. your infight performance is also a part of it but its just that: a part, not all. if it is challenging or not depends on both your opponents and the maximum you possibly could contribute. IMO fights alone are much less challenging as they are usually determined by build or envoiremental advantage, sure you can overcome build and envoiremental disadvantage with more 'skill', but is the fight really depending on your skill then or on your opponents lack of it? think about it. i dont think its 'challanging' to have the luck that my opponent is bad. it is more challanging to ensure getting many advantageous fights and obviously win them. an example: how do you see the difference between a bad and a good deadeye? everyone can run around on a deadeye and can have a really good k/d as the 'skill' requirement to avoid fights is minimal. yet bad deadeyes will be much more limited in the encounters they can choose as advantageous and then they actually have to engage in them and not be too afraid. most deadeyes i have seen are playing way too carefully without reason.

    Except you can have a fight that's challenging even if your opponents are terrible (when you're outnumbered). Winning these fights can be challenging and the result can depend on your skill, I have had fights vs multiple bad players where I after watching playback realize I misplaced and could have won, meaning I died cause of what I did.

    these fight as said depend mainly on them being bad, not you being good.

    Anyone can pick their battles, espec when you can just disengage if you turn out to be wrong. To me that's about as interesting as sieging.

    you cannot just disengage if you turn out to be wrong, that doesnt work in too many cases. mostly when you manage to disengage, you had that possibility in mind on engage so you made sure you still can disengage. but yes everyone can pick their fights, still sooo many people fail at it - wonder why..

    To me at least, only the fights are actually interesting and that's the way everyone I play with also sees it.

    thats good that you play with likeminded, doesnt make your view the only right one. you see plenty of people already answered that when they talk about roaming they do not have such a narrowminded view on it as you do, yet you still stand by your opinion to be the only true one. as 'everyone YOU play with' is of that opinion.

    read this, become a better player now.

  • babazhook.6805babazhook.6805 Member ✭✭✭✭

    That was an almost prefect description of scouting.

    Yours is a perfect description of DUELING. You can find fights on that central island or outside SMC walls in various locations .

  • Aktium.9506Aktium.9506 Member ✭✭✭

    If someone is being obnoxious and playing a high mobility class and disengages when he is losing I will definitely not bother engaging him again. There's a 9/10 chance said player will just disengage and go ooc to regen health and cds again and I will have even less life force for the next engagement. I'm not going to play along with that sort of behaviour. It's a complete waste of time. Which I don't want since if I'm in WvW I'm likely just there for reward ticks.

  • lodjur.1284lodjur.1284 Member ✭✭✭

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    playing efficiently towards 'winning' the match has still more sense in it that running around looking for 'good' fights. because given what restrictions a fight has to be considered 'good' by many, they can be lucky if they get 1 per matchup. that doesnt mean that it is 'wrong' to only go for fights, i mean its your buisness, but IMO the chances that you enjoy that mode are much higher if you embrace all of it, just give it a try.

    A very big problem with caring about winning a match has to do how little you contribute to it and how little control you have over it. It's also why the amount of fun I have drastically drops as soon as my group did exceeds five until I afk as it reaches 9 people. If you consider the match as your goal then you're playing with a few hundred strangers and at best contributing 1-2% and that'd be pretty extreme.

    you have little control over the actual outcome of a match but you have control over your personal contribution to it. i dont care if my server does win matches, but i do care if i did contribute or not.

    Another one is that it's just not challenging, or at least not in a "I can improve and get better at it" kinda way, it's mainly tedious and revolves very little about fighting, it's kinda like sPvP (where the optimal is to never have any challenging fights) which I loathe with a passion.

    You can usually get in at least 2-3 decent fights an hour against most servers, bit less vs some. Varying ofc with time of day and so on.

    it is correct that it is optimal to never engage in a challanging fight, your performance in the fight as such is not what makes you win them mostly, its the selection of the encounters. but you surely can improve and get better at it. your infight performance is also a part of it but its just that: a part, not all. if it is challenging or not depends on both your opponents and the maximum you possibly could contribute. IMO fights alone are much less challenging as they are usually determined by build or envoiremental advantage, sure you can overcome build and envoiremental disadvantage with more 'skill', but is the fight really depending on your skill then or on your opponents lack of it? think about it. i dont think its 'challanging' to have the luck that my opponent is bad. it is more challanging to ensure getting many advantageous fights and obviously win them. an example: how do you see the difference between a bad and a good deadeye? everyone can run around on a deadeye and can have a really good k/d as the 'skill' requirement to avoid fights is minimal. yet bad deadeyes will be much more limited in the encounters they can choose as advantageous and then they actually have to engage in them and not be too afraid. most deadeyes i have seen are playing way too carefully without reason.

    Except you can have a fight that's challenging even if your opponents are terrible (when you're outnumbered). Winning these fights can be challenging and the result can depend on your skill, I have had fights vs multiple bad players where I after watching playback realize I misplaced and could have won, meaning I died cause of what I did.

    these fight as said depend mainly on them being bad, not you being good

    Bad and Good are subjective terms tho. That PvP in general (at least should) depend on the skill difference between you and your opponent(s) isn't really an argument here.

    However a challenging fight does always depend on your own skill too. This is because it's a pretty broad term, it's just any fight you wouldn't have won if you had played slightly worse, or conversely would have won if you played slightly better. Now this can include winning an 1v3 against worse players, losing a close 1v1 to an evenly skilled player or any number of other scenarios.

    Anyone can pick their battles, espec when you can just disengage if you turn out to be wrong. To me that's about as interesting as sieging.

    you cannot just disengage if you turn out to be wrong, that doesnt work in too many cases. mostly when you manage to disengage, you had that possibility in mind on engage so you made sure you still can disengage. but yes everyone can pick their fights, still sooo many people fail at it - wonder why..

    You can on 3 classes, very easily except possibly against people playing these same 3 classes (but usually you can cause disengages are easier than chasing). You don't need to keep it in mind if you class has several long range teleports/leaps and possibly stealth.

