saerni.2584

I once got called a hacker for using Binding Shadow and hitting them with it when they were LoSing my normal attacks.

This is the fun :)

aside from the 1st question, the others doesn’t matter.there’s no reason to die within 2 strikes in this game. no one here is playing dark souls Plenty of reason to die in two strikes, this game is more like dark souls than most people would like to admit. There's a reason you can dodge.Whether it is 2 hits or 2 seconds there are plenty of ways to die quickly. Ask any thief. We can be deleted in under a second against some builds. That’s not unfair that’s just a fact.

I can guess. It’s probably a build running the Sniper’s trait in DE and also likely Assassin’s signet for damage boost. Also the signet that gives vulnerability. With two signets probably the build runs a cooldown reductions for signets, maybe not but that’s an educated guess.

People like to forget with the “lets return to caps” is that it only punishes having multiple players of mixed types. Some power weapons apply condi. So in a system with caps they overwrite stacks of condi from condi players. This also means that in group fights a condi player does laughable amounts of damage because they get one tick of maybe 3 stacks of a condi before someone else’s condi overwrites them. It’s, from a condi players perspective, as if allied players are cleansing for their enemies. In 1v1, you will still die to condi because it generally never reaches the condi cap solo. In a group it unfairly neuters the condi player while giving an advantage to the player being hit repeatedly. If you get spiked by 5 players with condi you should die. Sadly, even today a multiple person condi spike is still manageable in a way that a multiple person power spike isn’t. Making it even easier to not die to condi is unwarranted and going back to the way it was before condi was allowed to stack up is detrimental to build diversity in the game mode.

I spent a while teamed up informally with a good ranger on another server. We didn’t talk or anything we both just understood we could double team the massive third server and get plenty of kills. That was a good week to be in WvW :)

What server was he? FSP [EU] (but idk if we can speak about servers here, I remember mods were really strict about it). If you're complaining that the thief didn't stay and allow you to kill him, well, I'm sorry, but you're not entitled to a kill just for showing up. I'm complaining because I think every build should be able to be killed by at least another class/build or if outnumber, it was the latter case (we were 4 ppl trying to catch him!) but that thief was just impossible to kill or even catch.That’s enough, some servers or EU vs NA have particular thieves. I’m not familiar with him in particular, as it turns out.

I’ve been doing everything this week. Roaming, zerg fights, it’s been a nice change of pace. We should do some more roaming together :) maybe defend north camp on enemy BL for no reason :-p

What server was he? FYI, you can cap a camp while he is invisible. So yeah he’s annoyingly but extremely ineffective at stopping you from doing things.

I don't think thief should be able to contest a point against a bunker build, but it should be able to kill that bunker and since it probably wont thief does need all of those mechanics in a single class. It just doesn't need overwhelming allocation of it which is good since it doesn't. The game being doomed or not kind of rests on classes that fill priority slots in team and squad compositions which admittedly are more important than thief in a team based game. That's why thief is usually the one to get looted when other classes need handicaps. Bunker players can usually hold a point for a while or they are either a bad bunker build or a player unfamiliar with how to properly play that build. Against a good thief, the bunker will eventually be pushed off point because the thief basically can spend time free casting if the bunker doesn't kite at some point during the fight. And I do think a good thief can therefore "contest a node" even without buffs. But, the thief can't stand on the node and probably will be pushed off far sooner than the bunker will, so the net gain is completely in the bunker's favor. Of course, the thief taking that fight is silly in the first place because the bunker is performing their "role" while the thief isn't contributing to kills (which is the point of a mobile DPS). As you said, the game's outcome rests a lot more on the sustain and synergy of the rest of the team's composition than whether thief has enough damage to kill a bunker (who is being outplayed) in a reasonable period of time. That said, I am skeptical that thief needs much more damage. Backstab at a 2.0 coefficient is a good start as opposed to 1.8. Other than that, I'm unsure but I'm fairly confident we aren't in need of massive buffs.

Which is why sugestion threads are next to useless anyway. ANet has the numbers, we don't. They are an active game developing studio, I doubt many of the forum users work in the industry. They work with the spaghetti-code of this game and its custom engine day in and out, we don't.Sure it's fun to throw around a few ideas, but the ideas here are always the same: playable tengu, fishing, home instances, open world PvP, put legendaries on the gemstore, yadayadayada... The discusions go nowhere because they have been discussed for years now and all arguments for or against the things that get sugested here twice a month are all on the forums already, people just don't bother to find them. To be fair now the Skimmer will be able to go underwater :-p

Armistice Bastion Pass (permanent). It’s only been on offer once this year and I missed it (didn’t get it in 2019).

