Len.1879
-
Posts
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Len.1879
-
-
@Spartacus.3192 said:
@"Len.1879" said:Guardian is currently great in both roaming when utilising burning and you are a valuable and often rare asset to zergs as full support.Id love to see a "great" solo roaming build for guardian please.I mean... that is not really the scope of this thread, but I run [&DQEqHxAbLhkmDyYPBAF4AUgBSAFMAQQBNwE3AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA=] with a Dire and Trailblazer mix and Balthasar runes, Sc/T + GS, for both solo and small scale roaming. If you need help with your build or have any questions regarding it, feel free to PM me.
-
Guardian is currently great in both roaming when utilising burning and you are a valuable and often rare asset to zergs as full support.
-
@Jayden Reese.9542 said:
@"CrimsonNeonite.1048" said:I love how Anet keeps bandwagon link servers open for cheap mass transfers for weeks and months, to create another potential host server as other servers are full, before it probably dies on the next relink, as people buy gems to transfer off in numbers.Maybe they will shrink it back to Four Tiers again next time again or make relinking once a month for a couple of months, because I don't know what they will do next, as long as Alliances never happens in the next 2-3 years.Their main revenue stream is WvW players who can't stand losing and have to stack up so they can K-train. There must be 100's of transfers every re-link and yes the system promotes stacking then that server becomes full so they either stack a new one or stack the link of an already strong one.This argument always struck me as odd. Let's do some quick math!For the sake of the argument, let's assume they all transfer to a very highly populated server (1800 gems) and pay them entirely with real currency, not through gold. 800 gems selling for 10 €/$, that is 22,5 €/$ per transfer. Hundreds of transfers every relink, you say? Let's assume 500? That's 11250 €/$ per two months. Let's assume that is net money ANet actually makes, no taxes or whatever deduced from it.
I just took an arbitrary website 1 to estimate how much a software developer makes and it seems to be roughly around $ 71,200 per year, that is $ 5,933 per month. So one software developer would eat the entire revenue from what I have assumed here they make through server transfers. According to LinkedIn 2 ArenaNet has somewhat between 200 and 500 employees. Obviously not all of them are software developers and their salary will probably differ from the ~6k I talked about above.
But I somehow doubt the whole server transfer business is as lucrative for ANet as some players like to picture it. So if we could maybe stop that narrative, that would be great.
-
I hate to be the "adapt" guy in this case. But if you are getting focused, try one of the countermeasures mentioned here or temporarily give the lead to another player or put a symbol on a backup commander, if you have someone like that available. They will be mighty surprised when they snipe you again, thinking they have effectively disabled the squad, only to get rolfrolled by the still functional squad.
-
I believe a core problem is PPT not feeling rewarding enough. When you go into full PPT mode, your server probably wins the matchup and ascends to the next tier, but that doesn't mean anything, since it is not coupled to rewards. That way players see it as more rewarding to kill enemies and even frown upon doing PPT. Taking the strategic aspect of capturing and holding as much of the map as possible should be the main goal in WvW. I believe that was what the devs were going for, since structure-based PPT gives the most points, most points win the matchup, ergo that's the winning-condition. But since it lacks a clear sense of "yes, we won!", it is not valued by players. I have not once seen this behaviour in other games where you can earn points by killing or holding structures, e.g. the Battlefield series, where it is pretty clear that you have to capture the outpots, not throw yourself into mindless battles at the center of the map to be top of the score board but lose the match anyway.
This ties in directly with the problem of mindless zerging. If PPT itself felt more rewarding, people would try to control a bigger portion of the map more efficienty, which is just impossible to do with one large zerg slowly rolling over the map, versus several small groups that are much more efficient in that regard.