    Also you mention failing at choosing your fights. There isn't anything to fail at unless you're using a very narrow definition of what a correct fight to take is. For me personally, when I am solo, I engage in all fights where I could have a chance to win this includes 1v5s I quite often lose, because to me dying doesn't matter. The only things I actually avoid to engage are groups bigger than 7 (unless I happen to know they are very very bad/new players and it's in a good location), thieves/mesmers/rangers (if they look even remotely competent) and people I know (or kindaish).

    The first category is quite simply because you never win 1v8s against even the most mediocre of players, no matter how good you play, which I guess isn't a problem.

    The second category is because I already know exactly how they will play, they will first disengage then burst me and when that doesn't work they will disengage and burst again, they will repeat this ad nauseam. The only problem here is that they generally pick to engage in a fight with me, which I can't really do much about as these 3 classes have so much more mobility than anything else.

    The last category is because with those people we both already know who will win a fight based on what we're playing (and how good the person is ofc) and neither of us would wanna end up 2+v1ing someone, therefore I only really fight people I know at dueling spots.

    According to your definition I massively fail at picking my fights tho. Imo there's nothing to actually fail at.

    To me at least, only the fights are actually interesting and that's the way everyone I play with also sees it.

    thats good that you play with likeminded, doesnt make your view the only right one. you see plenty of people already answered that when they talk about roaming they do not have such a narrowminded view on it as you do, yet you still stand by your opinion to be the only true one. as 'everyone YOU play with' is of that opinion.

    You mean like the person who think that everything that isn't scouting or zerging is dueling?

    I am not saying what I am doing is better, I am just saying what roaming is, frankly objective playing isn't really roaming, its more often just called scouting or could be called solo havoc. Trying to call me narrowminded for wanting a term used correctly is just silly, try keeping a higher debate level in the future please.

    @babazhook.6805 said:

    That was an almost prefect description of scouting.

    Yours is a perfect description of DUELING. You can find fights on that central island or outside SMC walls in various locations .

    Dueling is organized 1v1s

    Roaming is generally a unorganized 1(or possibly 2-3)vX (which includes x=1). The differences are so many, for starters there's no clear start or finish to fights, if you die you're opponent won't let you ress, more people will prolly join in.

    @Aktium.9506 said:
    If someone is being obnoxious and playing a high mobility class and disengages when he is losing I will definitely not bother engaging him again. There's a 9/10 chance said player will just disengage and go ooc to regen health and cds again and I will have even less life force for the next engagement. I'm not going to play along with that sort of behaviour. It's a complete waste of time. Which I don't want since if I'm in WvW I'm likely just there for reward ticks.

    The problem isn't that you choose to re-engage them, but that they choose to re-engage you, sometimes 10+ times in a row. If they after disengaging wouldn't reengage me until I get bored/tilted enough to die, I wouldn't really mind.

    Ögonen omges av vita och svarta penseldrag som gör att de ser större ut än vad de egentligen är. Baksidan av lodjurets öron kantas av svart päls som slutar i den karaktäristiska tofsen högst upp på örat. Lodjurets svans är kortare än de flesta andra kattdjurs.

  • MUDse.7623MUDse.7623 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    Anyone can pick their battles, espec when you can just disengage if you turn out to be wrong. To me that's about as interesting as sieging.

    you cannot just disengage if you turn out to be wrong, that doesnt work in too many cases. mostly when you manage to disengage, you had that possibility in mind on engage so you made sure you still can disengage. but yes everyone can pick their fights, still sooo many people fail at it - wonder why..

    You can on 3 classes, very easily except possibly against people playing these same 3 classes (but usually you can cause disengages are easier than chasing). You don't need to keep it in mind if you class has several long range teleports/leaps and possibly stealth.

    yes there are professions with the tools to disengage a fight. yet you still need them ready for a disengage and are not allowed to use them offensively if you think you might need to disengage. they do not have a magic 0 cost 'i am outta here' button.

    Also you mention failing at choosing your fights. There isn't anything to fail at unless you're using a very narrow definition of what a correct fight to take is. For me personally, when I am solo, I engage in all fights where I could have a chance to win this includes 1v5s I quite often lose, because to me dying doesn't matter. The only things I actually avoid to engage are groups bigger than 7 (unless I happen to know they are very very bad/new players and it's in a good location), thieves/mesmers/rangers (if they look even remotely competent) and people I know (or kindaish).

    there is alot to fail. if you attack a group too big for you to be able to at least disengage again, you failed. if you waste alot of time trying to avoid a fight because you overestimate your opponents, you also failed. unless ofc you do not value your own contribution, then you can waste your time with waiting or dying pointlessly.

    The last category is because with those people we both already know who will win a fight based on what we're playing (and how good the person is ofc) and neither of us would wanna end up 2+v1ing someone, therefore I only really fight people I know at dueling spots.

    According to your definition I massively fail at picking my fights tho. Imo there's nothing to actually fail at.

    thats correct IMO you probably fail at picking your fights. you already realised earlier that IMO picking a challanging fight is far from efficient. it might be what is fun to you and you might perform well in said fight, but from might point of view that is very bad as what i call a roamer.

    To me at least, only the fights are actually interesting and that's the way everyone I play with also sees it.

    thats good that you play with likeminded, doesnt make your view the only right one. you see plenty of people already answered that when they talk about roaming they do not have such a narrowminded view on it as you do, yet you still stand by your opinion to be the only true one. as 'everyone YOU play with' is of that opinion.

    You mean like the person who think that everything that isn't scouting or zerging is dueling?

    I am not saying what I am doing is better, I am just saying what roaming is, frankly objective playing isn't really roaming, its more often just called scouting or could be called solo havoc. Trying to call me narrowminded for wanting a term used correctly is just silly, try keeping a higher debate level in the future please.

    exactly, you want us to use the term the way you think it is correct. why is it so difficult to apply a broader meaning to what 'roaming' is? and yes i do think myself a roamer and kind of feel a bit offended as you claim that whatever i am doing is not roaming, therefor i will call it narrowminded. during what i call roaming many people apply their focus on different things but trying to use a different word for the activities of every specific roamer would be a little much, dont you think? you just make it easy and say everyone playing like me is a roamer and the rest is doing 'something' but not roaming..

    read this, become a better player now.

