JTGuevara.9018
-
Posts
371 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by JTGuevara.9018
-
-
Yes! Finally someone said it!
The lighting in this game is very oppressing at times. My eyes get tired after a while. The flashiness in some of these skins is _so_ gaudy and over the top, it's ridiculous. Ad Infinitum is the most obnoxious and my most _hated_ back item in this game.
-
> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:
> > @"JTGuevara.9018" said:
> > > @"God.2708" said:
> > > > @"JTGuevara.9018" said:
> > > > @"subversiontwo.7501"
> > > >
> > > > First off, I will just address your name. You have a massive post, so I will just address it in general. As far as my argument being "baffling", it is simple enough to me. Maybe I should reiterate it? Here it is. I'm just going to be transparent about this.
> > > >
> > > > Guilds should not be given any more power in this game. A potential influx of guilds aided by the implementation of an alliance system will not magically fix WvW, specially at this point. The fact that PUGs are toxic and mean at times are _not_ a viable argument for guilds taking control for this game mode. Period. End of. Guilds are _not_ "the server", as you claim, they are _a part_ of the server, they are _in_ the server. Guilds are no more important than PUGs and everyone else. That is ALL that I have said.
> > > >
> > > > I really cannot make this any more clearer than that.
> > >
> > > I don't think you understand what power actually is, or how it manifests itself in something like WvW. Else you would not be speaking nonsense like you are.
> >
> > My apologies! Might you explain to the rest of us what power is then if what you think I say is "nonsense"? I'll be waiting.
> >
> > @"getalifeturd.8139"
> >
> > It is massive posts like these that just drive the point home for me that any sort of guild 'alliance' system is doomed to fail. All this drama, politicking and backstabbing...for what? Stroking your e-stick to compensate for what you don't have? Doing it just for kicks? Tryharding in this manner is just sad and just drives people away from playing this game. And overall, these situations demonstrate how flawed and broken the server tier system actually is. If ya ask me, honestly, nothing short of unifying all the servers and implementing a WvW mega server with a 3-way faction system will actually address population in any meaningful way. Yes, I know _some_ people will _balk_ at this suggestion, but I honestly see no other way. With the server links that we have, we basically are halfway there. (8 to 4 tiers) However, I see that people are either too loyal to either their guild or their server (aka "guild pride" and "server pride" respectively) to actually accept meaningful changes to WvW.
> >
> >
>
> So I would assume based on the text in your posts that you feel as if ‘guilds’ have no true use in the game. I would also guess you don’t use any VOIP.
>
> And loyalty to a server or guild is bad.
>
> So... who generally tags up on your server?
>
> I’ll give you a hint: it’s normally a guild leader. Or a senior member of a guild.
>
> Many Commanders tag up because they enjoy those people In their guild and trust those members to work with them to succeed. Often the open up to others, work on training them.
>
> Of course there are buttheads out there.
>
> Your proposal would effectively eliminate ANY ability to consistently work with people you know.
>
> You want EoTM back? That exists currently: megaservered WvW. And it was a fail. There was no reason to actually engage the other ‘factions’ unless you were wanting to troll them.
>
> It was a huge circle**** that guilds were established that ran on all three colors and actively avoided each other.
>
On the contrary. I am in a guild and I do use VOIP.
Also, in what way does my suggestion eliminate any ability to work together consistently? If anything, it _enhances_ it. Guilds would more easily meet each other since they don't need to pay an arm and a leg in cross-server transfers. They easily can all meet up on the same world. As far as cross-faction guilds go aka. "all three colors", as you say, realistically the only way I can think of to oppose that is through implementing some sort of blacklisting system as a check and balance against that, although even that can be abused.
And EOTM did _not_ fail because the megaserver system is bad, it failed because of two reasons: the map, and the implementation of pips. There is a reason that most people in WvW keep to Alpine BLs and Eternal BG and reject EOTM, Obsidian Sanctum. The maps suck! ANet also royally messed up the rewards between EOTM and general WvW back then.
-
> @"God.2708" said:
> > @"JTGuevara.9018" said:
> > @"subversiontwo.7501"
> >
> > First off, I will just address your name. You have a massive post, so I will just address it in general. As far as my argument being "baffling", it is simple enough to me. Maybe I should reiterate it? Here it is. I'm just going to be transparent about this.
> >
> > Guilds should not be given any more power in this game. A potential influx of guilds aided by the implementation of an alliance system will not magically fix WvW, specially at this point. The fact that PUGs are toxic and mean at times are _not_ a viable argument for guilds taking control for this game mode. Period. End of. Guilds are _not_ "the server", as you claim, they are _a part_ of the server, they are _in_ the server. Guilds are no more important than PUGs and everyone else. That is ALL that I have said.
> >
> > I really cannot make this any more clearer than that.
>
> I don't think you understand what power actually is, or how it manifests itself in something like WvW. Else you would not be speaking nonsense like you are.
