LetoII.3782

Six years of evidence to the contrary, the snowflake bubble is impenetrable

> @"EremiteAngel.9765" said:

> > @"syszery.1592" said:

> > When I look up the latest WvW videos on youtube there are quite a choice of videos from people who are not playing pure meta builds. Sure these are usually montages and hence they just give a selection of their best fights, but still they manage to do good with their builds. Or do you just call all of these non-meta builds _cheese_ and be done with it?

> >

> > Want an example? Here, it's not from me but I like the content and Firebrand is not meta for roaming as far as I know.

> >

> >

>

> I would agree with you that FB is not meta for solo roaming outside of organized groups as I rarely see them.

> I did fight one recently though and boi was he strong.

> And you know how strong a FB is for dueling?

> A recent 1 vs 1 Tournament held in the new PvP arena had two FBs as its finalist.

> Both FBs beat condi mirages, soulbeasts, spellbreakers and thieves en route to the finals.

> And needless to say, the Tournament was won by a FB.

> I asked the Guardian forums if they would consider using FB for roaming because they are so strong fighters but so rare.

> Their response was that FB is a strong dueler but lacking in mobility which makes it less appealing.

> I guess FB would be a slightly more mobile version of a Necromancer? Which well...can be bad against long range kiting foes...

> Against melee to mid-range foes though...FB is definitely up there in terms of fighting strength.

A build with zero gap closers, base move speed and 300 range attacks...

Gee wonder why it doesn't see much play in wvw.

That little arena is what made that build strongest

> @"Lahmia.2193" said:

> > @"DemonSeed.3528" said:

> > windborne note->warhorn5->any screeching bird XD

>

> The Eagle merged skills on soulbeast.

Aka the reason I can't stay on Soulbeast more than an hour. If only I had the code-fu to substitute in some other sound... Like something from a Brazzers vid

Only for you bby

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > > > If you didn't learn in the first 6 years why start now?

> > >

> > > Because those that learned 6 years ago are mostly gone.

> >

> > That's assuming the **vast swarms of clueless started last week**. I'd posit instead they've been here all along but had more people (aka organized guilds) to hide behind.

>

> We both know that assumption is wrong.

>

> The organized guilds leaving / not running nearly as often has hurt, and I can’t blame them for it.

>

> I guess my only point was, there is a vacuum. I think people will try to step into it, but without people to train them, (and this isn’t blaming anyone for that) it will go extremely roughly, because of the ‘vast swarms of clueless’.

>

>

I expressed my opinion on the matter roughly. My point was, people _have_ tried already. Every snowflake has a perfectly reasonable explanation for their behavior. However, having thrown aside the opportunity to pick up the torch (of organized team gameplay) from those before, the game now lacks the essential guilds standing up front. While people may say they want to improve on the forums, it takes a Cookie or Indo for a significant population to gather in proper builds. And as it takes a celebrity for most to even _try_, the commander pool grows smaller and smaller.

Myself, I'll shed no tears over the death of blobbing. But I'll not stand mute when the casual crowd that brought the game to this state seeks to give advice like textmanding and catering to snowflake whims.

Tl;Dr: there is no way to start commanding now as the population is largely unleadable. Attempting to do so is an exercise in frustration which will end up with you being scapegoat for the communal failure.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > If you didn't learn in the first 6 years why start now?

>

> Because those that learned 6 years ago are mostly gone.

That's assuming the vast swarms of clueless started last week. I'd posit instead they've been here all along but had more people (aka organized guilds) to hide behind.

If you didn't learn in the first 6 years why start now?

> @"Rysdude.3824" said:

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > > @"Kunzaito.8169" said:

> > > > @"rektu.8209" said:

> > > > Why would anet do that? They are getting money every relink.. They are just gonna milk it out till alliances come, and even after alliances, they will milk it out even more till gw3 comes out.

> > >

> > > People always say this, but are we *sure* this is actually a significant revenue stream, especially one for which they would compromise design decisions? Face it, the organized wvw pop is NOT that big. And I'm under the impression that the guilds that move don't pay real money for it anyway, they solicit/farm gold to convert to gems. I guess ultimately that drives the price of gems higher which is a small enticement for some other players to buy gems, but that's stretching the cause/effect motivator way past its limit, IMO.

> > >

> > > Let's say 1000 players move each relink. Since usually just one or two servers get stacked up, that seems ballpark reasonable to me. Now let's say 80% of those costs are covered by guilds that are already gold-rich or by farming, the other 20% are whales paying money or assorted guild members willing to pony up. That's 200 people paying $10 every two months to stack up wvw. ANet is not breaking the game for an extra $2000 every other month. If someone wants to propose different numbers I'm all ears, but I can't see it being wildly more than this.

> > >

> >

> > You're counting guilds, the following pug population is much larger. Only 200 people transferring per matchup.. really? Across NA, EU and CN? I think you're off by orders of magnitude.

> > Every gem traded for gold was purchased with real money. Last time I transferred I bought $35 in gems. 1200 me's pays a Dev salary for the year. Yeah, that's a big deal.

> >

>

> Is that really how much a dev makes? I always thought it would be more. Seems like too small a number for the amount of work they do.

>

Google says 55k so off by 100 transfers. I keep forgetting it's been 20 years since I job shopped. <,<

Whenever this happens to me killing an ambient seems to fix it.

I'll give you an example, Kaineng.

