TheGrimm.5624
-
Posts
6,755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by TheGrimm.5624
-
-
1 hour ago, Gorani.7205 said:
WvW players (of the past, at the hight of GW2 after the launch of HoT) would throw gems/real money at them for customizable guild siege (like the winter's day catas that hurled presents), dollies of guild claimed camps having other skins (like winter's day present dollies), guards wearing the guild armour or are replaced by other races/factions etc.) Or more fancy banners and decoration on claimed towers and keeps...
There was a demand and ideas about cosmetics , they have just never been picked up.
This. I still think they are missing out on gem sales with siege and ammo skins. Said it before and will again. They will get there. But I also still think that gem sales are used too often as a reason for lack of development. Not sure if I fully agree with that since some of the largest whales I know are WvW players.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:
It's starting to feel like some things that were touched upon right as the changes came are starting to sink a bit into the mud, so adding this for my own piece of mind.
A very big part of the problem is the population, coverage and type of players difference on the servers, especially in EU where, as mentioned, the flaws with the system started to become extremely visible after the relink before the changes. With two servers dominating their MUs against almost dead or weak servers to the point people just logged in and out on all three sides due to lack of content. Prime example was WSR being linkless starting in T5 and crawling up the tiers while people just logged out in their MUs. The how and why's have been explained in threads to those that doesn't understand a few times in the recent threads. Nothing mentioned further down has anything to say or helps if server balance is as skewed as it's been lately.
A sense of achievement, or pride of achievement, is important to have fun in a game mode like this as it's the main motivation driver. It's kind of the general definition of having fun in the game mode. Every single debate in these last threads boils down to the simple fact that how you gain this vary. This is both where all the different play styles comes into the equation as well as everything about defending, attacking, balancing, metas, counterplay, countermetas, and so on. And it needs to be understood, or at least addressed, that removing ways to gain this pride or sense of achievement makes the game mode moot to those that gets their fun taken away. Trying to deny others their fun or sense/pride of achievement doesn't help the game mode towards your preferred ways, it just makes them.... leave. And removed your own ways of gaining sense/pride of achievement in process.
You can't make people like the same things you do. Simple as that. Making rules and strategies that servers "have to/should do" catering to your preferred type of fun and "explain away" what these last changes have done and how to get around it 👏does 👏 not 👏work 👏. And then I am not even touching upon the discrepancies in server population and coverage. Any perceived power over a server is a construct. If you think the communication is kitten, be an example. If there's anything you think should be done on a map, go kittening do it. Don't expect others to, don't blame others for not doing it. If you aren't able to yourself, get better.
By getting better I mean in ways that fits your way to play, style, level of skill, ability and effort invested - for some it's to time when to try to take a camp or a tower while things are happening other places, for some it's understanding what the skills do and how the synergies work, for some it's cooking up builds able to 1v3, for some it's how to have a main objective like EBG keep ready for an all out assault, for some it's building a comp that work in the intended or certain way, for some it's becoming a better commander in their preferred content, for some it's figuring out where to place siege so watchtower can't see you, for some it's learning to play other classes or builds, for some it's learning how to follow a good commander better, for some it's how to organize, for some it's how to help commander with callouts in fights, for some it's building up a core guild group, for some it's being able to swap builds on the fly, for some it's how to scout in a way that's helpful, for some it's to learn what's actually helpful to bring to a voice squad, for some it's being able to adjust to new balance or meta changes, for some it's when or how to use tactivators, for some it's just basic understanding of what other players and/or commanders can or cannot do due to game, player or map limitations.
It's not a sin to be carried nor a detriment to you, but not understanding that people can't be carried if there's no one to carry is on you. You might not like people doing battles on south camp, but the people doing that is what will carry you in another setting be it defending a keep or have a zerg rampage on a map. You might not care about tiering and sieging up a keep, taking camps or putting in the right tactivators but people doing that is what make them able to scout and stall things until you can go get a fight. Being a commander not understanding how players often doing other content are carrying you in the type of content you offer is kind of shameful if it takes too long to sink in, though.