Damage formula doesn’t capture whole complexity: Were you at full HP?Were you vulnerable at the time?Did they have Assassin’s Signet on their bar? Was the thief alone or did they have any buffs from other external sources? Did you have boons like protection active?I’d want to see more of the damage log personally.

Because putting PvP into PvE maps will ruin the game for many. And that is what the OP is advocating. Diverting the discussion would no longer remain on topic. Several posters, including me, have said that putting the elements that the OP wants into its own PvP instance would be fine. I think it's completely relevant. You spent a lot of time in this thread criticizing the poster and not giving him constructive feedback. Yes, if you narrowly define the topic as "his first idea," it makes it easy to complain about how pvp needs new content (maps, etc) instead. But, what I think is more interesting is to ask "why does pvp have to be only accessed through a button on the top left of the screen? Can we integrate pvp into the broader game in a way that is still separate but feels more cohesive? Why can't I do some kind of PvP that is accessed directly through the PvE gameworld and is easy for all players to see?" Ultimately, it's up to Anet to decide how they'd like to develop their game. I do think, to be honest, that PvE'ers probably won't widely embrace a mini-pvp arena type set up. Even if it comes with kudos on the map like races. It might inspire a few players who play in mixed modes to try it out. It may make for a better "WvW" training area than just throwing players in cold (or EotM which needs an overhaul--now that is another thread). I doubt it would replace spvp for gear accessibility or WvW for the rewards side (and mass pvp aspect). And, as you said, the idea of unlocked PvP on a PvE map would be extremely difficult from a programming and game design perspective. GW2 is a PvE game with attached PvP elements. The most you can ask for is that the PvE zone have a portal into PvP. Anything more and you make the game into something it isn't. Dueling, while a "nice feature" can be accomplished several ways that don't violate that core design. I'd like to see that happen. More pvp maps are great but new pvp modes are fun too.

Well the OP did suggest something unworkable as in "the same map" but I was mainly trying to point out that every attempt so far to divert the discussion into a productive one (what we could actually get in line with OPs desire) was generally met with some variation on "why are you trying to ruin my game?"

Hi all! I'd like to share a project I've been working on this month. Part of it is roaming. Part of it is celebrating the artwork that are the zones across WvW. Part of it is just to celebrate WvW in general, which is not always what you get when you visit the forums. It was a lot of fun to learn some editing to get the video into shape. Hope you enjoy! And thanks for watching :-)

I’ve never seen a group of players so interested in asking a game maker to not devote any resources to something. There’s so many terrible arguments: A new limited PvP map accessed by entering via PvP does not use PvE rule set. It can be a separate map with separate rules. There are two sides arguing that this will both cause all other PvP modes to completely lose population and that “no one” will play this opt-in small scale content. Both can’t be right. If this is so good as to break all of sPvP and WvW then Anet should do it because PvP content that good is worth development time. If this is terrible and no one will ever play it then all you lose is the development time spent on building something new for PvP oriented players who rarely get new content built for them. Anet has an interest in development of a variety of content. You don’t “lose” when Anet builds something for some niche set of players. We all gain by having a rich variety of content to retain players. Those raids I never play? Great way to keep players also doing content I do play.

The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it. Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW. Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either. You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums. I couldn't care less if any and every form of PvP would gain an ephiphany in unison and crawled to their grave, where they belong.But since PvP is popular, according to you and people are playing it, according to you, why do people so desperately want to ruin PvE with it? Maybe it isn't what you want, but since this topic keeps popping up... Is it's some PvP community joke or something? In what way is 100% opt in PvP “ruining PvE”? This sounds incredibly biased and dismissive of other people’s requests for content. One can already 100% opt in to PvP in the mode which is already provided for that type of content.But that’s not an argument against more content. Non sequitur.

