Jump to content
  • Sign Up

New Generation Roamers lack the Bravery of the Old Guards


Recommended Posts

I had the pleasure of seeing one of the OP's pve heroes solo flip t2 nnc on alpine tonight. I arrived literally one tick too late to contest, then stood in the newly enemy camp and laughed at the other player as he cowered outside on his mount, refusing the 1v1. I thought of this thread and wondered if this was the kind of forgotten courage the OP is longing for lol . . .

What roaming needs is not players as 'bold' as the one described above, but rather something that will cause players to understand that losing fights is a crucial part of enjoying the game. We can't blame anet, they've already made fighting as free from consequence as possible. So what can we, as players, do to discourage this reluctance . . ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@acidic.4356 said:mounts are just the latest and greatest of anets failed attempts to make wvw great again.... if it wernt for the glorious combat system that we have, wvw would be totally empty (same for pvp)anyhow.... population decrease, mounts, auto upgrades, probably the reason u see t3 camps.... and also on rare occasions enemy might be actively defenddin it to tier up their structures....

WvWers: Mounts are too fast, we cant even defend camps before they run and take them!

Also WvWers: Mounts are too fast, we cant even take camps before they run and defend them!

Doesn't work that way.

Speed of getting to the camp has nothing to do with capping speed, you are also in enemy area and mount is slower than defenders. Time to get to camp or structure to defend however has been reduced significantly. So responding to a camp that still has the same capping time is an advantage to the defenders, not the attackers, anyone using the first statement would be incorrect, I have also not seen anyone use that statement here, and only see the second.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Gop.8713" said:I had the pleasure of seeing one of the OP's pve heroes solo flip t2 nnc on alpine tonight. I arrived literally one tick too late to contest, then stood in the newly enemy camp and laughed at the other player as he cowered outside on his mount, refusing the 1v1. I thought of this thread and wondered if this was the kind of forgotten courage the OP is longing for lol . . .

What roaming needs is not players as 'bold' as the one described above, but rather something that will cause players to understand that losing fights is a crucial part of enjoying the game. We can't blame anet, they've already made fighting as free from consequence as possible. So what can we, as players, do to discourage this reluctance . . ?

You call out the other player out for "refusing the 1v1". But really, why should the other player fight you in this situation? He has taken the objective and it can't be taken back for a while due to RI. It's not like he can really expect to solo hold NC on an opposing borderland, and he achieved the objective to reset the upgrade and delay yaks to other towers. Even if he wins the 1v1, you respawn and are back in 30 seconds, likely with other teammates as soon as RI runs down. The other player braved enemy territory, accomplished his tactical objective, and can now move on somewhere else that benefits his team. He's supposed to stay (and likely eventually die to a +1) because you want "duels"? Nah. I'd argue that he made the smart play and that you're the one who is missing the point a bit. The other player is a better, more useful roamer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:What roaming needs is not players as 'bold' as the one described above, but rather something that will cause players to understand that losing fights is a crucial part of enjoying the game. We can't blame anet, they've already made fighting as free from consequence as possible. So what can we, as players, do to discourage this reluctance . . ?

I like this question. Thanks for raising it.Though I don't have any proper answer beyond the obvious : the reluctance doesn't come from the consequences of fights.

Then what ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:In my own defense here, I'm not asking people to boycott meta builds and elite specializations. Play how ever you want to play. I'm just saying the people who knowingly play broken things and at the same time say "it's broken/OP and should be nerfed" just make me feel they're a part of the problem. Why do people play things they know are over performing and yet still beg for balance? To me it's like having a buffet of food, eating nothing but cake, and saying "there isn't enough healthy food here" while avoiding everything that is. It's hypocritical and frustrating. An observation rooted in truth but a blameless accusation. ANet may provide us with these tools and by all means, people can use what they find most fun. But blaming ANet for providing us with these things while relying on those things to save us doesn't help anyone.

Personally, I enjoy playing things that are under performing. That will differ for everyone and I understand that. But if you seek winning by any means necessary and turn to what you hate most to do so, failure hurts that much more and blinds you in the process.I don't care if I can't beat meta builds and I don't blame others because I choose to handicap myself. But it gives me a real clear view from outside looking in.

Not trying to put you on the defencive here. I just feel that going after player behaviour is barking up the wrong tree so to speak.

Player behaviour is, at best, a symptom of the underlying condition of the game. Treat them as you would any animal in nature. They simply do what they do to get by with the least amount of effort and with the best tools given to them. If one or a few professions become exalted over all the rest through bad design or neglect -players who want to win are going to play those professions -even as they hypocritically whinge and scream and kick about how overpowered they are. The alternative to this isn't to get better. It's to join them and then beat them or just quit the mode/game.

