Gudradain.3892

Could someone explain to me what would be fun about housing? It would almost certainly be instanced to give everyone a chance to have a house and, like we have seen with guild hall, no one would come to visit them... If it's not instanced, there will be limited spots. Which means, it will be a feature ONLY for the 100 wealthiest or luckiest players...

> @"Kylden Ar.3724" said: > > @"Gudradain.3892" said: > > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said: > > > > @"Gudradain.3892" said: > > > > The solution is to give everyone the same downed skills. > > > > > > > > Skill #1: Necromancer channel attack that heal and damage. > > > > Skill #2: Elementalist mist form > > > > Skill #3: Ranger healing pet > > > > Skill #4: Bandage > > > > > > I mean, you're not wrong, but yet you are. > > > > > > PvP/WvW should have the same skills for everyone, a generic set of downed skills. PvE can keep the flavorful ones they have. > > > > > > **Downed Skills for WvW/PvP:** > > > 1. Generic throw rock. > > > 2. Throw rock harder with stun/interrupt. > > > 3. Crawl Away. (While channeling, you can move slowly to try and get out of AOE or behind friendly lines, and you bleed out slower) > > > 4. Bandage. That one is already universal. > > > > Why not give the most interesting/powerful skills instead of the most boring/ineffective skills? Everyone would love to have the same mistform as the elementalist when they are downed but your suggestions don't seem very exciting. > > Because one of the issues with downed in PvP is how imbalanced it is. Some classes downed skills are just clearly BETTER than the others. For PvP/WvW, it should be balanced out as an even playing field. It's not about making everyone ridiculous and able to escape as downed thru a tower portal, it's about bringing everyone down to the same level. If you give everyone the same set of downed skills then there is no imbalance. You can bring everyone up to the same level.

Any build that you hate to meet in WvW and/or what is your worst match up?

That's it. We need to nerf weaver now! (Nice video)

> @"Kylden Ar.3724" said: > > @"Gudradain.3892" said: > > The solution is to give everyone the same downed skills. > > > > Skill #1: Necromancer channel attack that heal and damage. > > Skill #2: Elementalist mist form > > Skill #3: Ranger healing pet > > Skill #4: Bandage > > I mean, you're not wrong, but yet you are. > > PvP/WvW should have the same skills for everyone, a generic set of downed skills. PvE can keep the flavorful ones they have. > > **Downed Skills for WvW/PvP:** > 1. Generic throw rock. > 2. Throw rock harder with stun/interrupt. > 3. Crawl Away. (While channeling, you can move slowly to try and get out of AOE or behind friendly lines, and you bleed out slower) > 4. Bandage. That one is already universal. Why not give the most interesting/powerful skills instead of the most boring/ineffective skills? Everyone would love to have the same mistform as the elementalist when they are downed but your suggestions don't seem very exciting.

The solution is to give everyone the same downed skills. Skill #1: Necromancer channel attack that heal and damage. Skill #2: Elementalist mist form Skill #3: Ranger healing pet Skill #4: Bandage

IMO, once you lose everything in your corner of EBG, invincible trebuchets should automatically appear at spawn to let you retake your keep and towers.

Yes, 3 way fights might never be completely balanced but that is not the problem. It's how the game mode works and it's fun like that. The problem is that we don't have enough competitors to create healthy competition. Match Up are often not a close fight. One server is often much stronger or much weaker than the other servers. Given enough servers, you would always find servers that are closely related in strength. Given only 12 servers, it's practically impossible to match a server against others of similar strength.

> @"Zok.4956" said: > > @"Gudradain.3892" said: > > You need more worlds and smaller worlds to create an healthy and interesting competitive scene. > > The mode is WvWvW and three servers fighting against each other or together will always be more or less unfair. Which is fun sometimes. But for a healthy competitive scene you need fair fights. > > You can have GvG and 1v1 in WvW but these are only segments of the game mode. > No. I'm quite sure you just need more competitors to create healthy competition. Given enough competitors, it doesn't matter what the competition is because you will be able to match opponents of similar levels together. On the other hand, if you don't have enough competitors it's impossible to create any healthy competition. Chess for example is a very competitive game. But, if there was only 12 players in the world, would it even be competitive?

I think I would enjoy it if they created a whole map underwater. As a relatively quick test, you could put Tangled Depth completely underwater to see how it would turn out!

> @"Excursion.9752" said: > Just curious how coverage would work? Even at higher tiers with full populations there can be giant gaps in content. If they did go smaller how would you deal with the possible boredom from no one to fight? Server-link, just like how it is right now. Instead of 2 links together, it would be multiple links together since server would be smaller. Note: Free transfer is to help guild members to play together. Smaller server is to prevent stacking too much in the same server and give more flexibility to link servers to create balance match up. The thing "alliance" is fixing is enabling guild to play together without creating too much server stacking issues.

Maybe other class could do it too? I found that it makes wall less of a death trap since you can easily target your aoe at the bottom of the wall without getting close to the edge when defending.

Well, if we only look at the thematic side, I think it works pretty well. The idea of the skill is to shoot arrow up in the air and they fall down in the area you designed. So, line of sight should not matter.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > You would identify with your alliance. (If you choose to be in one). > > You said earlier it would be ‘too big’ to create relationships with people yet, when I note they are smaller than servers, you say it won’t work., No, it won't work. Yes, you chose your alliance but if a world is a combination of alliance that constantly change then the whole alliance idea is pointless. You can't create an identity as a world when most of the players you play with are chosen randomly and will change in a few weeks. **The current server-link system is proof enough that it doesn't work**. It's not because you give it a new name and redo the exact same thing that it's suddenly better.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Gudradain.3892" said: > For starters, it would be likely 2 alliances per ‘world’ > > And the number of ‘worlds’ will be dependent on overall population. So, there may only be 9 worlds (3tiers) or there may be more if enough people (5 tiers etc) A strong argument for alliance is to create an identity the players can relate to. If you just do "alliance-link" you just killed alliance identity just like server-link killed server identity. Also, having very few worlds will never create an healthy competitive scene. There will be worlds (alliances) stronger and everyone will know which one and there will be weaker worlds and everyone will know which one. As soon as the matchup begin, you already know: "Ok this world will win, and this one will lose". You need more worlds and smaller worlds to create an healthy and interesting competitive scene.