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, Chaba.5410 said:
"Death sentence?" To be honest, that sounds more like a skill issue. There's a risk to be sure, but plenty of players have had no issues with them.
Lets break that down, so how often does your group fail to pull people from walls? Question two often do you have a player mount a wall and have 4 players apply stab so they can use the disruptor? Now once 5 have performed that act how many do you have ready to jump the wall or mount it to fire at the siege that was just hit? Now how often do players try all that solo?
Maybe that one could have been phrased better yes?
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Zepoolpe.9217 said:
Warbands?
Then the poll is missing the "WAAAGH!" answer.lol.
GrimJester of badlands has to say WAAAAGH !
And no, the war is not over yet... we dance on. friends.....
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Spiral.3724 said:
For me, I have a big guild with a great commander and fun guildies. It's about the camaraderie and teamwork to achieve goals.
But my second account doesn't have a guild and I feel unhappy about the loss of 'worlds'.
Why do roamers, scouts, gankers play WvW?
Why do YOU play WvW?I Roam, Havoc and Pugmand. My guild is small and on less and less, but have played across various games for decades.
So to answer your questions, a solo player has many roles. Scout, roam, and gank, and a lot more not mentioned. Yet those same roles can be filled by roamers and Havocs.
So why would a roamer player try it? Because its not easy. It ups the challenge. Why would a roamer go for a 1v1, 1v2, 1v6? Because they want to practice. And it part of the mental game.
Why does a player fill a Roamer role, to do the most with the least and slow down a larger side and make them use more to stop you. Even if you lose, you win.
-
WR is 6/14, we are closing in on this already.
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/studio-update-guild-wars-2-in-spring-and-summer-2024/
So what are you referring to?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:
The game has no reason to make you part of an escort event when you run past a dolly for 1 second, yet it does and at the same time doesn’t. It’s Schrödingers event.
So please clarify, what actually triggers the defense event?
What does Anet need to code to define the attack events that haven't been released?
If you don't know I enjoy your viewpoints and snark but you need to give some as well as snark. Its matter of balance when you see me reply. So where is the defense events breaking and how can we help Anet define failed attacks that are of value? Thoughts?
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:
I guess I don't understand when I read complaints about defender siege not able to do enough damage to attacker siege when there's a trick called siege disruptor that lets one now do more damage to attacker siege... and now it will be unblockable by default.
Because its a death sentence to use for defenders unless you have defenders to gain from your death or are on a class that can apply it without getting killed. So it ends up as a waste of supply for defenders and a stronger tools for attackers to use when targeting defensive siege like oil or cannon.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, Bobsies.4857 said:
I was reading the announcement from Anet this morning, and I'm left feeling uncertain about whether there will be one final relink before the permanent beta starts on June 14th or not. In the announcement it says as follows:
Since I was expecting the current linking period to end on May 24, but the announcement states May 31, could anybody help clarify whether there will indeed be one more relink before the beta or not?
The next relink was going to be on May 31, reading it now that we will keep our existing link until they switch things over on June 14th.
-
7 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:
Counterpoint: ANet seems to have done everything they could over the years to make certain we ONLY play in big groups. They seem dedicated to that "idea", so why would they change? (Not saying it's smart or good...)
tldr: Use rewards to encourage and teach players good behaviour/strategy. It's not as easy as it sounds like, and would need a lot of iteration and brainstorming to pull off.Agree its not a quick add this to do that and it wouldn't be the same for all players but finding and targeting whatever that is to encourage more people to want to win might help. What form is that in, agree it might need to be various things. This again might be a whole thread by itself. Example could see it based on activity, on placement, it might come in the forms of bonuses to other game modes, new achievements, new earnable over time rewards, placement rewards, temporary access to new reward tracks for the week following and so fourth. It might look like the wizard vault, you earn tokens and then choose what you want. Take inverse rewards as well, coming in last means your scribes have lowered build times to craft new siege for the new week, you get a discount for things that allow your side time to catch up. Its not a small topic nor one path I agree.
What I am concerned with is focusing on all the same scale of play by removing options for other scales of play and watching for changes that address your top line of just size matters. Doesn't mean I won't still try and 1 v 6, but that's not for everyone. And too many worry about their KDR which is what I think lead to some of the defensive nerfs. PPK and PPT were in reasonable standing though I think PPK could be adjusted to encourage balance in attacking and defending and in potentially addressing the issue of just jump the side that is down if in doubt so I admit the upcoming scoring changes are both questionable and encouraging at the same time. If it creates more of a wedge between PPT and PPK play then it will be bad, if it addresses issues in the others it could be good. If it encourages less public versus private tags it will be bad. All these things are interconnected and sometimes it seem like Anet loses focus on that or its seems that way in which they release their changes.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:
Besides, how often do you see EB with a massive queue and the other maps no queue or very small queues? So I say let's turn all maps into EB style maps.