Why? Because There's an upper limit where skill is trumped by mechanical advantage and organically superior damage per unit time. It's much easier to fight fire with fire so that's what most people will do, even as they profess to hate it. I'm unable to fault them for this because they're just reacting to the environment provided to them.

There's no way for you or I, as players, to force other players to embrace or avoid one style of play over another. The only people who have it even remotely within their power to change this are the people in charge of profession development/balance. If they won't lift a finger to effect better balance then don't expect much to change. That they haven't for years upon years while the population has steadily declined speaks volumes.

It's good that they're making a show of caring/listening now, but as things are it might already be too late for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:I had the pleasure of seeing one of the OP's pve heroes solo flip t2 nnc on alpine tonight. I arrived literally one tick too late to contest, then stood in the newly enemy camp and laughed at the other player as he cowered outside on his mount, refusing the 1v1. I thought of this thread and wondered if this was the kind of forgotten courage the OP is longing for lol . . .

What roaming needs is not players as 'bold' as the one described above, but rather something that will cause players to understand that losing fights is a crucial part of enjoying the game. We can't blame anet, they've already made fighting as free from consequence as possible. So what can we, as players, do to discourage this reluctance . . ?

Agreed! I am not very good but never back down from a fight. What’s the worst that could happen? I die, re spawn and am right back to it. Practice makes perfect... A LOT of practice in my case

Link to post
Share on other sites

@GaijinGuy.8476 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I had the pleasure of seeing one of the OP's pve heroes solo flip t2 nnc on alpine tonight. I arrived literally one tick too late to contest, then stood in the newly enemy camp and laughed at the other player as he cowered outside on his mount, refusing the 1v1. I thought of this thread and wondered if this was the kind of forgotten courage the OP is longing for lol . . .

What roaming needs is not players as 'bold' as the one described above, but rather something that will cause players to understand that losing fights is a crucial part of enjoying the game. We can't blame anet, they've already made fighting as free from consequence as possible. So what can we, as players, do to discourage this reluctance . . ?

Agreed! I am not very good but never back down from a fight. What’s the worst that could happen? I die, re spawn and am right back to it. Practice makes perfect... A LOT of practice in my case

Listen,

I WILL FIND YOU,and you will rek me. My plays seemed to have declined a bit as of late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@thehipone.6812 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I had the pleasure of seeing one of the OP's pve heroes solo flip t2 nnc on alpine tonight. I arrived literally one tick too late to contest, then stood in the newly enemy camp and laughed at the other player as he cowered outside on his mount, refusing the 1v1. I thought of this thread and wondered if this was the kind of forgotten courage the OP is longing for lol . . .

What roaming needs is not players as 'bold' as the one described above, but rather something that will cause players to understand that losing fights is a crucial part of enjoying the game. We can't blame anet, they've already made fighting as free from consequence as possible. So what can we, as players, do to discourage this reluctance . . ?

You call out the other player out for "refusing the 1v1". But really, why should the other player fight you in this situation?The question raised was, why would they not? The fighting is the point, a reason needs to be given to avoid it, not engage in it . . .He has taken the objective and it can't be taken back for a while due to RI. It's not like he can really expect to solo hold NC on an opposing borderland, and he achieved the objective to reset the upgrade and delay yaks to other towers. Even if he wins the 1v1, you respawn and are back in 30 seconds, likely with other teammates as soon as RI runs down. The other player braved enemy territory, accomplished his tactical objective, and can now move on somewhere else that benefits his team. He's supposed to stay (and likely eventually die to a +1) because you want "duels"?

Apologies, but I absolutely never duel, at all, under any circumstance. I do however recognize wvw is a pvp environment and if I'm going to wp anyway I may as well fight first, most especially when there is no consequence to my success or failure . . .Nah. I'd argue that he made the smart play and that you're the one who is missing the point a bit. The other player is a better, more useful roamer.

I feel like your reply is valuable bc to me it goes to the heart of what is most wrong with the game mode. You state that avoiding the pvp aspect of the game is a desirable goal, and list 'resetting the upgrade' -- and apologies again but I honestly don't understand what that means -- and delaying yaks as more beneficial to the team. My question here is beneficial how? To whom? Are we talking about points? This was a Wednesday morning. Insofar as wvw even has outcomes, the outcome of neither the match nor the skirmish was in doubt. How could it possibly make any difference to anyone which faction controlled nnc on a bl? These questions are not rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations behind your perspective . . .