  • Eramonster.2718Eramonster.2718 Member ✭✭✭✭

    There're also things to consider:
    Enviroment - Enviroment obstructs and safe/higher ground.
    Positioning - Undectected/blind angle/distance for first strike.
    Hard counter - Odds against some class for consideration(eg. vs Mirage etc, winning a Sb doesn't apply or comes to a draw at best).

  • I usually try fighting everyone except ppl I already dueled a lot. But when I see a Druid/Boonbeast/Chaos Mirage/Holo with utility buffs that cost over 1 gold/30 min. aka damage reduction/toughess potion etc I usually just cringe and walk away. Even if I beat them it would just take forever. Also tryhards like that usually +1 me soon anyway. I know winning is fun, but winning with custom offmeta builds is even more fun. Honestly the buildcrafting aspect is most exciting thing for me in gw2. Being a tryhard isn't worth it since you can pick your fights.

  • Nimon.7840Nimon.7840 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sylosi.6503 said:
    Because most WvW players who still play WvW on a frequent basis are basically PvE players at heart who use WvW as a substitute for a social life, rather than looking for good (challenging) PvP. No actual PvP player would put up with the pitiful quality of "PvP" in WvW where the majority of fights are not close in the slightest. (let's not even go into how infrequent fights are on top of that...)

    I remember last time I watched Helseth stream (long ago), a bit after they let you queue for PvP from WvW, he went into WvW duelled a warrior, beat him, said "this is stupid, I can just kite him" and went back to PvP, that is the response of an actual PvP player to the "PvP" of WvW.

    That's funny. I think it's the exact opposite way. Most PvP players are just too stupid to play.
    And loose fights in wvw even against not so good players.
    If you are looking for "good (challenging) PvP" gw2 is the wrong game for you.

    Most people in PvP be like: haha, scourge is for noobs, I stand on a point and loose because I facetank everything. Instead of kiting or pressuring them from range.

    And when they get into wvw, where the first challenge occurs in crafting a good build, they often choose pretty poorly.
    Because spvp makes you not flexible by having these stupid set stat amulets

    Sure there's always exceptions. I met this spvp good player (the one with the crown) in wvw and spvp. He wrecked people in both modes with his daredevil (and people say thief is bad lol)
    He even killed people in 3v1 situations.

    And then there players like another one I met, who showed me that he was top 100 in spvp, but he lost in wvw against an average roamer that even I with my necro could beat.

    You can't just say that wvw isn't good PvP. It actually is. But you need to find these people that are as good as you are.

    And there's actually a lot of players, that play wvw only. They just get into pve, when they want a legendary weapon or something else, like a skin.

    Me myself am raiding pve 1-3 times a week, so 2-6hours. Rest of the time I'm in wvw. Which might be 2-3hours a day, if not more.

  • Justine.6351Justine.6351 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Some of them are friends. Want makes me smh a little is when random people try emulating "I'm just watching" behaviour because they are just groupies.

    Anet buff me :-(
    Make me good at game!

  • Jeknar.6184Jeknar.6184 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Justine.6351 said:
    Some of them are friends. Want makes me smh a little is when random people try emulating "I'm just watching" behaviour because they are just groupies.

    What exactly is this "I'm just watching" behaviour? I really didn't get what you mean...

    Ferguson's Crossing Mithril Squire (Rank 5001) - PvP Phoenix (Rank 72) - 30k Achievement Points
    Exalted Kawagima, Calamis Fatima, Hanna Flintlocke, Suzuhara Suzuka, Sally Furious Ant, Sabetha Deadeye, Bjarl of Souls, Lilian Mistwalker, Kelvena Riverstream, Zallha Wildhunt

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Spartacus.3192 said:

    @Sylosi.6503 said:
    Because most WvW players who still play WvW on a frequent basis are basically PvE players at heart who use WvW as a substitute for a social life, rather than looking for good (challenging) PvP. No actual PvP player would put up with the pitiful quality of "PvP" in WvW where the majority of fights are not close in the slightest. (let's not even go into how infrequent fights are on top of that...)

    I remember last time I watched Helseth stream (long ago), a bit after they let you queue for PvP from WvW, he went into WvW duelled a warrior, beat him, said "this is stupid, I can just kite him" and went back to PvP, that is the response of an actual PvP player to the "PvP" of WvW.

    Rather WvW roamers don't wont to lose any more brain cells playing the same tiny conquest maps on a restricted amulet build system that requires you to be on a circle to win. In WvW you have huge maps, able to LOS, dont need to stand on a circle that the entire enemy team will bomb. They also have the ability to play a wider variety of builds. Its refreshing to come across players actually experimenting with diverse builds which is virtually impossible in PvP.

    Im talking small scale roaming here not Zergs.

    If there comes a day when ANET implements the pvp amulet system in WvW will be the day i uninstall.

    Also LOL at quoting Helseth who plays mesmer which is literally the most OP duelling class in WvW like since forever.

    Yea but the concept is there...
    Being mostly a PvP player you're forced to play with a lot of restrictions such as mobility and builds, then you find a WvW player who "duels" on flat ground and wouldnt know how to kite or LoS if it slapped him in the face, most likely reliant on overtuned stats to do most of the work rather than skill.

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Spartacus.3192 said:

    @Sylosi.6503 said:
    Because most WvW players who still play WvW on a frequent basis are basically PvE players at heart who use WvW as a substitute for a social life, rather than looking for good (challenging) PvP. No actual PvP player would put up with the pitiful quality of "PvP" in WvW where the majority of fights are not close in the slightest. (let's not even go into how infrequent fights are on top of that...)

    I remember last time I watched Helseth stream (long ago), a bit after they let you queue for PvP from WvW, he went into WvW duelled a warrior, beat him, said "this is stupid, I can just kite him" and went back to PvP, that is the response of an actual PvP player to the "PvP" of WvW.