-
@Svarty.8019 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:@"Stand The Wall.6987" said:imagine team a is attacking an objective and they are split into 2 squads. team b attacks one of their structures. team a can respond and still take the objective.wouldn't happen all that often probably, but at least the tools would be there.The tools are there today.Indeed, let's think about that a sec. If your squad caps out, the people not in it do struggle somewhat because they aren't sharing boons and such. Those guys generally die first because of that.If you have smaller squads, you encourage players to disperse a bit more, but they CAN group all tags together. It gives more flexibility to the commander - "can the other squad grab camp while we man the catapults" is more likely to happen than "can groups 3, 4, and 5 grab the camp". The fact that a TAG is moving is more likely, I think, to get that squad to obey.As long as players go "ooga booga WvW is fighting, PPT bad" that will not happen, because the most effective strategy is then to have massive amounts of players clash into each other and see who still stands.
-
@"Dawdler.8521" said:The number meta existed before squads existed. Lowering the limit will do exactly nothing.
Personally I still think they should encourage spreading out over more tags by increasing its functionality, not limit it. I would still like to see things such as:
- Hover over short descriptions ("Zerging", "Havoc", "I want bay", etc). This is to encourage easily defined parties at a glance.
- More shapes to customize squad tags and encourage smaller groups to run with "their own" tags.
- Squad size indicator, such as 1-3 chevrons beneath the tag to indicate 1-10, 11-25, 26-50.
- Map/team chat should note if the talker is a commander (this is just to boost peoples egos and make them want to tag up for it).
- Ability to set simple attack/defend objectives for bonus points for the entire squad.
Etc and so on.
Agreed on most of this, except for the first suggestion, as that already exists. If people would use the LFG tool more extensively, players would be presented with a nice list of groups and tags plus a description in the top left corner of their screen when they enter any WvW map. But that is a player-issue and I have been fighting windmills on it for months now.
-
@Virdo.1540 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:@Virdo.1540 said:rally makes no sense at all.If im about to die from a gunshot, but a friend manages do kill the one who shot me, so i feel perfectly fine afterwards ? NOThe friend doesnt try to save you? The friend doesnt do first aid? The friend doesnt get a doctor so that you may have a chance to live?Well that just sound like a kitten friend.Interacting with a downed player to help him is equal to a friend doing first aidbut just being perfectly fine without the friend even have to help, this is stupidSeeing that fiend fall stricken down by the mighty warhammer of a trusty ally is an invigorating sight to behold, imbueing even the weakest with hope and second wind.
Makes perfect sense.
-
Veto. People have begged for so long to have a tier closed. I am more than willing to queue when I will be able to not walk a ghost map afterwards. Quarantine will pass.
-
@"steeltoe.7902" said:Is there a guide with attributes on the gear that you could use for this? I thought of something tanky + dmg.
This reads like you are looking for certain stat combinations. You can use the wiki 1 to see a list of available combinations and how to acquire them.
-
Not sure, if we should discuss semantics here, but the proposed solution would offer a low-effort incentive for guilds to spread across more maps, which has partially become an issue during prime since T5 was deleted.
-
@KrHome.1920 said:
@Len.1879 said:@KrHome.1920 said:@Dawdler.8521 said:So... It became more balanced now?Because thats what I hear with every post. Do you want easy mode and being carried by build or do you want a team based MMO? If you cant kill NPCs get more people.Flipping camps is one of these rare senses of achievement for new players in the game mode. I would not take that away from them, so that they quit in bigger numbers as it is the case anyway (because wvw lacks tutorials and is frustrating as f. when you are new).I mean what do we lose? I can flip a camp without any issues now and I could do it before. It makes no difference. But give weaker players ways to contribute and feel useful! We all benefit from that at the end of the day.Not sure if the balancing of a team-based mode should happen around the accomodation of new players doing solo stuff there.To believe that it is enough to reduce the game mode to mass pvp is delusional. Server population balance is a mess (at least in EU, don't know about NA) and in general the population is too low several hours a day to team up (at least in EU, don't know about NA). If you don't keep solo players in the game mode for some time by giving them stuff to do, then the game mode will bleed out even more.@acidic.4356 said:i believe something is only an achievement if its not easy to doIt is not easy for new players.- They don't have the damage trait against guards.
