Whiteout.1975

For Me . . . The Good: - I like the art color/design via symbols. The Bad: - I think the Spec looks overall boring from the trailer (sorry). It just flings daggers around in different yet, similar ways. I would have liked to have seen more work done with illusions here. In my opinion, the Mesmer is not suppose to be about themselves as much as themselves with their illusions. Opposite of what I saw in the trailer. Honestly, having clones preform Dagger Storm - like animations would have been more interesting and more acrobatic animation styles would have been cool too. What I am getting from the video is a spec that is capable of AOE damage, but more so if either caught in the crossfire of their main target or near their main target. However, the falling dagger storm (whatever the skill is called) looks like it could be a ground target AoE.

Thanks for the input everyone! I made this post because I have not seen talks concerning how fast people can get up from the downstate. I am also curious about the amount of counterplay behind players getting up in a "Blink of an Eye" or 1 second. - This quote is taken from https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Invulnerability: "Invulnerability triggers from certain player profession skills and is also briefly applied to every player as they fall into downed state or recover with rally." - Also this quote taken from https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Resurrection: "Resurrection is an effect granted to both player characters and NPCs after reviving them that makes them invulnerable for a second." I find the situation interesting around players up so quickly within the time they are also invulnerable. I do not have too much say about Revival speed and whether that is balanced or not. I am more surprised that downed players can get up that quickly with seemingly no time-gate around the ability to get up from downstate. I just thought there would be more risk versus reward involved behind downstate as a whole. In such cases as the "Blink of an Eye," "1 [Second]," maybe even 2 - 3 second revives . . . There seems like there is little punishment/risk to be had for the downed. Whether a player revives through Rally or allies in one Second, they are still getting up in 1 Sec. (or whatever time close to that you believe to be true). In the end, I find such revive times questionable in WvW. Also, whether or not that is healthy or not for the overall player experience. Those are my thoughts at the moment. Perhaps these thoughts could be explored further in another post about downstate, but I thought I should still share them here since it relates to the topic. P.S. As far as personal experiences, I have been rallied so fast before that I had to question whether or not I even stopped moving in combat (has happened plenty of times over the years). Also, FYI, I do not vote right away on any polls I make because I do not want to influence the polls in any way or create an initial bias. However, I think I will cast my vote now because the overall answer seems pretty clear here.

Sure thing. Yea, making boons so that they are on an equal playing field, or at least mostly perceived that way, would make the element of choice more difficult indeed. So that idea would be good for that purpose. The only issue I can see right now is that we may very well end up where we started concerning current thoughts/feelings of the influence of boons. - For instance, in this case, whoever deals out boons more effectively than others, may have changed. However, the effectiveness of said boons has not, ultimately. Instead, boons have now become more effective around each class that excels at their respective boon(s) and how those boons may support other professions more effectively too. Honestly, this leads more to believe the issue is the amount of stacking of boons . . . AND/OR the effectiveness of some boons baseline. We can both agree that boons are currently not considered equal. - How I would approach this issue: First, bring down the stacks of effectiveness for boons in general (this can include stacks in duration). This change will limit the stacking/carrying potential of groups while also helping with the boon -> condition conversion. Then, I would look at seeing if the effectiveness of particular boons needs adjusting. For example, maybe Might need to give +15 Power/Condition for every "1" stack instead of the currently + 30. I do not know the exact answer, of course, any more than the Dev/Company that has not run their game through QA for testing. However, this general approach I have previously listed would be something I would like to see.

Please include a brief description of the revive scenario if able. Can list multiple scenarios if applicable to your chosen time. Can include a Rally scenario. Thanks!

I think if things are more exclusive to particular classes, "boons" in this case, one achieves diversity on paper . . . But in actuality there becomes a heavy influence something called "Pick Rate" in gaming. The things seen as most viable are chosen over the lesser by players. Also, if things are as one may say, "to good not to take!," then stacking of such quality of things can more easily occur. - In short, I do not believe believe particular classes having dominance over particular boons will not be a healthy change for combat because of higher influences on pick rate. Generally speaking, I believe skills that have a higher influence on number of targets should be less powerful than skills that are more focused on single or fewer targets. So skills that affect a higher amount, with boons, are less effective in application then that of concentrated/single target skills. Nice topic btw 👍 Edit: had to add an important word that got left out . . . lol

Did they honestly say that though? I take you/everyone here is referring to this post: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/arenanet-studio-update-july-2021/ In the "Alliance's When?" section, last paragraph, the "Guild Wars 2 Team" writes: - "Our communication regarding this feature over the last few years missed the mark. In the past, development priorities shifted away from WvW, and unfortunately both World Restructuring and our players suffered as a result. Our new leadership team views WvW as a cornerstone mode of Guild Wars 2, and it will be a focus of ours going forward." There is no mention of WvW "always" or "is" a cornerstone of the game here that suggests that WvW has been. They sound to me like they are admitting that WvW has not been a "cornerstone" concerning the "old" leadership and how the "new" leadership "will" view WvW that way. Whether or not "new" leadership "will" live up to their "new" standards is going to be for another story further down the road.

