lodjur.1284

AoE caps will never be removed because it would cause massive skill lag and server issues. First part is mostly incorrect, even so there's a ton of things they could change to lower lag, the easiest one being to remove retaliation from the game (which also happens to be a great suggestion even disregarding lag) or changing how various damage over time things work in areas with multiple players (such as making many of the skills that do damage 5 times /sec do more dmg once /sec) AoE caps force the game to do calculations about who takes dmg, which might or might not be more complex than simply calculating dmg more times. Also no AoE caps means shorter fights, which means shorter duration of lag. Even now if 2 map blobs are fighting on the opposite end of the map that essentially means me and my group just has to afk into they're e done, which can take very long, so even if (which I very much doubt) the lag would get worse it would simply go from unplayable to unplayable for a shorter time. Forcing people to spread out or die also lowers lag. Yet without AoE cap there's little reason to stack more than 5 players on each other and close to 0 reason to stack more than 10. The 50-90% (50% at 10 players, 90% at 50) complete AoE dmg reduction is the main reason to. Even at 10 players this is much much stronger than the protection boon which is often considered "too strong". This would also remove a random arbitrary advantage that big groups have over smaller groups. That isn't because the big group can do more damage or heal more or one of the many legit benefits of being more players, but simply an advantage because they take less dmg. Stacking inside enemy AoEs being the best strategy is as unintuitive as the fact that AoE caps encourage stacking. Making the game strategically deeper in that everyone attacking on the tag isn't the by far best strategy seems like a positive. Forcing players to spread out would definitively make it more complicated to keep full uptime on "all" boons. Is that a bad thing? It forces stacking in groups of 5 (or 10 in some very stupid cases), not stacking in blobs of 15-50. Without offensive AoE caps I believe the on theory ideal strategy for bigger groups would be spreading out on groups of 5-10 in the same general area but not all inside the tag. This is however a lot more complicated than everyone stacking on the tag so that it's not very popular is fairly self explanatory, yet it would be very healthy.

The only reason that scourge is overpowered (in zergs that is, outside of zergs the class has been nerfed to far beyond unplayable) is because the game systems incentivize stacking. Given that the class basically only has (ranged) AoE skills that also happen to corrupt boons. The game does this in multiple ways, the biggest betting the AoE cap, if there was no AoE caps on any offensive skills, people wouldn't stack up so tightly (or at least this would be strategically incorrect to do). If people spread out more scourge (and AoE) wouldn't always be the best offensive option. But given that everyone in these kinds fights are always stacked up, you're always hitting the maximum amount of targets with every single skill you cast, meaning that in order for AoEs not to always vastly outperform single target skills they'd have to be nerfed into uselessness. Until offensive AoE caps are removed scourge will get nerfed almost every patch and remain a problem in this specific environment. Which is a shame for those of us that absolutely hate zerging and fell in love with a class centered around Area denial and boon/condi control that hasn't been overpowered outside of zergs for a very very long time. Personally I don't really care that much anymore as I have accepted that scourge will never be playable again most likely, but it doesn't have to be this way. Except at the very start of PoF (and arguably not even then) the class was never overpowered in smaller scale such as 5v5 or similar fight sizes, because people would move. Tl;dr AoE caps encourage AoE spam and stacking, scourge is just the best class at it.

It was datamined a while ago, hopefully released soon

would result in a very dull bunker meta and only condition damage in offensive builds. It wouldn't be the only change, but the general idea would be to stop damage buffs from stacking, rather increase each damage buff, and make it more about managing upkeeps of them rather than stacking on top of each others. That way ANet could (if they wanted to) keep the power creep more in check, by having a max damage +X% and restrict the uptime. (Unfortunately I'm not good enough to be able to pull good numbers from my head, so I won't try) I'd also like to see just about everything being reduced a bit in general, the game is on steroids compared to before HOT. @apharma.3741 +1 the problem is we need stacked damage to be able to perform burst combos able to take down bunkers. beause sustained damage is lower then sutained healing when fighting a bunker with tons of damage mitigation /boons etc. if you just remove stacking from direct damage we would deal tons of more damage with conditions.if there would be alot less healing and less boons then maybedo you remember good times when blasting fields was^actually good for healing? sure there was alot less damage around, but now there is so much healing no one would bother with a water field. This is just incorrect, any class with reasonable damage can kill a full minstrel firebrand (some classes are harder but that's the ones that don't really contribute in minstrel) given a reasonable amount of time, at least I never struggle with killing them on any reasonable build, ofc it takes a while. Sustained damage is incredibly high, burst damage is insanely over the top to a very unhealthy degree, sustained healing is definitively not higher than sustained damage atm. if they just stand still to let you hit them sure and you still kill them in bursts not in sustained damage.but surely worth the necro ;)It was on the first page tho, not my fault the WvW forum is dead (like the gamemode). You can kill any of the slower high sustain builds, you can't kill full minstrel druids that instantly run away when they see you ofc, but that isn't due to their mediocre sustain but due to their obscene mobility. Not every class kills in bursts.