    Rather WvW roamers don't wont to lose any more brain cells playing the same tiny conquest maps on a restricted amulet build system that requires you to be on a circle to win. In WvW you have huge maps, able to LOS, dont need to stand on a circle that the entire enemy team will bomb. They also have the ability to play a wider variety of builds. Its refreshing to come across players actually experimenting with diverse builds which is virtually impossible in PvP.

    Im talking small scale roaming here not Zergs.

    If there comes a day when ANET implements the pvp amulet system in WvW will be the day i uninstall.

    Also LOL at quoting Helseth who plays mesmer which is literally the most OP duelling class in WvW like since forever.

    Yea but the concept is there...
    Being mostly a PvP player you're forced to play with a lot of restrictions such as mobility and builds, then you find a WvW player who "duels" on flat ground and wouldnt know how to kite or LoS if it slapped him in the face, most likely reliant on overtuned stats to do most of the work rather than skill.

    Well that's the point thought right? The node fighting aspect of PvP structures the feel of the entire game mode. I played a lot of PvP the first few years and it was a lot of fun for a while but eventually I just got tired of the same fights in the same circles. So it's like even if the micro level play is more skill oriented the game mode itself is tedious. I play video games to have fun and PvP just isn't that much fun after a few thousand games imo.

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 15, 2019

    Lol, it does amuse me that people want WvW to be like the only game mode in this game that's an even bigger failure.

    This is a pve game with some incidential pvp. Ever since the esparwats dream died, balance is entirely focused on raids. It's not a criticism of it, but pretending anything else at this point, well...

  • Sylosi.6503Sylosi.6503 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 15, 2019

    @Nimon.7840 said:

    @Sylosi.6503 said:
    Because most WvW players who still play WvW on a frequent basis are basically PvE players at heart who use WvW as a substitute for a social life, rather than looking for good (challenging) PvP. No actual PvP player would put up with the pitiful quality of "PvP" in WvW where the majority of fights are not close in the slightest. (let's not even go into how infrequent fights are on top of that...)

    I remember last time I watched Helseth stream (long ago), a bit after they let you queue for PvP from WvW, he went into WvW duelled a warrior, beat him, said "this is stupid, I can just kite him" and went back to PvP, that is the response of an actual PvP player to the "PvP" of WvW.

    That's funny. I think it's the exact opposite way.

    Then you'd be wrong, putting aside most actual PvP players (and I mean in a general sense not specific to this game's PvP) from both WvW and PvP quit long ago or barely play anymore, the pattern for better WvW players (roamers especially) was to go from WvW to PvP. Frankly it was even the pattern for not so good roamers who weren't playing WvW as a substitute for a social life, for the simple reason you get far more action in PvP than roaming in WvW.

    If you are looking for "good (challenging) PvP" gw2 is the wrong game for you.

    Correct, which is why I log in occasionally for a week or two to see if by some miracle if things like WvW have improved (it hasn't, it is in an even sadder state the previous time I played), then go back to playing actual PvP games for the next X months until my next little visit to GW2.

    And when they get into wvw, where the first challenge occurs in crafting a good build, they often choose pretty poorly.
    Because spvp makes you not flexible by having these stupid set stat amulets

    Nah, it is just more balanced and less carried by cheese (it is still cheesy of course), because they throw out most of the broken runes, sigils, stat combos and the game was designed around that game mode (e.g - look at stealth / mobility - the balance to those in PvP is the game mode itself, roaming in WvW on the other hand...)

    You can't just say that wvw isn't good PvP. It actually is. But you need to find these people that are as good as you are.

    It is trash tier PvP, the basis of decent, skilled, even fun PvP is competition, and I don't mean that in some "esports" way. I simply mean having opponents that are around the same experience / skill / outlook toward the game as each other, so you get at least vaguely competitive encounters. WvW is complete garbage at that, which is exactly why you had people try to get that with things like GvG.

    WvW is "PvP" for PvE players, it is low skill, casual, undemanding to the point you can simply join a zerg and have the commander basically think for players to varying degrees, making decisions for them directly or indirectly on things that are considered fundamental to most PvP games like positioning.

    Which to be fair actually suits the playerbase of a casual MMORPG where most players are more concerned about playing dress-up than anything else.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sylosi.6503 said:

    @Nimon.7840 said:

    @Sylosi.6503 said:
    Because most WvW players who still play WvW on a frequent basis are basically PvE players at heart who use WvW as a substitute for a social life, rather than looking for good (challenging) PvP. No actual PvP player would put up with the pitiful quality of "PvP" in WvW where the majority of fights are not close in the slightest. (let's not even go into how infrequent fights are on top of that...)

    I remember last time I watched Helseth stream (long ago), a bit after they let you queue for PvP from WvW, he went into WvW duelled a warrior, beat him, said "this is stupid, I can just kite him" and went back to PvP, that is the response of an actual PvP player to the "PvP" of WvW.

    That's funny. I think it's the exact opposite way.

    Then you'd be wrong, putting aside most actual PvP players (and I mean in a general sense not specific to this game's PvP) from both WvW and PvP quit long ago or barely play anymore, the pattern for better WvW players (roamers especially) was to go from WvW to PvP. Frankly it was even the pattern for not so good roamers who weren't playing WvW as a substitute for a social life, for the simple reason you get far more action in PvP than roaming in WvW.

    If you are looking for "good (challenging) PvP" gw2 is the wrong game for you.

    Correct, which is why I log in occasionally for a week or two to see if by some miracle if things like WvW have improved (it hasn't, it is in an even sadder state the previous time I played), then go back to playing actual PvP games for the next X months until my next little visit to GW2.

    And when they get into wvw, where the first challenge occurs in crafting a good build, they often choose pretty poorly.
    Because spvp makes you not flexible by having these stupid set stat amulets

    Nah, it is just more balanced and less carried by cheese (it is still cheesy of course), because they throw out most of the broken runes, sigils, stat combos and the game was designed around that game mode (e.g - look at stealth / mobility - the balance to those in PvP is the game mode itself, roaming in WvW on the other hand...)