Actually, Diku didn’t understand what the OP was actually asking for. Diku’s suggestion is for max range ONLY. The OP is asking for the ability to find the range manually, then set it to auto fire AT THAT RANGE.. so, if it’s 57%, each shot would be at 57% I understood this suggestion the same as you @Strider Pj.2193. Also, I remember there are some treb locations where even if one were to build a treb further back (or forward . . . Depends) . . . The treb shot would then miss the target area, even if one would attempt to adjust the treb shot charge time accordingly.

I wonder how mad his dad was at him for putting tape on the wall again.

A song to stroke your PPT to:

@"Haseno.6417"

Yes, the system sorts itself (with occasional assistance from Anet), with consideration to points that are earned concerning WvW activity. So, to clarify, I am not stating to "take away the sorting factor," let's wash our hands and be done with it. How things are sorted/points earned depends on the fulfilled criteria (rules) that award those points and allows such sorting to happen. I am questioning the current scoring criteria because what ultimately seems to matter, practically 99% of the time, is whoever can afford to spare the most server activity during the week . . . Wins. And yes, I stopped caring about "winning" because of how "winning" is currently achieved. However, I would love to attempt to win under more respectable circumstances.

First, thanks for your opinion from your perspective. So, from what I am understanding here, instead of the Scoring System simply welcoming coordination, it goes even further and actually "favors" it instead . . . Alright. So, numbers have no significant value when it comes to coordination . . . Even if one side can spare a roughly equal amount of coordination and still have higher numbers. Next, during off-hours, particular servers generally win "the coordination battle" despite there not being enough opposition to coordinate against. Yeah, personally, I don't think attaching the word "coordination" to how something is obtained suddenly adds significance or respect to how that thing is obtained . . . In this case score points. For example, I just poured myself a glass of water, without a doubt that took some "coordination." I could have even poured it for someone else while communicating with them, but the average person is not going to care about that or find value in that action. Unfortunately, having more numbers resulting in overall higher server activity throughout the week and being rewarded for it, even if under the guise of "coordination," still does not add value or significance to "coordination" for me.

I was not aware that I was ignoring a point when I told you . . . "Yes." Then added a "thank you" for the input, but alright. I won't go as far as to say you "ignored" this response, but perhaps you missed it. Personally, my issue is just generally rewarding easy points because another team cannot compete with the higher activity rate of another team in WvW . . . Usually, because that team has more numbers to expand out to uphold this kind of activity rate . . . Appears to be at least a questionable practice in my eyes. This is, again, why I made this post to raise questions over the authenticity and correctness of the Scoring System. It is also, because of situations that you attempt to convey here @kamikharzeeh.8016 that makes, as you state, " . . . it matters absolutely not if u win or lose ppt, since the offhours count " that help feed into my intial purpose of questioning of the Scoring System. So, again, I am not ignoring what you said and I already thank you for it. However, this response is just me and I asked for opinions . . . So, I rather not keep this about me.

So, you are telling me, at that specific moment, during what is perhaps one of the most coordinated, highest motivational, WvW nights out of all other consecutive match days to be had left . . . This was your experience? Well, I must say congratulations to that other server, and congratulations to you for stumbling upon the needle in the haystack. Maybe more resets are the answer then. Yes, I think more resets are the answer. Links are too long, matchups are too long, and skirmishes are too long. This naturally favors servers that can "persevere", which doesn't neccessarily mean higher numbers but higher dedication. Often, these are the same players because bandwagoning only happens amoung the most dedicated of the player base; almost anyone else doesn't even care. Something like a dozen dedicated players can win a matchup by PK'ing and PPT'ing 24/7 to the point where its detrimental to their mental, emotional and physical health, even if the other side occasionally has a huge blob that wipes the entire map out. But this isn't the only form of dedication. Servers that only wake up at night to have massive coverage during the entire dead zones of the other servers, are also dedicated. They don't even need massive numbers, usually 15-20 players is all you need to accomplish it. In individual fights, numbers always have the advantage. But they have very little effect on the overall outcome. Someone needs turn the salt dispenser upside down and shake it sometimes. I would limit links to ~2 weeks, matchups to 23 hours and skirmishes to 25mins for a little while and see what happens. (You intentionally need the times to be a little off so that it rotates over time and doesn't just favor a specific set of timezones.)Honestly, I am not sure if more resets are the exact answer. I could see people possibly becoming burnt with feeling a need to return from/dedicate nearly 23 hours of their time. I do agree in thinking that allowing 24/7 matchups in such a way that easily rewards people's night capping, as I dream about a better WvW, is pretty dull, easy, and uninspiring. Of course, I am not saying the game should revolve around me or anyone who is sleeping in particular. I am just saying people are too easily rewarded against servers without enough able bodies. Still, thanks for helping the conversation.

