Korgov.7645
-
Posts
114 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Korgov.7645
-
-
3 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:
And there is also a paragraph titled "Which changes are NOT in this beta event?"
So what about (new) bugs that happened during the previous betas (and not before) and that are not mentioned in "What’s new in this beta event?" and that are not mentioned in "Which changes are NOT in this beta event?". Did Anet even agree/know that those bugs exist?
As I already wrote: Better communication from Anet about the bugs from the previous betas and which ones were (not) fixed might have been helpful.
We can assume the already reported bugs are somewhere in the backlog. Publishing a vetted list of reported bugs takes effort, too. Which would be away from development.
-
1
-
-
Quote
What’s new in this beta event?
- We hope to test a new internal deployment system that automates many aspects of executing a World Restructuring beta, including the steps involved in team creation and matchmaking. It should simplify the internal process of hosting beta events and make it less prone to human error. This is a big step toward having the feature enabled full time on the live game servers without manual upkeep by our Platform Engineering team.
- We’ve reduced the likelihood that players will be placed on the incorrect team or realm (assuming they properly selected a WvW guild prior to the deadline).
- We’ve implemented bug fixes and mitigations for the “queue bug.”
Source: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/wvw-world-restructuring-beta-4-begins-on-august-12/
The scope of the Beta 4 event is very limited. Do not expect anything beyond the listed items.
-
2
-
I hope that by content design they realize WvW is a PvP environment where players provide the content. No megalasers, no new NPC mechanics, no Golem Rush events, no new types of siege, no vertical progression, please. Yes, for glory rewards, for combat related achievements, for more visible guild representation, leaderboards, bounties, level playing field for new players (warclaw, gliders, siege masteries, shied gen locks must go), easy access to BiS gear/consumables and all traits/skills for new players (if you enjoy a gear grind, PvE is for you).
-
@Stand The Wall.6987 said:
@Fat Disgrace.4275 said:Be quiet .haha, you scared anet is actually dumb enough to do this?Portable Cannons, Golem Rush Event, Toxic Alliance Event, Repair Hammers, Megaservers, World linking, Warclaw, Gliders, Jumppads, Megalaser, Barricades, vertical map design, Shadowportal...
I'm scared.
-
Repeatable currency only reward track.
That would do away inventory micromanagement and clean up the user interface. It is a drag opening those boxes, some containing even more boxes, ultimately containing meaningless items that end up being salvaged or sold to get to the currency. Those dancing boxes and popups in the UI are pointless - not even PvE players would be excited about them.
-
@Stand The Wall.6987 said:no.you shouldn't be able to stack condi vital and tough tho all on one stat combo.
What else would condi player have on their gear? Critical chance that would turn conditions uncleansable? Ferocity that would multiply condition durations?
-
@Doug.4930 said:Think making toughness effect condi duration may be a step too far.
However, condi's really are an issue on the small scale scene. All the best meta builds at the moment are condi. Condi thief, condi herald, condi mirage, burn guard, condi druid etc etc. Power is still effective, but condi is better.
Condi's need to be toned down in some way. But I'm not sure if this is the solution.
Condi is nigh useless against large groups due shared cleansing. Perhaps cleanses could be made self only, which would give room tuning down condi damage in overall.
Even in small scale conditions rarely get all their ticks. This makes Expertise less valuable and drives condi builds to use Dire only - the tankiness wins due attrition.
Toning down the sigil and rune would be a no brainer.
Then looking at how most cleanse skills have power creeped to cleanse multiple conditions. Making them cleanse only a single condition would allow to make each condition more significant and allow reducing the rate of condi applications. The choice of what and when to apply/cleanse would make the condi gameplay more dramatic over the current spamfest.
-
@frareanselm.1925 said:
@Strider Pj.2193 said:It’s an additional 10k health, two extra dodges, and a permanent swiftness, non-CC’able buff.Had it come out like this, no one would be complaining.If you invest points, the third improvement is to give a speed boon to nearby allies who go walking.... Well they follow me at a similar speed than my mount, and this has no sense.The pve devs who came up with the silly idea of adding mounts to wvw never thought it through. When Warclaw came out, players without the expac or those who hadn't done the steps get the mount would trail behind the main group. Warclaw mastery #2 was added to allow those players to keep up.
