Balthazzarr.1349
-
Posts
763 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Balthazzarr.1349
-
-
Looking forward to seeing how many people I can power down with my killer soulbeast.... but mostly looking forward to the double XP again so I can hit the magic 4095 mark for Mithril rank. ooooyaaaa... #targetonback
-
> @"jul.7602" said:
> Go healing druid with full minstrel. If you're able to ping full ascended minstrel, monk runes, sigils of benevolence and healing food/oils then the commander will let you be int the squad. Any other build useless. Not trying to be mean, but you will not be welcomed to squad.
You don’t know my squads. ?
-
lol. All these years and I have never tried that one. I am going to have to try it just for the fun of it :-)
-
> @"shortcake.8659" said:
> > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > > @"DanAlcedo.3281" said:
> > > > @"shortcake.8659" said:
> > > > 2x longbow marks/skirm/sb and rain barrages down everywhere. you'll be everyone's hero.
> > >
> > > „Dies to retaliation instantly“
> >
> > rofl --- Dies instantly? oh hey, I've been knocked back... even lost a bit of health from retaliation.. but NEVER have I even come close to dying. Possibly because I know how to build my ranger... or more likely because retaliation isn't as nasty as most people say it is.
>
> if you are running dual longbows and barrage every 8 seconds, i can assure you that you most certainly will have an issue of dying from retaliation. you actually do pretty solid damage though if you aim them well, and throw cripple everywhere. And eat aegises. you gotta take what you can if you're playing a ranger.
>
.. the cooldown applies to longbow regardless if you swap to the "other" one... so having two of them is the same as having only one and totally wastes a second weapon set slot.
-
> @"subversiontwo.7501" said:
> > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > As for zerg support. Not every class provides support in a zerg. Don't even talk to me about warrior/spellbreakers because pfft. I've run everything and I kill so many more enemy with my soulbeast build than I ever did with any other class. Anyone that thinks that a solid super DPS class isn't needed in a zerg simply hasn't seen someone that knows how to run on properly.
> I don't necessarily disagree with you, however, I think that you are not factoring in all necessary aspects into this.
>
> Can a class be useful on sheer damage? Sure. Can a Ranger do that to a fair degree? Sure. However, are other classes that only do that in the meta? Are other classes that only do that wanted in a squad? Are other classes that only do that useful to a squad? There are alot of differences in that fine print, such as being useful to a squad or in a squad. There are classes like the Ele (Weaver) who more or less have a sheer damage role in the existing large-scale environment. However, the Ele much like the Ranger do struggle with only maintaining such a role (at least in a broad sweeping perspective). It isn't really meta in the most simple definition of current meta. As a damage dealer it also has access to more 5-target effects and more non-projectile effects making its engagement envelope broader. By that I mean that an Ele may not always do more damage than a Ranger but an Ele does not have to spend as much time picking its fights, it maintains its role in more situations.
>
> So there is a relation between meta - Eles - Rangers. That does not assume that a Ranger is impossible or even worse in all kinds of situations but it is further from meta. It has a smaller envelope, more of a niche, less of a role, is more situationally bound and depends on- or adds less to the composition of a squad. It remains a perfectly good class within small niches outside of- but with squads. If someone then wants to give a Ranger a squad spot for social reasons or to feed them some moderately useful perks that's fine. However, the Ranger probably remains better within a party of friends outside a squad in the current meta or environment. The same could easily be said for an Ele right now, or a Thief (DD). That's not a slight to the class, it's where they thrive and how you should play them if you are serious about contributing best as possible.
>
> It's just that people have problems navigating between the social and mechanical in WvW based on how the game works in general or what WvW has stooped to given available content and balance - the mode has a steep decrease in leadership and organisation with the loss various guilds. That is what has brought about this nitpicking about meta. In fact, Anet should not try to fit things into meta, that is just life-support, they should fit things into clear cut roles and encourage players to take initiative with organisation. In terms of the Ranger they are sadly doing the opposite by killing off whatever impopular but existing roles and niches it has/had while being seemingly incapable of fitting it into the mold (meta). Yesterday's patch was a glaring example of that.
>
>
I do agree with you for the large part. Ranger is definitely a niche and frankly if you are trying to get into a "fight only" group forget it. I love my Ranger and will play it exclusively as long as we are running a combination of ppt and fights. If the zerg I'm in wants to just do fights and no capping then I make the choice to either go run a havoc group somewhere, or switch to either my scourge or spellbreaker.