I have to agree here, all maps should be three way maps and there are no HBL except in name status only. I also think all 4 should be unique but that's a whole different thread. 🙂
-
2
-
-
First off I love the development time so I hate to create counter posts on changes and especially ones we haven't tested but I can't say thanks either. At times it seems like they do these things backwards. Example we have scoring changes and reasons to win coming down the road so we are making changes to help with 'x' and 'y' to balance out 'a' and 'b'. Versus here is a random change that may not have been anywhere on the radar.
I think at times it would help to understand changes if they provided more whys of a thing to help players understand the intent. Example changing chilling fog to a heal mist, why? Posters made good arguments that for groups running conversions it added alacrity to attackers. Other posts provided examples to change the impact to be something that can not be converted.
Checking the wiki:
Some effects are considered conditions for some game mechanics so they can be removed with condition removal effects, but are not available in any profession or race skill sets, and cannot be converted into boons. Here are some examples of such conditions:
- https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/thumb/d/d7/Encumbered.png/20px-Encumbered.png Dwayna's Lament
- https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/thumb/4/45/Burning.png/20px-Burning.png Burning Pitch
- https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/thumb/3/3e/Corrosive_Poison_Cloud.png/20px-Corrosive_Poison_Cloud.png Mysterious Plague
- https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/thumb/7/71/Undead_Camouflage.png/20px-Undead_Camouflage.png Poisoned
- https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/thumb/7/78/Hamstring.png/20px-Hamstring.png Rend
- https://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/thumb/f/fb/Crippled.png/20px-Crippled.png Wounded
Don't have access to the heal numbers they are thinking but will it really do the same thing? Would it have been better to add a new condition that couldn't be converted or apply one or some of the above? There is where intent comes in. How much heal would it need to do to encourage a player to dive into a ball in the smaller rings to try and block it? And what benefits does it give to the outer fights? Was the prior tactic seen as a slowing tactic, or offensive one? If so why replace it with a heal one that does nothing to an enemy that is not engaged at the time? These do not fit the same goal. Would it have been better to still have it apply a damaging effect on the attacker that just could not be converted to a boon but could still be cleansed?
Take the change to the supply drop. Personally as a scribe and a player that applies a lot of tactics to structures (mine and any claimed ones that are without upgrades) it would be a matter of what is the overall picture. Is there a tag that needs supply to use to reclaim stuff, do a lot of structures need repairs, add supply drops. Are there defenders, are there scouts, are structures standing and holding, add fog. From the blog right now my first thought is just add the supply drop. So the change moves the idea from there is an either or decision to just my choice is now A. Now will I test and check numbers yes, but honestly I doubt they would add a heal buff that was strong enough that would make me say lets go for it and I try and go 1 v 6 if roaming to practice how long till I die tactics and how to plan on getting jumped when not expecting it.
Take the disabler to disruptor change. To me this moved the tool from its a defensive tool to now its only used when attacking. Unblockable just means more of the same, there is no reason to even think about trying to get to the oil since any smart attacker is going to increase the damage applied to the oil siege to burn it down faster. So this is another one would it have been better to have both disablers and add a disruptor? Walls are already seen as a death sentence for defenders but the trade off was your death could buy time for more defenders to arrive. Why risk that on the disruptor as an attacker since if you die applying it, you won't be there to apply more damage to said siege that is was applied to., so don't waste the supply on it.
Will need to create a separate thread but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to get a preview of the scoring changes. I say this since as I said sometimes it seems they go backwards, we are making these changes since we have these changes coming down the road. Example lets say the end goal is week-end rewards for server placements based on activity. Which could mean scoring means something, which means smarter play means something which means defending and attacking mean something. In that sort of light how do we get servers to play smarter, attack the bigger server or server in first place versus jump the smaller or server in third place. How do we encourage defenders to try and face more attackers. Some of these upcoming scoring changes might be to help this and these are pre-changes, but in a vacuum they just come up as what are these?
Enough rambling for now, back on this later.
-
3
-
8 hours ago, KrHome.1920 said:
This is still a game. People play games to make progress in one way or another. It does not make sense to apply real life rules here. Stalled fights are not fun for anyone. Players are getting the feeling of wasting life time which eventually leads to quitting the game.
Were the fights you were seeing stalled? Or were they prolonged fights? Aka were you seeing stuck outside or breached walls and defenders continuously running back blocking a cap? These are not the same.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:
unblockable siege disruptors is going to perma stall fights. this is completely unnecessary and going to break wvw.
Yeah remember disablers are gone disruptors mean you will just be able to burn down oil and cannons faster to break in.
-
If we want more balanced maps, we need reasons to win to encourage players to spread more and do more with less across all maps and timezones. Versus stack and roll since winning means nothing. What does this help? Class spread, skill balance and latency. Plus balancing 50 v x v x. You want to run with 50? You are countered by 10 groups of 5 or 5 groups of 10. Anet already said defending should not favor a side, so they want us to split up attackers. Give us reasons to do so then.