Six months ago it was the deadest of the dead servers. One of NA's trial alliances moved there.. About 200 people by itself. Now, the server queues maps even without any significant guild presence. It's gone from a "medium" link to a "full".

Second example Sanctum of Rall, right down there with Kaineng.. goes full one relink, right back to medium the very next relink.

> @"Kunzaito.8169" said:

> > @"rektu.8209" said:

> > Why would anet do that? They are getting money every relink.. They are just gonna milk it out till alliances come, and even after alliances, they will milk it out even more till gw3 comes out.

>

> People always say this, but are we *sure* this is actually a significant revenue stream, especially one for which they would compromise design decisions? Face it, the organized wvw pop is NOT that big. And I'm under the impression that the guilds that move don't pay real money for it anyway, they solicit/farm gold to convert to gems. I guess ultimately that drives the price of gems higher which is a small enticement for some other players to buy gems, but that's stretching the cause/effect motivator way past its limit, IMO.

>

> Let's say 1000 players move each relink. Since usually just one or two servers get stacked up, that seems ballpark reasonable to me. Now let's say 80% of those costs are covered by guilds that are already gold-rich or by farming, the other 20% are whales paying money or assorted guild members willing to pony up. That's 200 people paying $10 every two months to stack up wvw. ANet is not breaking the game for an extra $2000 every other month. If someone wants to propose different numbers I'm all ears, but I can't see it being wildly more than this.

>

You're counting guilds, the following pug population is much larger. Only 200 people transferring per matchup.. really? Across NA, EU and CN? I think you're off by orders of magnitude.

Every gem traded for gold was purchased with real money. Last time I transferred I bought $35 in gems. 1200 me's pays a Dev salary for the year. Yeah, that's a big deal.

Don't use guard for solo roaming.

You'll have a much easier time on Soulbeast or Holosmith

If they wanted to stop it, they wouldn't allow transfers.

Hint: they don't want to stop it

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> What can you do? Even if this feature was added, and you reported it, what then?

Is the answer lots of hazing and griefing?

I bet it is

Gee wonder why Anet hasn't jumped on this idea already.

I'd rather pay a sub but I'm in the minority.

No such thing as a free lunch Bois

Game needs more particle effects I could see the characters sometimes

Sometimes you want Filet Mignon

Sometimes you wana McRib

The skilled guilds got skilled by fighting each other, same for players

Nobody likes backseat drivers

Hence the phrase

> @"Inoki.6048" said:

> > @"syszery.1592" said:

> > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > > @"Fat Disgrace.4275" said:

> > > > > @"oOStaticOo.9467" said:

> > > > > > @"Emi.4152" said:

> > > > > > what EXACTLY should a thief be able to do in wvw? because at the moment thief is barely 2nd tier for solo roaming only because of the ability to get away most of the time, 1 v 1 matchups are horrible for thief. small group roaming... there are at least 3 classes much better for this. zerging... useless. whats the point? are we just supposed to quit the game or what?

> > > > >

> > > > > Hyperbolic much? You can say the same thing for Rangers. They have no place in a Zerg, 3rd tier for solo roaming because Mesmer is obviously 1st tier and thief is 2nd, and other classes are better at small group roaming as well. So...........

> > > >

> > > > Ranger how ever can actually fight and has a far better chance at winning 1v1 compared to thief, it dosnt need to run off the slightest scratch because they can actually fight back.

> > >

> > > Only if it is a sustained damage 1v1 does a Ranger win. Burst, Thief will win every time with their 1 shot from Stealth mechanic. Either they win from the lazy Stealth or they win because they keep resetting until they do.

> >

> > Yes, ranger does not have good burst...

> >

> >

>

> What the hell happened there ?

>

> This game is seriously going downhill. They're making it an FPS.

It's really not all that new

The average ranger is really, really bad and they drive the curve down.

If I see a 1v1 I'll watch from somewhat close.

If dude wants help he'll come closer by me, if not I'll watch or continue on my way.

Or not, mood depending. It's open pvp and the Eula doesn't cover duelling.

> @"Limodriver.4106" said:

> where is my 10k reward?

A sense of remorse for all that wasted life isn't good enough?

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"SnowPumpkin.1809" said:

> > > > Who else on NA in T1 agrees that things are extremely unbalanced with the links right now?

> > >

> > > ‘Right now’? I think that has existed in t-1 since link bandwagoning for ‘alliance practice’ started.

> > >

> > > People are mostly salty because BG got a link. Period.

> >

> > And justifiably so looking at the scores.

>

> Yes, because snapshots in time are completely accurate.

Snapshots take 24 hours?

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> TL;DR make winning servers win even easier.

>

> The argument for more waypoints completely breaks down with the way tiered objectives currently work and how they grind all action to a halt at low populations. Making more waypoints would make it pointless to play. Because in addition to T3 theres always going to be people waiting on arrowcarts. Sure solo roamers looking for duels wouldnt be hurt by it but it would completely kill smallscale havocs.

HoT killed havoc, this would just be a small pile of garbage lit ablaze on the corpse. After all, ewp is already a thing.

OP, why not advocate point placement wherever you please? Just open the map at spawn and BOOP! there you are safely tucked into the Zerg and ready for action?

Oh hey, look who's back and making them bait threads

If there was another tournament, Blackgate would win.

Even if you dispute this, you can agree the servers with no off hours coverage have no chance. You can also agree there aren't enough off hour players to go around.

Can it really be a positive thing when most of the playerbase knows the tournament has a foregone conclusion and their effort is futile?