My apologies! Might you explain to the rest of us what power is then if what you think I say is "nonsense"? I'll be waiting.
@"getalifeturd.8139"
It is massive posts like these that just drive the point home for me that any sort of guild 'alliance' system is doomed to fail. All this drama, politicking and backstabbing...for what? Stroking your e-stick to compensate for what you don't have? Doing it just for kicks? Tryharding in this manner is just sad and just drives people away from playing this game. And overall, these situations demonstrate how flawed and broken the server tier system actually is. If ya ask me, honestly, nothing short of unifying all the servers and implementing a WvW mega server with a 3-way faction system will actually address population in any meaningful way. Yes, I know _some_ people will _balk_ at this suggestion, but I honestly see no other way. With the server links that we have, we basically are halfway there. (8 to 4 tiers) However, I see that people are either too loyal to either their guild or their server (aka "guild pride" and "server pride" respectively) to actually accept meaningful changes to WvW.
-
@"subversiontwo.7501"
First off, I will just address your name. You have a massive post, so I will just address it in general. As far as my argument being "baffling", it is simple enough to me. Maybe I should reiterate it? Here it is. I'm just going to be transparent about this.
Guilds should not be given any more power in this game. A potential influx of guilds aided by the implementation of an alliance system will not magically fix WvW, specially at this point. The fact that PUGs are toxic and mean at times are _not_ a viable argument for guilds taking control for this game mode. Period. End of. Guilds are _not_ "the server", as you claim, they are _a part_ of the server, they are _in_ the server. Guilds are no more important than PUGs and everyone else. That is ALL that I have said.
I really cannot make this any more clearer than that.
-
> @"Naxos.2503" said:
> To be honest, we dont even know if they would keep the initial iteration they gave when they presented the project, if they actually did it.
> It's gone to the point that Alliance coming soon for 2 years is not meme worthy, memes are meant to be funny. This is just sad.
>
> It would help guilds actually playing across servers together aaaaaand I think that's it ? You mention it in 3 that guilds will have too much power but honestly, they already Have all the power. It'll always be the same guilds getting in the same objectives and defending said objectives. It'll still be the same guilds leading kill trains. What might change is that it may -potentially- lead to newer guilds on the scene if it's easier for them to play together.
>
> All of this is purely hypothetical due to how little is known and honestly the 2 year (Isn't that closer to 3 now btw ?) has all but voided any possible hype players may have had on the matter.
>
> Edit : Yeeeeup... 3 years ...
It is speculation from all us, myself included. I made this thread as a counter opinion since the current discussion is centered around alliances and the lack of delivery there of. Still, I base this speculation and assumption on prior evidence of what's happened in WvW in the past. As far as newer guilds go, it's a gamble. It's essentially betting the farm hoping that the rain comes. Newer players may or may not enjoy open-world pvp, and even so, do the player gains offset the player losses?
And regarding my 3rd point, now that I think about it...you're right! There's really nothing stopping them now. So an alliance system wouldn't change much anyway.
-
> @"subversiontwo.7501" said:
> > @"JTGuevara.9018" said:
> > 1.) _It's not much different than server links_ -- Servers already get partially restructured every 2 months with server links.
> You do not seem to see the importance of the finer print in the announcement. The important parts of Alliances is not the shuffling but rather what factors are taken into account when the shuffle occurs and what factors are taken into account to calculate when a world is full or not. That you can choose your friends and get shuffled with them and that your group of friends will have a priority for when people want to transfer to your world is very important as player groups move or quit when servers or maps get crowded and they get choked out of recruitment or their own content.
>
> > If anything, it will be _worse_.
> There is no basis for that conclusion.
>
> > 2.)_Players and guilds won't change_ -- Try-hard players and guilds will still find a way to bandwagon and game the system.
> You list that as some superficial negative thing and casually throw around popular terminology that you don't seem to understand (bandwagon).
>
> Alliances are meant to recruit. Guilds are meant to attempt to be competetive and we have a ladder for that reason so every group can be matched up for content at their own level, so they can have more fun without being put into situations where they get dominated as often.
>
> Under the existing system guilds transfer away from guildless players to open up their recruitment pool. The guildless players (who have no interest in joining the guilds or helping them out, they just want access to their content) transfer after them. The guildless players are the "bandwagon", not the guilds.
>
> You seem to be completely oblivious to that fact. The guilds do not want the bandwagon, it is something that follows them which they can't keep away.
>
> > 3.) _Guilds will have too much power_ -- Alliances will eventually consolidate into powerhouses limited only by the yet to be proposed alliance cap, dominating smaller ones either through victories, bandwagons, or both.
> Again, that is meant to be. That is why we have a ladder. Some "servers" (alliances, worlds) are meant to be stronger than others. The ladder is there to make sure that the matchups have fitting content levels. One problem with the existing system is that the ladder does not match servers up very well. A strong server is meant to dominate a weak server so they can separate on the ladder and on their own match up versus respectively strong and weak servers. That is the intention of the entire system since 2012.