would result in a very dull bunker meta and only condition damage in offensive builds. It wouldn't be the only change, but the general idea would be to stop damage buffs from stacking, rather increase each damage buff, and make it more about managing upkeeps of them rather than stacking on top of each others. That way ANet could (if they wanted to) keep the power creep more in check, by having a max damage +X% and restrict the uptime. (Unfortunately I'm not good enough to be able to pull good numbers from my head, so I won't try) I'd also like to see just about everything being reduced a bit in general, the game is on steroids compared to before HOT. @apharma.3741 +1 the problem is we need stacked damage to be able to perform burst combos able to take down bunkers. beause sustained damage is lower then sutained healing when fighting a bunker with tons of damage mitigation /boons etc. if you just remove stacking from direct damage we would deal tons of more damage with conditions.if there would be alot less healing and less boons then maybedo you remember good times when blasting fields was^actually good for healing? sure there was alot less damage around, but now there is so much healing no one would bother with a water field.This is just incorrect, any class with reasonable damage can kill a full minstrel firebrand (some classes are harder but that's the ones that don't really contribute in minstrel) given a reasonable amount of time, at least I never struggle with killing them on any reasonable build, ofc it takes a while. Sustained damage is incredibly high, burst damage is insanely over the top to a very unhealthy degree, sustained healing is definitively not higher than sustained damage atm.

Fix the mystic forge ui. At the very least allow us to just spam the craft button without putting the 4 items back. Personally I'd prefer if they completely remade the ui but my first suggestion is more realistic. Remove empyreal fragments/bloodstone dust/dragonite ore from the recipes of BiS consumables. Having to farm silverwastes just to be and to do WvW is really tedious. Making these three materials not account bound would also fix things. Remove timegating from BiS items. WvW infusions need laurels or tickets both if these are timegated. Making them sellable would be another solution. Dream is addons, but I would settle for customizable UI. Anet said they don't want you needing to "play the UI" yet this game is the only game where I've ever felt like I am, adding customization to it allows us to spend less time looking at it as it will be clearer.

You think that people stop playing because the game isn't rewarding them and not because people lose interest in what the game offers?It's really difficult to retain members from any organization, regardless of its purpose. Of the many veterans I know who stopped playing or play less than they they used to, not a single one left because the game failed to reward them more for being a veteran: they changed jobs, changed relationships, found newer games, found other hobbies, and in a lot of cases, just found that 1 new story every 3 months wasn't enough to keep their interest. Besides that, Veterans already get rewarded with AP chests, birthday presents, and simply being able to work on both the latest collections as well as "backfill" the old ones. I'm not at all against ANet increasing the later AP rewards (even if it's not retroactive). But neither do I think it will have any noticeable effect on veteran attrition. This post pretty much nailed it. People don't leave a game because they don't get rewarded, they leave because they either don't have time or feel that there's nothing fun to do in the game. At least that is how it is for me, I recently came back from a 8 month break, mainly because there's nothing else out there really. Just 3 days before I left I dropped a precursor, for the first and only time in about 8k logged in hours. This did not in at all make me want to stay, rewards only make you happy if you're already happy with the game and not considering quitting. Therefore largely irrelevant in player retention. Clearly OP would want to get some new shinies for free, who doesn't but this system would mainly feel like a punishment for new players. If any reward systems need to be changed it's the massive timegating of everything in this game including BiS gear for some content (laurels) and pseudo-timegated stuff.

You can on 3 classes, very easily except possibly against people playing these same 3 classes (but usually you can cause disengages are easier than chasing). You don't need to keep it in mind if you class has several long range teleports/leaps and possibly stealth. yes there are professions with the tools to disengage a fight. yet you still need them ready for a disengage and are not allowed to use them offensively if you think you might need to disengage. they do not have a magic 0 cost 'i am outta here' button.Which is exactly how everyone uses them. You don't blink into a fight on mesmer for example (overgeneralization as there's obviously times to use them to engage). Also against a lot of classes you have enough mobility skills to do both, or one like shadowstep that allow you to do both with 1 skill. I value my time, therefore I like spending it doing something I find fun, such as having challenging fights where it matters what I do. Now if you don't find that fun that's your business, if you'd rather play the objectives to ahead, but that clearly isn't for everyone. But saying that people who don't play the objectives are wasting their time is just an incredibly strange statement. Also you're calling me narrow-minded after literally saying you can fail at picking what you want to do with your time in a game. You mean like the person who think that everything that isn't scouting or zerging is dueling? I am not saying what I am doing is better, I am just saying what roaming is, frankly objective playing isn't really roaming, its more often just called scouting or could be called solo havoc. Trying to call me narrowminded for wanting a term used correctly is just silly, try keeping a higher debate level in the future please.exactly, you want us to use the term the way you think it is correct. why is it so difficult to apply a broader meaning to what 'roaming' is? and yes i do think myself a roamer and kind of feel a bit offended as you claim that whatever i am doing is not roaming, therefor i will call it narrowminded. during what i call roaming many people apply their focus on different things but trying to use a different word for the activities of every specific roamer would be a little much, dont you think? you just make it easy and say everyone playing like me is a roamer and the rest is doing 'something' but not roaming..I make it easy by following a clear defining of the word that as a nice bonus happens to be precisely what the actual word roaming means. If you care about your "contribution" you have a clear goal, which means you're not roaming. "to walk, go, or travel without a fixed purpose or direction" would be the dictionary definition, which while not directly applicable is still relevant. If you're offended by someone saying that what you're doing is more like scouting, then you're the narrow-minded one as you then clearly think "playstyle x is better than playstyle y". Which I have never said, I just said they aren't the same. I have never claimed that being a roamer somehow makes one a better person than the rest of the population, that'd be you. Applying a broader term instantly makes it less precise, we classify and label things so we can discuss them in a productive way. Including scouting in roaming makes the term more ambiguous and means that it's impossible to know what someone means when they say it.