    You can't just say that wvw isn't good PvP. It actually is. But you need to find these people that are as good as you are.

    It is trash tier PvP, the basis of decent, skilled, even fun PvP is competition, and I don't mean that in some "esports" way. I simply mean having opponents that are around the same experience / skill / outlook toward the game as each other, so you get at least vaguely competitive encounters. WvW is complete garbage at that, which is exactly why you had people try to get that with things like GvG.

    WvW is "PvP" for PvE players, it is low skill, casual, undemanding to the point you can simply join a zerg and have the commander basically think for players to varying degrees, making decisions for them directly or indirectly on things that are considered fundamental to most PvP games like positioning.

    Which to be fair actually suits the playerbase of a casual MMORPG where most players are more concerned about playing dress-up than anything else.

    Every pvp team i knew of or played with had a commander as well. You can't be organized and working as a single unit if you have multiple people thinking different things and pursuing different visions at the same time. Obviously each individual member of a PvP team had a role to fill but the rotations and the strategic decisions were all entirely centralized just like a wvw raid.

  • lodjur.1284lodjur.1284 Member ✭✭✭

    @MUDse.7623 said:

    @lodjur.1284 said:

    Anyone can pick their battles, espec when you can just disengage if you turn out to be wrong. To me that's about as interesting as sieging.

    you cannot just disengage if you turn out to be wrong, that doesnt work in too many cases. mostly when you manage to disengage, you had that possibility in mind on engage so you made sure you still can disengage. but yes everyone can pick their fights, still sooo many people fail at it - wonder why..

    You can on 3 classes, very easily except possibly against people playing these same 3 classes (but usually you can cause disengages are easier than chasing). You don't need to keep it in mind if you class has several long range teleports/leaps and possibly stealth.

    yes there are professions with the tools to disengage a fight. yet you still need them ready for a disengage and are not allowed to use them offensively if you think you might need to disengage. they do not have a magic 0 cost 'i am outta here' button.

    Which is exactly how everyone uses them. You don't blink into a fight on mesmer for example (overgeneralization as there's obviously times to use them to engage). Also against a lot of classes you have enough mobility skills to do both, or one like shadowstep that allow you to do both with 1 skill.

    Also you mention failing at choosing your fights. There isn't anything to fail at unless you're using a very narrow definition of what a correct fight to take is. For me personally, when I am solo, I engage in all fights where I could have a chance to win this includes 1v5s I quite often lose, because to me dying doesn't matter. The only things I actually avoid to engage are groups bigger than 7 (unless I happen to know they are very very bad/new players and it's in a good location), thieves/mesmers/rangers (if they look even remotely competent) and people I know (or kindaish).

    there is alot to fail. if you attack a group too big for you to be able to at least disengage again, you failed. if you waste alot of time trying to avoid a fight because you overestimate your opponents, you also failed. unless ofc you do not value your own contribution, then you can waste your time with waiting or dying pointlessly.

    I value my time, therefore I like spending it doing something I find fun, such as having challenging fights where it matters what I do. Now if you don't find that fun that's your business, if you'd rather play the objectives to ahead, but that clearly isn't for everyone. But saying that people who don't play the objectives are wasting their time is just an incredibly strange statement.

    Also you're calling me narrow-minded after literally saying you can fail at picking what you want to do with your time in a game.

    The last category is because with those people we both already know who will win a fight based on what we're playing (and how good the person is ofc) and neither of us would wanna end up 2+v1ing someone, therefore I only really fight people I know at dueling spots.

    According to your definition I massively fail at picking my fights tho. Imo there's nothing to actually fail at.

    thats correct IMO you probably fail at picking your fights. you already realised earlier that IMO picking a challanging fight is far from efficient. it might be what is fun to you and you might perform well in said fight, but from might point of view that is very bad as what i call a roamer.

    To me at least, only the fights are actually interesting and that's the way everyone I play with also sees it.

    thats good that you play with likeminded, doesnt make your view the only right one. you see plenty of people already answered that when they talk about roaming they do not have such a narrowminded view on it as you do, yet you still stand by your opinion to be the only true one. as 'everyone YOU play with' is of that opinion.

    You mean like the person who think that everything that isn't scouting or zerging is dueling?

    I am not saying what I am doing is better, I am just saying what roaming is, frankly objective playing isn't really roaming, its more often just called scouting or could be called solo havoc. Trying to call me narrowminded for wanting a term used correctly is just silly, try keeping a higher debate level in the future please.

    exactly, you want us to use the term the way you think it is correct. why is it so difficult to apply a broader meaning to what 'roaming' is? and yes i do think myself a roamer and kind of feel a bit offended as you claim that whatever i am doing is not roaming, therefor i will call it narrowminded. during what i call roaming many people apply their focus on different things but trying to use a different word for the activities of every specific roamer would be a little much, dont you think? you just make it easy and say everyone playing like me is a roamer and the rest is doing 'something' but not roaming..

    I make it easy by following a clear defining of the word that as a nice bonus happens to be precisely what the actual word roaming means. If you care about your "contribution" you have a clear goal, which means you're not roaming.

    "to walk, go, or travel without a fixed purpose or direction" would be the dictionary definition, which while not directly applicable is still relevant.

    If you're offended by someone saying that what you're doing is more like scouting, then you're the narrow-minded one as you then clearly think "playstyle x is better than playstyle y". Which I have never said, I just said they aren't the same. I have never claimed that being a roamer somehow makes one a better person than the rest of the population, that'd be you.

    Applying a broader term instantly makes it less precise, we classify and label things so we can discuss them in a productive way. Including scouting in roaming makes the term more ambiguous and means that it's impossible to know what someone means when they say it.

    Ögonen omges av vita och svarta penseldrag som gör att de ser större ut än vad de egentligen är. Baksidan av lodjurets öron kantas av svart päls som slutar i den karaktäristiska tofsen högst upp på örat. Lodjurets svans är kortare än de flesta andra kattdjurs.

