MichaelArchangel.7251

Bumping this. Whatever Anet did today, 7/28/2020.... it's broken badly. We didn't have many people even, but the lag just whomped everyone.

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > @"mixxed.5862" said:

> > > @"MichaelArchangel.7251" said:

> > > > @"mixxed.5862" said:

> > > > > @"MichaelArchangel.7251" said:

> > > > > > @"mixxed.5862" said:

> > > > > > > @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > > > > > > The biggest imbalance problem in WvW are numbers, that being the amount of people one server group can muster at any given time versus their competitors. Servers that are always outnumbered generally can not compete .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The only side that a nerf to ACS and siege helps is the side with greater numbers. When AOE spells can be dumped on walls above and do more damage then those people above can do with ACS or cannons then this just more "he who gets there with the mostest" wins.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Given alliances seems to be a pipe dream and years off IF it ever occurs, this nerf to siege was ill timed.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There really is no point to people on an outnumbered server going out to fight the blob so what they generally did was try and defend what they could with thier smaller numbers while using siege to help equalize. What this nerf does is basically tell the outnumbered servers "There no point in going out and fighting those blobs when outnumbered 2 to 1 and now there no point in trying to defend an objective".

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Bad move.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Healing overall was reduced by about 33% in the february patch. This change was meant to bring siege back in line with that. In my opinion it was necessary.

> > > > >

> > > > > lol.... Funny. I see zergs shrugging off siege like they're nerf darts all the time.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Well, you're not supposed to defend an objective with just 5 people sitting on arrow carts hitting 111111. Arrow carts are still a very welcome boon to any defending team. That's the correct balance.

> > >

> > > Defending an objective should be easier than capturing it. That's... part of the defensive advantage. We were taught that you generally needed 3 people for each defender if assaulting a position in the military. More if it's a hardened target. Oh... and the defenders typically will stay behind their walls and butcher attackers. Sorties are generally used only to break sieges to allow supplies through.

> > >

> > > Or... we could just say f**k WvW as a battleground and just scrap the whole idea and do arena only.

> >

> > Defending already is much easier. GW2 is a game first and foremost. If you needed 3 times the numbers to do anything on the map it wouldn't be any good.

>

> How is defending easier? I am a Warrior on a wall with dual axes and there are 50 below with half at least with range. I step out, I am dead, I stand on wall I am dead. I throw siege disabler, its blocked I am pulled and am dead. I bring a ranger instead. Ranger, get some shots off, pulled of wall, dead. Fire into mass, its healed, I am potentially dead. So unless you have equal numbers then holding the structure does nothing more and more. A defensive point should have options to defend. Standing on walls are death traps already, they don't add a defensive or offensive bonus for just being a wall. You can upgrade the objective to have some boons but the wall by itself does nothing to help a defender. And when there are equal numbers, yes the edge should be to the defenders. The defenders can't just up and move the objective to somewhere else, where as the attackers hold all the cards. I want to fight them in the open, ok let's move here to draw them out or hit this other wall that has less defenses built up.

>

> Zergs are more easily dissuaded from their goals, but the answer to that isn't to make it more of a cake walk for them to take things but give them more incentive to face opposition and continue. ANet's answer so far is just give the defenders less reason to show up for the fight. You also have to remember it's already easier for an attacker to choose where they are going to fight and if it's more rewarding for a group to attack, why would a group switch from attacking to defend when their members will get more rewarding gameplay continuing what they are doing and keep attacking. Ktraining should not reward more than:

>

> * Taking something that is defended

> * Attempting to take something that is defended and losing

> * Losing while defending

>

> You need to create an environment where engagement is the end goal, people from both sides can and will show up and fight and feel it was worth their time. Be that thru fun, reward or progression of goals.

Just going to highlight this:

"ANet's answer so far is just give the defenders less reason to show up for the fight. You also have to remember it's already easier for an attacker to choose where they are going to fight and if it's more rewarding for a group to attack, why would a group switch from attacking to defend when their members will get more rewarding gameplay continuing what they are doing and keep attacking."

Spot on. Walls are generally able to be splattered silly with necro hell and ranger crap. And I agree. The rewards for capture outweigh any for defense.