The distinction that people, even me, haven't really made is that Rangers really are NOT good in zerg vs zerg fighting. Ya you can pick people off and yes I kill a lot of enemy but I agree it's mostly self serving because.. I can survive ok on my own if I keep out of the way but I'm not giving support to the group other than kills. The other zerg type classes do that better. THAT is the issue with kicking Rangers out of squads. If, however, the zerg/squad IS capping points/keeps/towers etc then Rangers in the group are extremely helpful.
-
> @"Whiteout.1975" said:
> > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > > @"Whiteout.1975" said:
> >
> > > **Why is Downstate Necessary for GW2?**
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Because of hundreds of finishers that people have purchased, and more that ANet continues to sell in the TP etc... Imagine the screaming people would do if they couldn't use their favorite finishers... even though these days it's more important to just kill the guy fast, there will always be people who want to see that "awesome" finisher over the body of the dead enemy... and always be ANet making money off people buying finishers ;)
>
> I get what your saying... But I honestly just think they could rework the finisher's to just trigger on death naturally... Based on who delivered the finishing blow or maybe who delivered the most damage.
THAT would be awesome. Could cause some lag though with zerg wipes... lol
-
> @"DanAlcedo.3281" said:
> > @"shortcake.8659" said:
> > 2x longbow marks/skirm/sb and rain barrages down everywhere. you'll be everyone's hero.
>
> „Dies to retaliation instantly“
rofl --- Dies instantly? oh hey, I've been knocked back... even lost a bit of health from retaliation.. but NEVER have I even come close to dying. Possibly because I know how to build my ranger... or more likely because retaliation isn't as nasty as most people say it is.
>
> > @"vinc.6047" said:
> > As much as I love this game I am shocked that Anet has let the Ranger become such a horrible pvp class. Everyone should just run with Necro, Ele, etc and then they would have to fix this bs. The ranger is a crucial fighter in a large scale fight except for in this game. All cloth classes should be cowering in fear when they see rangers. Pvp in this game is too kitten out of balance.
> >
>
> Ranger are amazing everywhere.
> Except for Zerging.
>
> If ranger had a non projectile AoE weapon, they would even be amazing in zerging.
>
I run ranger exclusively in zergs. I run backline. Knowing when to drop the LB5 AOE damage is critical if you want to be useful. Running the big of boon boost etc that soulbeast has can be useful if you have a group running backline with you. Also people think Ranger is about hitting one person at a time... WRONG, spec it correctly and hit many, not just one.
Taking out wall siege is done by ele's and rangers. Most squads have very few ele's and rangers... the ones that throw rangers out are either fight only squads, or just don't care about wall siege.
As for zerg support. Not every class provides support in a zerg. Don't even talk to me about warrior/spellbreakers because pfft. I've run everything and I kill so many more enemy with my soulbeast build than I ever did with any other class. Anyone that thinks that a solid super DPS class isn't needed in a zerg simply hasn't seen someone that knows how to run on properly.
Now as to the OP's question.. You die because your build is wrong and haven't yet learned to play whatever flavour of ranger you're using. If you want a zerg to have a bit of warm and fuzzies about your ranger you need to prove that you're a beast. Can you solo a tower with it for example? Can you take down a T1 camp and get the ring up BEFORE the swords appear? Can you take down that simple little sentry in less than 3 seconds?
imo, the key to figuring out how to survive on a Ranger is to go out and roam with it. Find some friends and run a small roaming/havoc group. LEARN the class. People talk smack that it's just pewpew and anyone can play it. I can say the same about all classes. There is literally NO class that anyone can just "walk into" and be useful at. No not even Firebrand like some suggest.
I have all classes, fully upgraded, all ascended, blahblahblah.. know how to play each of them. I choose my Soulbeast simply because it's a lot more fun for me than the others and because I can support my zergs in ways they understand... and frankly all this talk about being kicked out of zergs... I've never seen it. Possibly that's because I've run with people here for years and they know me and what I can do? Not sure, but I have to say I've seen lots of people that run rangers that make me smh.
Get good, very very good... run along side a squad and get to know people. If you're committed to Ranger then it's going to take some time if you're new to it. It's only simple to those people that don't know it.
