Draygo.9473
-
Posts
147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Draygo.9473
-
-
The 1 queue thing might not be a bug, but someone who hasn't accepted their queue pop for a long time. So they are still in the queue, but there are still open positions available.
The other way it can happen is if a lot of people leave a map and your team enters the map slowly.
There was one instance where our server intentionally trolled the EBG players by queuing the map on purpose and never accepting the queue pop. The result of this was a 50+ queue with only like 20 people in the map.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, bq pd.2148 said:
stability was more or less removed when they first turned it from a duration based boon into a stacking boon that loses stacks on CC and when PoF was new and scourge not nerfed enough.
problem then is that in group vs group fights especially at larger scales one side will just get stunlocked, ofc one could simply not stack and spread out more but that would invalidate most support options and group synergies, even the old way of healing with water blasts.
so how do you picture larger scale encounters without stability to work?
as stealth is also mostly irrelevant at larger scales, i would assume this request is from a roaming perspective. but you do have to keep in mind that balance in the mode will affect all scales and so far balance usually took larger scales into account before roaming, i don't really see that changing.There needs to be a middle ground to balls of CC immune players to people getting easily stunlocked.
I would suggest limiting the amount of stab stacks you can get to 2-3, and allow you to dodge through all CC. Moving the game in a more active gameplay direction instead of passive boons doing everything for you.
-
1
-
-
-
The biggest enabling change to combat mechanics was when anet changed stability from stacking duration to stacking charges, this fundamentally changed the balance of CC vs CC defense as a consequence and is probably the single change that made boon-ball as meta dominate as it is today (secondarily is the boon application to subgroups).
Now there were a couple of things broken about duration stacked stab: Boon corruption resulted in a really long fear. It was hard to push through multiple lines of warding allowing small groups to turtle chokes like the hills lord room. As such it was easier to split attacking groups and pick off stragglers that got caught in CC nets.
The current formulation of boon ball it can be nearly impossible to pick an enemy to attrition them if the boon ball is playing correctly (there is a big difference between a bad boon ball with poor boon distribution and a good one).
My preference would probably be for anet to cut down on stability sources or move stability to a much more limited boon in wvw (limit max stacks to like 2-3), and then visit all the CC abilities and make every single one of them dodgable, in addition to generally nerfing single target ranged pulls (reason, pin sniping is actually unfun). Leaning the game more into the active direction (dodge) instead of the passive direction (boons). Also by limiting the stacks, you buff active boon application more than passive application, passive meaning you are maintaining a boon on a rotation, vs active is when you use the ability right when you think its needed.
-
4
-
1
-
-
I personally just do map exploration in EoD from time to time and sell a legendary for a large gold boost. Leverage the value of a gift of battle for all the pve'ers that wont step a foot into wvw. GPH becomes a bit hard to compute for this.
-
18 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:
Do you know the time it takes for people to do that, by the time that is done the squad has left the spawn area, thus creating a long tail..... letting players copy paste from chat is quality of life feature, even better quality of life is letting players click on the Discord link and went directly to the discord channel with a confirmation. i know that can be done because its a computer we play on, and /wiki works, so why not make an exception for Discord.
There is actually no need for players (especially in WvW) to know what other squads are doing, if the tag is at triple wurms, we know the tag is doing triple wurm, why do I need to hover over the tag to know what they are doing if it isn't to copy paste voice channel? any tag at any boss location is "doing the boss." no pun intended. lmao. move along, if it is a tag on WvW why would I want to know what other tags are doing, all I need to do is stay on tag and provide stab to my squad? WvW Tag already talks to other tag all the time, what they need is probably a chat channel of their own like, if they tag up, they can ask in said text channel" any tag here? we are doing xxx stuffs, wanna join us? or "any tag needs a side car?" and if someone isn't a tag but tagged up to spy on said channel, we know who the spy are.
/shrug. I don't see the point of this at all. moot.Being able to copy messages from chat might be a nice feature, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the squad message on pin, those are different systems. I prefer to stay on topic, which is about the hover info on the commander pin.
I cant think of a particular reason you would join a discord for a squad you're not in. Squad would probably think your a spy anyway if you arn't in the squad but in VC. The use case for being able to copy from the map pin is small to non-existent. The main purpose of this as I see it is for tags to state their purpose so I as a player can make a decision to join the squad or not, not as some advertisement tool for a discord. Is the squad an open tag, havoc tag, scout tag? That's what I want to know, not the squads discord info.
-
You can join the squad and then copy the text in the squad message.... (open party menu, click view squad message, highlight the discord link, ctrl+c, then ctrl+v in browser)
Then leave the squad after it copied if thats what you want.