>
> The problems we have right now is that guilds do not have enough power over the content that the guild itself creates. Players who are not in the guild have equal or better access to the content that the guild produces. That is a **major problem** as it makes the players who create content stop. They stop either by quitting or by giving up (not producing content, not sharing content, trying to scare unwanted volume away).
>
> **Let's look at how things are now and some issues that come with that:**
>
> The content a guild and their commanders create and then possibly decide to share with players not in that guild by making their squad open is not content that all those other players are entitled to. That is also a **major misunderstanding** kept by players who post on this forum and are not commanders, roamers or members of guilds themselves. You feel entitled to that content: You take public tags for granted. You take the players who share their content through public tags for granted. ArenaNet takes those players for granted as they never prioritize them in whatever little attention this game mode gets. ArenaNet does very few things for WvW but equally troublesome is that very few things ArenaNet does for WvW has been done for guilds or commanders. Everytime something is done for commanders (like hidden tags for example) the entitled guildless mass cry and complain, like in this thread.
>
> This problem has only been getting **larger and larger** as the balance between players in guilds (content creators) and players without guilds who rely on public groups (content consumers) grows more and more distant. This is **more of a problem** than losses in total population because - in the total loss of population we have - there is relatively a larger loss of content producers than we have a loss of content consumers which means that tags have just become more and more scarce relative the population total. As a result, players have started to **transfer more and more** as time has gone on. The population totals does not create that situation, a larger disparity between tags and how many players want to follow those specific tags creates that situation.
>
> It isn't a problem if most players in guilds end up at the higher tiers of the ladder and most players who are not in guilds and take no part in helping out with producing tags and content end up at the lower end of the ladder. That is how it is supposed to be and players like the OP and their ilk have kept protesting things like this for years while the mode just bleeds guilds and tags, making sure there are less and less tags per player. They call others bandwagoners, but they are the wagon.
>
> Of course those players are going to protest the Alliance system and muddy the waters surrounding it, because it takes content that they are not producing from them, by stopping them from taking content from the players who produce it. It is easy to see when they are all "grrrr guilds" without aknowledging that the guilds are the tags and the vast majority of well-organized public tags you see are guilds who decide to share their content with the public. They are angry at that the tags that they want to follow does not want them to follow them. The tags wants to get away from them because they are not helpful and just takes them for granted.
>
> So, anytime you see someone go "grrr those bad bad guilds who transfer and are too powerful" you should go: Good, that means ArenaNet are actually doing something for the players who produce the vast majority of content in this game mode and that is the only way to breathe life back into it - to encourage players to go out and create content!
>
> Alliances are for the people who wants to play with friends, who wants to create guilds and who wants to tag up to produce content. They are the people who are for Alliances in the same way that they were the people who were for hidden tags. Tags are not public commodity even if they can be set to public access. ArenaNet needs to see and understand that, no matter how much some selfish majority of solo-public consumers wants to muddle that truth.
>
> The thing agree with the OP on is that I am far from sure that Alliances are comming anymore, despite Ray's somewhat recent reassurances.
>
> However, I strongly dislike these attempts at swaying opinion on the matter by creating noise and misunderstanding or misrepresenting what Alliances are.
And you have succinctly made my point in why alliances should never occur, even as you strongly defend them.
You see guilds as the primary drivers of WvW ('content creators'), while everyone is along for the ride('content consumers'). I oppose that statement. Everybody contributes in WvW: PUGs, roamers, militia/havoc groups, guilds. When guilds are not active or they retire for the night, who picks up the slack? That's right, PUGs, roamers and havoc groups. I'm sorry, but guilds are not special, they're a part of the system like everyone else.
You speak as if guilds have not stacked servers forming de-facto alliances since launch, which they have. Guilds historically have also gamed the current system by mass transferring if they don't like this or that server or tier. This makes so-called "competition" ladder essentially meaningless, since guilds with resources and capital can just pack up and go at will like locusts leaving their host server a husk and shell of what it was. This has happened to previous servers and continues to this day. And yet, we as players should give these giant mega guilds more control over this game mode just merely because of they 'create content' with an alliance system? I'm sorry, no dice.
And lastly, 'swaying opinion'?...As opposed to what? Spamming "alliances when" in every post? At least I actually have _something_ to say.
-
First off, I don't think they're coming so let's get _that_ out of the way... But honestly, do people actually think they're going to work? I don't. And here's why:
1.) _It's not much different than server links_ -- Servers already get partially restructured every 2 months with server links. Guilds across servers already get put into a de-facto alliance, it's just not called an alliance. If anything, the 'alliance' system is just a more souped up version of server links. The population imbalance will still persist. If anything, it will be _worse_.
