Israel.7056

> @"messiah.1908" said:

> why weaver?

> i see group taking thief with staff

> why not scrapper (support)?

Might have a good weaver not many people play engi

> @"Grim West.3194" said:

> Not necessarily. But GW2's version of RvR was (and still is) a huge disappointment for us. DAoC, Warhammer, Aion, etc. weren't perfect but they engaged us for a much longer time.

Lol Aion really?

> @"SloRules.3560" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SloRules.3560" said:

> > > G, W, N, N, X

> > > G, W, N, N, M

> > > G, N, N, M, T

> > >

> > > X= Mesmer, Warrior, Necro, Rev, Guard

> >

> > I think you'd see some variation on this for most guilds.

>

> Ofc, but that wasn't the question.

I was just saying that you basically answered the question for most guilds.

They'd play it safe and run some balanced comp.

I'd try a 15 spellbreaker comp.

> @"SloRules.3560" said:

> G, W, N, N, X

> G, W, N, N, M

> G, N, N, M, T

>

> X= Mesmer, Warrior, Necro, Rev, Guard

I think you'd see some variation on this for most guilds.

> @"BadMed.3846" said:

> WvW does not need new content. We saw new maps. They were pretty but useless. Too big and viability was not well thought of. Redbl still suffers with least amount of players on it.

> Good balance and community that enjoys the game mode is all we need.

We saw one new map. Another new map needn't have the same problems as DBL.

Balance is also somewhat subjective and runs directly in the face of potential build diversity which seems to also be an extremely popular aspect of this game. It would be very easy to add more balance to this game: one build for each class, no build diversity of any kind. But no one wants that because it flies in the face of what an RPG is supposed to allow for and it's boring.

Enjoyment of the game mode is very hard to measure. Different people play for different reasons.

I think it makes more sense from a development standpoint to focus on the things development can consistently provide instead of things which it can't, particularly in a game as complex as GW2.

If I were going to design a new map I would try to design it with the same basic flow as EBG; everything would just lead to one big central fight and it would be very very easy and quick to get around the map so players would spend less time running and more time fighting.

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> Considering how people reacted the last time they added something to WvW (refusing to use it out of spite rather than adapting to it), I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Yeah and maybe the next time I see Ben and Jerry's Lobster and Caramel Ice Cream I should force myself to eat it until I like it.

Honestly all I want at this point is to be able to farm goe or gift of maguuma or gift of the desert with wvw currencies instead of having to do map completes. That change alone would get me playing a lot more. New maps can be cool as long as they don't make another desert bl.

Seems like they should just start with toning down DJ based on what I'm seeing in this thread and in videos.

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> I think the normal waypoint instead should open every 4 minutes or so just for a couple of seconds between contests to allow for a wave style defense.

>

> Its totally unheard of and such a far out idea I know but that'd be nice.

Hard pass to that defenders already have enough advantages.

The way to think about it imo is what are the best counters to the most common roaming builds? If you take what everyone else is already taking then you're just mirroring which is a pretty faulty strategy imo.

People tend to pull the EWP too late it should be going off before the inners are breached. Pro tip though just port in once, die and immediately hit the wp again you will get invuln for a second or two and you can safely dodge out of the bomb.

The healing is probably some of the best in the game but the playstyle is super awkward so not many people play it.

Because design choice.

Personally I like full tb rev with dura runes for pretty much everything give it a try I never play anything else anymore.

The legend itself and the bow are non starters for wvw but the trait line and the f2 skills are viable alternatives to Herald.

No siege except rams week

Shouldn't happen but still pretty funny.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> There must always be a balance.

Don't think you and I are going to agree on what constitutes "balance."

> Just as it's not fun when every little thing that is a bit too strong gets removed, "everything goes" is too hostile towards new players.

Just because they're new to GW2 doesn't mean they're new to MMOs. If they're really new to the game they're not going to expect downed state to save them anyways because in most MMOs you just die at the start and there's usually nothing you can do about it either because of the ridiculous gear treadmills every other MMO has. For instance I spent the first six months of Aion, which was my first MMO, getting one shot by all the full PvP geared players. At least in this game new players have a chance of defending themselves against veterans.

> The extremes is what needs to be avoided.

No one is proposing anything I would consider "extreme" here. "Radical" perhaps but not "extreme."

>Downed state helps against some extremes.