Warclaw should never had been added to WvW. The whole thing has consumed way too much resources from the real WvW issues like population imbalance, skill lag, profession imbalance, lack of glory rewards, and real competition.
-
There aren't that many. Taken from Wiki:
Upgrade components that improve blockingSuperior Rune of the Guardian (rank 6) - cause burning when blockingSuperior Rune of the Defender (rank 6) - gain health.
And this sigil grants Aegis if you are very lucky:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Superior_Sigil_of_Luck
-
@Strider Pj.2193 said:
@Korgov.7645 said:@Strider Pj.2193 said:@Korgov.7645 said:@Burnfall.9573 said:7 Years+ of damages is done and is irreversible. Progress is learning and not repeating. Log-in WvW and PvP right now to see for yourself?Do you see any progress?There has been some good development, too:- Skirmishes
- Tier pips on map objectives
- Use All option on reward track boxes
- Scourge shroud skill delay and visual tell
- Visual tell on friendly vs hostile AoE skills
- Options to reduce name plate visual clutter
- Options to reduce characters' visual detail
- Revealed mechanism (exception DE)
- Stability removal protection
- Resistance conversion to Chill instead of Immobile
All of those are good.But tell me, what, other than skirmishes and tier pips, is WvW specific?Only those two are exclusive to WvW. The others can be enjoyed outside WvW, but they were targeted at WvW issues.And... that’s my point.The first person you quoted is.... let’s just say a one trick pony.But to claim WvW has seen a lot of development? I just can’t agree with you on that.There has been decent amount of development.
Unfortunately it has been missing the real issues in WvW. Or even made things worse in WvW. Like guild upgrades, Watchtowers, world linking, 1-up-1-down matchmaking, gliding, Warclaw, DBL movement gimmicks, portable cannons, repair hammers, shield generators, Golem Rush event, no downed state events, thief portals, detection pulse removal, and most recently the food power creep.
Imagine if all that effort was put into world restructuring instead. Clearly it has not been the top priority.
-
@Strider Pj.2193 said:
@Korgov.7645 said:@Burnfall.9573 said:7 Years+ of damages is done and is irreversible. Progress is learning and not repeating. Log-in WvW and PvP right now to see for yourself?Do you see any progress?There has been some good development, too:- Skirmishes
- Tier pips on map objectives
- Use All option on reward track boxes
- Scourge shroud skill delay and visual tell
- Visual tell on friendly vs hostile AoE skills
- Options to reduce name plate visual clutter
- Options to reduce characters' visual detail
- Revealed mechanism (exception DE)
- Stability removal protection
- Resistance conversion to Chill instead of Immobile
All of those are good.But tell me, what, other than skirmishes and tier pips, is WvW specific?Only those two are exclusive to WvW. The others can be enjoyed outside WvW, but they were targeted at WvW issues.
-
@Burnfall.9573 said:7 Years+ of damages is done and is irreversible. Progress is learning and not repeating. Log-in WvW and PvP right now to see for yourself?
Do you see any progress?
There has been some good development, too:
- Skirmishes
- Tier pips on map objectives
- Use All option on reward track boxes
- Scourge shroud skill delay and visual tell
- Visual tell on friendly vs hostile AoE skills
- Options to reduce name plate visual clutter
- Options to reduce characters' visual detail
- Revealed mechanism (exception DE)
- Stability removal protection
- Resistance conversion to Chill instead of Immobile
-
@Ben K.6238 said:I'm fine with siege golems being able to hold a camp for as long as they can stay alive. To prevent them being chained I'd just make it impossible to enter a new one while in combat.