2.)_Players and guilds won't change_ -- Try-hard players and guilds will still find a way to bandwagon and game the system. Instead of server stacking, it will be alliance stacking instead. You can have the best matchmaking system in the world for world restructuring that takes different metrics and statistics in mind, but it doesn't mean jack if players just stack the winning alliances and losing or struggling alliances don't show up due to attrition, demoralization, etc. This situation makes things harder for smaller guilds and alliances that are trying to resist them.
3.) _Guilds will have too much power_ -- Alliances will eventually consolidate into powerhouses limited only by the yet to be proposed alliance cap, dominating smaller ones either through victories, bandwagons, or both. So, as with the current server stacking and through historical bandwagons over the years, attrition eventually sets in as smaller guilds desperately try to resist the stacked alliances and people leave or quit WvW entirely out of frustration. Again, it's no different than the current situation. It will be Blackgate all over again but with guild alliances. Due to people quitting, the matching system will get to the point where it cannot find an opposing alliance of equivalent strength, so the system breaks down.
Thoughts to this?
-
Warrior was pretty much always middle-of-the-road. The damage and sustainability are decent enough, but not the best. OP you are right, warriors have to think independently in what works for them and what doesn't. I do the same. The thing is, you have to. Warrior does not excel in anything that in which other professions cannot provide in greater numbers. In a sense, it's a _true_ "jack of all trades" class. Yes, I know engineers exist, but they easily surpass warrior in mobility and support. Holos also dish more straight damage. Guardians, revs, necros surpass us in conditions. Obviously, tempest, druid, FB pass us in healing as they should! The only possible exception is CC. A warrior SB wielding say hammer, dagger or mace along with physicals is something unique. Even then, you have to be skilled enough to wield that big lumbering molasses known as warrior hammer! However, the big February update threw that possibility out the window -- warrior physicals and its general damage just got gutted.
Also, the thing with warrior is -- it's pretty straight-forward. Warriors don't have stealth or teleports. Any experienced player knows and sees right in front of them what warrior is going to dish out at them. This forces us warriors to be more creative and strategic in how we fight. Positioning matters, cooldowns matter, every little thing matters. Warriors also require a lot of time and investment in order to become skilled and get anything out of it. Again, you're a jack of all trades! You don't have the absolute best tools, so you need to practice and make do with the tools you do have.
-
Too little too late.
I have quit spvp and I'm NEVER looking back.
Here's the stone cold truth that's going to cheese people off: this community cannot handle warriors. Period. If we get buffed near the level of revenant, guardian or necro, people will freakin _riot_. People will whine, "too much sustain!" "too much damage!"...It's like...you can't win.
Honestly...when was the last time warrior was ever near the top except for a brief period during the HoT days? Otherwise, it's just a mid-level class. Here's the thing...warrior has limited specs that are effective in spvp, you just have to be _really_ skilled to pull them off. And to tell the truth...you'll get LESS than the effort you put in. That's why people switch to revenant, guardian or necro. People are lazy and they want to win and get carried.
I've invested 5 years into this class. Of course...that was back when I cared about being "competitive" in this thing. Now, I'm just shaking my head at people expecting good pvp in MMOS...
Meh...I'm just shooting my mouth off at this point. Carry on! I have better spvp games to play!
-
> @"Ashantara.8731" said:
> I strongly disagree on this. If GW2 had more dev power and the spirit of the folks who gave us GW1, we'd have a much better product in our hands. I believe that good MMOs can still excite, not necessarily by innovation but simply by quality.
I used to think this, but not anymore. MMOs are just done. People just aren't interested in them anymore, minus a hardcore niche. Not to mention, they're expensive to make and maintain. At the end of the day, MMOs even if they're of quality, no matter how you slice and dice it, they're just massive, never-ending time-sinks. There's also the fact that we have so many of them! WoW, ESO, FF14, BDO, Lineage, Blade & Soul. They're spreading the players thin.
gw1 was interesting. To me, I consider it a hybrid of an MMO/dungeon crawler. It's not really a bonafide MMO a-la Everquest and WoW. IIt was also made in another era, back when MMOs were viable. But yeah...I don't think even gw1 devs can boost it, the MMO business is just too shady as a whole and their communities at the end of the day will just cave in and support that model because of the extraordinary amount of hours played, even if they protest otherwise.
For me, they're just not my thing anymore. Yeah, Cantha will be nice for a bit, the scenery, the exploration...I might dabble in it for a couple of months but...meh...been there done that! My only other interest is wvw: what's going to happen to it? Depending on what's released, will there be a massive exodus, killing wvw for good? Or will there be new features to keep people playing?
-
Answer: Intrigued, but _not_ on the hype train
Here's why. The game industry and its associated community hype trains are notorious for over-charging, over-hyping and under-delivering. gw2 is no exception. We've been through two expansions already, HoT and PoF. While they're both solid games in and of themselves, they weren't really all that groundbreaking. They didn't innovate much. Game functions such as guild halls, raids and mounts have already been done in other MMOs. There's really nothing new under the sun.