> @"mixxed.5862" said:

> > @"MichaelArchangel.7251" said:

> > > @"mixxed.5862" said:

> > > > @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > > > The biggest imbalance problem in WvW are numbers, that being the amount of people one server group can muster at any given time versus their competitors. Servers that are always outnumbered generally can not compete .

> > > >

> > > > The only side that a nerf to ACS and siege helps is the side with greater numbers. When AOE spells can be dumped on walls above and do more damage then those people above can do with ACS or cannons then this just more "he who gets there with the mostest" wins.

> > > >

> > > > Given alliances seems to be a pipe dream and years off IF it ever occurs, this nerf to siege was ill timed.

> > > >

> > > > There really is no point to people on an outnumbered server going out to fight the blob so what they generally did was try and defend what they could with thier smaller numbers while using siege to help equalize. What this nerf does is basically tell the outnumbered servers "There no point in going out and fighting those blobs when outnumbered 2 to 1 and now there no point in trying to defend an objective".

> > > >

> > > > Bad move.

> > >

> > > Healing overall was reduced by about 33% in the february patch. This change was meant to bring siege back in line with that. In my opinion it was necessary.

> >

> > lol.... Funny. I see zergs shrugging off siege like they're nerf darts all the time.

> >

>

> Well, you're not supposed to defend an objective with just 5 people sitting on arrow carts hitting 111111. Arrow carts are still a very welcome boon to any defending team. That's the correct balance.

Defending an objective should be easier than capturing it. That's... part of the defensive advantage. We were taught that you generally needed 3 people for each defender if assaulting a position in the military. More if it's a hardened target. Oh... and the defenders typically will stay behind their walls and butcher attackers. Sorties are generally used only to break sieges to allow supplies through.

Or... we could just say f**k WvW as a battleground and just scrap the whole idea and do arena only.

> @"KIIIL.1860" said:

> Imagine .... Your parents have nine children. They love them very much and are proud of them, except for one. He wears the shoes and socks of his brothers and sisters. He is contemplated by everyone because he is fat and dumb. For every Christmas, 8 children receive gifts, and you are coal. Every birthday you spend with the same idiots in your treehouse.

> Presented?

> Congratulations . Your parents arena, and you are a warrior

>

>

> And you say. I BROUGHT A BANNER, I AM USEFUL !!! Look at my BANNER! BAAAANNEEEERS !!! )))))))))

This..... hits a little close to home.

Banners for warrior...

Yes. Play WARRIOR to be.... support.

Just bonkers.

> @"Lan Deathrider.5910" said:

> > @"Raizel Silverius.6430" said:

> > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > See, so you DO think it's undertuned. Don't you think a class being strong and easy to pick up (a.k.a "easy to play") is what lead to a lot of nerfs? I think a class can be easy to play AND inefficient due to being undertuned/overnerfed/call it how you want.

> > > Now if you think the class is in the exact place it should be "balance-wise", then ok, we can argue that it's hard to play.

> >

> > I am glad that we do agree on this part that it is undertuned. And warrior is a straight forward class hence it IS easy to play for new players. But that's about it to be honest. But in terms of using said class on high end game modes, does it really look easy? The way I see it, a lot of veteran players are having issue on warriors even though they are straight forward and "easy to play".

> >

> > Take for example casual T4 Fractal groups in PvE settings. How many warriors can you say that do the "average" dps based on the benchmark considering its supposed to be easy? For WvW, why can't all warrior players roam easily against other classes? In sPvP, why do some warrior fall off higher competitive tiers such as Plat tiers when they are actually plat tiers on other classes? If you call it because of underperforming then YES it is true. But doesn't that mean you still need to play harder on a warrior to be on the same level as the other classes?

> Going to chime in here, MOST players don't pull average dps numbers. I had a Spellbreaker in a Siren's Reef party that couldn't break 7k. But your last statement is spot on. Some classes are truly facerollers, but Warrior is not one of them.

> > When it was balanced, was it easy to play in said levels? Didn't you also try to play as hard as how the other classes did albeit a bit easier cause your damage output can actually put a dent on their HP?

