oscuro.9720

Hmm, that’s a good point. Perhaps draw is a slight penalty? Or you could 3 consecutive draws is a draw, otherwise it goes to whomever has the most wins at the end (so a 2-0-3 score would still result in you winning), and have all draws be negative penalties? Then have “ties” instead of draws so a 2-2-1 variation is no reward or slight positive, since there’s good kill function but not sufficient time to win. this would end up with: 3 wins = win (biggest reward) 2-1-2 = “win” (slightly smaller than a 3x) 2-2-1 = “tie” (very slight positive reward, like winning a match when your in plat 3 small) 1-1-3 = “tie” (literally 0 reward) 1-0-4 = “win” (0 reward) 0-0-3 = “draw” (slight negative reward) I’m probably missing a permutation or two, but you get the point. It could be balanced so that bunker builds don’t really make much progress ratings wise solely on the win combinations. Literally just a set value for a win combination, you don’t need whatever kind of formula they have running in the background for 5v5. Up or down a set amount based on final score. I don’t know, I’m not a game designer, I just know that a best of 5, 1v1 mode would be fun and is something I want 😂

I don’t like that because health can fluctuate so wildly in this game and you’d get people trying to play for health late in the round. Granted this is my opinion, you’re free to disagree. Any mode under most any rules would be preferable to none for me 🙂 I think you’re trying to make the secondary changes just to force the lower health rule to apply. Again, I wouldn’t mind, but I think a draw mechanic that can void the ability to win a game would be better motivation (5 matches, once there’s 3 draws, the match is over and no one wins) again, just my opinions, everyone is going to have different views 🙂

Stalemate, 3 stalemates and the duels are a draw 😉 no rewards for draw. Idk how long the timer should be. im not planning on playing a bunker build, so thats their problem, not mine 😂

Then we shall fight in the salt! edit: the game is t balanced around 2v2 either and people like 2v2, I don’t know why balance should be a limiting factor other than not wanting to ignore forum posts. Forget balance and reason for a minute, do you think you would have fun in such a game mode? Because at the end of the day it’s a game and that’s what matters

My thoughts are take some of the points that exist, then chop away the rest of the map, or just use 2v2 maps, though there’s too much terrain in those for my taste in a 1v1 map, personally. They have to be small to prevent permanent kiting, so like the mid point of eternal collesium with both platforms and the four pillars would be a good example. another benefit of 1v1s: queue times would be very fast until you reach really high tiers because it’s just 1 for 1. Could even add 1v1 tournaments because they’d be way more engaging to walk than the epileptic cluster duck that is 5v5. also I want 1v1s, which is the biggest reason. Forget justification, I want it, that’s my reason.

I believe Anet should institute a permanent 1v1 game mode in PvP. Why? Because I like 1v1s. Also the 1v1 combat in this game is phenomenal and I want a way to engage with it that isn’t Jerry rigging other styles of PvP. that’s is all. edit: way it could be implemented: first to three wins, rounds have a timer. If timer expires the round is a draw. this would also give the option for fairly quick PvP matches.

Rush fixed; phenomenal. Even if it’s not perfect, the effort to improve something that is broken I like 100blades damage increase: probably not going to make a huge difference, but it should atleast be worth using over auto attack on a stun (theoretically). I’m glad they’re aware and making changes to it, I’ll always stand by cast time reduction since it doesn’t even hypothetically fit into a 3 second stun, but changes in the right direction are good savage leap+final thrust: only positives. Sword may work a bit better now idk, but I’m going to at least try it. berserker: idk I never play berserker other people know better just my thoughts 🙂

This is actually a pretty kittening sweet mechanic idea. A trait that gives a stacking speed buff for each time you hit a foe. 5 stacks max 6% per stack, stacks over swiftness. GET ME ZOOMIN BABYYYYY

Meaty forearms and a deep horse stance shall save ye from perdition

I agree. Comically, if they increase the conditional damage values on staff (CC damage multiplier and enemy target multiplier) it would be a top tier bruiser weapon on a power build because the built in support gives it so much utility and variable gameplay options compared to other Warrior weapons

Nay! I tell you this is but the dark thoughts of a non-warrior infesting your mind. It matters not if the enemy team has been hand selected by the great warrior himself, if you call yourself a true warrior you will pick up your sword and rip apart this mantle of subjugation that hath been placed upon thee. Do not let such esoteric beings determine your fate. Reach out, with your meaty, being forearms, grab hold of destiny, and bend it over your knee like the beach that it is! You are the one who writes the script! You are the one who determines what shall be won and what shall be lost! Let no one take away from you your own volition, fight with tooth and nail, to the last beat of your heart and drop of your blood until you have overturned the tyrannical oppressions of the slur we call fate, or have laid yourself bare and died living by your ideals! Now, my brother in war, take up your sword! Take up your sword and fight! The troops stand on the field ready for slaughter. It matters not whom they may be, friend or foe, Warrior or a lesser profession, your body hath been honed into a blade that shall cut down all who stand before thee with lethal precision. Do not let some numbers in the background of reality dissuade thine passion and fury! Rise up and strike until the numbers themselves yield and submit to thine bloody assault!