If it doesn't matter what you do because the end result will be the same no matter what, why would you? Why would you repair or try to defend a keep if you aren't even getting kills, participation or ticks for defending? Why would you try to become a better player if it doesn't matter as it's just about hitting any skill that's cooled down? Why would you try to become a better commander if tactics and strategies are moot as long as it's about getting numbers and boons up? Why would you go voice to command to time the squad better and help new people learn if it doesn't really make a difference?
If you like it or not, actual living people is the main content in this mode. They're not NPCs, neither on your side nor the enemy sides. Even if you prefer PlayerVsDoor other people is your main content as someone else have to take the objective so you can too. And killing the diversity kills the population, which then kills your content, no matter what you want it to be. And it will affect your rewards, WxP, loot bags, kills, k/d ratio, PPT, PPK, weeklies, dailies, server population, pool of recruits, pugs, roamers, available commanders, whatever floats your boat or is more important to you.
You can't build the mode and classes/builds/skills based on a dream scenario with balanced server population, coverage and content because nobody has the same dream scenario and servers and links are currently nowhere near any balance. Be it devs or players with "good ideas". I don't pretend to have any quick fixes or some super insightful knowledge on how to do it, but that much I know. But I do expect people getting paid to do it doing it better than I or any other regular player would.
Well said and worth the repost.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:
I'll ramble a little more 🙂
(Nope not talking about balance, because that's handled by a different team)
If you look back at ANet and WvW, you can see that every time they spot a problem and tries to fix it, the same patterns follows. They identify the problem as it is as that point, they come up with ideas and plan out a solution, they start working on it, and when they finish it and release it, well the situations changed because of the time it has taken.
On launch the problem was massive queue's, so they identified the problem, through out a solution, and started working on EotM. By the time it was released, the queue's wasn't nearly as big a problem any-longer, because it had already taken a good while and the situation had changed.
World Restructure is probably the most extreme example of this. Back when they held polls and actively asked on the forums etc, and they narrowed things down to a couple of things that needed fixing and they set population as the top one, and started working on it (and then got pulled off, put on pause a few times, and then started again with a skeleton crew etc. Usual stuff). So bunch of years later, while WR is still going to be useful (for the background systems if nothing else), the situation has changed, and other things are affecting the game-mode/player-base more.
So if I was to point out the main problem with ANet regarding WvW development: They're reactive and their work-flow is too slow to keep up a constantly changing player-base. This could be because of various reasons, examples:
* Awkward/complicated tools/programs
* Low priority/resources (money and devs for ex, being told no by bosses)
* Company philosophy/design restrictions (overdevelop and only released mostly polished content).At the same time, if they constantly tries to re-consider their priorities, then the long development process will work even harder against them, and nothing would ever get done.
I'm not sure how they can change that. I'd make a guess that the thing that separates a veteran "realm vs realm" team from the rest is honestly just experience enough to be able to spot which direction the player-base is "roughly" heading, and start building counter measures before hand. From what I've seen ANet seems to change people around too much for anyone to be allowed the time to build up that kind of experience.
----
The only thing I'll say about balance is that it feels more like a conflict of departments. You have the balance team, and they're ordered to prioritize X over the rest, and only make small numerical changes for Y and Z when needed. And when you then put a bunch of mostly system-engineers on the other teams (like WvW) that might not be very versed in actual combat and balance, it will be near impossible for them to come with meaningful input or to argue against the balance team.
As I've suggested before, the WvW devs should still be able to make changes to Siege without interference from the balance team (Assumption on my part, since Siege is WvW only), so they could potentially use those to make sweeping/drastic changes (like mass boon-rips, big damage, etc). But in that case you got to realise that chances are high that the WvW devs are unlikely to be very good at balance, and those numbers would probably be all over the place, and they'd have to go by trial-and-error to find some good numbers for things. I'd expect anything from 3-6 months of highly random changes.
----
One related point, changing participation, is the single most powerful way ANet has to change player-behaviour at this point. If you got plenty participation for defence, players would defend. If you got participation for dying to another player, players would happily suicide into each others.
A lot of good points.