> >

> > Being "easy to play" because of its "straight forwardness" is not a good indicator of it actually "easy to play". Else, we would have majority warriors the past few seasons on the top 20s in the leader board. And top DPS'ers are warriors with their simple game mechanics cause its "easy to play"

> >

> > As per the notion of it being "easy to play" that leads to it being nerfed. We'll ain't that true across all classes regardless of it being easy or not? The only difference it did to warrior is that those nerf affect us way more due to the straight forwardness of the class. Nerf Stance? that is a direct hit on our sustain. Nerf Damage? there goes our dps capacity since warrior is a 1 kill 1 hit (unless casting) type of class. And majority of the nerfs warrior did get was due to the constant forum post about said skill/trait to be nerfed. Remember the Arc Divider cast time issue that 0.5 sec was un-react-able but an instant cast from stealth is cause you can hear the skill being cast? Yeap.

> >

> > I do agree on this post by @"Rekt.5360"

> > > What does factor is the fact that when playing against one of the stronger builds you actively have to outplay them significantly to win your fights, because they just have a lot more going for them, than you do in your nerfed state.

> > This says a lot on how playing warrior feels like in competitive play.

>

> Warrior has a strong base chassis, and this is why I think Anet is afraid to properly tune it. IF it were properly tuned, it would be harder to kite, would be a threat to any class while in melee, and would be fairly mobile. As it is this class is very easy to kite, with the Feb power nerfs and CC nerfs it isn't really a threat to anyone as a glass cannon (really stupid, I'm more of a threat now if I roll Sentinel stats :grimace:), and while we have decent mobility its not like it is BiS or even second or third BiS. In fact nothing really about Warrior is BiS, and that is the problem. Anet needs to slightly increase some of the mobility, increase power coefficients by about 20% (more in some cases) across the board on Warrior, and continue to rework dead traits and dead weapons.

>

> With this Offhand weapon balance incoming I suspect that they will not see the increase they wanted in their usage and will further tweak the skills, but they also missed an opportunity to buff the associated trait. Granted there may be more in the actual release notes that they did not tease.

Agree with much of what you said. Especially the earlier post. Being rooted with Hundred Blades and Sword F1 makes those painful. 100 Blades doesn't even hit hard (unless might stacked, plus bloodlust and running quickness).

The class is horribly easy to kite. Our CC's got killed by draining the damage out of them. Too many skills have long telegraphs compared to other professions' abilities, and then hit like wiffle bats. Don't get me wrong... there's a lot for warrior to like. The execution of those things by Anet is poor though.

I'm about to switch up to my ranger. I hate to leave my oldest character on the shelf, but after getting 3 shot in WvW by a soulbeast with greatsword a little bit ago (22k health, 2600 armor), I'm left wondering why I even try. I know I'm not the best player, but I couldn't keep up with them, got kited, and then overpowered.

> @"SWI.4127" said:

> > @"MichaelArchangel.7251" said:

> > > @"jsp.6912" said:

> > > > @"MichaelArchangel.7251" said:

> > > > > @"jsp.6912" said:

> > > > > before patch wvw was fb, scrapper, scourge, war and rev

> > > > > now wvw is fb,scrapper, scourge, war and rev

> > > >

> > > > War? Warrior? Really?

> > > > There's maybe a few here and there. Top flight people that can manage. But it's almost non-existent in the top 4 tiers.

> > > > Now.... SB. When I see IE running a comp of 6 SB's with an FB or Tempest support, and just camping a spawn.... yeah. That's a testament to that. And scourge is just ..... I don't even bother anymore.

> > >

> > > just with Winds of Disenchantment speelbreaker is good, maybe not in 50 v 50 but seriously who care about balance this degenerate gthing

> >

> > Winds of Disenchantment got HEAVILY nerfed back in Feb. It affects 5 targets. Blocks INCOMING boons. It was strong back before that... but it's very "meh" now. Don't kid yourself.

>

> Are we playing the same game? It's probably the single most impactful skill in the game.

Must not be.... because your estimation of WoE is way the f**k off.

> @"saerni.2584" said:

> > @"Rikit Runk.5170" said:

> > Hi there, on my world it's quite common to have a perma-stealth thief camping in your Keep, waiting to port some others in.

> > And when said Thief is somewhat decent,it's almost impossible to remove him from your keep even when you hunt him with multiple people.