@Gop.8713 said:What roaming needs is not players as 'bold' as the one described above, but rather something that will cause players to understand that losing fights is a crucial part of enjoying the game. We can't blame anet, they've already made fighting as free from consequence as possible. So what can we, as players, do to discourage this reluctance . . ?

I like this question. Thanks for raising it.Though I don't have any proper answer beyond the obvious : the reluctance doesn't come from the consequences of fights.

Then what ?

Thanks :)

I think it's worth thinking about, and I'm curious as to whether anyone has an answer. Based on the one reply I received above it would appear that some players simply find the pve aspects of the mode more engaging. But I think enhancing the benefits or rewards of the pvp aspect would only make players feel more like they had something to lose when they lose fights and would actually do more to discourage fighting. OTOH, nerfing, for example, the participation benefits of the pve aspects isn't a great solution bc a lot of the time there just aren't other players to fight. I'm not sure it's a very easy problem to address. If anet could find a way to use the pve aspects of the game to encourage pvp, that would be awesome, but I don't have any ready examples of how they might do so . . .

As a player I've not been able to come up with much either. I always try to goad players who won't fight, but it's rarely effective. I also never do anything to any player who fights and loses, under any circumstance. Idk what stops ppl from fighting, but I don't think emoting at them or throwing siege when they lose is going to help matters :p When a new player asks for advice, I never tell them to find a tag and follow it, always tell them to go to home bl, look for stuff to do and expect to die a lot. I think getting players new to wvw from pve to expect death as a natural part of the game is important, bc in pve the encounters are designed for the player to win, and death is a failure . . .

@GaijinGuy.8476 said:

@Gop.8713 said:I had the pleasure of seeing one of the OP's pve heroes solo flip t2 nnc on alpine tonight. I arrived literally one tick too late to contest, then stood in the newly enemy camp and laughed at the other player as he cowered outside on his mount, refusing the 1v1. I thought of this thread and wondered if this was the kind of forgotten courage the OP is longing for lol . . .

What roaming needs is not players as 'bold' as the one described above, but rather something that will cause players to understand that losing fights is a crucial part of enjoying the game. We can't blame anet, they've already made fighting as free from consequence as possible. So what can we, as players, do to discourage this reluctance . . ?

Agreed! I am not very good but never back down from a fight. What’s the worst that could happen? I die, re spawn and am right back to it. Practice makes perfect... A LOT of practice in my case

This is the attitude we need to see more of :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@"Gop.8713" said:The question raised was, why would they not? The fighting is the point, a reason needs to be given to avoid it, not engage in it . . .

I spelled out the exact reasons why he was likely disadvantaged and not to take the fight. A smart combatant will choose fights to his advantage, when possible. It is idiotic to argue that someone should take each and every fight, especially when significantly disadvantaged - that's just dumb gameplay.

Nah. I'd argue that he made the smart play and that you're the one who is missing the point a bit. The other player is a better, more useful roamer.

I feel like your reply is valuable bc to me it goes to the heart of what is most wrong with the game mode. You state that avoiding the pvp aspect of the game is a desirable goal, and list 'resetting the upgrade' -- and apologies again but I honestly don't understand what that means -- and delaying yaks as more beneficial to the team. My question here is beneficial how? To whom? Are we talking about points? This was a Wednesday morning. Insofar as wvw even has outcomes, the outcome of neither the match nor the skirmish was in doubt. How could it possibly make any difference to anyone which faction controlled nnc on a bl? These questions are not rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations behind your perspective . . .

I never said avoid the pvp aspect, I said it made sense for them to skip that particular fight because it was likely pointless/suicidal. If you made it in time to contest the camp then a fight would have been appropriate to try to finish the cap. I'll happily jump in 1v2 in defending a camp that my team holds, sometimes winning or sometimes delaying enough for other teammates to arrive. I'm not going to go trying to fight that rifle DE camping around stonemist on my necro though.

Some good reading: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World The T2 camp provides more warscore when upgraded, so when you cap it, even if the other team gets it back it is reset back to t1 (and also preemptively prevent t2 --> t3). There is a wider strategy beyond just fights, of keeping objectives soft, denying supply, etc. People play the game for fun - some find fun only in fights, some in ppt and strategy, and others mixed somewhere in between. So what if the match is decided? It is still fun to be a pest to the enemy, steal their camps and objectives, and yes kill them too. But again, nowhere does it say that someone has to be a suicidal idiot and take bad fights because a couple of people on the forums are mad. Ever see a thief run away?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@thehipone.6812 said:

@"Gop.8713" said:The question raised was, why would they not? The fighting is the point, a reason needs to be given to avoid it, not engage in it . . .

