Erysium.4501
-
Posts
38 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Erysium.4501
-
-
in the middle of Borderlands (Desert and Alpine) there are ruins that can be captured. i would like to find out how satisfied you are with them. are changes appropriate? Do you have any ideas? in this topic i want to collect ideas and encourage discussion.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 5/15/2024 at 10:16 PM, prototypedragon.1406 said:
Anet could perhaps create castles similar to smc in each of the alpine maps and remove the ruins entirely/relocate or use them as a way to be advantages ( being glide paths) to those that try to siege it potentially creating more additional Objectives to capture and defend. I mean how often do fights normally occur in the center of alpine maps? Last I knew it's mostly just sit and wait for the ruins to cap for map bonus then one can shuffle on their way. I mean originally the center of the Alpine maps had quaggans and objectives once captured provided mercenaries to attack objectives along with damaging all gates owned by enemy forces by 50percent if afterward you captured the center island. Granted they probably would not return to anything like the quaggans again. But if they could design it in such a way that gives equal opportunities for defenders and attackers alike to gain footing against each other .
i have opened a new topic on your post. thank you for your inspiration
-
44 minutes ago, igmolicious.5986 said:
Maybe it's because I've been in a a few links somewhat recently that struggled with population, but I feel like tactics don't really give much benefit at all to defenders, outside of maybe Watchtower on towers and EWP (and this still requires some level of scouting, which isn't as available in low pop teams). I would love more tactics, especially those that forced meaningful decisions, since nearly all towers/keeps run the same few tactics generally. Some ideas I had:
Steady Ground: Passive - every 5 seconds, applies 1 second of stability to allied players in objective.
Artillery Support: Active - Similar to Airships for SMC, but shorter barrage around outer and inner area of keep that does bonus damage to siege, and leaves siege that is hit disrupted).
Morale Boost: Passive - Enemies that are killed in area of objective restore some health and grant random boon to nearby allies.
Necrotic Fog: Active - While active, enemies that are downed inside the objective are immediately finished.
Sanctified Ground: Passive - Every 5 seconds, converts 1 condition to a boon on allied players in objective.
Mist Reinforcements: Active - When activated, summons a number of additional NPCs around objective that deal additional damage, and take reduced damage, but vanish after a set duration (maybe treated like other summons, so they don't grant rallies if killed).
Heavy Munitions: Passive - Increases damage of innate siege (cannons, mortars, oil), and greatly increases their damage vs. enemy siege.
Holo-Parapets: Active - While active, creates holographic barriers on top of walls that destroy enemy projectiles and obstruct enemy aoes.
Enchanted Paving: Passive - Increases movement speed of allied players inside objective by 15% and decreases movement speed of enemy players inside objective by 15%.
very strong ideas. i hope one or the other will be realized! i also think that these ideas are easy to implement for anet. i suggest that such tactics could be well tested in beta sequences. i hope more players are in favor of your idea to get attention! i like it!
-
On 5/13/2024 at 12:17 AM, Zepoolpe.9217 said:
Don't despair: as soon as they finish implementing Alliances™️ and restoring balance, they'll fix that DBL cornerstone!
do you really think so? i really hope so 😶
-
Am 13.05.2024 um 09:32 Uhr sagte Szymon.5369:
Ersetze den Lageraufseher durch Turai Ossa aus dem Spießrutenlauf der Königin
Ich wäre bereit dafür 😄
-
On 5/11/2024 at 7:56 AM, Razi.6031 said:
What I would also really like is maybe quickslots for wvw. Maybe somewhere near the skills ui or the map ui.
Max 3 slots to keep it balanced. But you can slot in either siege or tactics. For e.g 1 slot supply removal, 1 slot ram, and 1 slot disablers.
It's annoying to stay having to open the inventory everytime.
Honestly I don't know how this wasn't implemented from day 1. It puzzles me that actual game designers don't think this far ahead when designing a system.
good ideas! i would like them!