Take the conversation about boonballs as well. We have had boons since forever. What impacted them along the way. The Hammer (read melee) meta. Players that weren't in groups reacted to it as range it down which potentially lead to more boons. Which lead to more strips and conversions which moved us to the pirate meta. More range and less hammer trains. Which lead to projectile hate meta to counter the pirate meta and again potentially increased the boons. Then they looked at pirate meta and said the issue is the boon removal so nerf the strips and counters which leads to the current boon meta.
Joined a squad recently that wasn't doing well against another, their complaints were there were too many boon removal on the other side and they couldn't counter that even if I also say there is not a good balance to boons versus antiboon. So I get it, there are a lot of sides to the conversation. Balance is a moving target.
Still go round and round. The thing that keeps running through my head is the balance team stream where it was said that more strips and conversions were removed due to what melee wants to be hit with that when engaging and moving into a fight. Which is not the same as what melee wants to jump into another side while they have all those boons waiting to receive their melee attack. Boon vs antiboon balance is another point to juggle.
Some of the changes are reducing range AoE targets which lead to more boons. Should ranged AoE be 3 and Melee range be 5 and meet in the middle? Ideally the end goal is melee, ranged and support all being needed and the challenge is finding the right mix. That applies to small and large scale. For roamers, you want CC options to combat them both but not be OP that there is no reason for groups nor to allow a group to CC lockdown a smaller group. It's not easy.
-
1
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:
We are all children of Latin. We are all children of Rome. 2000 years later.😉
lol. De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
Not wrong.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Cael.3960 said:
As an example, this used to be the case with Mag and SMC (and perhaps still is, my server hasn't fought them in several months so I can't say for sure). With most of a map population sitting in SMC with tiered walls, fixed siege and placeable siege on every gate, many servers ignored the place altogether.
Going to pull this bit out. If any of these changes were made due to a Mag issue, it was a mistake. Rule#2. If in doubt attack the side that holds SMC. It's a three sided game. If two sides decide to ignore the side that holds more than the issue is the game mechanics rewards the sides to go for an easy win versus targeting the side that is in the lead or holds a stronger objective. A better change might have been to remove the WP from SMC all together. A side can still own it to gain its value but not gain the advantage of fast travel outside of EWP.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:
Numbers = Advantage
Organized = Advantage
Meta = Advantage
Voice = Advantage
Revive skills = Advantage
Target Caps = Advantage as you get more numbers, throw more aoes, mitigate more aoes.
Boon/Support spam Game Mechanics = Should not be an advantage one set of players get to take full advantage of, applying infinite boons should have a proper counter of removing those boons. Some classes fart and spam out boons. If you don't want counters in the game for that, then you have to place better/strict restrictions.
Snow ball mechanics are not fun, especially in a pvp setting, unless you're bad and want all the advantages in a game to carry you through everything, like using cheat codes in a single player game. Then you are just a pathetic player that doesn't actual enjoy sport or competition or challenge, stop saying you want competition when you roll up on a map with 50 players.
Stop being biased and do your jobs as a developer, and balance the game properly to all players and groups. There's no excuse that it's too hard, it's too much work, you can only bother balancing to big fat 50 squad groups. It's pathetic and sad it's gotten to this point, not everyone wants to play in 50 squads. Everyone should have the opportunity to play the game how they wish, whether that be a scout, roamer, havoc, defender, builder, dueler, zerger, blobber, as whatever they wish but that means all 9 classes and not shoehorned same support into 4 out of 5 for every single group.
Not be hampered because some meta blob decided to break everything because nothing stops them but another meta squad of 50, it's pathetic that you think only those players should "feel better" about playing the game, pathetic you continue to destroy the morale of defenders every single patch, it's pathetic when you nerf boon strips every single patch when I see groups in game calling for more boon strips, it's pathetic you continue to punished the little guy so "your friends" can "feel better" about rampaging through maps. All this wouldn't be a problem if the game was matching groups up in instances, but it doesn't, it's a mismatch across 24/7 in open pvp zones.
