Sansar.1302

it is a bad mecanic for wvvw as it gives stat boost that makes the one with more numbers even stronger

I think all npc should be removed in wvw and i mean all

> @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > > > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > > > > > > I'm not "assuming" any more than you are -average player being bad is a fact. Downstate as a great safety net for bad players is a fact (which doesn't mean it's limited to strictly this reasoning for every player that wants to keep the downstate, in case you think I'm somehow trying to insult you here or w/e). Actually if we use *what you did* as a proof for anything (polls), then *most players/average player* wants the downstate to remain unchanged: > > > > > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/97040/new-balance-patch-time-to-change-downstate > > > > > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/75626/no-downstate-poll-please-read-post-first/p1 > > > > > > > It's not an opt in. Skill is irrelevant, downstate is always there. I'd love to know how many times the absolute best players in WvW has been ressed. But maybe they are secretly bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it's not. Of course anyone uses it *beacuse they have no choice* and if you get that soft cushon to fall on then why would you not use it while others do? But that still doesn't change anything about what I've said and what I said was never anything like "good players don't use it", which you seem to be answering to for some reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also for those votes, want to bet that *almost all* of the unchanged voters would still agree to a compromise if you argued with them? > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't matter what you "want to bet on". You were talking about polls as a proof for *whatever claim*, now that the poll shows against what you've said, you suddenly don't care about what they show, but instead *want to bet*. Cool. But you're also doing exactly what I said -these limited polls are only relevant when they show what I (in this case: *you*) want them to show. So it's clear what and why you're doing right now. Again, your "bets" don't change anything about what I've said in my previous posts, but they sure show that you'll try to use double standards when taking those ""undeniable proofs"" as actual proofs based pretty much solely on the fact whether or not they confirm *your opinion*. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Leaving it unchanged is probably mostly a knee-jerk reaction to delete being in the poll. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, these things are not equivalent -not even close. > > > > > > > Oh but they are eqvivalent and they are close. Just like when people say "well downstate is a little OP" and the knee-jerk reaction is "dElEtE DowNsTaTe!1!!", so has pretty much any argument with thief and its... lets just say liberal use of... stealth been. Delete the thief. Problem solved. If you consider deleting downstate a valid point then there are no ifs or buts. I can **easily** argue that combat stealth gameplay has no place in competitive PvP. So delete thief, it's a crutch for bad players that is a fact. Because *obviously*. Other classes have it too, true. Delete them too then. Its not possible to go *too* far, is it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course that would be stupid. Because despite what "problems" it has, the thief is a part of the game and it offers a unique playstyle unlike any other class because, well its the thief. I'm sure many people love playing the thief. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Downed state is a core gameplay element of GW2 and offers a unique playstyle unlike most other games, it's one of the reasons many people like playing GW2. It adds another tactical element to combat - sometimes for good, sometimes for bad - and plays on the human emotions of wanting to help people in need and if you can help them, they may return the favor and help you when you need it. Just what a true MMO should do rather than just skill clicking muscle memory to kill the enemy dead with boomboom and pewpew. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, not even close to being equivalent and I (as well as many other people) don't even "say *well downstate is a little OP*". Really, that it NOT what many people, including me said, so not sure why would I even read the rest when your initial claim about what I say is straight up false. And no, for me it's not a "knee jerk reaction", no matter how many times you'll try to claim it is just because it's an "easy out" for you. Just like before literally the only reason you try to claim it surely is a "kNeE jErK rEaCtIoN!1!!!" is because you want to claim that the average people have the same opinion like you, which is as baseless as it was above. > > > > > > > > > > > > tl;dr of your key points from 2 last responses to me: > > > > > > Someone has an opinion that's different than mine? WELL, THEY ARE *JUST MAKING UP OPPOSING ARGUMENT* AND *IT WAS A KNEE JERK REACTION*! > > > > > > [yup, actual quotes] > > > > > Something something people willing to compromise trying to argue with people that will never compromise. > > > > > > > > You're not *willing to compromise*, you're literally just repeating your opinion and sticking to it while picking and choosing when the same argument is relevant or not based solely on the fact whether or not it supports your opinion ("*according to polls/majority/average player I'm correct*" ..."*well, if the polls show I'm not correct, then it means that the voters didn't understand what they vote for and now my unchanged opinion is a compromise*"). This is not what a "compromise" is and nobody says there always needs to be one. > > > > > > > > Nice try at pretending you're taking into consideration anything that anyone else says though. > > > What does deleting downstate compromise with those that want to keep it? > > > > How is your long-held opinion suddenly a compromise with anything else? It's not, it's unchanged since the beginning. > > > > > But yeah I admit defeat. It's pointless unless you can answer that question. > > > > It's pointless when you're pretending you're going for a compromise, when you're clearly not, but it's an easy out for you to disregard anything that was written before, including the obvious double standards about accepting "proof" for anything based on whether or not it shows what you want it to show. > > > > And again: I'm not sure where that idea that everything needs/should end in a compromise came from, but it's not a general truth and not some kind of *the best solution for any case*. > The compromise is to nerf downstate, to the point I even suggest to fully delete a part of it (rally). Something I think most people will find acceptable because it doesnt change the core aspect of downstate, it has less impact on smallscale and more impact on large scale and it also remove a "toxic" aspect, ie just leaving the downed or complaining that they rally the enemy. We are talking about an existing part of the game that we have had for 8 years. Again: > > **What does deleting downstate compromise with those that want to keep it?** > > I realy hate down state but, no rally might be ok as that removes alot of instant rez potential. In both pve and spvp i think it is a good mecanic, in wvw i think it is the most toxic thing in the game mode. ( And in my opinion the reason wvw never became super popular ) on a note IF downstate where to be removed in wvw i think out off combat rez needs a speed boost ( and maby alows skills to rez outside combat as well )

