Israel.7056

> @"Eremes Guile.1480" said:

> > @"Shining One.1635" said:

> > > @"Brother.1504" said:

> > > Here’s the secret to bg success. Bg players love the wvw mode. That’s it. We don’t get demoralized in the sense that you propose. When we get pressed the pugs fight harder, commanders tag up more often, scouts stay up later, guilds get more organized, and so on. I understand how fashionable it is to hate on Blackgate but you can’t demoralize people doing what they love to do. We don’t win every fight but we keep coming back for more.

> > This isn't true. I've personally seen BG stop showing up when they were being dominated. From what I heard/read (but did not witness), BG did the same thing during Maguuma's domination of T1.

> >

>

> how long did maguuma "dominated" t1 and ppt?

like 2 or 3 weeks to beat them down and then 9 straight weeks of nothing happening before almost everyone on Mag either transferred off or quit the game at which point BG slowly started playing again.

> @"steki.1478" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"steki.1478" said:

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

> > > > I think the real question is why dont WvW and PvP get unique skins?

> > >

> > > Because legy armor was never intended for those modes. Players asked for skinless legendary and they got it.

> >

> > How do you know what was "intended?" Sounds like more excuses to me.

> >

> > I didn't ask for skinless legendaries I just take what I can get as a third class citizen of this game.

>

> Because I was there when pve armor came out and lots of pvp/wvw people were complaining about no legendary in those modes. Since Anet didn't want to go through same nightmare (pve armor skins), players just asked for legy armor with no unique skins. The main reason of legy armor is its functionality anyways, so both sides were happy with that implementation.

>

> Besides that, long time before pve armor was even finished, it was widely known that raids would be the only source of legy armor.

Yeah I don't buy that. That's what their PR people tell us and their job is to placate the masses so people keep buying mount skins and other gem store fluff. They just want to get the most feathers with the least amount of hissing as the saying goes.

I don't believe that they just suddenly realized PvPers and WvWers might want legendary armor. I get the impression that they probably meant to do more sets but ended up taking too long to do the PvE one which is why the other two sets are much less polished. I think once they realized there was some discontent amongst the PvP and WvW players they just decided to release what they'd already managed to get done beforehand and figured people would mostly shut up afterwards. Obviously they were mostly right.

I'm a WvWer and I'm not happy with what they did but I've learned that it's mostly a waste of time to complain to these developers because they just don't seem to care about WvW players very much probably since they can't figure out how to sell gem shop items to us as easily as they can sell them to PvErs.

Just speculating obviously but it seems plausible to me considering how little they seem to tell us at any given time, how insanely greedy this company has been and how little regard they seem to have for WvW as a game mode since launch and PvP as a game mode since their bid for esports fell apart.

As a side note the so called "utility of legendary gear" is meaningless given how easy it is to make multiple armor and weapon sets in this game. The only thing legendaries are good for is the skins.

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > Please define "pointless."

> >

> > You will be a liability in fights and will potentially take up a spot that a level 80 could take.

>

> No need I already looked it up on webster.

>

> *Definition of pointless*

> 1 : devoid of meaning : senseless a *pointless* remark

> 2 : devoid of effectiveness : flat *pointless* attempts to be funny

> 3 : devoid of XP : a *pointless* attempt to level an upscale in GW2 WvW

>

> — pointlessly *adverb*

> — pointlessness *noun*

>

> See?

Is that what he meant though? I like to ask people exactly what they mean as a courtesy to be sure we're not talking past one another.

If we go strictly by that definition then I cannot speak to meaning I can say it's likely to be less effectiveness but what I really want to say is don't bring sub 80s into WvW because I hate that sort of behavior.

> @"steki.1478" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > I think the real question is why dont WvW and PvP get unique skins?

>

> Because legy armor was never intended for those modes. Players asked for skinless legendary and they got it.

How do you know what was "intended?" Sounds like more excuses to me.

I didn't ask for skinless legendaries I just take what I can get as a third class citizen of this game.

> @"Voltekka.2375" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > I think the real question is why dont WvW and PvP get unique skins?