  • Justine.6351Justine.6351 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jeknar.6184 said:

    @Justine.6351 said:
    Some of them are friends. Want makes me smh a little is when random people try emulating "I'm just watching" behaviour because they are just groupies.

    What exactly is this "I'm just watching" behaviour? I really didn't get what you mean...

    People who normally jump into a fight against a foe who is already outnumbered but when its a streamer they recognize they suddenly alter their behavior by standing back and watching their allies die because they know if they pushed in they would alienate their idol and be labeled as uncool. And then they proceed to follow the streamer around "just watching" as a way to associate and demonstrate that they are chill/cool. And once the stream is over they revert back into their Xv1 ganking habit.

    @4min to 8min the zap blue sylvari holosmith I recognized as someone who was following Xan [vT] around on one of his streams being all chill "im just watching". In this fight of mine you can see him conflicted between normal behavior and groupie behavior. He didn't have any issues 4v1 blargo the spellbreaker but when dany the chrono and I enter the fight you can see for the next 4 min he cant decide whether to fight or watch because he is unsure of who us 3 are, being afraid to look uncool.

    Anet buff me :-(
    Make me good at game!

  • kash.9213kash.9213 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sylosi.6503 said:

    @Nimon.7840 said:

    @Sylosi.6503 said:
    Because most WvW players who still play WvW on a frequent basis are basically PvE players at heart who use WvW as a substitute for a social life, rather than looking for good (challenging) PvP. No actual PvP player would put up with the pitiful quality of "PvP" in WvW where the majority of fights are not close in the slightest. (let's not even go into how infrequent fights are on top of that...)

    I remember last time I watched Helseth stream (long ago), a bit after they let you queue for PvP from WvW, he went into WvW duelled a warrior, beat him, said "this is stupid, I can just kite him" and went back to PvP, that is the response of an actual PvP player to the "PvP" of WvW.

    That's funny. I think it's the exact opposite way.

    Then you'd be wrong, putting aside most actual PvP players (and I mean in a general sense not specific to this game's PvP) from both WvW and PvP quit long ago or barely play anymore, the pattern for better WvW players (roamers especially) was to go from WvW to PvP. Frankly it was even the pattern for not so good roamers who weren't playing WvW as a substitute for a social life, for the simple reason you get far more action in PvP than roaming in WvW.

    If you are looking for "good (challenging) PvP" gw2 is the wrong game for you.

    Correct, which is why I log in occasionally for a week or two to see if by some miracle if things like WvW have improved (it hasn't, it is in an even sadder state the previous time I played), then go back to playing actual PvP games for the next X months until my next little visit to GW2.

    And when they get into wvw, where the first challenge occurs in crafting a good build, they often choose pretty poorly.
    Because spvp makes you not flexible by having these stupid set stat amulets

    Nah, it is just more balanced and less carried by cheese (it is still cheesy of course), because they throw out most of the broken runes, sigils, stat combos and the game was designed around that game mode (e.g - look at stealth / mobility - the balance to those in PvP is the game mode itself, roaming in WvW on the other hand...)

    You can't just say that wvw isn't good PvP. It actually is. But you need to find these people that are as good as you are.

    It is trash tier PvP, the basis of decent, skilled, even fun PvP is competition, and I don't mean that in some "esports" way. I simply mean having opponents that are around the same experience / skill / outlook toward the game as each other, so you get at least vaguely competitive encounters. WvW is complete garbage at that, which is exactly why you had people try to get that with things like GvG.

    WvW is "PvP" for PvE players, it is low skill, casual, undemanding to the point you can simply join a zerg and have the commander basically think for players to varying degrees, making decisions for them directly or indirectly on things that are considered fundamental to most PvP games like positioning.

    Which to be fair actually suits the playerbase of a casual MMORPG where most players are more concerned about playing dress-up than anything else.

    Super serious pvper over. Having civilized debates in team chat while playing dress up is only part of the battle, we like to pace ourselves.

    Northern Shiverpeaks [EL]

  • aspirine.6852aspirine.6852 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sylosi.6503 said:
    Because most WvW players who still play WvW on a frequent basis are basically PvE players at heart who use WvW as a substitute for a social life, rather than looking for good (challenging) PvP. No actual PvP player would put up with the pitiful quality of "PvP" in WvW where the majority of fights are not close in the slightest. (let's not even go into how infrequent fights are on top of that...)

    I remember last time I watched Helseth stream (long ago), a bit after they let you queue for PvP from WvW, he went into WvW duelled a warrior, beat him, said "this is stupid, I can just kite him" and went back to PvP, that is the response of an actual PvP player to the "PvP" of WvW.

    And what, kiting is disabled in pvp?

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @aspirine.6852 said:

    @Sylosi.6503 said:
    Because most WvW players who still play WvW on a frequent basis are basically PvE players at heart who use WvW as a substitute for a social life, rather than looking for good (challenging) PvP. No actual PvP player would put up with the pitiful quality of "PvP" in WvW where the majority of fights are not close in the slightest. (let's not even go into how infrequent fights are on top of that...)

    I remember last time I watched Helseth stream (long ago), a bit after they let you queue for PvP from WvW, he went into WvW duelled a warrior, beat him, said "this is stupid, I can just kite him" and went back to PvP, that is the response of an actual PvP player to the "PvP" of WvW.

    And what, kiting is disabled in pvp?

    Its not, you just loose the match since you cant kite while standing on a point the width of your outstreched arms (or 10 asuras).

    Not many go into matches to intentionally loose.

  • UfoCoffee.2084UfoCoffee.2084 Member ✭✭✭

    @Kovu.7560 said:
    I click my utilities. Fear me!
    (Seriously though, this game has too many kitten buttons to push and keying something like t/g/h just doesn't feel comfortable to me.)

    ~ Kovu

    @Kovu.7560 said:
    I click my utilities. Fear me!
    (Seriously though, this game has too many kitten buttons to push and keying something like t/g/h just doesn't feel comfortable to me.)

    ~ Kovu

    A razer Naga or something similar helps a lot for these kind of games. I have swap weapon, dodge, special action, some signets, auto walk etc all bound to my mouse. Couldn't play the game without it.