> >

> > To address this problem without nerving the thief to the ground I suggest a new mechanic that gets applied to you, when you're within an enemy Keep.

> > This could be visualized with something similar to a breakbar.

> > The Bar starts at it maxiumum value of 300 (seconds_allowed_in_stealth * 10)

> > each second in stealth deals 15 (10 + [Heal / second]) points of damage to it.

> > But each second the Bar gets healed for 5(Seconds_allowed_in_stealth * 10 / Time_Frame) Points

> > Whenever the Bar drops to zero you get revealed.

> >

> > so you can either spend your full 30 seconds in stealth and burn your bar to zero and have only little access to stealth for the next seconds or you only briefly stealth every now and then but you'll be able to maintain your stealth-bar for extended periods of time.

> > By doing so the thief can still use stealth to gain access to his strong stealth attacks and stealth related traits, but he'll have a harder time to reset the fight completely and hide in some corner. Giving his opponents a fighting chance.

> >

> > I believe this is a somewhat fair solution for all sides. It's not impossible to hide in keeps, but you have to put alot of work in, if you've been discovered to stay there.

> > Opposed to the current situation where the thief needs to kitten up is rotation before he can get punished for it.

> >

> >

> >

>

> What server matchup is that? I never see anything like this.

Hm. With NSP about two weeks ago inside SMC. Two thieves inside absolutely untouchable for .... 20 or so minutes. We nailed one finally. The other ported in a zerg once they jumped back to the map. Still have the screenshots.

> @"mixxed.5862" said:

> > @"babazhook.6805" said:

> > The biggest imbalance problem in WvW are numbers, that being the amount of people one server group can muster at any given time versus their competitors. Servers that are always outnumbered generally can not compete .

> >

> > The only side that a nerf to ACS and siege helps is the side with greater numbers. When AOE spells can be dumped on walls above and do more damage then those people above can do with ACS or cannons then this just more "he who gets there with the mostest" wins.

> >

> > Given alliances seems to be a pipe dream and years off IF it ever occurs, this nerf to siege was ill timed.

> >

> > There really is no point to people on an outnumbered server going out to fight the blob so what they generally did was try and defend what they could with thier smaller numbers while using siege to help equalize. What this nerf does is basically tell the outnumbered servers "There no point in going out and fighting those blobs when outnumbered 2 to 1 and now there no point in trying to defend an objective".

> >

> > Bad move.

>

> Healing overall was reduced by about 33% in the february patch. This change was meant to bring siege back in line with that. In my opinion it was necessary.

lol.... Funny. I see zergs shrugging off siege like they're nerf darts all the time.

Agree. The nerf to seige made them even more useless. Zergs already shrugged off multi ac's like water off a duck's back. With this.... they won't even have to pretend to care. This July Update really has me wondering what the devs were thinking.

Unless the little blurb about a revision to scourge is true....

> @"jsp.6912" said:

> > @"MichaelArchangel.7251" said:

> > > @"jsp.6912" said:

> > > before patch wvw was fb, scrapper, scourge, war and rev

> > > now wvw is fb,scrapper, scourge, war and rev

> >

> > War? Warrior? Really?

> > There's maybe a few here and there. Top flight people that can manage. But it's almost non-existent in the top 4 tiers.

> > Now.... SB. When I see IE running a comp of 6 SB's with an FB or Tempest support, and just camping a spawn.... yeah. That's a testament to that. And scourge is just ..... I don't even bother anymore.

>

> just with Winds of Disenchantment speelbreaker is good, maybe not in 50 v 50 but seriously who care about balance this degenerate gthing

Winds of Disenchantment got HEAVILY nerfed back in Feb. It affects 5 targets. Blocks INCOMING boons. It was strong back before that... but it's very "meh" now. Don't kid yourself.

> @"jsp.6912" said:

> before patch wvw was fb, scrapper, scourge, war and rev

> now wvw is fb,scrapper, scourge, war and rev

War? Warrior? Really?

There's maybe a few here and there. Top flight people that can manage. But it's almost non-existent in the top 4 tiers.

Now.... SB. When I see IE running a comp of 6 SB's with an FB or Tempest support, and just camping a spawn.... yeah. That's a testament to that. And scourge is just ..... I don't even bother anymore.