-
The limit for alliances was 500 members anyway, which is the same cap for a guild. Unless anet was going to allow alliances to have more than 500 members the whole alliance feature is just redundant with a guild slot, so I see why they just scrapped it for just an additional guild slot.
An additional guild slot works almost exactly like the alliance system was supposed to work. You simply set the alliance guild as your 'wvw' guild, and you continue to represent your normal small wvw guild as normal.
-
6
-
-
and the banner/flags people would put down that had collision :o
-
1
-
-
On 5/19/2024 at 3:35 PM, Infusion.7149 said:
I thought the topic was going to be bringing some sort of Social Awdwardness (cannot overlap other players) idea if you are in the same squad ... but alas it is not.
Cyninja already conveyed why no target cap is a bad idea, but think of how laggy the server (AWS instances actually) would get with such a change. It already is a problem without target caps.
Arenanet seems to not care about restoring boon removal which is the real solution other than reducing protection effectiveness and/or duration when there are multiple targets affected by a skill. AoEs are sorted by the proxiity so unless the AoE is pulsed (such as lava font or other DoTs) removing the ability to overlap would reward better positioning even more than it does now as opposed to clouding.
boon removal isnt that strong, it works sometimes in coordination with some CC, but its so finicky i wouldnt call it a real counter to boonball. The only actual counter that existed for a short while was mobile winds of disenchantment, and that was too strong.
If you want to go way way back, the enabling change for boonballs to work as they do now is when they allowed stability to stack instead of extending duration. This is when boonballs became unstoppable. Anet did this because stacking CC in a choke was actually a problem (you really couldn't get into hills lord room with a decent size group dropping down lines of warding). If you want to kill boonball, revert that change for wvw. To compensate something will have to be done about ranged CC. Allow every CC to be dodged through, and nerf the range on single target pulls (pin sniping is a bit degen). These changes will let groups break apart boon balls enough to get opportunities to attrition the group. Which is really all people need, to get the occasional kill on a player in the boonball. Its a radical change, and would change how groups would need to operate. I don't think Anet has the guts to do something along these lines though.
The other change that allowed boonball was the boon target priority change and the subgroup changes, I dont think Anet will want to touch this as PvE absolutely depends on it.
Some siege changes to consider: You could also up the target cap of ballista 1 (you can evade it by zig-zagging), and make the arrow cart rip barrier on a skill. Maybe visit catapult spread shot and make it not worthless.
-
1
-
-
Its better than vet creature slayer at least. These are all active things you can go do, instead of having to wait for. Obsidian sanctum doubles up with a guild mission at least.
-
54 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:
unblockable siege disruptors is going to perma stall fights.
Siege disruptors do not disable siege, so no.
-
3
-
2
-
-
Also add Essence of Animosity to this list
-
1
-
-
to be fair... they did nerf scrapper support
-
1
-
1
-
-
I believe this was an oversight, but you cannot easily convert Jade Heroics to Desert or Proof of Heroics, so its pretty annoying to get the Certificate of Heroics. Current workaround is to buy Notarized Scrolls for Central Tyrian or Maguuma or Desert, and max out the hero points first from those regions then they will convert to the currency you need.
-
Just now, Chaba.5410 said:
And then you can get back in more easily and start the fight again since defending was nerfed more.
Sure, after all the attackers left and no one is defending :D.
-
7
-
-
Just now, Yolaus Kriff.3465 said:
You neckbeards and your desire for being able to endlessly defend a keep with 3 dudes against a zerg, this patch it for you.
WvW is a massive team sport. And I'm glad its pushing towards combat, and not long boring siege/troll/countersiege games.
If a zerg cant kill 3 people, that my friend is a skill issue.
Capping the objective ends the fight over that objective. By definition that would be moving away from combat.
-
13
-
9
-
1
-
-
Having a few siege golems at important camps bought enough time for defenders to arrive and for a fight to actually take place...
These changes are just bleh, just ruining scout/roaming/small group play entirely.
Lets just remove guards/lords and just let objectives be capped by someone being in the objective circle. And make it as small as possible.
-
12
-
2
-
2
-
-
Get a kill while the enemy is inside your objective.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I think people are a bit over their skiis, has there been any confirmation that the GW3 project is even a MMO?
When you put the question and Anets statement together, it feels like the answer might very well be no. Question is talking about the IP, Anet is talking about various title projects. Hrm. If you expand the IP into other genre's of games you wont cannibalize your main cash cow.