  • KrHome.1920KrHome.1920 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 15, 2019

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @aspirine.6852 said:

    @Sylosi.6503 said:
    Because most WvW players who still play WvW on a frequent basis are basically PvE players at heart who use WvW as a substitute for a social life, rather than looking for good (challenging) PvP. No actual PvP player would put up with the pitiful quality of "PvP" in WvW where the majority of fights are not close in the slightest. (let's not even go into how infrequent fights are on top of that...)

    I remember last time I watched Helseth stream (long ago), a bit after they let you queue for PvP from WvW, he went into WvW duelled a warrior, beat him, said "this is stupid, I can just kite him" and went back to PvP, that is the response of an actual PvP player to the "PvP" of WvW.

    And what, kiting is disabled in pvp?

    Its not, you just loose the match since you cant kite while standing on a point the width of your outstreched arms (or 10 asuras).

    Not many go into matches to intentionally loose.

    This!

    The smallscale (1v1 up to 5v5) class mechanic design fails badly when you try to put it into the WvW environment. WvW is balanced for decent survivability in zerg fights regarding what role your spec has to fulfill. That's the reason why spellbreaker sustain is overtuned in WvW (it's a frontline spec) and that's the reason why the game mode offers soldier attributes as default gear.

    ANet failed to balance mirage for WvW because nerfing the obvious (endurance utility) would limit other specs sustain options even more.

    Lot's of builds are only held in line because they can't cap or hold a point with their absurd mobility. Of curse these builds become a problem when capping and defending is not what you are playing for.

    I played rocket boots holo for a few days (not longer because it's dumb). You can escape from everything! It is impossible to chase you down. Such a build can not be punished. It has no purpose other than giving its user the feeling of being superior while he is lacking the intelligence to realize he is carried. And yes at this point I agree with the mentioned "ego problems" on page 1. When someone resets 5 times and still jumps and spams emotes at range he has some serious mental disease. And that happens on a daily basis in WvW.

    But at the end of the day it's all about bad game design. You won't change human idocy. You can only put options in line. The elite specs offered the possibility to introduce different roles for any class, e.g. mobile/squishy/single-target or immobile/tanky/AOE. ANet is not competent enough for that task. They could have created a thief spec that deals massive AOE but whose stealth duration is reduced by 50% and whose evades last only 1/2s. Necro could get a pure single target elite shroud with a leap and a teleport for a mobile playstyle at the cost of that huge team fight impact it currently has. I am missing the topic at this point...

  • Mechanix.9315Mechanix.9315 Member ✭✭✭

    I see a lot of excuses in this thread, but be realistic, like happens with blob fight guilds, roaming guilds also transfer together, in order to farm pugs in servers without much skill, its the virtual ego. Do i need to list them all? (NA)

    Im in SoS server, probs the worst pugs ever, everytime i fight someone a friendly pug comes and rally my enemies, and yet im still here, i take it like im doing a challenge mode lol. I have to fight kinda all of those "skilled" roamers all the time, gank squads, and i just have fun doing it, i get their salt often anyway.

    And about the "respect" thing, man kitten, this is war and open field unbalanced encounters, sometimes you are outnumbered and sometimes you outnumber your enemy, it happens without control. Feels like the ones with this argument dosent understand that a pvp mode 5v5 exists too. If i see red i engage and win or lose, i fight. I only stop if the fights happens in "designated" duel areas, but if you are having a fight 1v1 somewhere else ill join and participate i dont care.

    Also a lot of people seems "scared" to die, or to "feed" enemies, not like we playing a korean mmo when each death removes you esperience or gear or anything. Dont tell me your self steem is that low to actually care about it.

    I personally roam with all the classes, i try always diff builds because after 6yrs its the only fun i get in order to not quit the game. and yet "skilled" roamers will just stick to meta to be carried by a build and wont fight another roamer in the same situation, its just how the game is, people need the sense of accomplish without effort, works for the zergs and works for the roaming. Basically its the bandwagon meta.
    If you see me around in wvw please send me more rage whispers i have a collection in discord!

  • kash.9213kash.9213 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 16, 2019

    @Mechanix.9315 said:
    I see a lot of excuses in this thread, but be realistic, like happens with blob fight guilds, roaming guilds also transfer together, in order to farm pugs in servers without much skill, its the virtual ego. Do i need to list them all? (NA)

    Im in SoS server, probs the worst pugs ever, everytime i fight someone a friendly pug comes and rally my enemies, and yet im still here, i take it like im doing a challenge mode lol. I have to fight kinda all of those "skilled" roamers all the time, gank squads, and i just have fun doing it, i get their salt often anyway.

    And about the "respect" thing, man kitten, this is war and open field unbalanced encounters, sometimes you are outnumbered and sometimes you outnumber your enemy, it happens without control. Feels like the ones with this argument dosent understand that a pvp mode 5v5 exists too. If i see red i engage and win or lose, i fight. I only stop if the fights happens in "designated" duel areas, but if you are having a fight 1v1 somewhere else ill join and participate i dont care.

    Also a lot of people seems "scared" to die, or to "feed" enemies, not like we playing a korean mmo when each death removes you esperience or gear or anything. Dont tell me your self steem is that low to actually care about it.

    I personally roam with all the classes, i try always diff builds because after 6yrs its the only fun i get in order to not quit the game. and yet "skilled" roamers will just stick to meta to be carried by a build and wont fight another roamer in the same situation, its just how the game is, people need the sense of accomplish without effort, works for the zergs and works for the roaming. Basically its the bandwagon meta.
    If you see me around in wvw please send me more rage whispers i have a collection in discord!

    I'm not sure people are scared to die but people definitely have an idea of how personal a fight might get just by seeing how much of a scarf wearing bunny hopper the other person is or you can feel it when they're zeroing in their focus on you and they've decided they're going to show off for everyone. If they catch you while you're scout typing or you get some sm 3 way lag or something it don't matter and it's not a long shot that someone might make a snarky comment on one of these threads. WvW isn't open world, map activity is going to push people into other people a few times a night if that's all the action happening. I think most of the nerds roaming around would take more chances if the maps were more open world and lack of map activity didn't truncate them further.