- They don't have wvw infusions.
- They probably don't even have ascended gear and don't run decent builds as they lack experience to build adequately.
Sum that up and a newbie deals 50% less damage to a guard than you do. Now after the patch where we all do another 30% (40% if we include the might generation and cc skill nerfs) less damage it has become an issue.That's not what I said. I have nothing against roamers, nor against single players. I am against making everything easy for players because they are new. Today they want to solo cap T3 camps. Tomorrow it's the garrison.
-
@KrHome.1920 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:So... It became more balanced now?Because thats what I hear with every post. Do you want easy mode and being carried by build or do you want a team based MMO? If you cant kill NPCs get more people.Flipping camps is one of these rare senses of achievement for new players in the game mode. I would not take that away from them, so that they quit in bigger numbers as it is the case anyway (because wvw lacks tutorials and is frustrating as f. when you are new).I mean what do we lose? I can flip a camp without any issues now and I could do it before. It makes no difference. But give weaker players ways to contribute and feel useful! We all benefit from that at the end of the day.Not sure if the balancing of a team-based mode should happen around the accomodation of new players doing solo stuff there.
-
@aspirine.6852 said:On the other hand, arent upgraded camps suppose to be harder to cap....
Sorry, but this. Nothing against solo-roaming in general, but WvW is a team mode after all. If you can't cap T3 alone, you probably shouldn't. Get a buddy or two, and if you don't want that, stick to slapping Doylaks and flipping T1 or fighting other roamers. That is still a valuable addition to your team.
-
-
@"Teon.5168" said:With the speed nerf to mounts, I can now stick with mounted players when running signet of the hunt on my ranger.
Besides what was already mentioned about the passive Warclaw buff, I am still super gratefull about this. How many times did I catch allies who had swapped out viable skills for speed signets, just because "ugh, running feels so sluggish! I am willingly throwing away important sustain/ damage that would help me and my group just to be a bit fater".
-
@"XenesisII.1540" said:All I got from that was Irenio is a pretty terrible scourge... sand swell into the middle of a bomb zone between two enemy zergs...
Not that it would matter at all, but he literally plunged into it saying "maybe some people have not gotten the achievement yet", probably referring to https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Community#achievement3067
-
I mean, since you repeatedly asked now and complained about not getting a straight answer, let me answer your core question, as to why:(1) In preparation of world restructuring 1, as Dawdler has said. Just adding the source.(2) To provide what ANet preceives as "fairer links" 2. I am not being facetious about it, btw. Linking national servers of dwindling population together to make for a fair match with international EU servers was probably not feasible anymore.
-
I feel like a lot of the threads on this forum can be boiled down to just a handful of points. "Bring the amulet system to WvW" is certainly one of the more common ones, and it is always promptly met with disdain.
-
@Emi.4152 said:
@Len.1879 said:@Emi.4152 said:Not gonna vote since i have 0 idea but... feel like people voting for thief are kinda delusional. The quintessential spike then leave class with the worst sustain in the game will.. somehow... become better... if the fights take longer because damage overall is being lowered? Dont get itThe idea is that since Thieves can repeatedly disengage and engage they can chip away their opponents health more effectively, wait for their opponent to make a mistake or disengage entirely (like they can already do in many cases) if they believe their chances are slim. Their potential for disengaging becomes even higher, as it becomes harder to spike Thieves down during the periods when they are visible and in rage with a general damage nerf.Are we talking about kiting or disengaging? If the thief disengages (oocs), the person fighting the thief could just mount up and leave, or run to the nearest sentry / tower / keep / zerg or even camp if they feel like their chances are slim. Or are we talking about the extremely thirsty people who chases a thief across the map and eventually dies?Dont get me wrong though, I agree that potentially a thief could engage / disengage ad infin against certain classes (kiting and without going ooc) but that's in a vacuum and costs a substantial amount of resources for the thief to do so, making a mediocre duelist into an even worse one.Or is the problem simply that it's unfair that a thief can leave an open field 1 v 1 fight whereas other classes would need to move to a sentry or tower in order to do the same? Does that alone make thief the strongest 1 v 1 class after the patch?I used the terms "disengage and engage" and "disengage entirely", but if you would prefer the terminology of "kite" vs "disengage", then sure, same thing, basically.And yes, I do believe having this sort of chip-damage over time would wear down a player quickly -- at least me. There may be more deadly combinations after the patch (generally condition builds have been mentioned a few times, although the Thief might excel at that as well on top of their potential for kiting), but I think making it harder to swat back at the enemy effectively makes them much more deadly.
