[For those that played the Beta Rev. Which Expec feel the nicest ?]

From a PvP main

 

Herald is the best all arounder. 

 

However, I'm really excited for the Vindicator because I feel it has great potential if the devs improve on it. It's fun to play and who doesn't love an epic greatsword on the revenant?? 

Coming from an OG Guild Wars player I have to give it bonus points for the factions flavour! 

[Vindicator Feedback Thread]

From an sPvP point of view

 

Link to YouTube video highlighting some suggestions & recommendations: https://youtu.be/9VlhnGSEH5k?t=777

 

I played the Vindicator in sPvP for the entire duration of the beta. I tried different legend combinations, traits, gameplay variants such as power, condi & support. Here are the issues I found most prevalent: 

Pros:

- Fun and interactive

- Flexible skills

- Flexible playstyles. Can play condi, support or power variants. 

Cons:

- No CC

- Elite skills are weak

- Utility skills are 'locked'

 

SUGGESTIONS

Issue:

- The Alliance Stance locking the player into specific skills is an issue. 

Solution:

- Press F2 to change the entire utility bar. No more mix-matching Kurzick and Luxon skills. You are either in Luxon or Kurzick stance. This means skills are not flipped upon activation. 

 

Issue: 

- The Spear of Archemorus' damage can vary greatly between 1200 to 7500. Check video link provided for context.

Solution:

- Tweak the damage coefficient so the damage value is more consistent.

 

Issue: 

- Urn of Saint Viktor has too many disadvantages. 

Solution:

- Add an aoe knockback on skill activation. Increase healing value per tick, decrease number of pips drained and reduce 'Drop Urn of Saint Viktor's activation to 1 second. 

 

Issue:

- Forerunner of Death's evasion is too long and its aftercast animation is too long.

Solution:

- Reduce the length of evasion and shave off aftercast frames.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

- The Major Adept trait 'Redemptor's Sermon' feels incongruent to the other two options which transform the function of F2. 

- Change 'Redemptor's Sermon' to: "F2 now heals allies in the area and cleanses conditions"

- This change should render the Vindicator's support role more viable. 

- Add a knockback to the Spear of Archemorus on impact which would make this skill more impactful and would be a much needed source of crowd control for the Alliance Stance.

[Balance Patch Preview - PvP]

I like these changes. The shift from incredibly fast-paced, "spammy" combat system to a more thoughtful and tactical combat-based system is welcome in my book and I'm sure it's a welcoming change for many others too. I look forward to this.

[[Armor Request to Devs] A Heavy Set with A Non-Booby Torso and Visored Helmet.]

i'm more interested in knowing when the invisible armour set comes out

[In-depth PvP guide]

A very elaborate and helpful guide both for new and experienced players. I've been playing for a few years but I can say that just having a read through this guide even helps me clarify a few things that should help my decision making in game. Cheers for that. Quality content.

[Please don't nerf Chronomancer!]

@Uncle Dalty.8327 said:

@Spoichiche.1290 said:

Pretty clear it works in high end pvp too

You missed an important detail here, let me fix that real quick for you :

Pretty clear it works in high end NA pvp too

Man.... EU players can be so stuck up.... lul

aren't most pvpers in general stuck up, though?

[Matchmaking algorithm too rigged,]

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:@"Abazigal.3679" I see your point of view but when you actually start taking the time to add players into your contacts list, look them up and view their ratings, you're going to see that those 10 lose streaks are happening because leg/plat2/plat2/plat1/plat1 is going against plat1/plat1/gold3/gold2/gold2 for 10 games in a row and you are for some reason being placed on the low team every match, for 10 matches in a row, or however long it takes to reset you to that designated placement rating. I'm serious, start doing your own research and accrue some numbers for evaluation. Something is going on within the match making that isn't being talked about. But hey, go ahead and keep believing that those 10 lose streak anomalies that happen so often are just dumb luck, where you are somehow unfortunate enough, to be placed on a team with renegades, scrappers and staff eles, vs. much higher rated players on scourges/mirages/firebrands for 10 games in a row.

I mean, a 6 sided die can only roll a 1 so many times in a row before you have to logically consider that it might be loaded. After seeing it roll a 1, 10x in a row, on several occasions over the course of many nights, the only arguments that can be tossed vs. that die being loaded would be some blanket statement to confuse the ignorant from what was going on, or some far fetched nonsense like "it was an act of god".