I spelled out the exact reasons why he was likely disadvantaged and not to take the fight. A smart combatant will choose fights to his advantage, when possible. It is idiotic to argue that someone should take each and every fight, especially when significantly disadvantaged - that's just dumb gameplay.

You're not going to get a much more advantageous 1v1 than in a camp you just flipped. The only thing risked is a loss with no consequence, so a smart combatant would realize that there is no cost to fighting and losing, if you're just going to wp before the fight instead . . .

Nah. I'd argue that he made the smart play and that you're the one who is missing the point a bit. The other player is a better, more useful roamer.

I feel like your reply is valuable bc to me it goes to the heart of what is most wrong with the game mode. You state that avoiding the pvp aspect of the game is a desirable goal, and list 'resetting the upgrade' -- and apologies again but I honestly don't understand what that means -- and delaying yaks as more beneficial to the team. My question here is beneficial how? To whom? Are we talking about points? This was a Wednesday morning. Insofar as wvw even has outcomes, the outcome of neither the match nor the skirmish was in doubt. How could it possibly make any difference to anyone which faction controlled nnc on a bl? These questions are not rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations behind your perspective . . .

I never said avoid the pvp aspect, I said it made sense for them to skip that particular fight because it was likely pointless/suicidal. If you made it in time to contest the camp then a fight would have been appropriate to try to finish the cap. I'll happily jump in 1v2 in defending a camp that my team holds, sometimes winning or sometimes delaying enough for other teammates to arrive. I'm not going to go trying to fight that rifle DE camping around stonemist on my necro though.Why not? What is the cost you perceive in losing a fight? This is the motivation i'm trying to understand . . .Some good reading:
The T2 camp provides more warscore when upgraded, so when you cap it, even if the other team gets it back it is reset back to t1 (and also preemptively prevent t2 --> t3). There is a wider strategy beyond just fights, of keeping objectives soft, denying supply, etc. People play the game for fun - some find fun only in fights, some in ppt and strategy, and others mixed somewhere in between. So what if the match is decided? It is still fun to be a pest to the enemy, steal their camps and objectives, and yes kill them too. But again, nowhere does it say that someone has to be a suicidal idiot and take bad fights because a couple of people on the forums are mad. Ever see a thief run away?

This is what I mean when I say you prefer to avoid the pvp aspect and enjoy the pve aspect. You acknowledge that the pve victory yielded no advantage, yet you still see avoiding the pvp opportunity as a success, even though there is no consequence to winning or losing there either . . .

EDIT: There was another scenario at the same camp before it flipped, and perhaps your reaction to it might help me understand your perspective better. This was a different player from the third faction, still trying to solo flip the same t2 nnc but I made it in time to contest, and I wasn't alone. The enemy player mounted up and tried to run, but I pursued and dismounted him outside the camp while my allies remained at nnc, at which point the enemy player just stood there and let me kill him with autoattacks. Was this enemy player's decision also correct, from your perspective . . ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, I think your definition of "bravery" is just a tad off. Just because I've managed to find a few fights against those guilds you mentioned 1v1 doesn't mean that they don't all gank too. My guild is up for duels but equally as up for 3v1. Like, who cares anymore? When you spend enough time running loops around the enemy BL and all there is is a group of 10 people with siege and golems at north camp, you get bored.

But let's be real here right quick. Everyone who has any friends whatsoever has outnumbered someone, sometime, usually more often than not. No matter how good your guild is perceived to be, no matter how great of a duelist you truly prove to be, if you haven't ever ganked someone, you don't play this game. And if someone has a problem with that, I've always been willing to duel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

think all roamers have left building already for long time..

whats point to roam when ever class has mobility? dont give me crap like necro has no mobility etc cus i played quite long to point i just decide to quit and screw this game..i could roam on any class play most toxic builds it didnt matter i mained thief for ages but moment i lost my dmg to some random class that isnt even suppose to have mobility but they got it handed by anet and they can tank 10 times more then my thief while doing also 10x amount of dmg then my thief i just left.