What if, and I know this is way out there, but we have 100blades give ape super speed every time it hits a foe.

While I agree with the post, the minor is useless and needs a buff, I disagree with the sentiment that super speed should replace it. Less creep in boons and mobility would be preferable to me. Granted I don’t play mirage, but the game needs less super speed not more rn imo.

This is what I think people don’t realize about calling for unroot. Even if you can move while using 100b, its still bad…

To me, staff warrior is already a win. I fully expect the numbers to be ducked up because that happens very frequently for Warrior (and not entirely to the fault of the balance team, Warrior is a very unique class in this game which makes it more difficult to balance). However, staff as a weapon is fun to play, and at the end of the day that is the single most important factor when something new is coming out. Is it fun? I like playing fun things on the game I play for fun. Then being good is a plus.

🤢🤮

I agree, it thematically works well with Warrior. I don’t think a 2-2.5s second channel would be problematic personally. It would still be one of the longer channels in the game, and that alone would put it right near the middle of the pack for direct damage channels. Just my opinion though 🙂

Mr. Oscuro: “Sorry, but we will have to deny your denial”

I’m going to strongly disagree with you. Hundred blades is a setup skill that functions well in conjunction with much of warrior’s kit. The problem is that it is extremely weak. It literally does 2% more than the auto attack. It is by far the lowest coefficient/cast time damage-first skill in the game while also having the absolute highest costs of use (self root, etc.). Reducing cast time to 2-2.5s offers means the cast time hypothetically fits into a stun window. While it’s still EXTREMELY unlikely to land the whole thing, at least it actually lines up with even being theoretically possible. Add quickness in and now it’s a real setup-and-burst combo. You’re free to disagree, but I’m fairly confident that if they drop 100b cast time, the put-away potential of Warrior will climb drastically.

The spec has fundamental design flaws that don’t work well with competitive modes. It took everything that is a liability on Warrior, turned it to 11, then did not build in adequate compensation for the risks taken. The spec isn’t bad, but it relies on abusing trait synergies and overpowered mechanics to bruiser its way through problems instead of using gameplay mechanics and relying on interactive components to actually be good. There’s a few cool things you can do with it, but I would assert it is fundamentally a pve-first specialization that requires such an extreme bloat of either sustain (healing+aegis+whatever else) or damage to be functional that it won’t be a serious spec in competitive modes. I could very well be wrong. That’s just my view of it since they reduced the diversity of its gameplay after the first beta.

This is the way.

One of the core problems with 100blades viability in competitive modes is actually the amount of backloaded damage. presently it only outdamages the auto attack by 2% (a very poor number), but ~20% of its damage is loaded into the final hit iirc, which is by far the least likely to hit because the other player has to be either incompetent or outplayed to take that hit. Perhaps if it was a flip over skill and the final hit was separated, that could work, but the biggest thing is reducing the cast time. I agree conceptually that would be pretty cool, but I don’t see that specific change making greatsword any more or less viable than its current state. Do note, I’m talking solely about competitive.

My brothers of war, I hail you! Topic: This thread is an all too familiar one; I am requesting/recommending to Anet that 100blades receives a buff. What kind of buff: Balance 100blades to have a coefficient/cast in line with other damage-first channels. (See post history for the mathematical proofs and theoretical state of balance) Specifically: lower the cast time to 2.25 seconds and reduce the amount of backloaded damage. @Lan Deathrider.5910 @CalmTheStorm.2364 and myself (and others I may be forgetting) have discussed this on here extensively. You can check my profile for numerous posts on the calculations behind this and more detailed suggestions for a balanced states. This thread is mainly about the next section; Why is 100blades so important for Warrior’s viability in competitive modes: I don’t believe Warrior is in that poor of a state presently. However, it has a problematic drawback; lack of ability to create win-conditions. Warrior can do a good job of getting an enemy low, but its ability to finish lags. This is really because, often times, getting the enemy low requires the use of all of warriors existing damage and setup skills, leaving little to put someone away once they are low. Adding a singular high-damage setup skill (100blades with actual damage) adds an additional option of dealing damage predicated on meeting some of the most extensive criteria in the game for any skill. It opens multiple avenues of use and enables the warrior to reserve skills for put away or utilize the skill itself as a put away. By feeding enough damage back into Warrior’s most essential kit to improve the probability of establishing win conditions expands the number of builds and playstyles available to warrior while keeping the class in-line (read; balanced) with the power budgets of other classes. Conclusion: Assume horse stance, buff 100blades

I disagree with you, but it’s subjective, so we can agree to disagree 🙂

We will disagree on this one, it’s still be bad imo. Root as a tradeoff is valid. Right now it’s not a tradeoff though, since nothing is given in return. It’s just a penalty 😂