Perhaps that was the original hypothesis but in practice downed state mostly just ends up favoring the side with the larger numbers. It protects you when you outnumber an opponent because you can waste your defensives and your dodges, get dropped and still survive. It works against you when you're fighting outnumbered because you can land all your skills perfectly, drop several people and still get chain ccd by the rest of them while trying for a stomp or a cleave and find yourself gassed out with nothing to show for your efforts because the guys you dropped got ressed. This effect just gets more pronounced the bigger the dominant group and/or the bigger the number disparity between two groups.

The unintended consequence of trying to protect against "extremes" was to reinforce one of the most common extremes in this game aka zerging/blobbing.

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> > @"Celsith.2753" said:

> > > @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> >

> > > The side with more numbers always has that advantage, downed state or not.

> > > The only way you could counter-balance a numeric advantage is with something like effects that stack on someone when they are hit by way more people than they are hitting or gang up on someone or when they hit someone who is also being hit by a lot of people. Like and "Unyielding" effect that increases power against those a "Coward" effect and that "Coward" effect for those who outnumber, reducing armor against those with "Unyielding".

> >

> > But during no down state event many of us found that simply removing down state did a splendid job of equalizing fights versus larger numbers. And comes with the benefit of the server doing less calculations and us having less lag. Adding in effects depending on numbers etc just adds to the server load.

>

> WvW is not only played like that. Groups have a wide variety of sizes and compositions. What may be fine for a 5v10 or a 15v30 fight can cause problems in other situations.

>

> Take people who like to pick on newbies leaving bases while they are trying to get to their zerg.

> Downed state doesn't prevent that when one is alone, but at least gives a little more time for someone to come along and help, and puts a downed icon in the minimap that tells allies "enemies have just been here", which a defeated icon doesn't do, since someone can be defeated on the ground for 5 mins or slipped off a cliff and ended up on the floor instantly defeated.

> With downed state, these newbies may have more chances to survive if they manage to get a small group. Like 5.

> One goes down, the rest have time to revive them before the cloaked enemy can finish them. Remove downed state, and someone can chase a small group of players and take them out one by one like the Predator with relative little danger to themselves.

> Very fun for whoever does that, horribly unfun for whoever is on the other side. And when it comes to newbies, the last thing we need is making them think the game mode is unfair and unfun before they can even beging to get the gist of things. What we need is for them to stick around to pick up the pace and learn.

>

> So, can't take downed state out because they are the much needed training wheels or safety net people need not to die too often while they learn. What would you do? Remove downed estate once someone reaches rank 500?

> Then what we'll have is people complaining about some people having downed estate and some people not having it, and rich players being able to bypass it by buying new accounts.

>

Or maybe stop treating adults like children who can't handle their own emotions or figure a way around a problem.

> @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:

> Appears that some are salty they can't fight vs expansion classes, whether they can't play the classes to learn weaknesses, or because they are unable to get the expansion for their own reasons and feel its unfair that they cannot when others can.

>

> If its the fact you are getting beat, let me know and I will be more than happy to go over some weaknesses and strategies of these classes you have issues with.

>

> If its that you cannot obtain any of the expansions for you own personal reasons, then look at it this way....I am a streamer on twitch. I have people that subscribe to me. Because they subscribe to me, they pay money for such. Because they do such, they get perks. Whether it be a special sub badge, special emoticons, sub priority for things...whichever. They get a small special treatment in some/way/shape or form because they are spending the money. Its like if a viewer complains that its not fair they get these perks.

>

> You wouldn't go to Costco and see a beautiful Smart TV thats $3000 and complain that it gives a better viewing experience and you are unable to get it for whatever personal reasons, so they shouldn't be able to sell it if all TV's are not smart TV's.

>

> People pay for percs. Whether its mounts, gliding or specs. If its teh specs you are complaining about, its not because its p2w, its potentially due to balancing reasons.

I'm gonna assume this one is addressed to the op.

For the record im not saying that all expansions for all games are necessarily p2w.

I'm saying that I agree with the op's assertion that these particular expansions have been structured as p2w because of the elite specs and even then only because the elite specs have consistently offered competitive advantages against those who do not have them which i think is inarguably the case.

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > > l2play issue. Focus downs, no problem. If you can't kill them fast enough, they shouldn't be yours to take. Skilled fighters can do this fast and proper.

> >

> > If you're right then nothing much will change in terms of outcomes if downed state is removed right?

>

> If i'm right, downstate should not affect fights at all. If it were removed, it'd favor the blob more.