-
> @"Whiteout.1975" said:
> **Why is Downstate Necessary for GW2?**
>
>
Because of hundreds of finishers that people have purchased, and more that ANet continues to sell in the TP etc... Imagine the screaming people would do if they couldn't use their favorite finishers... even though these days it's more important to just kill the guy fast, there will always be people who want to see that "awesome" finisher over the body of the dead enemy... and always be ANet making money off people buying finishers ;)
-
> @"CorneliusQ.2608" said:
> My question is really about the popup themselves. What do they represent? Are they points? And is it my points?
The popup is the amount of wxp you received for the kill(s). If you look down at that moment you will also see you wxp bar move to the right a bit as it adds the points.
-
> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:
> Except that ANET only did half the job: you shouldn't be able to capture a point on a mount either, and I've said so since the week the mount was launched. Well, give 'em a few more weeks/months I guess.
Actually you can't capture a point either. I just popped in and took a sentry... Mounted up halfway through the capture and it stopped. Dismounted and the cap continued.
-
oh this is gonna be fun... oh ya I'll get fried for sure... but I'll fry a lot more than what fry me..... and with double WXP I'm pretty sure I'll finally hit that 4095=Mithril mark... now THAT's the way to get a target on you! I know because when I see anyone Mithril or Diamond especially I make it a mission to nukem or die trying... good thing there's wp mastery.
-
> @"melandru.3876" said:
> > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > > > @"melandru.3876" said:
> > > > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > > > > > @"melandru.3876" said:
> > > > > > a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
> > > > > > supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > go figure
> > > > >
> > > > > nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...
> > > >
> > > > did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't
> > > >
> > > > wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.
> > > > where is the error in that?
> > > >
> > > > that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol
> > > >
> > > > isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%
> > >
> > > "distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.
> > >
> > > As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.
> > >
> > > From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.
> >
> > ... and I 'missed' that because you never said it... "wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader." The only place this line is found is in your reply to me giving me hell for not seeing it in the first message... that it doesn't appear in.
> >
> > What you said was: "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints" -- which might imply "wvw-focused guilds".. or just guilds in wvw... and "shared guild-blueprints", which implies distribution by the commander or someone else... but doesn't define what you mean.
> >
> > If you're going to come after me for something I didn't read, please make sure it was actually said in the first place. I stand by all my comments.
>
> "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints"
>
> fourth sentence
>
> > @"melandru.3876" said:
> > a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps
> >
> > the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
> > supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10
> >
> >=>>>>>> this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints <<<<<<=
> >
> > which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2
> >
> > go figure
>
> did i make i clear enough now
>
> if the commander is not in the guild/guiuld leader how would he even have access to the guild-blueprints, to distribute
>
> YOU ARE TRYING TOO HARD TO BAIL OUT NOW
I'm bailing out of nothing... although you continue to be condescending.... I stand by everything I said.. period. I don't support your suggestion in any way shape or form... respectfully.
-
> @"melandru.3876" said:
> > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > > > @"melandru.3876" said:
> > > > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > > > > > @"melandru.3876" said:
> > > > > > a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
> > > > > > supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > go figure
> > > > >
> > > > > nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...
> > > >
> > > > did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't
> > > >
> > > > wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.
> > > > where is the error in that?
> > > >
> > > > that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol
> > > >
> > > > isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%
> > >
> > > "distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.
> > >
> > > As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.
> > >
> > > From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.
> >
> > ... and I 'missed' that because you never said it... "wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader." The only place this line is found is in your reply to me giving me hell for not seeing it in the first message... that it doesn't appear in.
> >
> > What you said was: "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints" -- which might imply "wvw-focused guilds".. or just guilds in wvw... and "shared guild-blueprints", which implies distribution by the commander or someone else... but doesn't define what you mean.
> >
> > If you're going to come after me for something I didn't read, please make sure it was actually said in the first place. I stand by all my comments.
>
> "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints"
>
> fourth sentence
>
>
oh dear... and you didn't read my whole message either... see? It happens... lol. That's exactly what I said and explained why it wasn't what you said you wrote... let's just drop it and let the thread carry on.. we could go back and forth not reading each other's msgs all day and make people, other than us.. insane. :P
... and the reason it's Guild Wars has nothing to do with us having guilds. If you read the Lore for the original GW you will see what I mean. :)
-
> @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > @"melandru.3876" said:
> > > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > > > @"melandru.3876" said:
> > > > a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps
> > > >
> > > > the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
> > > > supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10
> > > >
> > > > this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints
> > > >
> > > > which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2
> > > >
> > > > go figure
> > >
> > > nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...