people can throw crap at me now that thief is still good, yes i know its not like i got smashed all over the place infact i still manage to win majority of my fights but doesnt change fact that GW2 has changed ALOT to point they are trying to make all classes do anything beside a few who just get more and more crippled especially in WvW.these mounts where basically the last drop for me i tried playing with em i did for sometime but i just hated them it just pushed me away from gw2 and never looked back

i just check forums from time to time in hope gw2 rerolled everything back to good old days but that will never happen ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a roamer and have been since game release. What's changed? Aside from a reduced population, one of the biggest changes that has affected roaming is mounts and detection. Now enemies can see you coming from quite a ways away. When you get to the T3 camp, not only are you fighting guards (if you don't instantly nuke them) but you also have to deal with people who die and constantly run back over and over and over again - because of the mounts. Solo/Duo roamers used to be able to take towers, now during prime time you'd be lucky to build a guild cata/ram before enemies on mounts can get in the tower. I frequently fight outnumbered and used to love it in the past but these days it can be draining when you don't even get more than a few moments to recover skills, with constant streams of mounted people slamming into you until they win. The way it's changed is you pretty much have to be capping the camp before swords pop, or you may not be able to cap it at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Strider.7849 said:I'm a roamer and have been since game release. What's changed? Aside from a reduced population, one of the biggest changes that has affected roaming is mounts and detection. Now enemies can see you coming from quite a ways away. When you get to the T3 camp, not only are you fighting guards (if you don't instantly nuke them) but you also have to deal with people who die and constantly run back over and over and over again - because of the mounts. Solo/Duo roamers used to be able to take towers, now during prime time you'd be lucky to build a guild cata/ram before enemies on mounts can get in the tower. I frequently fight outnumbered and used to love it in the past but these days it can be draining when you don't even get more than a few moments to recover skills, with constant streams of mounted people slamming into you until they win. The way it's changed is you pretty much have to be capping the camp before swords pop, or you may not be able to cap it at all.

Scouts are vitally important these days. If something has a scout (even one who can't press buttons quickly) who is pointing their eyes at the big glowing rectangle in front of them, you're going to struggle to cap it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Strider.7849 said:I'm a roamer and have been since game release. What's changed? Aside from a reduced population, one of the biggest changes that has affected roaming is mounts and detection. Now enemies can see you coming from quite a ways away. When you get to the T3 camp, not only are you fighting guards (if you don't instantly nuke them) but you also have to deal with people who die and constantly run back over and over and over again - because of the mounts. Solo/Duo roamers used to be able to take towers, now during prime time you'd be lucky to build a guild cata/ram before enemies on mounts can get in the tower. I frequently fight outnumbered and used to love it in the past but these days it can be draining when you don't even get more than a few moments to recover skills, with constant streams of mounted people slamming into you until they win. The way it's changed is you pretty much have to be capping the camp before swords pop, or you may not be able to cap it at all.

Tbf if you're outnumbered you should expect to lose. I too enjoy fighting outnumbered, but if it is harder to succeed at it now than it was in the past I would count that as progress . . ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Strider.7849 said:I'm a roamer and have been since game release. What's changed? Aside from a reduced population, one of the biggest changes that has affected roaming is mounts and detection. Now enemies can see you coming from quite a ways away. When you get to the T3 camp, not only are you fighting guards (if you don't instantly nuke them) but you also have to deal with people who die and constantly run back over and over and over again - because of the mounts. Solo/Duo roamers used to be able to take towers, now during prime time you'd be lucky to build a guild cata/ram before enemies on mounts can get in the tower. I frequently fight outnumbered and used to love it in the past but these days it can be draining when you don't even get more than a few moments to recover skills, with constant streams of mounted people slamming into you until they win. The way it's changed is you pretty much have to be capping the camp before swords pop, or you may not be able to cap it at all.

Tbf if you're outnumbered you should expect to lose. I too enjoy fighting outnumbered, but if it is harder to succeed at it now than it was in the past I would count that as progress . . ?

Whats the purpose of this game if IT would be Just numbers VS numbers? I guess no1 would play IT, especially in a gamemode on which numbers are balanced by how players want IT (and not rgn)

And that's the problem of current balance and why most roamers left this game (yes its wave after wave of people leaving because of these reason) and IT happens every 4-8 months people leaving rapidly and some come back and some dont

And i do get it why balance is like this, i mean inplay for 5 years now and i can face someone with 2years more experience or a complete new Guy at the same time. So easy carries for builds like spellbreaker or mirage i do get

But its sad to see An enemy mithril rank still run full berserk spellbreaker, mirage or diamond rank berserk soulbeast which happens occasionly