A very big problem with caring about winning a match has to do how little you contribute to it and how little control you have over it. It's also why the amount of fun I have drastically drops as soon as my group did exceeds five until I afk as it reaches 9 people. If you consider the match as your goal then you're playing with a few hundred strangers and at best contributing 1-2% and that'd be pretty extreme. you have little control over the actual outcome of a match but you have control over your personal contribution to it. i dont care if my server does win matches, but i do care if i did contribute or not.Another one is that it's just not challenging, or at least not in a "I can improve and get better at it" kinda way, it's mainly tedious and revolves very little about fighting, it's kinda like sPvP (where the optimal is to never have any challenging fights) which I loathe with a passion. You can usually get in at least 2-3 decent fights an hour against most servers, bit less vs some. Varying ofc with time of day and so on.it is correct that it is optimal to never engage in a challanging fight, your performance in the fight as such is not what makes you win them mostly, its the selection of the encounters. but you surely can improve and get better at it. your infight performance is also a part of it but its just that: a part, not all. if it is challenging or not depends on both your opponents and the maximum you possibly could contribute. IMO fights alone are much less challenging as they are usually determined by build or envoiremental advantage, sure you can overcome build and envoiremental disadvantage with more 'skill', but is the fight really depending on your skill then or on your opponents lack of it? think about it. i dont think its 'challanging' to have the luck that my opponent is bad. it is more challanging to ensure getting many advantageous fights and obviously win them. an example: how do you see the difference between a bad and a good deadeye? everyone can run around on a deadeye and can have a really good k/d as the 'skill' requirement to avoid fights is minimal. yet bad deadeyes will be much more limited in the encounters they can choose as advantageous and then they actually have to engage in them and not be too afraid. most deadeyes i have seen are playing way too carefully without reason. Except you can have a fight that's challenging even if your opponents are terrible (when you're outnumbered). Winning these fights can be challenging and the result can depend on your skill, I have had fights vs multiple bad players where I after watching playback realize I misplaced and could have won, meaning I died cause of what I did.these fight as said depend mainly on them being bad, not you being goodBad and Good are subjective terms tho. That PvP in general (at least should) depend on the skill difference between you and your opponent(s) isn't really an argument here. However a challenging fight does always depend on your own skill too. This is because it's a pretty broad term, it's just any fight you wouldn't have won if you had played slightly worse, or conversely would have won if you played slightly better. Now this can include winning an 1v3 against worse players, losing a close 1v1 to an evenly skilled player or any number of other scenarios. You can on 3 classes, very easily except possibly against people playing these same 3 classes (but usually you can cause disengages are easier than chasing). You don't need to keep it in mind if you class has several long range teleports/leaps and possibly stealth. Also you mention failing at choosing your fights. There isn't anything to fail at unless you're using a very narrow definition of what a correct fight to take is. For me personally, when I am solo, I engage in all fights where I could have a chance to win this includes 1v5s I quite often lose, because to me dying doesn't matter. The only things I actually avoid to engage are groups bigger than 7 (unless I happen to know they are very very bad/new players and it's in a good location), thieves/mesmers/rangers (if they look even remotely competent) and people I know (or kindaish). The first category is quite simply because you never win 1v8s against even the most mediocre of players, no matter how good you play, which I guess isn't a problem. The second category is because I already know exactly how they will play, they will first disengage then burst me and when that doesn't work they will disengage and burst again, they will repeat this ad nauseam. The only problem here is that they generally pick to engage in a fight with me, which I can't really do much about as these 3 classes have so much more mobility than anything else. The last category is because with those people we both already know who will win a fight based on what we're playing (and how good the person is ofc) and neither of us would wanna end up 2+v1ing someone, therefore I only really fight people I know at dueling spots. According to your definition I massively fail at picking my fights tho. Imo there's nothing to actually fail at. You mean like the person who think that everything that isn't scouting or zerging is dueling? I am not saying what I am doing is better, I am just saying what roaming is, frankly objective playing isn't really roaming, its more often just called scouting or could be called solo havoc. Trying to call me narrowminded for wanting a term used correctly is just silly, try keeping a higher debate level in the future please. Yours is a perfect description of DUELING. You can find fights on that central island or outside SMC walls in various locations . Dueling is organized 1v1s Roaming is generally a unorganized 1(or possibly 2-3)vX (which includes x=1). The differences are so many, for starters there's no clear start or finish to fights, if you die you're opponent won't let you ress, more people will prolly join in. The problem isn't that you choose to re-engage them, but that they choose to re-engage you, sometimes 10+ times in a row. If they after disengaging wouldn't reengage me until I get bored/tilted enough to die, I wouldn't really mind.