I think Cantha will be more of the same. Whatever new features ANet comes up with, I highly doubt the expansion will draw more people in beyond a few months. It's basically the same as before. Again...for those of you who played gw1 Factions, you're paying again to see Cantha. Again...nothing new under the sun, folks!
Personally, my honeymoon with MMOS is over. I just _cannot_ get that excited for them anymore. I've basically moved on to other genres. MMOs are declining in general and will never reach the heights they had. I think they'll go back to being niche genres again.
-
Yup! We're back to boon-ball squads who's players BARELY go down! It's a monumental task just to take ONE down. And when you do exhaust your skills to finally take tone down, that person just immediately gets rezzed back up!
See, THIS is why no downed state needs to be permanent. Regardless of your opinion about it, it is a COUNTER to zergs. Massive blobs of people that can spam boons like candy like this simply aren't good and healthy for this game, period.
-
-shakes head-
All this talk about trade-offs and not _one_ mention of gw2's old specialization system from 2012 -2015. Then again, not everyone has played that long. I will explain!
gw2's old specialization system allowed you to use all 5 core trait lines, but only fully spec TWO of them using points. However, in mid-2015, the old specialization system was reworked to the current one we have today. The old system was reworked to allow you to fully use THREE trait lines instead of two, scrapping the point allocation. Back then, I thought -- "this might be a problem". And it was! It was the first stage of powercreep. A third trait line basically meant you were granted 10 extra points to allocate on the spec trees. HoT and elite specs came out later in the fall of that year, which created a mess. Elite specs, though marketed as "trade-offs" were actually _direct_ upgrades to the classes. This ballooned the powercreep of classes to ridiculous levels. You not only had elite specs to deal with, you also had THREE of them.
Frankly, with the way the current specialization system and elite specs work, I don't see how it's even possible to have trade-offs in the first place. I used to think otherwise back then. Elite specs do not change the functionality of the class in any significant way. It just soups up the class. An example...warrior. Berserker and spellbreaker don't fundamentally change how the warrior functions. You still have the adrenaline bar and bursts.
The only possible solution I have to the trade-off question is to go _back_ to the old specialization system and only allowing two trait lines again. Because you're only allowed two trait lines, trade-offs are actually possible.
However, this game is eight years old and I'm 100% sure that this isn't going to happen!
-
It's not so much that warrior is bad, it's that other professions are _too good_. While the damage nerf is good, it left warrior hanging and gutted the damage it had, which wasn't much to begin with. It became one of the worst classes in spvp, and is the reason I finally QUIT after years of playing. Warrior is THAT disastrous in spvp. However, that's the thing with our class. It's easily the most durable in the game. Not to mention, this community throws a _shit_ fit anytime warrior is one of the premier classes: "Grr! Unkillable!" "So much damage mitigation!" How do you buff it as such knowing its damage mitigation? > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:
> I've actually been doing pretty well with Core Warrior roaming in WvW (Strength/Tactics/Discipline), even with some 1vX situations and still winning, however it does feel like an endlessly and inherent uphill **struggle** because of the kits that most other classes have access to. Its either the case of a class just practically vomiting boons onto itself, and a variety of them, or its classes having access to **so many blinds that you might as well cut out your eyes all by yourself**, or mobility that sends them 1700+ units away practically instantly (or up onto ledges) with very little cooldown, or none, or sustain that is **still** nowhere near having been reduced enough. Support classes are actually particularly strong right now.
>
> Spellbreaker has boon strip, but its **very** limited and not near enough to actually counteract the sheer amount of boons that "meta" classes like Firebrand, Holosmith, Tempest, Scrapper, Soulbeast, etc apply to themselves on fairly short intervals. Necro is the only class that can actually counteract such things on a consistent enough level which is pretty much the entire reason *why* its considered more meta than it has been for quite some time, that and its health pool with the reduced damage.
>
> I think the only thing Warrior has going for itself is very strong personal cleansing, at least in WvW. Sigil of Cleansing + Shake It Off + Mending + Brawler's Recovery and Warrior's Sprint (for immob specifically), but even then you're playing 80% defensively when in a fight with Condi based builds in WvW because Expertise hasn't been reduced and the frequency in which Conditions are applied is still higher than the rate at which you can cleanse in solo or small scale encounters.
>
> It does genuinely feel like pretty much every class has tools specifically designed to counter Warrior, especially given how telegraphed our important skills tend to be. Eviscerate, Arcing Slice, Bull's Charge, Rush, Shield Bash, Full Counter, Rampage just in its entirety, Throw Axe, Bladetrail, Earthshaker, Backbreaker, Staggering Blow, Fierce Blow, and so many more. Now I know this isn't the case, or likely even the intention, but there are things that some classes do that have been overlooked for **quite a long time** that make them very unhealthy for gameplay. Warrior wasn't exempt from this for a good amount of time, Defy Pain mechanically worked the way it still does for 7 years with only changes to its ICD (and a change to proccing on 50% HP rather than 25% HP), Last Stand also remained the same since 2012 as a passive proc trait, with it getting Vigor and the Stance Duration increase in 2015 and Balanced Stance itself getting the "Immunity to Critical Hits" effect in 2017. Yet there are things like Druid Immob spam that have yet to be addressed, Engineer having near permanent Stability from Flamethrower (been seeing this a lot lately), Deadeye still being able to *perma stealth* which isn't so much of an issue in zergs in WvW or sPvP just at all (since you can't cap while stealthed), but its still really just annoying that it exists in the capacity that it does.