-
1
-
-
On 5/11/2024 at 6:11 PM, Gop.8713 said:
I'd go with 'fine as is' bc I don't trust anet to improve them if they do make changes, based on track record. So I'd rather they just left them alone . . .
"Good" tactics would be those that give defenders a meaningful opportunity to delay a large attacking force for long enough that a defending force has the opportunity to arrive and have a fight . . .
could you give me a more concrete example? do you have any ideas? i would like to collect the ideas in this post.
-
1 minute ago, Lucy.3728 said:
That it sounds like adding more pve.
I spent 20 minutes in SM on and around the Lord today. All 3 servers were fighting for that one room. There was no telling whether or not we would be able to keep the other two zergs at bay while clearing the circle and capping...
This is my favorite WvW.More PvE troops don't improve this fun, they just make it annoying.
then you would like to leave everything as it is? If "no", do you have any suggestions for improvements?
-
1 hour ago, Cael.3960 said:
Replacing keep lords or SMC legendary with a random, scaled, world boss for a week could be a lot of fun. Obviously super-huge bosses like Tequatl/Triple Worm wouldn't work within the limited space of a lord room, but humanoid world bosses/event bosses/bounties or a scaled down version of Fire Elemental, Golem Mk2 etc would make for an interesting experience. Balance would be impossible, but that's kind of the point. Would make for some interesting defender events with that kind of chaos going on, and it would certainly encourage more keep fights just to experience the content.
i would find this very entertaining for a few/few weeks. i could imagine that it would also attract more pve players to the wvw map. in the end, such an event would probably be a good advertisement and would attract attention. i see good points in it
-
10 minutes ago, Sansar.1302 said:
WvW needs less pve not more, wvw is pvp mode.
no. wvw is a unique mode. both elements have equal rights. in my opinion, i also tend more towards pvp
-
20 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:
Should turn the lords into one of the meta support or meme specs. Gunflame smc lord would be hilarious, or a double grav well chrono lord, or instead of some cheap break bar heal that no one notices how about making them an actual firebrand using the same skills and cooldowns of the meta support firebrand. 🤷♂️
to be honest, i find your idea exciting. in order to try something like this out carefully as a developer, you could do a very short wvw beta. after the beta, arenanet could throw in a questionnaire afterwards asking how we found it.
-
29 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
Tactics definetly need to be reworked but please stop with the whole asking for balance thing. Balance is the thing that makes tactics as useless as they are now.
people have forgotten what games are supposed to be about : having fun. Tactics should do interesting things and make players behave in different ways to increase the amount of novel and rememberable experiences the player can have.
Stop asking for balance…cause ANET will deliver on that by just nerfing whatever you thought was broken (or worse just nerfing a bunch of stuff at random) into an oblivious, worthless pile of number slop.
all well and good, do you have any suggestions and ideas for varied tactics? 🙂
-
8 minutes ago, Gorani.7205 said:
For reference: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Objective_upgrade
The main problem is, that whether it is tactics or improvements, there hardly is an incentive to put an upgrade into a camp/tower, unless you are in a "map controlling situation". Camps outside of the NC flip far to quickly, because you will very likely lose participation for staying close to the camp to defend it (because registering "defence events" is hopelessly broken). Looking at Speedy Dollies, you need to invest round about 2g for that Improvement. An investment you hardly get back, because dollies get killed, camp flipped etc.
Why not add an additional gathering node that get improved by the amount of Improvements & Tactics slotted and that will return some of the materials you need for things like https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Bag_of_Radiant_Energy or https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Bag_of_Dolyak_Chow + a chance to get a chance to harvest ascended plants for feasts?
I like your idea!
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, SleepyBat.9034 said:
Why is there no "It's fine as it is" option?
you are welcome to choose "yes" for the first question
-
1
-
1
-
-
Hey gamer
What do you think about making the tactics more effective and balanced?