There's basically no difference. I don't even know what you're on about but all the top tier dueling builds are stacked with multiple mobility skills FYI, which is incidentally the same as the roaming meta. I also don't know who said dueling is actually interesting, cause it sure wasn't me. Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing). in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention. Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights). I do not see the "goal" of a roamer as finding fights. I see it as objective based and information based. As example swords go up on a friendly tower or keep and I am roaming . I see it as my goal to get to that objective and ascertain the threat level so as to call in people as needed. If en-route to said objective I get involved with a long drawn out fight because I ran into someone on the way, I might get to that objective too late to prevent a flip. The same is true of camps and especially when one has been upgraded to Speedy Yaks or some such so as to get an asset upgraded to the next tier as quickly as possible. When i note on the map that an enemy force is moving towards a given camp , I will try and get there first, raise the alarm and try to hold that position until allies arrive. I will also often tail a zerg at the request of a commander on map so as to give details on numbers and the direction they are headed so that forces can be gathered to meet them. If a commander is flipping a keep with a force of 15 and I see a Zerg of 30 enemies headed from spawn towards that keep to defend it, I will raise the alarm. Oftimes a small group will break off from our group to engage and distract long enough for a flip to happen. As a roamer I also take it on myself when using WPS to get closer to a camp I might want to flip to do things like reset siege in those places. Most of the roamers I am familiar with do the same types of things. This does not mean I avoid all fights. In fact I look forward to those very few opportunities where I can engage in a 1v1. It only means I do not see this as priority.That was an almost prefect description of scouting. A downed player in 1v1 is mostly harmless, stomping gives score, cleaving doesn't. Stomping is just more effort. You're trying to make everything that isn't zerging into roaming, that's not the case. Then you exclude a very big part of the roaming community. The only roamers I have met never cap objectives except as a way to lure people, same with defending, would rarely join someone they don't know in a fight, have never in their life called anything in map chat (scouting) and just couldn't care less about these things. Nope dueling is a very specific kind of playing. It only contains 1v1s. Roaming is very often impromptu 1-3vX . But roaming is a particular playstyle focused less around objectives. "Roaming refers to the act of wandering or travelling freely and with no specific destination." would be the definition of the word, now ofc that could be a slightly different term in the game, but the general idea is the same, you have no particular destination in mind (objectives). Zerging has to do exclusively with numbers, being brain afk is a consequence of that, not the other way around. A very big problem with caring about winning a match has to do how little you contribute to it and how little control you have over it. It's also why the amount of fun I have drastically drops as soon as my group did exceeds five until I afk as it reaches 9 people. If you consider the match as your goal then you're playing with a few hundred strangers and at best contributing 1-2% and that'd be pretty extreme. you have little control over the actual outcome of a match but you have control over your personal contribution to it. i dont care if my server does win matches, but i do care if i did contribute or not.Another one is that it's just not challenging, or at least not in a "I can improve and get better at it" kinda way, it's mainly tedious and revolves very little about fighting, it's kinda like sPvP (where the optimal is to never have any challenging fights) which I loathe with a passion. You can usually get in at least 2-3 decent fights an hour against most servers, bit less vs some. Varying ofc with time of day and so on.it is correct that it is optimal to never engage in a challanging fight, your performance in the fight as such is not what makes you win them mostly, its the selection of the encounters. but you surely can improve and get better at it. your infight performance is also a part of it but its just that: a part, not all. if it is challenging or not depends on both your opponents and the maximum you possibly could contribute. IMO fights alone are much less challenging as they are usually determined by build or envoiremental advantage, sure you can overcome build and envoiremental disadvantage with more 'skill', but is the fight really depending on your skill then or on your opponents lack of it? think about it. i dont think its 'challanging' to have the luck that my opponent is bad. it is more challanging to ensure getting many advantageous fights and obviously win them. an example: how do you see the difference between a bad and a good deadeye? everyone can run around on a deadeye and can have a really good k/d as the 'skill' requirement to avoid fights is minimal. yet bad deadeyes will be much more limited in the encounters they can choose as advantageous and then they actually have to engage in them and not be too afraid. most deadeyes i have seen are playing way too carefully without reason. Except you can have a fight that's challenging even if your opponents are terrible (when you're outnumbered). Winning these fights can be challenging and the result can depend on your skill, I have had fights vs multiple bad players where I after watching playback realize I misplaced and could have won, meaning I died cause of what I did. Anyone can pick their battles, espec when you can just disengage if you turn out to be wrong. To me that's about as interesting as sieging. To me at least, only the fights are actually interesting and that's the way everyone I play with also sees it. > @Kylden Ar.3724 said: I guess, Anet designed WvW as a big-scale mode, where everyone can just jump in with his / her PvE-gear on (at least some ppl are doing this). So, I wouldn't expect Anet to introduce the PvP build system in WvW. Emphasis mine, just to point out, the use of PvE gear in WvW has been my biggest block to recruiting more players to the mode. They look at what it costs to gear up in even exotic of some of the meta types (Trailblazer, Commander, or Kitten Forbid Minstrel) and nope right out of the mode. Commander isn't meta anywhere, least of all WvW. Prices are low, getting a full set of ascended Minstrel gear isn't nearly as expensive as you make it out to be, not that I am against cheaper ascended armor tvo. Not had anyone I tried recruiting to WvW or the game on general blocked by the gold cost of gear. Amulet system would kill WvW. The only problems with the gearing system is how stupidly hard trinkets are to get for new players. Which could easily be fixed. They aren't a cost issue though.

Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing). in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention. Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights). no, just taking objectives is not the goal. taking the objective from someone is the goal. so i like to take objectives that my opponent wants to protect. that doesnt have to inculde an actually fight tho. and i usually go for towers/keeps. camps are just for supplies and sentries to help me track opponents, i dont see how taking them would be anything worth a primary goal - its just too easy, like killing other players. Well if you're talking keeps that's def not roaming. Playing objectives is the opposite of roaming. Especially if taking them doesn't lead to a fight. Killing other players here generally means finding satisfying fights, that can be a 1v3 vs bads or an 1v1 with a good player or w/e else kinda PvP one finds fun, even if it's something not challenging like instabursting semi-afk people from stealth. How is easy or not isn't really relevant to what it is, roaming is just a name for when you're very few people (max 2 maybe 3) and your goal is to find fights and you couldn't care less for the objectives/scoreboard. thats what roaming is to you. but that i guess is a big issue on this forum, there is no definition of what roaming is, that everyone does agree on. that makes it very hard to discuss anything roaming related. Well very few people refer to objective players really when talking roamers. Most discussions I see are related to the size of the group.if its just groupsize, then i am a roamer tho. even when playing for objectives. I am not saying it's groupsize primarily. I am saying what people disagree on when it comes to roaming is generally groupsize. However the vast majority of discussions I see come with the viewpoint that roaming is the opposite of playing for objectives. i dont think opposite is the correct term for it, but i guess i understand your view.that explains why people are so upset with 'roaming balance', if you play by your own rules within a set mode you cant really expect it to be balanced around your rules.as said above the fight as such is nearly impossible to balance as it will mostly be decided by kiting ability/range advantage. now one can be upset about that, if that is the only thing you care for. but once you play for objectives, once you play for score regardless of groupsize, then the professions are much more balanced and mostly the population inbalance will be your issue. and you can 'win' in your goals despite losing a fight. Yet quite a few people are just interested in having good fights and think the score is just a number they personally can't affect (to a relevant degree). You must realize a lot of roamers don't even stomp but just cleave downs after winning fights because they just genuinely couldn't care less about the scoreboard. I am included in this category. The problem is if there's no scoreboard/objectives etc there's noone to fight. But roaming balance doesn't have to be at odds with objective balance, the changes needed to the dominant classes in roaming could be compensated with changes that make them better at objective fighting (mostly more tankiness at the cost of mobility/range). I can personally feel satisfied after losing a fight too if I got the opportunity to play well and did so (and it some degree mattered). However losing a fight after not getting the opportunity to actually play well is insanely frustrating in a way that makes you not wanna bother to continue posting while losing a fight when you had the opportunity to play well but didn't is frustrating in a completely different and much less exhausting way. but dont you see that the only reason it is frustrating is because you only care about the fight and not about the reason to fight? the moment you priorize the objectives, you will approach fights differently and IMO as the professions are much more balanced that way it is less frustrating, wich usually results in more fun. having more tankiness at the cost of mobility / range will force you to approach objectives in a different way, you basically limit the diversity and options you have only to cater to people who ignore half of the mode they play. Well given that WvW doesn't actually reward you for "winning" with anything else than pride/satisfaction/fun it is a bit weird to say someone is playing it wrong. It's a gamemode where everyone sets their own goals kinda, it's not like there aren't quite a few roamers, even if it's ofc less than objective players. winning doesnt have to reward you for it to be the thing the game is balanced around. I'd say the game isn't that balanced, every situation is heavily imbalanced, just in different directions, 10 wrongs doesn't make a right. Also WvW is basically PvE balance with half of the sPvP changes, saying it is balanced around anything (in WvW) is a pretty big stretch. Even disregarding classes just by playing solo you're being inefficient, which imo isn't a problem. One of the many many many reasons I could never find caring about the score fun. A very big problem with caring about winning a match has to do how little you contribute to it and how little control you have over it. It's also why the amount of fun I have drastically drops as soon as my group did exceeds five until I afk as it reaches 9 people. If you consider the match as your goal then you're playing with a few hundred strangers and at best contributing 1-2% and that'd be pretty extreme. Another one is that it's just not challenging, or at least not in a "I can improve and get better at it" kinda way, it's mainly tedious and revolves very little about fighting, it's kinda like sPvP (where the optimal is to never have any challenging fights) which I loathe with a passion. You can usually get in at least 2-3 decent fights an hour against most servers, bit less vs some. Varying ofc with time of day and so on.