The commander is wondering why nobody uses the siege he just built. :P
-
@shiri.4257 said:
@Korgov.7645 said:@X T D.6458 said:@Korgov.7645 said:@X T D.6458 said:I also think invisible tags will contribute to declining activity because many pugs will be deterred from playing. It will be harder for them to organize and coordinate, they get bored, and will just log out.When pugs follow a guild raid commander they can see on the map, they will get told to kitten off. That's even worse for the morale, isn't it? Not only your contribution is ignored but downright not wanted.Someone being rude in chat doesn't stop someone from playing. Now I never tell people how to play or what to do with their squads, but I see this as bad for the game mode for both sides. If pugs have nobody to follow, they will lose interest and leave. This leaves less recruits for guilds to keep themselves active, and leads to less fights for everyone.It would be good to look at the reasons public commanding is so unpopular. Not only commanding but also scouting and PPT roaming.I would argue on lack of a common goal. It got removed when world linking was introduced. ANet decides the outcome of matchups, not players. With no reason to win a matchup players make goals of their own: top KD ratio, wipe that other guild group, defeat someone in duel, guild missions, ganking stragglers, whatnot. When those side goals are the only content other players feel unwanted.server pride died with seasons. with the exception of BG. everyone else figured out we lost cuz we didn't buy enough off hour guilds or guilds in general for server pride before player hour caps were implemented.For me the world identity lived on until the linking started. Some, like you, saw it coming even earlier.
Before linking I did hate whenever large guilds migrated to my world. They stayed for month or two while the low rating allowed them to steamroll the opponents. Which boosted the ratings making matchups harder at which point the large guild would migrate out.
The linking and continued lack of migration controls made it even easier for some communities to maintain unhealthy population. The 1-up-1-down system also allowed quick tanking down to stay in unchallenging matchups.
-
@X T D.6458 said:
@Korgov.7645 said:@X T D.6458 said:I also think invisible tags will contribute to declining activity because many pugs will be deterred from playing. It will be harder for them to organize and coordinate, they get bored, and will just log out.When pugs follow a guild raid commander they can see on the map, they will get told to kitten off. That's even worse for the morale, isn't it? Not only your contribution is ignored but downright not wanted.Someone being rude in chat doesn't stop someone from playing. Now I never tell people how to play or what to do with their squads, but I see this as bad for the game mode for both sides. If pugs have nobody to follow, they will lose interest and leave. This leaves less recruits for guilds to keep themselves active, and leads to less fights for everyone.It would be good to look at the reasons public commanding is so unpopular. Not only commanding but also scouting and PPT roaming.
I would argue on lack of a common goal. It got removed when world linking was introduced. ANet decides the outcome of matchups, not players. With no reason to win a matchup players make goals of their own: top KD ratio, wipe that other guild group, defeat someone in duel, guild missions, ganking stragglers, whatnot. When those side goals are the only content other players feel unwanted.
-
@X T D.6458 said:I also think invisible tags will contribute to declining activity because many pugs will be deterred from playing. It will be harder for them to organize and coordinate, they get bored, and will just log out.
When pugs follow a guild raid commander they can see on the map, they will get told to bugger off. That's even worse for the morale, isn't it? Not only your contribution is ignored but downright not wanted.
-
For WvW we are proud to announce that DBL vertical design, objective isolation and movement gimmicks removed, server lag eliminated, world populations rebalanced, migration controls added, meaningful rewards added for winning matchups, a matchup comeback mechanism added, profession balancing separated from PvE, vertical progression removed, guild WvW upgrades only require WvW currency, and incentives for public commanding introduced.
Sorry, something wrong the teleprompter…
But look! A white unicorn mount skin in gem store!!!
-
@Curunen.8729 said:
@Korgov.7645 said:@Curunen.8729 said:Main difference of one chaos gm trait (maybe two with descent into madness instead of master of manipulation) and one skill (mantra of distraction) = wow such a new and unique "build" nobody ever thought of before and suddenly is flavour of the month/deserving of its own buzzword.Don't worry they'll nuke the trait next patch and fotm will move on to next "broken" concept. /saltYour point being...?I've already stated my opinion in the other thread.I didn't notice the other thread.
But just pointing out how accurately you predicted CI is troublesome enough to cause the next nerf.
I bet no-one expected the whole grandmaster trait getting instantly deleted for 3 months for core mesmers and chronos, too.