Yes./6 characters too short. P.S. Thank you for the additional input too outside this quote.

So, you are telling me, at that specific moment, during what is perhaps one of the most coordinated, highest motivational, WvW nights out of all other consecutive match days to be had left . . . This was your experience? Well, I must say congratulations to that other server, and congratulations to you for stumbling upon the needle in the haystack. Maybe more resets are the answer then.Not sure what you're trying to fish for here. The point was that exactly even numbers (assuming 3 servers with all queues, which was likely) didnt even matter for scoring. One server completely dominated. Because numbers isnt everything. Coverage matter alot in the long run, but that isnt something you can highlight as a "high population" problem. You cant control how people spread out or how effective they are with their time in WvW. At the end of the day, one can only try to balance out the worlds and hope for the best, which is what they are already doing with links. Not a single kitten we can do about it. Sure, I will clarify further for you then. Firstly, I am not fishing much further for proving "population imbalance." That catch of the day has already been reeled in years ago. Next, I realized what your point was. However, my point was never concerning a somewhat brief moment in time (relative to the rest of the week) where nearly all the stars align in perhaps the best possible case scenario, where one would expect the most likely occurrence of a "balanced" matchup. For example, I will highlight the keywords I used in the OP and for anyone else who needs them: I already recognize there are possible situations where numbers are relatively similar or maybe slightly higher for one team. So Yes, I am referring to "coverage" as in the grand scheme of things. Nonetheless, I also recognize situations where a team may have let's say 20-25 players on a map, where another team has 55-60.

So, you are telling me, at that specific moment, during what is perhaps one of the most coordinated, highest motivational, WvW nights out of all other consecutive match days to be had left . . . This was your experience? Well, I must say congratulations to that other server, and congratulations to you for stumbling upon the needle in the haystack. Maybe more resets are the answer then.

I am not going to lie . . . I do not really play the game much anymore. Honestly, it has been a long time now. Nonetheless, on occasion, I browse this forum to see current thoughts and trends concerning GW2. Today, I had a recurrent thought from the past that I never bothered to ask . . . Until now. However, this thought would probably be better stated as a short series of questions. So I will attempt to phrase this thought as such here: Is Population Imbalance a concern because of how the Scoring System is designed (meaning scoring, overall, favors higher numbers)? Or Is having a higher population an issue outright? Or . . . Maybe you believe both are the problem?Yet another way to look at this would be to ask: Is the Scoring System correct for ultimately favoring higher numbers?Anyway, I thought this topic could be interesting to explore. Genuine responses are appreciated. Thanks for your input ahead of time. Edited (3/6/2021): I felt a need to highlight some keywords I used originally. I am referring to coverage issues when mentioning "ultimately" or "overall" "higher population"/ "higher numbers" as in the grand scheme of things. Thank You for your time.

For a long time, I just wanted to see alliances. I wanted to see the groundwork for something that could be improved upon if needed. Yet, my expectation for this perfect, new system remained low. None the less, I find starting the groundwork more valuable, so I am not against Alliances personally. First, Anet should decide if they want WvW to be competitive. I'm sorry but winning a match due to better coverage is dull, uninspiring, and pathetic, to say the least. Personally, I believe Anet wants WvW to be more competitive with mentioning Alliances. To put it simply, creating a more competitive environment can drive up motivation in general. So, I am all for this general mindset. I think they need to look at the current system for what it is and not nessarily try to work around it. For instance, the match times . . . They run 24/7 basically until each reset. Even if someone had no life . . . That person would still have to eat, sleep, and take an occasional shit in their toilet. If this current timeframe continues, then there needs to a type of cap to allow for a more competitive environment, hopefully. The final thing I want to say, to keep this response short, is that we have not been updated with Alliances in a long time. Additionally, Alliances were never finalized with concrete grounds for initial implementation. Therefore, me, commenting on what may or may not work now . . . may be irrelevant as to what Alliances actually are today since its brief, initial conception. Even if what Alliances amount to today is nothing.