The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it. Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW. Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either. You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums. I couldn't care less if any and every form of PvP would gain an ephiphany in unison and crawled to their grave, where they belong.But since PvP is popular, according to you and people are playing it, according to you, why do people so desperately want to ruin PvE with it? Maybe it isn't what you want, but since this topic keeps popping up... Is it's some PvP community joke or something?In what way is 100% opt in PvP “ruining PvE”? This sounds incredibly biased and dismissive of other people’s requests for content.

Condi is fine. CC is better than it was. Damage is mostly in line now except for a few builds (we still want glassy amulets to burst).

I’d say it’s an inaccurate theory. The idea that downstate helps groups with lower numbers isn’t born out when the larger group can more easily bomb on the down and secure a kill. The small group is less able to devote people to counter pressure and resurrection at the same time. The larger group, likewise, has a better chance of resurrecting their own downs and counter pressuring. With no downstate, the small group at least has the ability to secure kills because they don’t need to overcome the groups numbers twice (once to deal the damage to down the enemy and again to secure that kill). As to spawn camping, that’s a problem that happens with and without the downstate. It’s often accomplished by players who know their enemies won’t try to leave spawn by a different route (there are three per spawn) or organize to disrupt the campers (focus targeting, using support professions, siege/traps). It’s unfortunate because it really reflects a population disparity between the server being spawn camped and the server doing the camping. It also reflects that a lot of people don’t always use builds optimized to to unfair fights (high levels of escape, damage and sustain through blind/projectile hate/crowd control) or bring tactics like target painters against stealthed spawn campers.

I have a build I like to run on my Scourge for exactly that. Got nerfed in Feb, but it still works pretty well. Being able to rez 5 ppl from down to 80% in seconds is incredibly powerful. Transfusion, Ritual of Life, Well of Blood, Signet of Undeath and Mercy Runes. You can heal the other 20% to get them back to full health pretty quick after that. Well, my experience is that these groups are PvEers who've come for the bonuses. Honestly, versus some servers it is hard to tell the difference. I’m very outnumbered by both enemy links this week. One in particular seems to always have another player streaming in. Start a 1v1 it becomes 1v2 then 1v3, then 1v5 and shortly thereafter 1v10 if you survive long enough. If you are able to get kills you can turn that into a steady 1v3 if you can get kills and not die...and that’s the normal WvW players not the low ranked players going for GoB or some other reward track. As Doug said, outnumbered feels better because you have a chance to get a kill. Otherwise, it normally would feel like attacking a brick wall with your face. Yes, downstate adds more tactics in even fights because you have to consider stomping or using a down to bait out other enemies. But, at least as a one week event, there are also benefits to playing without downstate that should be celebrated.

Portable is so useful that I don’t see why we need another forge. Then again, if it isn’t a big deal might as well as it in.

The forum tends to exaggerate a lot. The feeling that “gw2 is a dead game” or “xyz killed the game” is generally not born out by the people playing it. Roaming was always tough. There are big disparities between the server links (and often you may end up severely outnumbered) in WvW. Basically, you have one person saying “WvW is dead I don’t see people” and another saying “WvW has plenty of people I see them all the time. If both are not lying, then the conclusion is that there is a mixed range of population experiences and the game isn’t, in fact, dead. Due to server relinks this experience isn’t permanent either. You say anecdotal. I say data point that disproves an absolute statement. The burden is on the person claiming all is vain and the game is dead. Meanwhile, I’ll be actually playing and ignoring the periodic doom and gloom on these forums.

Running Celestials means coming to terms with the fact that yur build isn't meant to win fights, but outlast fights. So in the end, it returns to what yu are intending to do in WvW. If yur goal is flipping/holding camps, Celestial builds with a strong mix of offense and defense will be a great choice as the stats allow yu to sacrifice kill pressure for survivability, and coupled with trait choices, could make yu extremely hard to kill. If yu aim to gank players, Celestial is pretty poor at doing that other than to drive the opponent off. Celestial doesn't make yu a 1vX god either since yu are unable to apply kill pressure, yu can't actually force anyone down and take them out while keeping yurself alive. Playing against skilled players is another factor here : a skilled player will know how to break down a Celestial build after a bit of fighting and will chip yur health down to force a heal before going for the kill. Yeah, I ultimately decided against making a celestial build. The stats weren’t working out. I did end up optimizing my build a bit though, which is always fun because I like to max-min my character (within self defined goals rather than just making my damage huge at the expense of HP—which is rather simple imo).