-
@Emi.4152 said:Not gonna vote since i have 0 idea but... feel like people voting for thief are kinda delusional. The quintessential spike then leave class with the worst sustain in the game will.. somehow... become better... if the fights take longer because damage overall is being lowered? Dont get it
The idea is that since Thieves can repeatedly disengage and engage they can chip away their opponents health more effectively, wait for their opponent to make a mistake or disengage entirely (like they can already do in many cases) if they believe their chances are slim. Their potential for disengaging becomes even higher, as it becomes harder to spike Thieves down during the periods when they are visible and in rage with a general damage nerf.
-
Somewhere, somewhen down the road it has become the norm to not communicate issues properly, but hide them behind snide remarks for the reader to figure out as a fun little homework, furthering the general frustration for all participants. Starting with titles like "While you're at it...." and "ye shield gens are fine", followed by a single sarcastic sentence, or a sole low-res screenshot.What is the issue you are facing, old chap? Could you perhaps voice your concern in full sentences? Do you happen to be able to offer a solution to the problem, which you can utter in sentences containing little to no insults? Articulate yourself, friend. I am dying to know what is going on in that wonderful mind of yours.
-
@DiscoJacen.1590 said:I agree with all of you that logically attacking groups bigger than you should definitely not be easy^^The reason I mention MI specifically is that it made a HUGE difference recently compared to other skills or builds.Suddenly groups that we could win against (and after years, we all know each other^^) or at least down one or two players became untouchable
@"Fish.2769" said:GW1 had a similar mechanic called 'Unyielding Aura' where a Monk would put a buff on someone and as soon as they died, they would get ported to the Monks position and ressed.Like you said, the mechanic makes sense.But in Gw1 that was an Elite enchantment that had a cost on the monk (mana regen wise) and could be dispelled. There were ways around it.It's much harder to counter MI.In the end I'm not saying MI is bad (like mentioned, in big blob fights it impacts less), just that maybe it could get a nerf (If I recall it got one in spvp) to make it less impactful on smaller fights.As for the warclaw I am both curious and worried about the update coming.^^You probably already know that, but dropping Poison Fields on players in downstate can make a difference. Someone crunched the numbers on it a while ago. https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/9xpjbc/numbers_and_insights_into_merciful_intervention/
-
I don’t think this is what anyone had in mind when they added mounts,And again I really don’t think the warclaw is supposed to work that way (but sadly it’s our only solution atm).I tend to disagree on that. It actually gives the players means to solve the "downstate bad!" dilemma, since they could do exactly what you are doing. I actually think micro tactics like this are way underrated, as it has become the state of the art to just have large groups clash and whoever is left wins. So I believe it was kind of intentional and if you have adapted to use it to your advantage, good on you!
On the other hand, it seems a bit weird that you are complaining about struggling when being outnumbered 2:1. Not saying you should not be able to win it if you outskill your opponents, but if it was easy, there would be something wrong with the game or your enemies.
Vote your favourite all-round WvW class that can do both, zerg + roaming
in World vs. World
Posted
We once fought a group with a lot of rangers in small-scale that really troubled us for a while. The tide turned rather quickly when our guards started to put up reflects.