>
> If Cmc does believe that Warrior is "around the ideal power level" then their next round of updates needs to hit on Boons a lot more than they did in the February patch for those specific classes that have **so much** access to them, as well as looking at a few other mechanics. There are some things with certain classes, and their mechanics, that inherently make them overbearing in competitive modes. This is particularly why I dislike Conquest as a template for deciding game balance, because the balance centers around how something affects a class in relation to the capture point as opposed to the class itself in a *fight*. Which is fine if you were only balancing things in particular for that mode, but the moment you introduce things like Deathmatch (which they have) the issues with classes become glaringly obvious just in which ones are used and abused. They just pigeon hole their balance and what they can conceivably do with it. They are also reluctant to change mechanics for classes because of how they might affect PvE, which I'm pretty sure is entirely why Sic Em still affects Beast Mode. If it didn't then Power Soulbeast would be next to worthless in PvE content like raids or even fractals, Condition would just overtake it entirely. Which is another way they have entirely pigeon holed their balance initiatives. If they are unable to change how a skill, trait, or mechanic works on a class for the health of their competitive modes out of concern for how drastically it might affect their PvE content...they need to take a much larger perspective on their games mechanics as a whole.
>
> Sorry for the long post, I really do not have the cognitive skills necessary to make my thoughts concise.
Yeah, spellbreaker(hue hue!) simply does NOT live up to its name! I use it as a cc spec.
Also, yeah, some elite specs have _ruined_ these classes. Again, damage nerf is great, but I think elite specs will always be a problem. They promote ridiculously cancerous gameplay. Deadeye, Mirage, Holo are the biggest culprits. From a pvp standpoint, it's atrocious. Mobile classes like that simply should _not_ that much damage! It's a big handicap to warriors, who have to work double just to catch them and hit them. (Warrior is very burst dependant) Then there are your boon-spamming specs, Firebrand, Scrapper, Tempest, Herald. _Again_...from a pvp standpoint, it's atrocious. They promote so much active and passive boon-spamming, and on top of that, there's barely any counter to them minus necro and the supposed "spellbreaker"! Then, yup, there is the constant evade, cripple, immob and blind spam. Rangers, Daredevil, Weaver are notorious for this. AGAIN, this hurts warriors. These cripple warriors' mobility and ability to hit their targets.
Honestly, you ask me, I feel that this community simply can't handle a properly tuned warrior. They'll riot!
-
I'm sorry, but no downed state has been nothing short of a breath of fresh air. _For once_,there was an actual CHECK on the pip-farming boon-ball squads that dominate on a weekly basis. Unfortunately, that ends tomorrow night... :'(
-
> @"AikijinX.6258" said:
> The Problem is that Anet gave Stealth access to almost every class, when it was supposed to be unique to Thieves and I suppose Mesmers. Every class has some type of uniqueness to them, while ironically Thieves have had their uniqueness in Stealth *stolen* as well as heavily neutered, with all these abilities placing Reveal and Marked on them.
>
> Too much stealth- People complain
> Too much evade- People complain
> Too much damage- People complain
> Too much mobility- People complain
> Too many teleports- People complain
> Too much blind- People complain
> Too many spammable skills- People complain
> Too much access to poison- People complain
> Too much condition capability- People complain
> Ability to Teleport allies- People Complain
>
> People need to chill.
>
But I'm a warrior, where's MY stealth? lol
-
> @"Magnuzone.8395" said:
> Currently abandoned my beloved warrior main in anything but pve. It's not fun to play in WvW anymore. Boring to be a bubble slave tbh.
Who said you had to be that? Go roam!
That's what I do, now that I've ditched spvp for good. Especially this week with no downed state!
-
In favor.
OP, I will use your first two paragraphs as my reason. To me, that's enough! Some people on these forums don't seem to understand that big squads and zergs are not always available 24/7. It's a luxury at times. So what do you have left? Roamers, havocs. They keep the server active when not in prime time. With no downstate, at least they can _fight back_. It's as you said, you burst and burst, huff and puff, use up all your skills to take out that ONE scourge, FB or any other support in that zerg then -- poof -- insta res. It's ridiculous.
-
> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:
> > @"JTGuevara.9018" said:
> > I'm sorry, but I freaking _love_ this event! I'm as giddy as can be!