Maybe start playing the game outside of your blobs and walk in others shoes before you continue down this pathetic nerf parade because you still think somehow in someway boon blobs are still not strong enough and breaking into T3 objectives in less than 5mins is somehow still too slow. The game still extremely fun from 1-25 sizes, but above that it "feels like a slog with little payoff" fighting those groups.
Your small rings did not promote more pvp interaction, it chased it away, your tactical game play now is more players using siege to hit those circles in smc and run away as soon as the ring goes up. More often than not an objective will flip without defense counter because guess what, more objectives are paper and players have less time to respond! especially if they're caught in a 2v1 on them which is happening even more on the weakest side, so congratulations on continuing to make the game mode worse.
This is kind of still the question. What were the groups that were failing to take structures using as tactics to take it? Were they just just leaving a bread trail straight to the objectives? Were they not draining its supply first if it was full? Were they not employing their sides Roamers and Havocs? Not doing hit and runs to soften it? What it seems like is they were expecting to take it in one shot. How many servers leave more than 1, at best, in objectives when there are no fights around it? All servers should use defensive scouts. But that's part of the issue, scouts take time to get the word out and defenders take time to arrive. What I also question is how often are there equal population in a given time zone, across all maps in a matchup outside of perhaps reset? Given that at reset even odds might be good that there will a 2 v 1 against a weaker side that is down at the moment even during equal population times.
Appreciate changes in the game mode and development time, but groups that wanted to break into T3's were already doing so before this. Add the failed attack event as discussed to help the sides that were trying and failing if it was an issue of players feeling that the time was not well spent. If this was an issue of a tag not informing their squad that this was a hit and run or weakening to drain supply though, that's kind of a tags fault personally of not being honest with their group. Even worse if they didn't use all their resources to get a thing done. We have large scale, small scale and roamers. Any side should be at a disadvantage if they are just using just one of the three versus using all three.
-
1
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, DarkK.7368 said:
Reading a bit in this topic, is a bit heartbreaking. When I play with my friend, she usually says "I love that I can disconnect my brain and relax and kill and do stuff and get rewards", specially when finding a commander. She tries hard to play good, of course. But we are in the zerg with no responsability, just spam aoe stuff, and if you go down, wait to be revived.
Ouch. I Roam, Havoc and Pugmand. Part of the no responsibility is the tag just using too many to do a thing. This is also what I call tag dependency and it makes players stand in towers when there is no tag since they should already know what needs to be done without one.
21 hours ago, DarkK.7368 said:No compared to small scale fights where you get almost all responsability, and if you fail, you lose. Here people talking about strategies... Indeed something that long time I don't see and it hurts. I guess that's why I'm more into PVP. It would be nice indeed to experience that type of big commander groups with experience and strategies in WVW again, and not the called "boon ball"... But I almost never experienced another thing, I thought it did not exist in WvW XD
Large scale can play like small scale but most tags don't try it these days since there is no reason to win. But I agree the reason I like to Roam and Havoc is it ups the ante. How much can you do with how few. And if you have a lot, how much can do at the same time across an area and regroup when you need to.
-
3
-
-
21 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:
All structures being reset to T0 doesn't say anything about content.
This is a question to most. During your servers' prime time now, are most of the keeps T0 or T1? Personally that is what I am seeing. What are you seeing from your side?
-
2
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, ZTeamG.4603 said:
The pessimist in me wonders if that's the point of the way changes have been going. It's a shame that WvW has never really received much developer attention over the years, which is probably in no small part due to it not really having anything directly monetizable (just warclaw skins I guess) aside from the indirect effects of it being fun and keeping people playing the game long-term.
Not sure I agree here. Example, I have 33 toons. All were added due to WvW when we had lots of different, interesting and fun build options and wanted a variety of toons that had different roles and goals. I go on about the Feb 2020 nerf patch since a lot of those toons still remain shelfed. Is that balance? Don't know. To me haven't seen as much depth in build options as before so haven't seen any need to add more. With character spots come bags and other things. I think using gem store sales as a reason for lack of development is over used personally.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:
I would rather the watchtower tactic be a "sentry patrols" tactic with multiple patrols where the combo contains an actual tougher sentry type guard with longer range than normal. That way they would move around the area and spot people. You could counter and disable this "watchtower" by killing them, giving you some time before it's up again. And defenders would have to react to threats showing up even within tower proximity instead of having the equivalent of wallhacking from across the map.
