Zok.4956

At least it's not an angry rock CCing you (in trib mode).

There is already a discussion about EWPs. You might want to check out the following thread. There are some innovative ideas that Anet may also implement.

You shouldn't balance for just that. Just like you shouldn't balance exclusively for your "boonball blob is defending". You should try to balance for both scenarios, and if that's not possible, then for scenarios that actually occur most often in the current game. In such a way that both attackers and defenders have fun by balancing to a certain extent based on different numbers of attackers/defenders.

I don't think it has anything to do with a lack of imagination. But rather what the current reality is for many players in GW2. It seems to me that by "meaningful discussion" you mean to theorize without looking at the realities in the game. If a full Zerg actually hides in a structure waiting to be attacked and then defending it, that is a very rare exception (in my experience), but not the usual. And this passive Zerg cannot then be somewhere else. It is also the exception (in my experience now) that there are even fights when attacking/defending structures and the better one wins. In my experience, what happens most often is that a Zerg attacks when there are only a few defenders (and they can't simply become more because there aren't enough players at the time).

Thank you, yes, that is an important point. Anet is all about increasing interaction between players and that's why it would be bad if some players (even on other maps - these cowards) could hide from this interaction.

It depends, I guess. If the car has a color that you really like and that no one else can do, you might want the next car with that color, even if it isn't great in many other ways. I still remember how many GW1 players hated GW2 because it was completely different. One can assume that GW3 is very different from GW2. Maybe it won't be an MMO at all.

A distant friend (as a participant you shouldn't write about the closed beta) tried out the beta of Throne and Liberty (formerly called Lineage Eternal) a few days ago. While the mass battles surrounding sieges and world bosses are some of the most fun content in the game, the chaotic zergy nature of these brawls can get boring after a while and is at an even lower level than in GW2.

Good thinking. Anet could make it so that when an attack occurs, the attackers activate the WP and then only 70 players (attackers and defenders) can use the WP and then not only the WP is closed, but also all gates (for all teams!). So, first the 50 attackers could use the WP and then only a maximum of 20 defenders can come in. 50 against 20 seems to be a fair fight for the attackers and shouldn't last too long.

I agree. I don't know how that could be done. There is currently no global event like the Covid pandemic that has resulted in many people being at home and therefore playing a lot more in general, from which GW2 (and EoD sales) was able to benefit significantly. SotO probably brought many players into the game with the new legendary open world armor. But you can't repeat something like that at will. However, I feel like with some changes in the game, GW2 takes things from other games and becomes more and more like them. Possibly to get more players switching from those games to GW2. Of course with the risk that players who play GW2 (because GW2 is not like those other games) will no longer play. I believe that is the current strategy. Anet no longer dares to experiment with new things or innovations, but simply tries to continue what seems to be successful with more and more content bites and regular small expansions. In order to keep sales at the current level for as long as possible. I agree. NCSoft has already spoken about GW3 when asked by analysts. However, it is not really clear whether Anet is already developing GW3 or whether there are just thoughts about it. Because it is not clear whether an internal piece of information slipped out from NCSoft, or whether something was said incorrectly, or whether there was a translation error or something similar There are people who think that far too little content is produced for the number of employees that Anet has. So Anet inevitably has to work on other things. I'm not sure about that. Anet is working on two mini-expansions at the same time.

Just adding links to previous quarters for completeness:

Good idea. Put waypoints in all structures that all teams can use. This will be in line with Anets changes that "make fighting for—and in—objectives feel better for attacking groups" and "we also want to encourage player interaction so that large portions of attacks against structures don't feel like a slog with little payoff. " Because if a zerg has to wait 3-4 minutes to open a wall or gate, or if a zerg has to run through half a map before they can attack a structure, it will certainly feel like a slog with little payoff. There are no brakes on the hype karma-train. Choo-Choo.

Anet once mentioned that they are thinking about allowing server transfers again in WR after the team/server reassignments. Or they simply allow server/team transfers (as before). And then entire guilds change a server/team again. At the very beginning, Anet didn't want to allow server/team transfers for GEMs at WR/alliances. It sounds slightly different now.

Well, the point here is not to philosophize about any theoretical games situations, but rather what effects the changes have on the actual game play. And that's why many (rightly IMO) will talk about the unequal number of players when making changes like this.

Yes, my thought goes in that direction. However, it should of course be kept within limits and a single defender should not be so strong that he can take on a 50 zerg. This is just a basic idea, not a fully developed concept. BTW: I also think that you should have a certain minimum number of players to conquer a keep in enemy map territory and it shouldn't be possible to conquer an empty keep in enemy map territory with just two people.