-
@"Curunen.8729" said:Main difference of one chaos gm trait (maybe two with descent into madness instead of master of manipulation) and one skill (mantra of distraction) = wow such a new and unique "build" nobody ever thought of before and suddenly is flavour of the month/deserving of its own buzzword.
Don't worry they'll nuke the trait next patch and fotm will move on to next "broken" concept. /salt
https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/83741/chaotic-interruption-temporarily-disabled-in-pvp
-
@Stand The Wall.6987 said:
@Korgov.7645 said:snippleso is your name a reference to vampire hunter d?I didn't get the reference but now I am compelled to see the movie. :)
-
@"DeadlySynz.3471" said:Think of it this way; what would become of WvW if it became a sandbox and winning had meaning?
Better yet, start another thread with a poll that asks the question "Do you want winning in WvW to be rewarded (1st, 2nd, 3rd place rewards)". Look at what the responses are, then you can directly correlate that poll with what this actual poll would reflect. I don't think people really understand what they are voting for here.
Look at it a different way, suppose the sandboxers got their wish, and winning had meaning in WvW. Then all the players who voted for it always ended up pitted against a couple of stacked servers ensuring they always lost; you always got 3rd place, and that's just the way it was. Many players bandwagoned and stacked themselves on a couple of servers ensuring that those who voted for sandbox would always lose, and there was nothing you could do about it.
A month passes, then another month, then another month, constantly 3rd place, then 5-6 months down the road, what's the likelyhood of one of these players speaking up in the forums about how they're always losing, how they are always outnumbered, and why has the stacking happened. Well the answer is crystal clear, they allowed winning to mean something.
Players can and will abuse the system (even more-so than they do now), if rewards become involved.
True. The game mechanics in WvW do not support rewards for winning.
And ANet is fully aware of that. Back in 2016 they still planned to address this problem. But then changed their minds and decided to develop this game mode to an alternative direction.
-
@enkidu.5937 said:
@Korgov.7645 said:@enkidu.5937 said:@Korgov.7645 said:@"Ben K.6238" said:Tonics, fireworks, manual upgrades...No. That's just tinkering around the edges. In a sandbox WvW-style game, you build fortifications on sites you choose yourself, with layouts you design yourself.The competition is the sandbox element. Teams trying to organize around whatever freedoms allowed by the developers to beat the enemy. Sure you could extend these freedoms to include castle building, team armory, unlocking team traits, or whatnot.Now you could ask whether the measure of success should be set by ANet or by the players in a sandbox model. I think the ANet should set the goal and leave it to the players to fight their way to the top.There is afor worlds, but ANet destroyed it by blocking transfers on whim, manually adjusting ratings and introducing the world linking. We also had tournaments but ANet decided not to continue them.Kind of sounds to me, that you euqate sandbox with competitive and themepark with non-competitive. And that its Anets fault, that ppl use(d) their given freedom, leading to a non-competitive environment*.'* non-competitive in terms of "not trying to reach the game goal". E. g. duelists, fighting in duel areas instead of fighting for objectivs, or coms doing zerg fights for hours in SMC or close to spawn, ignoring objectives. To me that is sandbox, and non-competitive.Competing against other players, developing strategies and counters, organizing with other players is living, open-ended content. The enemies always come up with something new you need to react to. A sandbox.Events, armor skins, Warclaw are ANet defined rides you can take, enjoy for a while, and once completed, wait for ANet to release more content. Players do not have means to provide those rides."ANet's fault"... I'd rather say work well done. The vision was all along to turn WvW into the non-competitive themepark model. There are lot of players who enjoy that.Dueling, GvG, zerg fight coms are sandbox, agreed. They are exclusive and not competing for the objective set by ANet: matchup victory. But something like KDR or just being able defeat the enemy.Its not like in 2012 everyone planned to hardcore compete for the next 10 years, and suddenly Anet said: „No, we dont want that, we'd rather make it a themepark, where winning is completely irrelevant.“Its because ppl got bored or exhausted, and as a reaction, Anet introduced events, rewards, warclaw, linkings, tournaments, to keep world and population numbers at a playable level. At least for my awareness.The game goal is still fighting for objectives and thus winning the skirmish / match-up and climb the tiers. You just have to work with a linking partner now to obtain the goal. Does that make „winning completely irrelevant“? I dont see why.Anet even provided more „sandbox“ tools, with the introduction of PPK, additional siege weapons (EDIT: including traps and tricks), tactics.So if your question is less about the modus operandi („sandbox or themepark“) but more about „casual or competitive“, I can leave you a link, where I had the same question as you ;)Thanks for the link. I can agree with your observation that competitiveness had already declined back then. Having a break from WvW can emphasize how big of a change it was.