>

> Because they said they wouldnt make more due to the fact that it already took then waaaay too long to finish the raid leggy set, which was not well received by the playerbase (people expected it to look much, much better). As wvw players, we are lucky to even have leggy armor. I think i had read that somewhere...

Yeah I remember reading that too seems a pretty bad excuse to me. 'We screwed up the PvE ones so we're not even gonna try with the WvW ones so sorry you still buy our mount skins for 2k gems though lol k bye.'

I think the real question is why dont WvW and PvP get unique skins?

Same process for upgrading either set.

Please define "pointless."

You will be a liability in fights and will potentially take up a spot that a level 80 could take.

> @"starlinvf.1358" said:

> This game operates heavily on attrition for big fights; so naturally bigger groups output higher attrition rates against the enemy teams.

This is only true if you're fighting next to someone's spawn or if you lack the damage to fully and quickly wipe your opponent. The biggest issue I see against almost every server we face is that way too many enemy players are playing supportish builds which is why they are easy to completely overwhelm if the numbers even slightly shift against them.

I think scourges are mostly balanced they might consider taking a look at sand savant and maybe toning down the 'scourge as shade' mechanic a bit but otherwise I think scourges are perfectly fine. I think scourges are the current noob killer build and that's why they're so popular because they're very easy to counterplay if you actually know how to play the game. From my point of view the really strong stuff is just too hard for most people to play properly and so many players end up defaulting to spellbreakers and scourges because they can be effective with very little practice.

> @"hugeboss.5432" said:

>Its easy to believe you are good at combat when you have the superior number coverage, but in equal numbered combat we do see the best combative servers are competitively matched against eachother (if they all play the game mode properly... 'stares at Mag').

What?

> @"Icemanfrost.5428" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

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

> > > > I should think the utility of Discord would be self evident. If you're suffering from some sort of mental illness that makes interacting with others hard for you then consider seeking professional help instead of appealing to a forum that can't help you.

> > >

> > > This is neither helpful, nor compassionate. Please don't be mean to people who suffer a genuine illness that makes it difficult to talk. Anxiety is a serious issue, and is not necessarily easily solved - and definitely not quickly so.

> > >

> > > I'd also note that I tend to avoid voice chat systems because I have a physical disability that makes it challenging for me to understand people talking on them; while I understand the utility of them, the fact is that they are not a universal panacea, and they are not accessible to everyone.

> > >

> > > Please try to be nicer to other people.

> >

> > I'm not being mean I think I'm one of the only people attempting to be helpful. No one can do anything for him/her here except commiserate. Maybe that's all the OP wants. But if this person is truly suffering from some sort of mental illness then he/she needs to seek professional help not appeal to an internet forum that can't really do anything about the problem.

> >

> > If someone has a physical disability that prevents them from using coms then they're going to be very limited in terms of how much they can participate and at what level of organization they can participate, particularly in PvP or WvW. This is unfortunate but that's just the way it is.

> >

> > The unfortunate truth for people with social anxiety disorders is that MMOs are socially driven multiplayer games and they are going to involve some amount of social interaction if one is going to participate in organized activities regardless of the game mode. If they can't deal with that then perhaps they should be playing single player games not whining because someone asked them to get in discord.

> >

> > To OP: the problem here seems to be you; fix yourself. Don't expect others to cater to you just because human interaction frightens you.

>

> It is disappointing because I have social anxiety you leaped to "suffering from a mental illness" I mean really? and your comment "I think I'm one of the few trying to help" no you are trying to shut me down and cite mental illness. Anxiety is a very real thing. Just because you can't see it. Doesn't mean it's not there. Your comments are not helpful they are the opposite.

>

> I think all people deserve to be treated with respect and dignity when you make those kinds of comments are very hurtful and not helpful. You are stereotyping me. I'm not crazy. I just don't do social interaction that naturally as other people. I'm in isolation most of the time except for the internet. Just because I may be awkward at it, doesn't mean I'm ill.

I didn't say your anxiety isn't real. But it sounds like pretty severe social anxiety if you're honestly worried at the prospect of having to speak to someone online. Why are you in isolation most of the time? Is it self imposed? Could it be because you're suffering from some sort of crippling mental illness that makes you bawk at the notion of even basic human interaction?