    Northern Shiverpeaks [EL]

  • EremiteAngel.9765EremiteAngel.9765 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Justine.6351 said:

    @Jeknar.6184 said:

    @Justine.6351 said:
    Some of them are friends. Want makes me smh a little is when random people try emulating "I'm just watching" behaviour because they are just groupies.

    What exactly is this "I'm just watching" behaviour? I really didn't get what you mean...

    People who normally jump into a fight against a foe who is already outnumbered but when its a streamer they recognize they suddenly alter their behavior by standing back and watching their allies die because they know if they pushed in they would alienate their idol and be labeled as uncool. And then they proceed to follow the streamer around "just watching" as a way to associate and demonstrate that they are chill/cool. And once the stream is over they revert back into their Xv1 ganking habit.

    @4min to 8min the zap blue sylvari holosmith I recognized as someone who was following Xan [vT] around on one of his streams being all chill "im just watching". In this fight of mine you can see him conflicted between normal behavior and groupie behavior. He didn't have any issues 4v1 blargo the spellbreaker but when dany the chrono and I enter the fight you can see for the next 4 min he cant decide whether to fight or watch because he is unsure of who us 3 are, being afraid to look uncool.

    Honestly, I'm very impressed by your hammer rev's positioning and movement in the video.
    A usual criticism I've heard from other revs on using a hammer for roaming is that it lacks the defensive tools compared to alternative weapon choices.
    But your positioning and movements were top class, making up for whatever deficiency a hammer rev is supposed to have.
    Your playstyle reminds me of a soulbeast friend of mine who pressures with high damage from range, and kites superbly when focused.
    I've also seen roaming streamers fight and they usually ignore hammer revs in a group fight because hammer revs are supposedly 'zerg' builds run by zerglings and not a threat.
    But the amazing thing is it was usually the hammer revs who did the killing blow on these streamers lol...
    Was a very interesting watch!

  • If you’ve fought the same person 100+ times it tends to get stale. I can understand why they just don’t bother as they A: know who will win before it starts or B: are tired of fighting each other.

  • Roaming scene is ded bois. I miss the days of when I had ppl to roam with and engage bigger groups for the fights.

    Soloblade [tM}
    NSP
    ded chl

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Natar.3671 said:
    Roaming scene is ded bois. I miss the days of when I had ppl to roam with and engage bigger groups for the fights.

    Thats the eqvivalent of seeing an empty music stage at some shady bar and proclaiming that music is dead.

  • Xtinct.7031Xtinct.7031 Member ✭✭✭

    There is a network of roamers spread out over many servers. Many of us have been in the same guilds and roamed side by side off and on over many years. We move around to different servers but kept each other on our friends list. As far as "avoiding" one another in a 1v1, sometimes it is out of mutual respect when we see one another out in the field, and other times it a situation when your like "oh, forget that guy, don't got time for that". Lol

  • EremiteAngel.9765EremiteAngel.9765 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I think I went through a similar phase of avoiding fights recently XD

    I was looking to fight classes that hard counters necros, specifically soulbeasts, for a video collection and ignored anyone that wasn't one.

    I've made the soulbeast video collection now so if you meet me out there, I'm currently looking for deadeyes, another spec that hard counters a necro.

    Killing me is not hard, but be warned that if you die even once, you're entering my collection =)

  • I don't feel like I am fighting individuals; I am fighting builds. The reason I got into roaming was the unpredictability of what you faced. Core classes had build options under the old skill system. Now I just see an elite and I can guess with considerable accuracy what they run and how the fight will turn out. It doesn't matter if I know for a fact that I will stomp them; if the fight will be a boring one, and I already know it, I might as well move on. I don't have anything to prove. Skill? The expansions removed the need for it.

  • SoV.5139SoV.5139 Member ✭✭✭

    They all claim to want "fair" fights, complain that every time they are ganked its "bad players" doing it, but dont take the 1v1s that are available because they dont want to see themselves being owned in someone elses video a day or two later. B)

  • Curunen.8729Curunen.8729 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 23, 2019

    As someone who plays hybrid mirage I acknowledge opponents who simply do not enjoy or want to engage in a fight with a mirage so don't often tend to make the first move when running by myself (unless going for an objective). If they aren't interested in a fight I'll let it be and move on, if they attack then I'll give a fight.

    IH hybrid | My ears, how are you! | Kourna Jackrabbit for default Springer

  • Ezrael.6859Ezrael.6859 Member ✭✭✭

    @Shining One.1635 said:
    I'd imagine at least some of them don't want to risk getting an embarrassing loss in a live stream.

    Oh no, the 17 people that still watch WvW on Twitch might see them!

  • Vasdamas Anklast.1607Vasdamas Anklast.1607 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 24, 2019

    Unless it's dueling spot or a very good friend from another server (and I have none) I will not let any kitten pass by me. Doesn't matter bunker or not, I'll chase them across the map if I have to. Especially if they are mirages or Shortbow 5 heroes because kitten your OCC cheese that's why.

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:
    Actually now that I think about it, it reminds me of the same pattern for skilled guilds.
    They bandwagon and crush pug zergs.
    Like...what is so fun about steamrolling others?
    Guilds should also really stop bandwagoning and instead spread out and challenge each other instead.

    Sounds good, DOES NOT WORK. The only roaming guild I had started picking up fights with "skilled" guys, got ultimately demoralized when they encountered some strong bunch and disbanded to merge with some GvG guild. So yeah, ultimately some roaming guilds are about easy fights. Whether it's stomping some other roamers in 7vs2 or farming 11111 bots in 7vs15. Either way it's deluding yet easy and satisfying

  • aspirine.6852aspirine.6852 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Natar.3671 said:
    Roaming scene is ded bois. I miss the days of when I had ppl to roam with and engage bigger groups for the fights.

    Thats the eqvivalent of seeing an empty music stage at some shady bar and proclaiming that music is dead.

    Well if you hear the music lately :/ ....

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.