The problem with linking is that host worlds can no longer claim glory for winning. They got carried by the guest worlds. ANet decides the links, the coverage, which is probably the biggest factor to succeed in WvW. And of course the guest worlds' war efforts go completely unrewarded.
I think it is fair to say the poll is about competitiveness. Did ANet make the right choice by driving PvP minded players to exclusive, self-created goals only, and by adding other content to attract PvE minded players?
-
@enkidu.5937 said:
@Korgov.7645 said:@"Ben K.6238" said:Tonics, fireworks, manual upgrades...No. That's just tinkering around the edges. In a sandbox WvW-style game, you build fortifications on sites you choose yourself, with layouts you design yourself.The competition is the sandbox element. Teams trying to organize around whatever freedoms allowed by the developers to beat the enemy. Sure you could extend these freedoms to include castle building, team armory, unlocking team traits, or whatnot.Now you could ask whether the measure of success should be set by ANet or by the players in a sandbox model. I think the ANet should set the goal and leave it to the players to fight their way to the top.There is afor worlds, but ANet destroyed it by blocking transfers on whim, manually adjusting ratings and introducing the world linking. We also had tournaments but ANet decided not to continue them.Kind of sounds to me, that you euqate sandbox with competitive and themepark with non-competitive. And that its Anets fault, that ppl use(d) their given freedom, leading to a non-competitive environment*.'* non-competitive in terms of "not trying to reach the game goal". E. g. duelists, fighting in duel areas instead of fighting for objectivs, or coms doing zerg fights for hours in SMC or close to spawn, ignoring objectives. To me that is sandbox, and non-competitive.Competing against other players, developing strategies and counters, organizing with other players is living, open-ended content. The enemies always come up with something new you need to react to. A sandbox.
Events, armor skins, Warclaw are ANet defined rides you can take, enjoy for a while, and once completed, wait for ANet to release more content. Players do not have means to provide those rides.
"ANet's fault"... I'd rather say work well done. The vision was all along to turn WvW into the non-competitive themepark model. There are lot of players who enjoy that.
Dueling, GvG, zerg fight coms are sandbox, agreed. They are exclusive and not competing for the objective set by ANet: matchup victory. But something like KDR or just being able defeat the enemy.
-
@"Ben K.6238" said:Tonics, fireworks, manual upgrades...
No. That's just tinkering around the edges. In a sandbox WvW-style game, you build fortifications on sites you choose yourself, with layouts you design yourself.
The competition is the sandbox element. Teams trying to organize around whatever freedoms allowed by the developers to beat the enemy. Sure you could extend these freedoms to include castle building, team armory, unlocking team traits, or whatnot.
Now you could ask whether the measure of success should be set by ANet or by the players in a sandbox model. I think the ANet should set the goal and leave it to the players to fight their way to the top.
There is a leaderboard for worlds, but ANet destroyed it by blocking transfers on whim, manually adjusting ratings and introducing the world linking. We also had tournaments but ANet decided not to continue them.
World Restructuring Beta will run from January 12 to February 2!
in WvW World Restructuring Beta Feedback
Posted
So after years and years of developing WvW Restructuring as the top priority we reached this beta.
The 8th and final 3 week long marathon beta to truly showcase and rub it in how each goal has been reached and exceeded.
1. Balanced teams
2. Preserve communities
3. Reward winning matchups
How did we do on these 3 goals?
The matchups have been lopsided.
I have no idea who were assigned to my team. Even less so who were in the enemy teams.
All I got was inventory micromanagement chore in form of +25% more "reward" boxes.