That's the thing with community defined rules. They can vary from person to person. I consider this roaming as long as you're doing it alone or with >5 friends. It only becomes havoc when you're deliberately trying to snipe undefended objectives. Trying to take defended objectives, or soloing them, is still roaming to me in the sense that you're trying to pull fights and being a nuisance. I used to do this almost exclusively pre-HoT when I would roam on my trapper Ranger. Soloing towers/camps, destroying siege in towers/keeps and hanging around enemy spawns/keeps was how I roamed. I'm not sure what else that could be called because I've never heard of solo havoc and PPT roaming is pretty much another phrase for it. Also, @"MUDse.7623" might just do the same thing I used to do. It's not about the score, it's about being such a colossal pest that pugs will dedicate a small army to your presence when you become infamous enough. All someone needs to do is say "that ( guild tag/rank/profession here ) is at X tower again" and 10+ people will show up because they hate you. After I stopped trying to solo towers, I became a sniper with Engi Magnet in zergs. I would pull everyone I could manage and would snipe commanders if I had permission from my own. I know lots of people hated it but that's the point. It makes them dedicate players to my presence and it becomes fun for them when they kill me. I don't care if they siege bury me, I have fun being annoying and I know when they finally murder me they're suddenly having fun too. This is a little different than roaming but, to me, a successful roamer is an annoying one. And that can be through various means such as stealing towers/camps, perma-contesting keeps, harassing spawns and forcing multiple players to waste a ton of time chasing you around. Imo to me you're basically describing the one person player version of a havoc group, you play the objectives by making people waste 5+ players chasing down 1 person. PPT roaming also works I suppose but then there's no term for the kinda roaming most people mean, which is quite different.

Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing). in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention. Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights). no, just taking objectives is not the goal. taking the objective from someone is the goal. so i like to take objectives that my opponent wants to protect. that doesnt have to inculde an actually fight tho. and i usually go for towers/keeps. camps are just for supplies and sentries to help me track opponents, i dont see how taking them would be anything worth a primary goal - its just too easy, like killing other players. Well if you're talking keeps that's def not roaming. Playing objectives is the opposite of roaming. Especially if taking them doesn't lead to a fight. Killing other players here generally means finding satisfying fights, that can be a 1v3 vs bads or an 1v1 with a good player or w/e else kinda PvP one finds fun, even if it's something not challenging like instabursting semi-afk people from stealth. How is easy or not isn't really relevant to what it is, roaming is just a name for when you're very few people (max 2 maybe 3) and your goal is to find fights and you couldn't care less for the objectives/scoreboard. thats what roaming is to you. but that i guess is a big issue on this forum, there is no definition of what roaming is, that everyone does agree on. that makes it very hard to discuss anything roaming related. Well very few people refer to objective players really when talking roamers. Most discussions I see are related to the size of the group.if its just groupsize, then i am a roamer tho. even when playing for objectives. I am not saying it's groupsize primarily. I am saying what people disagree on when it comes to roaming is generally groupsize. However the vast majority of discussions I see come with the viewpoint that roaming is the opposite of playing for objectives. i dont think opposite is the correct term for it, but i guess i understand your view.that explains why people are so upset with 'roaming balance', if you play by your own rules within a set mode you cant really expect it to be balanced around your rules.as said above the fight as such is nearly impossible to balance as it will mostly be decided by kiting ability/range advantage. now one can be upset about that, if that is the only thing you care for. but once you play for objectives, once you play for score regardless of groupsize, then the professions are much more balanced and mostly the population inbalance will be your issue. and you can 'win' in your goals despite losing a fight. Yet quite a few people are just interested in having good fights and think the score is just a number they personally can't affect (to a relevant degree). You must realize a lot of roamers don't even stomp but just cleave downs after winning fights because they just genuinely couldn't care less about the scoreboard. I am included in this category. The problem is if there's no scoreboard/objectives etc there's noone to fight. But roaming balance doesn't have to be at odds with objective balance, the changes needed to the dominant classes in roaming could be compensated with changes that make them better at objective fighting (mostly more tankiness at the cost of mobility/range). I can personally feel satisfied after losing a fight too if I got the opportunity to play well and did so (and it some degree mattered). However losing a fight after not getting the opportunity to actually play well is insanely frustrating in a way that makes you not wanna bother to continue posting while losing a fight when you had the opportunity to play well but didn't is frustrating in a completely different and much less exhausting way. but dont you see that the only reason it is frustrating is because you only care about the fight and not about the reason to fight? the moment you priorize the objectives, you will approach fights differently and IMO as the professions are much more balanced that way it is less frustrating, wich usually results in more fun. having more tankiness at the cost of mobility / range will force you to approach objectives in a different way, you basically limit the diversity and options you have only to cater to people who ignore half of the mode they play.Well given that WvW doesn't actually reward you for "winning" with anything else than pride/satisfaction/fun it is a bit weird to say someone is playing it wrong. It's a gamemode where everyone sets their own goals kinda, it's not like there aren't quite a few roamers, even if it's ofc less than objective players. To me the only fun part about wvw is having encounters where a combination of my build, my skill, my knowledge and my teamwork (when applicable) matters. This very often means taking towers or whatever, but I have lost many objectives and still imo won. Objective playing is just to me the opposite of this, I don't judge anyone for liking it, but I really can't stomach it. Would changing this to some degree reduce build diversity, in some scenarios possibly, but it would also massively increase it in other scenarios. Roaming is dominated by these professions to an almost ridiculous degree, I don't by any means demand perfect balance, just something more balanced and less obnoxious than this 2-shot hit-n-run meta. It's okay with me if the balance isn't great or even good, but no class should be able to pick all their encounters nor should any class have 5+ matchups that are in the 95/5 range. Nor should any class be able to disengage from basically every fight they lose without any risk. TL;DR I can't find objectives fun and I want how I play to matter in more fights.

Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing). in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention. Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights). no, just taking objectives is not the goal. taking the objective from someone is the goal. so i like to take objectives that my opponent wants to protect. that doesnt have to inculde an actually fight tho. and i usually go for towers/keeps. camps are just for supplies and sentries to help me track opponents, i dont see how taking them would be anything worth a primary goal - its just too easy, like killing other players. Well if you're talking keeps that's def not roaming. Playing objectives is the opposite of roaming. Especially if taking them doesn't lead to a fight. Killing other players here generally means finding satisfying fights, that can be a 1v3 vs bads or an 1v1 with a good player or w/e else kinda PvP one finds fun, even if it's something not challenging like instabursting semi-afk people from stealth. How is easy or not isn't really relevant to what it is, roaming is just a name for when you're very few people (max 2 maybe 3) and your goal is to find fights and you couldn't care less for the objectives/scoreboard. thats what roaming is to you. but that i guess is a big issue on this forum, there is no definition of what roaming is, that everyone does agree on. that makes it very hard to discuss anything roaming related. Well very few people refer to objective players really when talking roamers. Most discussions I see are related to the size of the group.if its just groupsize, then i am a roamer tho. even when playing for objectives. I am not saying it's groupsize primarily. I am saying what people disagree on when it comes to roaming is generally groupsize. However the vast majority of discussions I see come with the viewpoint that roaming is the opposite of playing for objectives. i dont think opposite is the correct term for it, but i guess i understand your view.that explains why people are so upset with 'roaming balance', if you play by your own rules within a set mode you cant really expect it to be balanced around your rules.as said above the fight as such is nearly impossible to balance as it will mostly be decided by kiting ability/range advantage. now one can be upset about that, if that is the only thing you care for. but once you play for objectives, once you play for score regardless of groupsize, then the professions are much more balanced and mostly the population inbalance will be your issue. and you can 'win' in your goals despite losing a fight.Yet quite a few people are just interested in having good fights and think the score is just a number they personally can't affect (to a relevant degree). You must realize a lot of roamers don't even stomp but just cleave downs after winning fights because they just genuinely couldn't care less about the scoreboard. I am included in this category. The problem is if there's no scoreboard/objectives etc there's noone to fight. But roaming balance doesn't have to be at odds with objective balance, the changes needed to the dominant classes in roaming could be compensated with changes that make them better at objective fighting (mostly more tankiness at the cost of mobility/range). I can personally feel satisfied after losing a fight too if I got the opportunity to play well and did so (and it some degree mattered). However losing a fight after not getting the opportunity to actually play well is insanely frustrating in a way that makes you not wanna bother to continue posting while losing a fight when you had the opportunity to play well but didn't is frustrating in a completely different and much less exhausting way.

Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing). in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention. Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights). no, just taking objectives is not the goal. taking the objective from someone is the goal. so i like to take objectives that my opponent wants to protect. that doesnt have to inculde an actually fight tho. and i usually go for towers/keeps. camps are just for supplies and sentries to help me track opponents, i dont see how taking them would be anything worth a primary goal - its just too easy, like killing other players. Well if you're talking keeps that's def not roaming. Playing objectives is the opposite of roaming. Especially if taking them doesn't lead to a fight. Killing other players here generally means finding satisfying fights, that can be a 1v3 vs bads or an 1v1 with a good player or w/e else kinda PvP one finds fun, even if it's something not challenging like instabursting semi-afk people from stealth. How is easy or not isn't really relevant to what it is, roaming is just a name for when you're very few people (max 2 maybe 3) and your goal is to find fights and you couldn't care less for the objectives/scoreboard. thats what roaming is to you. but that i guess is a big issue on this forum, there is no definition of what roaming is, that everyone does agree on. that makes it very hard to discuss anything roaming related. Well very few people refer to objective players really when talking roamers. Most discussions I see are related to the size of the group.if its just groupsize, then i am a roamer tho. even when playing for objectives.I am not saying it's groupsize primarily. I am saying what people disagree on when it comes to roaming is generally groupsize. However the vast majority of discussions I see come with the viewpoint that roaming is the opposite of playing for objectives.

Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing). in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention. Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights). no, just taking objectives is not the goal. taking the objective from someone is the goal. so i like to take objectives that my opponent wants to protect. that doesnt have to inculde an actually fight tho. and i usually go for towers/keeps. camps are just for supplies and sentries to help me track opponents, i dont see how taking them would be anything worth a primary goal - its just too easy, like killing other players. Well if you're talking keeps that's def not roaming. Playing objectives is the opposite of roaming. Especially if taking them doesn't lead to a fight. Killing other players here generally means finding satisfying fights, that can be a 1v3 vs bads or an 1v1 with a good player or w/e else kinda PvP one finds fun, even if it's something not challenging like instabursting semi-afk people from stealth. How is easy or not isn't really relevant to what it is, roaming is just a name for when you're very few people (max 2 maybe 3) and your goal is to find fights and you couldn't care less for the objectives/scoreboard. thats what roaming is to you. but that i guess is a big issue on this forum, there is no definition of what roaming is, that everyone does agree on. that makes it very hard to discuss anything roaming related.Well very few people refer to objective players really when talking roamers. Most discussions I see are related to the size of the group. Well if you know it won't lead to a good fight and will take a long time, then avoiding it makes perfect sense.

Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing). in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention. Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights). no, just taking objectives is not the goal. taking the objective from someone is the goal. so i like to take objectives that my opponent wants to protect. that doesnt have to inculde an actually fight tho. and i usually go for towers/keeps. camps are just for supplies and sentries to help me track opponents, i dont see how taking them would be anything worth a primary goal - its just too easy, like killing other players.Well if you're talking keeps that's def not roaming. Playing objectives is the opposite of roaming. Especially if taking them doesn't lead to a fight. Killing other players here generally means finding satisfying fights, that can be a 1v3 vs bads or an 1v1 with a good player or w/e else kinda PvP one finds fun, even if it's something not challenging like instabursting semi-afk people from stealth. How is easy or not isn't really relevant to what it is, roaming is just a name for when you're very few people (max 2 maybe 3) and your goal is to find fights and you couldn't care less for the objectives/scoreboard.

Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing). in that case i am very often not roaming, but doing something else. you will hardly be able to tell the difference tho, as the difference is just my intention.Then I guess you aren't, but the term generally doesn't refer to people who primarily cap small objectives (as their goal,while the goal for a roamer would be to find fights).

This pretty much right here is why the mode has turned into a meme joke (like the ANet attempt at eSports). The builds matter more than the skill levels. Cause Power Creep sells expansions. Until WvW also uses the Pvp build system (or a variant) there will never be any attempt at balance. Amulet system would make WvW more like sPvP which is worse in every way. More burst, less tankiness, not being able to focus your build (except as a burst build ofc) Roaming's purpose is to kill players, taking objectives is a way to lure people out, if objectives are your primary goal you're doing something else (not meant as a bad thing just not the same thing). Not that different really, most duel spots seem to allow max cheese reseting which is the roaming meta.

Cause noone wants to get #EXPOSED Also cause you normally fought these people before and don't really wanna fight the same person over and over, also cause fights between good players is mainly decided by builds. Cause it's low effort and you haven't found any fights in forever Depends on if you fought the person before and/or know the result already cause of the MU, the difference is skill between most good players isn't big enough to compensate for bad MUs.

One shots shouldn't exist at all ever, but as far as one shots or similar (multiple hits hitting simultaneously) goes, kill shot really is one of the least offensive ones there is, it is both telegraphed and takes plenty of setup. I agree with you with one shots should've ever exist. There shouldn't be any exceptions to it either; telegraphed or not. When there are exceptions made to the rule; it defies everything you do. It's like telling someone to not lie yet you are telling them a half-lie. A half-truth is a whole lie. "A half job is no job at all" Nerf all one shots or not to be taken seriously about resolving them at allOh I think this should be nerfed, I just the there are higher priorities on the one-shot list

One shots shouldn't exist at all ever, but as far as one shots or similar (multiple hits hitting simultaneously) goes, kill shot really is one of the least offensive ones there is, it is both telegraphed and takes plenty of setup.

Some items requires you to do map completion, some force you to do sPvP, some WvW and others Raids. Just because item A can be acquired one way doesn't mean item B should be acquirable the same way. Legendary is not another tier of gear, legendary is a huge "waste" of gold for a minor convenience. Even so you can get legendary armor currently from sPvP and WvW too. I hardly see how this is a problem.

If you are a warrior in raids the only real contributions you have to a fight in raids is Banners, Empower Allies, DPS and some boonhate (for fights where it matters). The DPS is not on your account, it is towards the boss, from your account. This basically reads as "I am aware of that I am performing poorly, I don't want people to see it however so I can leech of them and get what I want without contributing". You are entitled only to a chance to earn it like everyone else. You are entitled to have the ability to make your own groups where you call the shots.You are not entitled to people not kicking you if they don't want you in the group. Whoever is raid leader is entitled to kick whoever they want to, if people don't like it they are entitled the right to leave the group . That would be all of PvE more or less? Because this is raids. They are group content, group content is supposed to be made for groups, the only way to change this would be to remove support builds, which would kill the desire for many people to play PvE at all.