This situation was not your fault but rather a consequence of mediocre WvW design relating to transfers. Also, communication was not well in your favor. That said, enjoy your "10 days" of mount thirst.

Because you still would have lost to population imbalance.

If this forum post had a theme song . . .

@"Crackers.9628" What I got from this situation was another example of how guild ties run deeper than server ties. This situation was probably not one of the more proper ways of exemplifying that. However, this situation helps represent a cluster of other various situations, over the years, as to why I do not immediately consider server mates "teammates," as you stated. Besides that, be toxic back, ignore, block, etc. whatever. I don't care as much as I am sure the next guy/gal here doesn't. This is your situation to deal with, along with being in charge of your own emotions. The best advice I can give is that you will likely find more value in the teammates you choose. As opposed to those provided to you naturally/rotated around through transfers. Goodluck.

I believe you have a point @"Tornjak.6425" to some extent. The nature of WvW, overall, does tend to rely on commanders to keep up player interest. However, upon realizing that point, I have to ask myself . . . "Is relying on commanders a good thing?" Personally, I do not believe so. I believe the burden of reliance is much more so the job of the game itself and those who help develop it. Still, I see nothing wrong with wanting to encourage Commanders to tag up openly. So perhaps the right kind of encouragement is where the game could do a better job. After reading the OP, I am taken back to my time in economics from some time ago. The terms "Free-Rider" and "Public Good" immediately come to mind. Some players can act as free-riders when following an open tag who does not want those extra, random followers. The open tag provides a service, helping players engage in WvW activities, but at the cost of their service becoming a public good. Now, of course, none of this talk applies meaningfully to Commanders who do not mind extra players following them. Still, the general concern of hidden tags presents itself yet again through the eyes of yet another player. Before I go on, here are some links to the terms I just used in case anyone needs them: https://investopedia.com/terms/f/free_rider_problem.asphttps://investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.aspHere is the thing. Commanders are not public goods . . . They are people. They have their own lives and their own tastes. Anyone demanding rights to another human being would start to dance with ideas of entitlement and slavery. Yea . . . Let us all not do that. A Commander can act like a public if they wish, or they can be more private. These days, Commanders can now treat their services more as a private good (https://investopedia.com/terms/p/private-good.asp) for which payment may come in different forms. Often, the only form of payment required is to be apart of a guild or hop in a discord. Still, I'm sure MANY Commanders would be open to compensation through other means as well. And if one values a Commander's service, then they should support that Commander in some way. I have some ideas on how to better allow for compensation. Ideas preferably without either commander or follower feeling cheated. However, I prefer having what I said thus far to stand-alone. That is all I have for today, take care. P.S. I would still like to see Alliances before I die @Anet.

Wow, thanks for helping me remember some old memories @"Shroud.2307". . . Memories from Early-Mid 2013 to be more precise. Believe it or not, my earliest WvW memory dates back to my very first day of experiencing WvW. Although, I should begin with what, or perhaps I should instead say, "who" encouraged me to play WvW. The "who" was a friend of mine whom I had thought, at the time, was focused on PvE. As I would eventually find out, this friend began playing WvW more than I had realized. He chose to ask for my help in WvW despite my complete lack of experience there. I was naturally hesitant at first, feeling as I would not be much help. Then I remembered what the word "friend" meant. As a result, I would soon enter WvW to help him. Long enough story short, we come to find ourselves engaging in some 1v1s on one of our enemies Alpine Borderlands. My friend was on his Char Warrior, and I was on my Human Mesmer. I had only ever played Mesmer up to this point in the game, and this occasion was the first time I had ever fought other players. I only remember fighting another Mesmer that was on some 1v1 pistol build and a thief. However, I cannot remember what the thief was using, possibly including a short bow, but I am not certain. Yet, I do remember the place we all fought. Our 1v1s took place at the Windmill nearby Alpine's South camp. This event would soon spark my desire for the enemy's digital blood, yet, I would later come to find their emotional pain sweeter. Additionally, here is a short story on Mesmer illusions during this time. There was a graphical bug that would display a vertical checkboard plane upon illusion death. I do not remember if illusions needed to be shattered or die regularly. I only remember witnessing it in WvW and nowhere else in the game. So, me being a noob then, thought this was a cool effect they gave to the Mesmer in WvW, hahaha . . . Nope. Anyway, I found an old thread here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/Mesmer-shatters-a-checkered-square. That is all I have for today, take care.