> >
> > _Finally_ a week where huge squads and zergs don't rule with an iron fist. _Finally_ a week where people can actually band together and take on bigger groups. For all the haters out there, think just for a second: this is yet another no-downed-state event, one of several that we've had in the past. There's a REASON for that. People love em.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I'm just going to say this: **make it permanent**!
>
> As a roamer/havoc, am enjoying it too, same with group. It was nice today to thin out the zergs moving around there was all size fights including a lot of open field fights. That said, no I don't think it should be permanent but I still think that it shows that downstate needs adjustments. But there is too much (including the joy of spiking) tied into it for all out be removed. Again since they can do this type of week it would be a positive to try other changes to downstate.
>
> Good hunting!
Yup! Picking off the tail end of the squad is where it's at! There's always a few that get pinned down with range, left behind and isolated from their group. I've been there myself! Yeah, permanent downstate is a big change. I suggest it because I doubt that downstate can be adjusted in a wvw environment - there's just too many people that can contribute.
And yup...good hunting!
-
I'm sorry, but I freaking _love_ this event! I'm as giddy as can be!
_Finally_ a week where huge squads and zergs don't rule with an iron fist. _Finally_ a week where people can actually band together and take on bigger groups. For all the haters out there, think just for a second: this is yet another no-downed-state event, one of several that we've had in the past. There's a REASON for that. People love em.
I'm sorry, but I'm just going to say this: **make it permanent**!
-
> @"Teratus.2859" said:
> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:
> > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:
> > > This is why some people won't step into fractals, raids, or even dungeons. Raids coming to GW2 was a controversial move, and the original game was made without raids partly because Anet didn't want raid toxicity to be in the game. This is an age old problem, and there's not a lot of evidence that it has been fixed. Or even evidence that it can be fixed. MMOs aren't new. GW2 drew a large casual crowd at launch, full of people who had been burned by the hardcore players of other MMOs. They've learned their lesson, and all of that grief isn't worth the risk that this time, for no apparent reason, raids are a better place now. Hence, why I say the problem cannot be fixed.
> >
> > The question is if there is evidence that this problem of yours "exist" or not, or rather if it's so common place as to be an actual problem. Provide your evidence that the problem exist before you look at evidence if the problem can be "fixed", is it an actual problem that exist, or perceived one? Is it a real issue, or an issue brought up by players who never experienced it, or have just second hand experience with it? "Hey I read on the internet that Raids in games are toxic, therefore it must be true"
>
> I would argue that the low population of this content is pretty evident that the problem does exist.
>
> I've said many times that a great deal of players and builds are more than capable of beating this content so the problem largely comes from accessability.
> The toxic player element will always play a role in tuning people off playing something, that's just universally true for everything and one reason why a lot of people will avoid certain things in games or even certain games entirely.
>
> The other 2 factors are: General lack of interest, which to be fair is a big one.. As Blood Red Arachnid.2493 pointed out Gw2's target audience is and always has been the more casual MMO player who's just playing purely for fun, so there is a great number of people who don't have much or any interest in difficult hardcore content in general.
>
> The other factor is the players who would be willing to try it and would probably enjoy it, but are kept away by the player established rules/expectations on the content.. which to them seem more like hard restrictions on what they can play and how they can play it..
> This doesn't sit well with a lot of people, especially when they know that these rules/expectations are not mandatory to enjoy and beat the content.
> This is only further reinforced by negative experiences they or others have had trying to get into the content as well.
>
> A lot of us old players still remember when the same toxic attitudes existed in dungeons.
> From a personal experience several years ago, I still remember when a CoF P1 run took us 3 minutes longer to complete than one player in our party found acceptable.. to which he was extremely vocal about in the chat afterwards and used to justify being a massive "D" to everyone.
> This kind of thing has always existed in "difficult, endgame" content in just about any MMO.
> Hell there are still cases with dungeon content where people will try to be a "D" about someones DPS or unfamiliatiry with the content.. I still occasionally find players who refuse to allow non lvl 80's in the party which is just asinine to me.
I don't think this problem can even be fixed. These are theme-park MMOs in a nutshell. They're based on the Everquest/WoW model. where you have this mythical concept of "endgame", or the carrot on the stick. Of course, this situation starts out ok -- nobody has the carrot, everybody is exploring different ways to get it. However....
Once enough people get the carrot, all that's left for a community to do before they get bored, is to streamline the content to get the carrot even faster. The veterans then start to establish certain rules and expectations in order to _get_ said carrot. ("meta"!) (Ex: "If you don't jump at the carrot this way, you're doing it wrong!") And _yes_, this puts off new players. Sorry...the "hardcore" raiding crowd is not innocent in this.
Frankly, this is a major reason why I don't even mess with MMOs anymore. MMOs simply have not grown past the Everquest/WoW model. For supposed "social" environments, MMOs are anything but. I guess it's called "theme-park" for a reason.