-
3
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Salt Mode.3780 said:
I mean at the moment if Snowcrows or HS can clear it anyone can right? Is that the hopium that everyone is waiting for?
It means anet can nerf the encounter a bit. Nerfing it while they are racing it would feel bad man.
-
On 3/2/2024 at 11:22 PM, mandala.8507 said:
Just like OP has no concrete evidence of the overall playerbase's sentiments around the difficulty of encounters like this, you don't have evidence HTCM is somehow a selling point for the game.
Where is this significant volume of players that saw HTCM and decided to give GW2 a try who weren't going to be pulled in by other parts of the game anyway? It just doesn't exist, because GW2 is actually a terrible game for people who want to spend the majority of their time doing ultra-difficult content.
You can't say "you don't know that to be the case" while also pulling a notion out of thin air with no evidence that HTCM somehow was this monumental event for GW2. I promise, it wasn't. GW2 people heard about it. A miniscule portion of other MMO communities heard about it. But in truth, it just seemed like there was a lot of buzz about it because it got the bigger content creators in our isolated GW2 scene hyped up and they told their communities and friends it was a big deal because they were excited. It has had pretty much zero lasting impact on the makeup of the playerbase of GW2 and practically no one outside of the game would know what you were talking about if you mentioned HTCM to them.
I'm glad the EoD team got a chance to make an encounter like that, but there's zero shot it was a profit-generating endeavor for them. Making content like this is literally akin to lighting money on fire if you can't establish a large and loyal cohort of players because of it, which HTCM has obviously not accomplished. 4k account clears total on efficiency, and a solid chunk of those are surely sold kills and alt account clears.
People familiar with prog scenes from other MMOs understand it actually has nothing to do with the highest difficulty tier of the encounter and everything to do with the implementation of incrementality that hooks players of ALL skill levels into a progression ecosystem with multitudes of complexities and commitment requirements.
It's actually a consistent complaint in games like WoW when the raid content is catered too heavily to the highest tier of players, and prominent World's First competitors from that game have come out and said they don't like it when the developers of that game focus too much on how the content will play in the World First race and ignore the negative effects that will have on the playerbase at large.
We're seeing that in real time now with this Cerus CM. Anet is preserving the status quo of a bug that enabled a weeklong progression at the expense of the content being approachable to anyone but a select group of hardcore gamers. And while I won't call it an outright mistake, it is for sure a choice that has both negative and positive consequences, and time will tell which are more impactful.
I saw the twitch viewership, the new people in the streams (non-gw2 gamers), the interviews, the news articles. Yes it was a flash in the pan, but I'm going to believe my own eyes - it did generate buzz. Did that buzz translate into new players and how many of those players stayed, only Anet has those numbers and I made no claim to how small or large it may be.
And the point I'm making about HTCM being sellable is that it isn't insanely difficult. Don't get me wrong it is hard but I don't see a problem with having a single hard encounter in an expansion. A single encounter like this is not catering an entire expansion to the 0.1%.
Also don't get me wrong, Cerus should be nerfed, it just should not be nerfed now. The original 109M HP might have been a perfect target. I would not mind if anet continued the pattern of having the first encounter CM be relatively easy, and the second encounter in an expansion being relatively hard.
-
I think an MMO like Guild Wars should seek to cater to more than one archtype of player when possible. Having really challenging content I would feel is a good in the long term. Guild wars has a reputation at this point as a rather casual game. That in itself will bias its playerbase, but it doesnt mean that Anet should only cater to that playerbase and not try to establish players that value difficult content.
The fact that HTCM is sellable is a point against your argument though...
-
2
-
1
-
-
The problem with any argument that wants to state "This is what the players want" is arguing something you cannot know. What you are saying is "This is what I think the players want".
My personal guess is that anet wants a repeat of the HTCM release. It gave them a lot of buzz, and made people who otherwise don't want to look at guild wars 2 a look. Anet has these metrics and numbers, and HTCM did generate a lot of buzz around the game. If this is their intent, I don't blame anet attempting it again. Eventually this will get figured out like HTCM and more and more people will clear it. Anets goals are probably not just to placate the existing playerbase, but to continually attract new players to the game, and I would assume that would include players that want to be pushed to the limits.
Personally I would like more difficulty tiers to these fights, currently we have Story, Strike, and Strike CM tiers. Ultimately though it would mean more dev time and its up to anet to decide if its worth it.
-
2
-
1
-
So this sucks
in World vs. World
Posted
Doesnt sound like the OP was in a guild with their friends...
Find a few people you like playing with and join their guild, mark it as your wvw guild, done. You should be able to guarantee that your in a guild with at least a few friends you like.