>

> Here's an example,

>

Well then we have something approaching a testable hypothesis as I believe essentially the opposite will be observed.

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > > Yes if you can spend real money JUST to get a power advantage, and NOTHING ELSE, that would be pay to win. But an expansion isn't just a power advantage. It's the continuation of the game. When you buy an MMO you're buying access, not a game. It's like buying a membership to a club. That's just the way it is. In the old days you had a sub. You'd just pay the sub. If you stopped paying the sub, you had to stop playing the game. So yeah, you had to pay to play, which I guess means you'd pay to win as well, since you couldn't play at all without paying. This is a very similar thing. It's a purchase instead of a sub, to let you keep playing. Because you're expected to move forward and continue with the game, it's okay to raise the power. Because you're buying an entire game, not just power. The power is incidental to what you're buying.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Well I have to ask what if it's now an expected part of gaming that in some games you can buy power out of a cash shop for real money? What if players who play these games now expect to be able to progress and get advantages over players who don't pay in that way? They could turn your argument around and say it's not "pay to win" because they expect the games to work like that. Would you then say their expectations are irrelevant?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you only PvP, well, that doesn't matter. As I said it's like buying a Season ticket to Disney World, but only riding roller coasters. Not enough of them to make that worth it, and you'd have to decide it. Keep in mind, the game simply isn't meant to be free forever. It's a membership you're paying for...even if you're not paying for it monthly.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It matters to me because I bought the xpacs solely to get a power advantage and I did so knowingly. The only reason I bought them was for the elite specs. If they'd given out the elites for free in WvW I'm sure myself and many many others would never have bought HoT or PoF.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, it's expected that some games will sell power alone out of the cash shop and those games are pay to win. And calling them so you'll be using the name right. There are people who won't play those games because they don't want to play a pay to win game. But those that understand the funding system of MMOs will still buy an MMO that requires you to buy expansions because it's expected that if you're going to continue to play the game, you'll support it by buying those expansions.

> > > > >

> > > > > For people who don't minding paying to win, they'll know which games they are. Once every game is pay to win the term loses its original definition. We then can't decide between the original types of games, funded by expansions and the new games, funded by pay to win. There is a difference, even if you personally don't pay most of the game. It's like buying a car for the leather seats and then claiming you shouldn't have to pay for the motor. It's still a car. It's made to be a car. If you're just paying to sit in the seat, that's on you. This isn't a PvP game. It's a game. You pay for it and support it or all bets are off. Whether you don't play the rest of the game or not, the company is still paying the employees making and supporting the game.

> > > > >

> > > > > And make no mistake. If the PvE portion of this game was removed, there would be no game and you'd be playing nothing.

> > > >

> > > > I think I rest my case on this one.

> > > >

> > > > In the course of this discussion you have contradicted two of the key premises of your position though I'm not sure that you even realize it.

> > > >

> > > > Interesting talk though to be sure.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The vast majority of people understand what I'm saying. If you really think expansions are fair game for pay to win, why not go post it to any MMORPG site and see what kind of response you get.

> > >

> > > What I'm saying isn't some mystical hidden lore, nor is it something I've made up in my basement. It's common knowledge.

> > >

> > > And not detailing a supposed flaw isn't going to win an argument. There's no case to defend here. No one calls WoW pay to win, but by your definition it is. Either we all follow the same rules or none of us do. Pay to win was invented to single out free games that sold power in the cash shop period. Not a guess. Not a rewriting of history. Until you can address that, there's really no point in even talking further about it.

> >

> > My argument is that the term as it's commonly used is inherently logically inconsistent and marred with arbitrary distinctions that quickly fall apart upon scrutiny and I think you have demonstrated that pretty clearly here in this discussion.

> >

> > I agree that there's no reason to discuss this further as it seems to me that I have nothing left to demonstrate to try to prove my point.

>

> The original definition isn't arbitrary. It's the original definition. The new definition, that's arbitrary. You're the one changing it from it's original intention, not me. It had a definitive purpose. You're trying to repurpose it. Without good reason, and you've yet to give any reason, you have no argument.

The original definition is based on entirely arbitrary distinctions and inconsistent logic as i believe you have clearly shown in your attempted rebuttals to my original contentions.

You have subsequently contradicted every one of your major premises as I outlined them earlier and which you seemed to agree to at the time.

I believe i presented my argument several times very clearly and succinctly in the course of our discussion. If you still don't know what it is i honestly don't know how to help you here.