-
Yeah, this is STUPID. People really put time into these ranks, especially those in the quad-digits. And then you just kneecap them like this?
And I will say right now, WOE to the people around 1800-1900 -- you done freakin SCREWED them.
-
I ain't re-rolling JACK, I quit! pvp in gw2 is dead and buried.
-
Simply put...most of the skilled pvp-oriented players saw the writing on the wall and left, myself included. All you have left are either the bitter diehards and holdouts, newbies or bots! Without skilled pvp players bolstering the matchmaking system, you CANNOT have a functional pvp environment. The games are going to be unbalanced, hence low-quality.
Honestly, after playing other multiplayer games, I have _zero_ hope for pvp in MMOs. They're just never going to be the main focus. Might as well just play something like Fortnite or CoD: Warzone if y'all want your multiplayer fix. gw2 pvp is dead and buried. It's a matter of time before this thing goes into maintenance mode and is completely automated.
Would 'alliances' really work?
in World vs. World
Posted
> @"God.2708" said:
> > @"JTGuevara.9018" said:
> > > @"God.2708" said:
> > > > @"JTGuevara.9018" said:
> > > > @"subversiontwo.7501"
> > > >
> > > > First off, I will just address your name. You have a massive post, so I will just address it in general. As far as my argument being "baffling", it is simple enough to me. Maybe I should reiterate it? Here it is. I'm just going to be transparent about this.
> > > >
> > > > Guilds should not be given any more power in this game. A potential influx of guilds aided by the implementation of an alliance system will not magically fix WvW, specially at this point. The fact that PUGs are toxic and mean at times are _not_ a viable argument for guilds taking control for this game mode. Period. End of. Guilds are _not_ "the server", as you claim, they are _a part_ of the server, they are _in_ the server. Guilds are no more important than PUGs and everyone else. That is ALL that I have said.
> > > >
> > > > I really cannot make this any more clearer than that.
> > >
> > > I don't think you understand what power actually is, or how it manifests itself in something like WvW. Else you would not be speaking nonsense like you are.
> >
> > My apologies! Might you explain to the rest of us what power is then if what you think I say is "nonsense"? I'll be waiting.
> >
> > @"getalifeturd.8139"
> >
> > It is massive posts like these that just drive the point home for me that any sort of guild 'alliance' system is doomed to fail. All this drama, politicking and backstabbing...for what? Stroking your e-stick to compensate for what you don't have? Doing it just for kicks? Tryharding in this manner is just sad and just drives people away from playing this game. And overall, these situations demonstrate how flawed and broken the server tier system actually is. If ya ask me, honestly, nothing short of unifying all the servers and implementing a WvW mega server with a 3-way faction system will actually address population in any meaningful way. Yes, I know _some_ people will _balk_ at this suggestion, but I honestly see no other way. With the server links that we have, we basically are halfway there. (8 to 4 tiers) However, I see that people are either too loyal to either their guild or their server (aka "guild pride" and "server pride" respectively) to actually accept meaningful changes to WvW.
> >
>
> Power is top down. What something has to exert control on its surroundings by force or tools that grant it said control. If you join my guild I can kick you.
>
> What guilds have that you are describing is authority. That is bottom up. Authority is control gifted from below, and it can be rescinded at anytime by those beneath it.
>
> WvW runs off of authority because there doesn't exist any tools of power. I can't kick anyone off my server, at best I can annoy/troll them which could possibly result in Anet using their power on me to get me removed, so is not very effective. Guilds are given that authority by subsections of the WvW populace for a variety of reasons. Some because they like the commander's attitude, some because they like to PPT, some because they like to troll. The point of alliances is to create a system that lets guilds expand their authority and compete with one another. (IE. a guild that caters to PUGs and gets them to work with it will see more success than one that actively trolls them, regardless of the guilds capabilities when actually playing)
>
> This is why what you are saying is nonsense. Guilds aren't separate entities from PUGs. They are PUGs that have gotten together and agreed on a mutual idea. (It should go without saying that a mode about war would value coordination and cooperation, a topic many PUGs seem to fail to grasp.) You can't get rid of that 'power' because it isn't power, it's authority. Nor can guilds gain 'control' of the mode through alliances. If they have control it is through the collective cooperation of a very large number of people. The only way to get rid of it would be to randomly match people and not let them talk to each other so they can't coordinate. Which, forgive me for saying, sounds kitten awful.
>
> The largest detriment to the mode at the current moment is the fact that Anet makes it actively difficult for servers to gain a consistent identity. Identity and culture create a lasting impact, and are important to a long term mode like WvW. You can take guilds out of Guild Wars 2 but you can't take it out of war.
>
> Also that guy was copypasta ing.
>
...no...
Power is the possession of authority. Guilds _do_ have power, granted by subsections of the WvW community as you say, that's completely fine. However, they just don't have _absolute_ power. I'm guessing this is something you want aka. "I can't kick anyone off my server". In that case, nope...sorry!