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:
So stop killing rangers and mechanists , gotcha.
Ngl they often don't give me defense credit.
lol internal jabs aside, be nice.
-
3 hours ago, cyberzombie.7348 said:
Yeah, though one tactic that never gets old with me is building siege behind the attackers. No one ever expects to get trebb'd or ballista'd from behind
They do, use that one as well, it depends on how mixed their groups are. It works better if the group you are flanking has less Roamers and Havocs intermixed. This again relates to tag dependency. Roamers and Havocs joining tag may less likely wait for a tag to request a terminate and deal with it. A tag that knows they have the mix might asks for a number of players to deal with it and return. That's before you consider Off-Havocs that are running with a tag not in a squad that will deal with side issues like this and other issues like slowing sups, reinforcements and other tasks to keep the most focused on the tag's target.
I use the term light siege these days since its just an hour of building siege in a keep. During tourney days it would be three hours to build siege up. Which is why its funny to see players still complain about standing in light siege and after it was already nerfed.
Edit: One of the reasons I could see getting back to winning and tourney is smarter game play. Not just zerging but spreading out to handling more everywhere. Reason to take and reasons to hold. How to do more with less versus just run it over.
-
57 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:
For some reason I read that as applying cryptocurrency to allied players.
That would be marginally more useful.
lol. On pull of the tactivator each defending player in the objective will receive coin every pulse so that they might have money to buy siege to retake the structure.
...2 weeks later ...
Ecto gambling up ten fold.
-
9 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:
Might as well give up defending then sigh.
Haven't most of us already done that?
-
1
-
-
On 5/5/2024 at 4:32 PM, joneirikb.7506 said:
Just a simple question to start a conversation:
Because the one thing I've been sitting back with watching the last two weeks discussions about the latest changes is that no one seems to be on the same page regarding this, and I think this is probably the most important basic thing that we'd need to agree on to have any kind of relevant discussion about defence in general. I don't want to do a poll, because I want people to answer with their own numbers, and talk about it. This might also change depending on the whole size of the encounter, so the ratios might work differently at 80vs40 and 20vs10 etc, but here's a couple of ratio examples to start off with:
- 1:1 (example 50 vs 50)
- 2:1 (example 20 vs 10)
- 10:1 (example 40 vs 4)
(Oh look, I made a short post, I'm proud!)
A boon group versus not is going to win in a 1:1 or a 1:2 and might in a 1:3. Attackers are more likely to win against a sieged structure since they can attack and breach before defenders can reach. I tested this via a 20 v 120 on two maps. 20 could breach and take multiple targets before the 120 could split and respond. Now imagine if the 120 did the same? Now granted splitting up is a factor of why win? And it makes it even worse when 20 try and hold 60. The more defense is nerfed, why try and hold? So if Anet continues this route then they need to up the ante to defend else why do so?
-
17 hours ago, Paleglider.2407 said:
Can somebody explain to me what the requirements are for recieving the reward?
Kill a player of value.
-
5 hours ago, cyberzombie.7348 said:
I'd say 1:1 would be ideal. After that it should boil down to whomever best at strategizing siege placement.
Siege was a mental game before it was nerfed, after it's nerf its even less of a factor.
-
7 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:
How would you maintain that?
If you logon normally at 18:00 but suddenly you have a day off work and log on at 09:00 instead you are greeted with a “YOU CANNOT ENTER WVW AT THIS TIME DUE TO WRONG TIMESLOT” message when clicking on EBG that’s cried for more players the last hour as they are being double teamed even though it’s otherwise a perfect 1:1 population balance?
They are already at that level when they account for average play, just the sorting logic needs to account for it at the same level if you want to account for coverage. Take any restaurant, they are accounting for expected number of diners and when to manage staffing and food production rates.
-
Anet an update on this would be helpful. What is being done on this front? We lose players due to this, would probably rank it higher than WR.
-
1
-
-
So trying to defend in T3 with full siege against 2 v 1 attacker versus defender, does no good. Still seeing paper most places. If a side outnumbers, odds are good they are going to steam roll. Does this allow players to practice old school of use less to do more, yes. Does it create more paper everywhere, yes. Does it create more fights? No.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:
I agree with you. The best, most engaging, funniest expression of WVW is when the 3 sides have similar numbers available. But now in this post I don't know what we're talking about anymore. it's literally derailed on everything. Just complain to Anet about something.
A big part remains the same. What is the balance in defense versus offense. The last patch was stated as defense was in favor, a lot of posts were about but under what instances?
-
2
-
may 21 qol changes
in World vs. World
Posted
Lets face it the disabler to disruptor change was to remove defensive options from an already poor option for defenders to try. The change was to support attackers and probably resulted from players with stealth options having a better rate of success. Did it actually stop attacks, no, delay, yes. Even Roamers and Havocs would just need to make a judgement call of do we still have time let alone when you get into Warband or zerg size. If anything the larger the group the answer was just build more and keep going after you baited out the disabler attacks.