You don't get respect unless you earn it and it sounds to me like you're just asking for special treatment and I have no respect for that.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

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

> > > Still can't understand why people don't use watchtower against the server who has it. It's a crutch.....

> > >

> > > Also, still can't understand why people build siege in range of ballistas, and ACs.

> >

> > Siegemastery is something of a lost art in this game. I only know one person on Mag who knows all the siege placements.

>

> Yeah..

>

> I know people hate 'siege humpers' and hate trying to break the T3s. Easiest way to do it is tap a keep, to pull the scout.

>

> Drop 4 catas out of range of the watchtower, and unload. By the time the scout gets back, wall is either down, or close to it.

>

> Can also throw a wrinkle in and have one player mess with the guards while cata'ing a watchtower structure so they think that's causing the swords..

>

> I dunno.., sometimes people make this game harder than it is.

>

> Once that group with the catas gets into range of the watchtower, the call would go out, pulling a group to fight. So, either PPTers or PPKers get their wish.

The real issue with towers is that if they're close enough to a keep you have to consider placements relative to keep trebs and mortars as well as the tower defenses and that's where I think people really start to fail, myself included because there's usually some very narrow strip of land where you can safely build stuff and even then I'll need shield gens. It never ceases to amaze me how much ground inner trebs and mortars can cover from complete safety, particularly on ebg.

Keeps are obnoxious primarily because of how much supply they can hold which means it can take hours to wear one down if it's being competently defended. It has taken me four hours to get into fully supplied t3 keeps before and then you get maybe one or two fights out of it.

I think it's all too much work and I think that's why a lot of commanders just give up on commanding entirely. The fun to annoyance ratio is skewed way too far towards annoyance to be worth the time. It can take hours and hours of dealing with siege just to get an underwhelming fight because very few people seem to even remember how to fight properly anymore. Some servers are so bad at fighting that they won't even attempt to defend things once their siege fails so you can spend hours trying to get into something just to freecap it because all the defenders just leave and go to the next thing and start building siege. It's not fun. Video games are supposed to be fun and siege just ruins this game's fun for everyone except siegemasters and even most of them are gone.

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > I should think the utility of Discord would be self evident. If you're suffering from some sort of mental illness that makes interacting with others hard for you then consider seeking professional help instead of appealing to a forum that can't help you.

>

> This is neither helpful, nor compassionate. Please don't be mean to people who suffer a genuine illness that makes it difficult to talk. Anxiety is a serious issue, and is not necessarily easily solved - and definitely not quickly so.

>

> I'd also note that I tend to avoid voice chat systems because I have a physical disability that makes it challenging for me to understand people talking on them; while I understand the utility of them, the fact is that they are not a universal panacea, and they are not accessible to everyone.

>

> Please try to be nicer to other people.

I'm not being mean I think I'm one of the only people attempting to be helpful. No one can do anything for him/her here except commiserate. Maybe that's all the OP wants. But if this person is truly suffering from some sort of mental illness then he/she needs to seek professional help not appeal to an internet forum that can't really do anything about the problem.

If someone has a physical disability that prevents them from using coms then they're going to be very limited in terms of how much they can participate and at what level of organization they can participate, particularly in PvP or WvW. This is unfortunate but that's just the way it is.

The unfortunate truth for people with social anxiety disorders is that MMOs are socially driven multiplayer games and they are going to involve some amount of social interaction if one is going to participate in organized activities regardless of the game mode. If they can't deal with that then perhaps they should be playing single player games not whining because someone asked them to get in discord.

To OP: the problem here seems to be you; fix yourself. Don't expect others to cater to you just because human interaction frightens you.

It would help to test this if we could see the exact hp numbers on the bar.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> Still can't understand why people don't use watchtower against the server who has it. It's a crutch.....

>

> Also, still can't understand why people build siege in range of ballistas, and ACs.

Siegemastery is something of a lost art in this game. I only know one person on Mag who knows all the siege placements.

I should think the utility of Discord would be self evident. If you're suffering from some sort of mental illness that makes interacting with others hard for you then consider seeking professional help instead of appealing to a forum that can't help you.