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" Few things:

1. There has been an enormous amount of evidence posted about rigged match making.
2. Evidence posted is never enough. Someone always has to defend arenanet with some response such as: "We'd have to see a lot more evidence than anyone has published to even speculate that the algorithm is rigged or even that it's flawed in a way that the OP suspects. There are simply far too many other plausible explanations for what the OP claims to see." <- A cop-out response. As if all of the players weren't reporting the EXACT same algorithm behavior and patterns concerning rigged match making, as if there actually were some plausible explanation within a blanket statement with no explanation attached such as: "It's cause low population". I mean, what does that even mean? As if these win streaks/lose streaks weren't happening 4 years ago? yeah... k. Sometimes I wonder if you guys are anet devs on alt accounts who join these threads and toss these generic and transparent defenses of the algorithm so that other users ignore OPs like this.
3. I could record every match I did during a season on a stream and look up the ratings of every player in every match for comparison. I could also have guests on the stream who talk and discuss their own match history and history of ratings in their matches. We could show screen shots & recorded evidence of EXACTLY what is being discussed here. <- which has been done already on several occasions by many different people. But guys like you will still come in here, and tell us, it isn't enough.

It's up to every individual person, after seeing that die roll 1 after 1 after 1, when they decide they've had enough of the shenanigans and walk away.

@Chilli.2976 said:If your q doesn't pop before 5min reset it - or been ready for a disaster.

in my experience, if it takes longer than 5 mins the match ends up being an absolute clown fiesta. Either my team wipes the enemy or the enemy wipes us. Don't think I've had a match where the queue took that long and the game ended up being close-call. Maybe like once or twice in a few rare cases. It is best to queue up at peak times, not at like 2 am like I did yesterday. I regret that so much, dear lord...

[How to beat a Mesmer in SPvP?]

Let me think, so the first step to take as a rev, is that you want to watch carefully if the mesmer is running power or disenchanter. If they are power, then random dodge the first few seconds cause 90% of power mesmers use their burst on initial encounter. Wait for their blurred frenzy to end, then strike. Oh wait, they have distortion? Dodge some more, hol' up, they have jaunt and blink? Okay say goodbye cause that mf is just going to disengage and reset, GG.

[decay & games played needs a look at]

@Chilli.2976 said:

@BeLZedaR.4790 said:

@Chilli.2976 said:I personally feel like the current system for decay and games played required is too soft and targets casual players. If someone needs to play 15 games every week and lets say a game is on average 10 minutes, you are only playing 2 and half hours on average per week. This is too much of a casual threshold, if your serious about the "competitive scene" you will be playing more than 2 hours a week on average. I feel games played should be increased by 30 each week as opposed to 15.

Most people say that PvP is dead but I don't agree with them, most people just don't play because they are camping their rating and only playing 15 games per week then only playing unranked and tournaments.

Decay is also to soft and needs a look at, not playing a game for 72 hours is kitten, if your serious you will be playing a game each day. I believe decay should be reduced to 48 hours and upon playing a game while you have decay you should not receive any positive rating towards the leaderboard. This should prevent people from camping their rating and playing at the last minute to steal spots on the leaderbaord. Having said that you will still receive negative rating with your decay, this will definitely prevent some people only playing the minimum games required.

Finally decay should start at 100 per day and reduced by 50 for each game played, so you will need to play 2 games for every 100 decay to remove your decay. If you win any games while on decay you will not receive any normal rating for winning, though your decay will be removed.

Summary:

• Increase decay starting from 48 hours.
• Decay starts at 100 per day.
• Decay reduced by 50 per game.
• Player does not recieve postive rating for winning a game while on decay.
• Player receives negative rating for losing a game on decay.
• Minimum games required per week starts at 30.

There is a thin line between making the system too grindy or too much to promote passive play. I think the current requirements are perhaps a little more towards passive yeah, but requiring too much play time will lead to players will not be bothered playing because the system is too demanding.This means the leaderboard will only consist of players who can play a ton, and not necessarily the best players.Your argument lies too much on “If you’re not willing to play as much as you possibly can you don’t deserve to be on leaderboards” which is absurd. GW2 while being a great game ( current meta sucks kitten and is boring af but in general ), or any game really, can’t demand people to put absurd play time in because people enjoy it more or enjoy it less in certain times, and when they enjoy less they’ll get fed up quickly and leave.

Playing 5 hours per week is casual, 30 games per week is not asking for much.

30 games is a lot. Are you also considering the time it takes to queue? Sometimes queues can last as long as 7-8 minutes.

Let's assume for a moment every game lasts 10 minutes. Now let's assume the time it takes to get a queue pop is 3 minutes. Factor in 1 minute before the match begins.That amounts to 7 hours of ranked games per week. In reality it would take much longer. This is no good. The current system is fine imo