Link to post
Share on other sites

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Strider.7849 said:I'm a roamer and have been since game release. What's changed? Aside from a reduced population, one of the biggest changes that has affected roaming is mounts and detection. Now enemies can see you coming from quite a ways away. When you get to the T3 camp, not only are you fighting guards (if you don't instantly nuke them) but you also have to deal with people who die and constantly run back over and over and over again - because of the mounts. Solo/Duo roamers used to be able to take towers, now during prime time you'd be lucky to build a guild cata/ram before enemies on mounts can get in the tower. I frequently fight outnumbered and used to love it in the past but these days it can be draining when you don't even get more than a few moments to recover skills, with constant streams of mounted people slamming into you until they win. The way it's changed is you pretty much have to be capping the camp before swords pop, or you may not be able to cap it at all.

Tbf if you're outnumbered you should expect to lose. I too enjoy fighting outnumbered, but if it is harder to succeed at it now than it was in the past I would count that as progress . . ?

Whats the purpose of this game if IT would be Just numbers VS numbers? I guess no1 would play IT, especially in a gamemode on which numbers are balanced by how players want IT (and not rgn)What's the purpose of the game if balance is so broken players can find builds that allow them to expect victory in outnumbered situations . . ?
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Strider.7849 said:I'm a roamer and have been since game release. What's changed? Aside from a reduced population, one of the biggest changes that has affected roaming is mounts and detection. Now enemies can see you coming from quite a ways away. When you get to the T3 camp, not only are you fighting guards (if you don't instantly nuke them) but you also have to deal with people who die and constantly run back over and over and over again - because of the mounts. Solo/Duo roamers used to be able to take towers, now during prime time you'd be lucky to build a guild cata/ram before enemies on mounts can get in the tower. I frequently fight outnumbered and used to love it in the past but these days it can be draining when you don't even get more than a few moments to recover skills, with constant streams of mounted people slamming into you until they win. The way it's changed is you pretty much have to be capping the camp before swords pop, or you may not be able to cap it at all.

Tbf if you're outnumbered you should expect to lose. I too enjoy fighting outnumbered, but if it is harder to succeed at it now than it was in the past I would count that as progress . . ?

Whats the purpose of this game if IT would be Just numbers VS numbers? I guess no1 would play IT, especially in a gamemode on which numbers are balanced by how players want IT (and not rgn)What's the purpose of the game if balance is so broken players can find builds that allow them to expect victory in outnumbered situations . . ?

Becoming on of there persons

Link to post
Share on other sites

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Strider.7849 said:I'm a roamer and have been since game release. What's changed? Aside from a reduced population, one of the biggest changes that has affected roaming is mounts and detection. Now enemies can see you coming from quite a ways away. When you get to the T3 camp, not only are you fighting guards (if you don't instantly nuke them) but you also have to deal with people who die and constantly run back over and over and over again - because of the mounts. Solo/Duo roamers used to be able to take towers, now during prime time you'd be lucky to build a guild cata/ram before enemies on mounts can get in the tower. I frequently fight outnumbered and used to love it in the past but these days it can be draining when you don't even get more than a few moments to recover skills, with constant streams of mounted people slamming into you until they win. The way it's changed is you pretty much have to be capping the camp before swords pop, or you may not be able to cap it at all.

Tbf if you're outnumbered you should expect to lose. I too enjoy fighting outnumbered, but if it is harder to succeed at it now than it was in the past I would count that as progress . . ?

Whats the purpose of this game if IT would be Just numbers VS numbers? I guess no1 would play IT, especially in a gamemode on which numbers are balanced by how players want IT (and not rgn)What's the purpose of the game if balance is so broken players can find builds that allow them to expect victory in outnumbered situations . . ?

Becoming on of there persons

So broken builds are okay bc everyone can choose to run broken builds. The trouble with that logic is it works exactly the same for ppl who want to argue that there's nothing wrong with the larger group winning bc everyone can choose to belong to the larger group . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said avoid the pvp aspect, I said it made sense for them to skip that particular fight because it was likely pointless/suicidal. If you made it in time to contest the camp then a fight would have been appropriate to try to finish the cap. I'll happily jump in 1v2 in defending a camp that my team holds, sometimes winning or sometimes delaying enough for other teammates to arrive. I'm not going to go trying to fight that rifle DE camping around stonemist on my necro though.Why not? What is the cost you perceive in losing a fight? This is the motivation i'm trying to understand . . .

Because DE rifle is broken and there is no point. It has next to zero chance to counter.

That is whats sad in wvw, you have to avoid or keep running because you have classes that give 0 chance or counters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...