> @"Torolan.5816" said:

>if you quit tomorrow, nobody will ever notice it if you are not in the top 1000 APs of your given server.

If you're actually an important player/commander on your server people will absolutely care if you quit or transfer. If you're some scrub nobody who just pugs around and one pushes half your fights then yeah nobody cares but why would they?

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > This is revisionist history at it's worst. DAOC didn't tank hard, because if it did it wouldn't have made it 12 years. WoW it's true was very popular, but lots of people also didn't like it. Lots of DAOC players in particular never made the jump to WoW> It had a hard core niche market for ages, and those people were very very loyal. Comparing any game to WoW is pointless because no one had the advertising budget htat Blizzard did, coming off Warcraft 2 and Star Craft so yeah, no MMO has ever been able to compare to WoW. But compared to every MMO but WoW it was doing fine.

> > >

> > > On top of that, this game, was specifically designed, in many ways, to be an anti MMO. The design decisions made in Guild Wars 2, intentionally, by design, doesn't show incompetent. It shows thought process. This game is a game for people who don't like how most other MMOs, including WoW, handle things.

> > >

> > > The problem is WOW success spawned clone after clone after clone and people weren't willing to break that pattern. Guild Wars 2 was.

> >

> > Blizzard made over a billion dollars within the first year of releasing WoW, who can blame other developers for trying to capture some of that market by essentially copying WoW? That's how business works right?

> >

> > We can argue semantics about what it means to "tank hard" because obviously DAoC did enough business to support its expansions but all the sources online I've been able to find about the game indicate that it lost a LOT of players once WoW came out and that it's just a fairly inexpensive game to run and develop due to its engine and the overall simplicity of its design. There are clearly some people who really enjoy a very barebones approach to RvR because as far as I can tell from reading and watching videos of the gameplay the DAoC RvR is very very simple in terms of its design and gameplay.

> >

> > The original vision for GW2 was pretty smart but the development decisions surrounding PvP and WvW since release have been utterly incompetent and misguided to say the least. They decided to try to make GW2 PvP an esport even though it seemed pretty obvious early on that the game lacked the infrastructure to support it. They then doubled down on PvP for years even though it seemed obvious to anyone watching that it wasn't likely to happen. WvW has been largely ignored relative to PvP even though WvW very very very popular with the players particularly within the first two or three years. So they did three seasons and basically gave up after that. I guess Anet just couldn't figure out what they wanted to do with WvW and so the WvW we're playing now is basically the same WvW I was playing at launch but with a lot more rewards and fancy menus. They haven't even added any more achievements since launch they just made the initial ones even easier to get. The WvW restructuring is a nice idea but I believe it is too little too late. I guess we'll find out.

> >

> > This is why I say they're incompetent; it seems like most of the developers don't actually play the game or if they do they're so bad at it that they can't really understand what's going on within it at any level beyond beginner to intermediate.

> >

> >

> >

> Their incompetence is your opinion. They have made mistakes but so has every single MMO publisher out there. The rest of what you said, I disagree with.

>

> If you have a game that's a bit older and a new game comes out, very often people will go to that new game and that's expected. I've worked in the publishing industry and it's the same thing. A game does most of it's success most of the time in the first 3 months that it's out. Guild Wars 2 was no exception to that. And it's still a successful MMO.

>

> You don't judge a game by how many people are lost over time, because that happens to just about all games, including WOW. You judge the success of the game by long term viability, and whether it met expectations of the business plan and the stockholders. Their expectations are always going to go down from launch, unless they're being unrealistic. The entertainment industry anticipates a slide in sales, which is why I laugh when people say this game used to make so much and now it makes less...but that's pretty much true of all games.

>

> At the end of the day, the way success is measure is in longevity and profit. DAOC had both.

>

Is that honestly how you evaluate a video game?

I suspect you're just trying to win an online argument I can't imagine anyone playing a game and actually saying to themselves "well it's ugly and the gameplay is atrocious and it doesn't have any modern features but it's been around a while and it turned a profit for its investors so it's a good game I really like it."