At the moment, only certain tactics are used very often (iron guards, dragon banners). Other tactics are then often no longer worthwhile (automatic turrets, turtle banners). Sometimes I also have the impression that the tactics are very similar or are used for a similar reason. So they don't offer any real variety (fast dollies, packed dollies) and also don't really offer different strategies on how to proceed against something special. Do you have any suggestions? I would like to collect ideas here in this thread.-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 5/6/2024 at 8:16 PM, bq pd.2148 said:
anet is terrible at scaling things and it would end up just providing free rallies to larger groups trying to take the fortress while potentially adding a real threat to smaller groups / solos.
especially on desert maps it is still quite possible to witness the lords kill smaller groups and solos all by themselves already.
now if we could challenge the lord for the structure, so they would summon such bots based on the players about and create a barrier that no player of any team can cross till the fight is decided, that would be alright by me. if the lord were to fall ofc. still need to win the fight over the node.i like your idea with the zone
-
1
-
-
On 5/6/2024 at 9:01 PM, TheGrimm.5624 said:
I understand the intent but I think this would just favor numbers. I think the goal has always been that the NPCs are not to be the ones to do the fight but it was the players to actually defend. I don't think we need better NPCs personally since again, its about players versus players in regards to attacking and defending.
would it be an improvement for you if the lord of the fortress were to move more? Then the zerg would also have to adapt regularly.
-
1
-
-
On 5/6/2024 at 9:58 PM, Riba.3271 said:
While this might seem great idea on paper for those uneducated, it does fail a bit. Since you are describing the protectors as strong, would they be able to turn tide for 15 to beat 25? What would happen to 25 people vs 25 then? Defenders already have clear advantage in equal numbered fights, wouldn't giving them even further buffs remove willing people to attack completely? If there are no willing attackers then there will be no opportunity defend, and game will be more dead.
Defenders should definitely have strategic and siege placement advantage, but introducing unavoidable gimmicks will just ruin WvW by promoting stacking servers and forming largest group you can.
what do you think if they were no longer npc's, but the lord of the fortress was replaced by such a "bot"? Wouldn't that make the fight more dynamic because it would be more likely to move?
-
2
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, DeanBB.4268 said:
Es wird an Ihrem Standort ausgelöst, oder? Nicht die des Feindes.
That is possible. However, the descriptive text is misleading in this case. (at least in the German version). The visual poison field effect is displayed at the point of impact but the condition is spread around the player.
-
1
-
-
I use a short bow
-
1
-
-
It seems to work under certain conditions. The description may also be misleading. Please check
-
1
-
-
Superior Sigil of Blight triggers a poison field without causing the poison state/condition damage. please check [&AgFJCQEA] / Superior Sigil of Blight - Guild Wars 2 Wiki (GW2W)
in addition, the whole sigill is too weak with a trigger time of 8 seconds (much to loong). I think the error was not noticed because it is very rarely used.
-
1
-
-
Hello folks!
I have a WvW post that to my knowledge has never been introduced.
I hope it is understandable as it was translated from German.There are training bots of every class in the PvP lobby (Heart of the Mists). The fighting style of the bots is exciting, but a little weak. I could well imagine such bots as protectors of the lord of the fortress in wvw. The protectors could appear when the lord of the fortress is attacked or maybe only has 50% life left. if you give them the strength of an elite rank and they do a lot of damage, it could make the wvw boss fights more exciting. the feeling of defeating a lord of the fortress is then a greater challenge in the fortresses.
I assume that it would be easy for Arenanet to implement.
What do you think?
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
The PvP training bots are located in the PvP training area.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
making ruins more effective
in World vs. World
Posted
i'll try to make the changes and effects visible here with my posts in the forum. i hope anet reacts a bit. thanks for your contribution!
i like your idea. it would be interesting if factions such as centaurs are influenced when the ruins are captured. maybe then the upper map areas of the alpines would be more interesting and game-changing and possibly do something useful. whatever that will be.