In general I think we could use some more tactics in general and this could be a new type that I agree I could see value in. I also think we should be able to upgrade road sentries with tactics and move camps back to allowing more than one level personally. We are at the point that most things are paper already during active hours.
-
1
-
-
Power reaper is still solid and you have a mix melee and range options and good pull options. Also does well against its newest sibling Harbi.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Don't get me wrong, Harbi gives a number of my melee toons an issue. But they are melee. Are they the same against range or mixed builds. No.
But using old posts in the WvW forum. You are just creating counter commits that are no longer current after balance changes over time and other changes and lead to mis-posts. Create a new thread or take it to the class forums versus create the misposts here.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 4/26/2024 at 8:44 PM, Vavume.8065 said:
They probably won't.
Vavume, add feedback please. I was grumpy with myself for being irked for defense nerfs. But they were changes. Disagree with them but they were time spent. We need that. So to all, add feedback and change suggestions and don't be grumpy as I was. We all could use more dev time. Our sand in the sandbox needs some cleaning. Post feedback and whys and change requests.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Zepoolpe.9217 said:
don't think it was really a conscious choice 😄
I mean, I think their might be, how many ducks does each side weigh and is there a stake near by to deal with the imbalance?
-
46 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:
I remember that well. If watchtower were nerfed today, there would be so much negative feedback here about it too despite how it had nerfed the smaller groups from attacking.
When I wrote about sieging T3s, I had keeps in mind because they don't have watchtower.
WT is a boon to small scale. This is one of those issues. Same as sentries.
Those that want WT to be removed haven't tried to use it to their advantage and just want roamers to stand in towers.
Been going old school on peeps to use these to their advantage. I fear we aren't prepping players if we get tourneys back. WTs are boons to those that are not thinking it thru and a boon to those that are. Same as sentries. There is art in deception. Small scale gains in multiple ways with WT and sentries.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, kondo.9537 said:
He meant that ROF getting another week of dead servers linked to us.
We already liked that for 2 months or more idk anymore...
ROF kinda dead and got farmed as non active players.
NA, so thanks, trying to get perspective.
-
3 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:
Well to be fair it was the other person who directed the discussion towards dueling by doubting the effect of 800 stat swings in 1vs1 scene. He was convinced that stats worth 2 ascended rings or 4-5 S-tier sigils surely won't make a difference in a fight. He was the type that thought he would beat people when having no equipment at all.
If that amount of stats has large impact to 1vs1s on open field (>20% damage), it also has large impact to group fights (>20% damage between each player).. Or 1vs1s for camps, which is obviously very important scene since it isn't great for WvW if you always need to be with other players to play it.
This would mean whispeng enemy and wasting extra time
This would mean no viewers so no scene
"Closed doors" won't find any new duelers. Obviously if someone duels arond SM, then new players see it and say "OH, THAT IS OPTION TOO, I WANT TO TRY IT". If you are in guild hall, they wont see it. So the scene will slowly die.
This would mean finding next duel takes longer
This means whispering people and having 90% chance they don't want to do it. When someone stands in dueling spot, it is 100% guaranteed to be a duel.
NPC areas are gankzones and EotM dueling spots are extremely far from spawns. The EotM arena is also capped to like 2 duels OR 1 GvG for whole region.
Dueling isn't about "doing it 100% of the time", but doing it during downtime and trying out your builds. The reason why scene was so popular back in the day is because you went to one spot, and you had multiple duels going with multiple viewers. So you had choice... And it only took no time to be fighting.. Other peoples duels inspired you to try out new builds. If a nice commander or nice fighting activity showed up on map, then you probably stopped dueling. But until then, dueling was by far the most interesting choice.
So being able to be WvW and doing extremely fun competitive activity while waiting for other fun competitiive activities was the perk of dueling scene.
So what you are saying is we errored on the side of ktrains and paper so that some duelers would needn't to be bothered to go to find somewhere that makes sense? Got you.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Zepoolpe.9217 said:
Didn't realised it was dart session today
lol.