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> This is revisionist history at it's worst. DAOC didn't tank hard, because if it did it wouldn't have made it 12 years. WoW it's true was very popular, but lots of people also didn't like it. Lots of DAOC players in particular never made the jump to WoW> It had a hard core niche market for ages, and those people were very very loyal. Comparing any game to WoW is pointless because no one had the advertising budget htat Blizzard did, coming off Warcraft 2 and Star Craft so yeah, no MMO has ever been able to compare to WoW. But compared to every MMO but WoW it was doing fine.

>

> On top of that, this game, was specifically designed, in many ways, to be an anti MMO. The design decisions made in Guild Wars 2, intentionally, by design, doesn't show incompetent. It shows thought process. This game is a game for people who don't like how most other MMOs, including WoW, handle things.

>

> The problem is WOW success spawned clone after clone after clone and people weren't willing to break that pattern. Guild Wars 2 was.

Blizzard made over a billion dollars within the first year of releasing WoW, who can blame other developers for trying to capture some of that market by essentially copying WoW? That's how business works right?

We can argue semantics about what it means to "tank hard" because obviously DAoC did enough business to support its expansions but all the sources online I've been able to find about the game indicate that it lost a LOT of players once WoW came out and that it's just a fairly inexpensive game to run and develop due to its engine and the overall simplicity of its design. There are clearly some people who really enjoy a very barebones approach to RvR because as far as I can tell from reading and watching videos of the gameplay the DAoC RvR is very very simple in terms of its design and gameplay.

The original vision for GW2 was pretty smart but the development decisions surrounding PvP and WvW since release have been utterly incompetent and misguided to say the least. They decided to try to make GW2 PvP an esport even though it seemed pretty obvious early on that the game lacked the infrastructure to support it. They then doubled down on PvP for years even though it seemed obvious to anyone watching that it wasn't likely to happen. WvW has been largely ignored relative to PvP even though WvW very very very popular with the players particularly within the first two or three years. So they did three seasons and basically gave up after that. I guess Anet just couldn't figure out what they wanted to do with WvW and so the WvW we're playing now is basically the same WvW I was playing at launch but with a lot more rewards and fancy menus. They haven't even added any more achievements since launch they just made the initial ones even easier to get. The WvW restructuring is a nice idea but I believe it is too little too late. I guess we'll find out.

This is why I say they're incompetent; it seems like most of the developers don't actually play the game or if they do they're so bad at it that they can't really understand what's going on within it at any level beyond beginner to intermediate.

I have almost no trouble on rev maybe try rev.

> @"Sylosi.6503" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

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

> > > > How's that working for DAOC?

> > >

> > > It worked for DAOC for a long long long time. Keep in mind that that game is 17 years old, not five years old. Let's see how well this game is doing in another twelve years. DAOC made enough of an impression on devs to inspire WvW, so it must have had some impact on the MMO genre.

> >

> > That's great that it worked at one point in time.

>

> It worked longer and better than WvW did...

Did it though?

DAoC apparently came out in 2001, three years before WoW and it apparently tanked very very hard once WoW hit in 2004 and has limped on in terms of actual numbers of players ever since. So while people are still playing DAoC it was really only a thing worth mentioning for about 3 years in an environment where it didn't have any serious competition. GW2, despite having maybe the most incompetent development team I've ever seen in any game I've ever played, has still managed to carve a substantial niche for itself despite having to constantly compete with many other triple A MMOs including WoW and its multiple expansions through the entirety of its existence.

WvW is still quite active though certainly not as active as it once was despite having almost no substantive changes made to it since launch. Almost everything they've added has simply been fluff to dress things up but it's essentially the same game mode it was at launch and people are still playing it.

I really don't think the issue is scoring and I really don't think DAoC should be a working model for any game considering how poorly it's done in the aftermath of WoW.

The traits and behaviors that I have always most admired in commanders and have tried to develop in myself are creativity, the ability to take responsibility for the outcome good or bad and the ability to stay calm and relaxed regardless of what happens.

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> I miss Mag..

>

> MAG get your lazy butts back up here!

Not gonna happen we don't have the coverage to beat SOS.

Big news folks, this just in: it turns out BG has a lot of people!! Who knew?