> >
> > did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't
> >
> > wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.
> > where is the error in that?
> >
> > that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol
> >
> > isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%
>
> "distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.
>
> As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.
>
> From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.
... and I 'missed' that because you never said it... "wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader." The only place this line is found is in your reply to me giving me hell for not seeing it in the first message... that it doesn't appear in.
What you said was: "this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints" -- which might imply "wvw-focused guilds".. or just guilds in wvw... and "shared guild-blueprints", which implies distribution by the commander or someone else... but doesn't define what you mean.
If you're going to come after me for something I didn't read, please make sure it was actually said in the first place. I stand by all my comments.
-
> @"Princess.7584" said:
> > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > It won't matter how they do it. People will just bandwagon to the linked server they want to each reset anyway. The problem isn't in the 'relinking' itself.. it's in what happens after the relinking. As long as server jumping is permitted and so cheaply it will continue... and it will continue...
>
> I agree that the players screw up relinks everytime.
>
> That first week of relinking should be triple gem cost, might make some people think. Going to double on week 2, lessening as time goes on. Then back to double on last week, since thats when some decide they want to screw everything up too. Its not so much the transferring, most is down to when they decide to transfer leaving desolate servers struggling with no population.
>
>
TWO Thumbs UP!
-
> @"melandru.3876" said:
> > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > > @"melandru.3876" said:
> > > a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps
> > >
> > > the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
> > > supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10
> > >
> > > this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints
> > >
> > > which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2
> > >
> > > go figure
> >
> > nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...
>
> did you even read the full sentence? because i can tell you didn't
>
> wvw-focused guilds, using guild blueprints distributed by the guild leader.
> where is the error in that?
>
> that would only be a issue for pugmanders, and those can't be taken serious anyway lol
>
> isn't it GUILD wars for a reason? as all ready said in my first post, which you read 7%
"distributed by the guild leader..." yes I missed that.... No reason to get cranky about it. The bottom line is that when I'm commanding I don't want people throwing siege down when most people don't know where and how to place it, and that's important. When I'm dropping siege I drop it quickly and where I want it. If I have to tell people where to drop each one that would defeat the whole purpose of having the siege placement function staying on me so I can drop multiple items.
As for consuming supply to drop siege? no thanks... I'd rather be able to drop a few catas for example and build two if that's all we can build for some reason without having to waste a handful of supplies on the third one just for dropping it.
From ideas come answers, so your ideas are good to see. For me they simply don't work.... and I'm not trolling you or being nasty... just the way I see it.
-
> @"XenesisII.1540" said:
> Far as I know they still manually reset the links... they're building the alliance system to automate it...
> This week they will be reading the data from previous weeks to make the links on Friday.
> Not their fault idiotic guilds leave and bandwagon servers right after the links are done, break a couple other servers, and then come back here to complain and says it's Anets fault for everything for 8 weeks.
> But they should relink again the week after to fix that! and then the idiotic players will just repeat the transfer again when the one week lockout is up.
> If they actually lock servers, people will come back here to complain.
> If they give BG a link people will come back here to complain.
> If they don't give BG a link people will come back here to complain.
> Walls and gate got nerfed, but players too lazy to bother running BG off their borderland, come back here to complain cause that's the easier thing to do.
> Maguuma get made a host people will come back here to complain.
> Crystal Desert get made a host people will come back here to complain.
> Gate of Madness get made a host people will come back here to complain.
> Jade Quarry get made a host people will come back here to complain.
> Don't make Mag a host server, but what if CD, GoM, JQ are all lower than them, then what? oh right come back here to complain anyways.
> The most active High population server will be made a host because Kaineng is bottom of the barrel medium, deal with it.
>
lol yes the bottom line... people will complain no matter what. I don't think ANet gives a rats butt about the linkings or bandwagoning anymore at all. If they're working on alliances then it will come one day hopefully before I'm 65... that's only 3 years from now so it's possible I guess. Fingers crossed... in the meantime it will be relink; bandwagon; complain; repeat in 2 months... :P
-
> @"style.6173" said:
> The links have been terrible the last few resets. Some ideas to improve in NA.