I admit I think this is where they choose to face joking versus use it as marketing to explain the why. We know WR is still inc, so I think they miss out gaining PR for the WR versus leave us as the image of 6 pints in and darts are in hand, who groups up next.
-
11 hours ago, LordTLZ.8743 said:
cool cool another 4 weeks of not playing the game cuz dead link
Mind sharing more info?
-
18 minutes ago, Sofie.8659 said:
So what are these dead links? In EU and NA? Just so i know if i am in one of them.. i feel quite alive tho. 😛
Serious question, i'm new here. ^^
First off welcome to Forum Wars 2, all are welcome. And as a first question quite a good one. And agree, no idea what LordTLZ was referring to.
-
1
-
-
The issue with coding as if all sides have equal numbers is it probably only applies for a short bit of time at resets. The rest of the time the odds are good numbers will not be balanced. Even under the WR project this will still probably be true. Home borderlands are designed that a side should plan to be double teamed. Happens a lot as well on EBG. So when balancing offense versus defense you can't plan on a 1v1 fight but need to consider a 2v1 fight. Put in place the failed attack event if you think fights were too long. Right now when double teams occur odds are high its not the two weaker sides going against the larger one, since there is no incentive for that, so that makes it even worse for the defending side since there is high potential they were already the side on the bottom. The defense options gave players more odds to deal with getting double teamed. If those remain out then consider game mechanics that encourage more of 1 vs sides 2 and 3 versus what we have now, more 1&2 v 3. Be that in loot encouragement or changes to PPK so that killing players in a higher position are of higher value to kill so there are score catchup mechanics in play in hopes that we can get back to reasons to win.
-
3
-
-
Honestly the video that was linked was a great example of the terrain issues as were the others in the series. if I was Anet I would take a watch of them as more an info sources on spots to put blocks since the content creator did the videos for that purpose. Saw one over at Fire on DBL as well that need to try and reproduce to create a ticket on once I see how they did it.
To the OP, no exploits aren't as bad as hacks but they are also not a green light to do.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:
We were discussing about 1vs1 duels in that particular comment chain.. It had nothing to do with attackers or defenders, just fair 1vs1 open field fight. I would post you screenshots of locations where people typically duel at and how they were all contained within objective aura zones... But they removed ability to post pictures on forums.
Also, if you can't feel difference of you having bonus 400 stats or enemy having it. So 800 stat swing (800 stats is worth over 20% damage, sometimes 30%). Then you probably weren't fighting same person very often. And you can see how this causes issues for anyone to find good timezone to play at. Of course if you are claiming that 800 stats doesn't affect outcome of 1vs1 fights much then take 2 ascended rings off (~600 stats) from your build and play the game. Doing this your brain will fill out the fact that 600, or 800, stats affects outcome of a fight a lot, and it would be stupidity to have that disparity in 1vs1s.Honestly I don't care about duelers. I do enough 1v1s everywhere already, it's part of the game in the norm that you don't need to seek it out, just roam. So if two people want to duel, that's fine, but if they aren't wise enough to choose a location where they aren't impacted by that, honestly that's on them. That shouldn't even be up for consideration on stat buffs. Duelers can go to an NPC area on the maps, guild halls, or EotM depending on the their servers. Stat buffs come into play when we are facing a surprise attack against an undefended location and defenders need time to get to the location. Very few servers these days leave scouts in any structure unless an attacking side is leaving a bread trail pointing out where they are going, and if they do, that's an issue in tactics on the attackers. So lets leave stat buffs in terms of attacking and defending sides, and leave duelers out of the mix when talking buffs in general and the conversations are less muddy.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
DB, its been fun, good hunting on your new link! DH let's see what mayhem we can do again. 😉
Exploiting into walled objectives is okay?
in World vs. World
Posted
That's a big no. Gratz you found an exploit. Just because others are doing it still doesn't make it not an exploit. Maybe Anet needs a bounty system. Find an exploit, show them where, make gems. And no, not all are doing it at off hours. A good number do it primetime which is why we see so many threads about it.