> 1. Don't pair BG with anyone. Why? Simply put, they are the best PPT server in NA. They can be tier 1.5 without any link. Whenever they get a link, people will bandwagon to it.
> 2. Don't make Mag a host server. Tied to #1, a lot of guilds bandwagoned there. A lot will leave to a new host after relinks. Don't create a dead T4 server.
> 3. Keep AR a host server. 2 of the "High" servers will be hosts. AR should be one.
> 4. Give DB two links. Not sure how they are always T4 and full, but they need some type of major help.
>
>
It won't matter how they do it. People will just bandwagon to the linked server they want to each reset anyway. The problem isn't in the 'relinking' itself.. it's in what happens after the relinking. As long as server jumping is permitted and so cheaply it will continue... and it will continue...
-
> @"HazyDaisy.4107" said:
> Why not just join an enemy party and target the spy so they can hunt him and kill him? I mean it'd make you sort of a spy as well and at the very least a traitor, but it's not like others haven't done the exact same thing with far less cause before.
Even if you're in the same party or squad as the enemy you can't see where they are. If you're on the other side you don't see the party/squad dots like you do when you're grouped with your own team.
-
> @"melandru.3876" said:
> a simple fix to prevent blueprint spamming would be that it works the same way as traps
>
> the one who throws needs to have 5-10 supply allready which is autoconsumen on deployment, then the others can finnish building it
> supply is capped at 25, so that would mean only 2 blueprints can be thrown by a single person if suply needed would be 10
>
> this would push more wvw guilds, and the use of shared guild-blueprints
>
> which, believe it or not..might be the main idea? GUILD wars 2
>
> go figure
nope, that would cause a requirement for people other than the commander to throw siege at sites, which would be a problem since most people don't carry the proper siege if any siege at all; don't know where to put it etc. Definitely that would be a bad idea...
-
> @"LadyHawk.5319" said:
> Sorry to say this but as a FB I am enjoying the warclaw on all maps and not having to spam staff #3 every. time. it. comes. off. cooldown. for. my. entire. playtime. in. wvw.
Yep. Don’t have to waste a utility slot or speed runes. Just load up the killer stats, mount up, iirid.
-
> @"Anput.4620" said:
> > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:
> > So you will whine till they shutdown the servers. They will never revert them, it's a gem sales source.
>
> Reverting isn't needed, nerf the speed and it's done. I don't expect removal but i do expect changes.
>
> I just give feedback aslong as the experience is incredibly lacking.
Hate to break it to the nay sayers but nobody I know in game doesn’t like the mount. I’m a vet, didn’t want it... but don’t want to see it go now.
BL without mounts? I think it’s safe to say it would stay mostly empty except for the odd blob attack and maybe some roaming or havoc now and then for pips and ppt.
-
> @"Vova.2640" said:
> That site makes zero sense. The current T1 servers are ranked ridiculously low, how is that even possible...
>
> Meanwhile YB and NSP in T3-4 and have some of the best rankings...?
>
> The site values are more reflective of relative server strength in each respective tier, rather than overall strength...
>
Because the action comes from the bandwagon links, not the host servers.
-
I do WvW because I simply don't like PVE. The last thing I'd like to see in there is more PVE type stuff.. ugh ugh ugh... Go to pve if you want that.. seriously. Fight all the npc's you want all over the place... do a dungeon, fractal, etc... but please keep it out of WvW.. There's too much pve in there already, imo
How do people play rangers in Zerg squad?
in World vs. World
Posted
> @"DanAlcedo.3281" said:
> > @"Balthazzarr.1349" said:
> > > @"DanAlcedo.3281" said:
> > > > @"shortcake.8659" said:
> > > > 2x longbow marks/skirm/sb and rain barrages down everywhere. you'll be everyone's hero.
> > >
> > > „Dies to retaliation instantly“
> >
... most text deleted since it's not required for this reply ...
>
> On the other side, even a monkey is usefull if he plays scourge.
>
Completely disagree with this statement. If you're not a good scourge you die easily and you aren't much of a help period if you don't really know how and when to drop those shades, marks etc. I kill poor scourges like they're npc's... without much effort at all... and those monkeys can't even hurt me.. .nope not useful unless you know how TO PLAY your given class.