When i started playing many years ago down state where the only thing i did not like in this game, now i HATE it. In WvW it is a mecanic that only benefits those with number advantage.

> @"aymnad.9023" said: > > @"Sansar.1302" said: > > i think one dev once said that a good player had 5x to10x the damage output than the average player. > > When talking about raids, story and so on. So that is in PvE. > yet it tells how mutch skill does in Gw2 ,( pve skill and pvp skill is wildly different but still.... )

> @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > @"Crozame.4098" said: > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > @"Crozame.4098" said: > > > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > > > @"Crozame.4098" said: > > > > > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > > > > > @"Crozame.4098" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Crozame.4098" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Crozame.4098" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Crozame.4098" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Crozame.4098" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On another note: should ANET balance's focus on MAT or high level ranked? I think it might be better to balance based on high level ranked. Because the majority of games are ranked games. And in ranked only duo que is allowed. Uncoordinated games are very different from MAT games. Therefore, the meta on the metabattle might be slightly misguilded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The majority of games are low ranked games. They should not be excluded either, maybe even considered first. When you kitten off your playerbase, nobody will care about the few good players. Saying something goes rampant in lower ranks does not make a build okay, when the people stop playing there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree about the first part, many things stayed untouched and at the same time, there were some poor decisions included. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you cannot balance a game based on players do not have some level of knowledge. I am not saying 1800+ but p2 should be fine. MAT is just a different story. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I strongly disagree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you allow all those toxic newbie-farmers to haress lower ranks nobody should be surprised there is a population problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean, this game is out for 8 years. Of course experince players are better than newbies. If you focus on balancing on lower tiers then the game will be more kitten, personal skill does not matter, and what matters are class and comp. This bad trend has been in place for a while. This is why, when I play a fresh new accout despite winning 1v1 and 1v2 at far, yet I still lost my second placement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This game has good pvp system. And if you balance according to gold1-2 players, then skill does not matter, then more and more ppl will quit. I realy dont understand your logic.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said **only** balance for lower ranks. I said **include every single rating range**. And ATs, if you like. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you ignore the situation in lower ranks, why would anyone be surprised about low population? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lower ranks means : they dont care or they are new or they dont understand the game, or they are just very bad mechaincally for example, click all abilities by mouse. Tell me how to balance base on these players? This will only make the game worse. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet 90% of the players are in those rating ranges. If you have toxic builds which leads to 50% of those to quit the game, nobody will be happy. People already complain about low population, we all - and Anet first - need to start considering why that is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean by toxic builds? I think there will be more toxic builds if balance based on lower rank,. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All those one-shot builds before February like FA weaver and power mesmer. > > > > > > > All those stealth-condi builds like condi thief or - currently - burn DH (which is strong even in higher brackets, but way less prevalent). > > > > > > > All those AI builds like MM necros. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Buffing because of lower ranks might be difficult to do, but nerfing needs to be done. Otherwise it would be like doing tax regulations only for the super rich. Surprise - the people are not happy with it. Or, in our case, we have low population. > > > > > > > > > > > > based on my impression, high players do not play those builds. At least not the majority of them, The majority of them play other builds~ Brun DH should be gone in high rating matches. But trapper condi soulb~~ its also cancer~ > > > > > > > > > > You are mostly right (burn DH sees some play up into highest ranks), but those are - or have been - haressing lower ranks and were complained about. :smile: Those builds might not be objectively OP and have their hard counters in higher ranked play, but when they make lower ranked people abandon PVP, nobody should be surprised about the low population situation we are having. > > > > > > > > You really cant balance based on golds. Because another important part of pvp is map rotation, and know how to kite around. These has nothing to do with balance. > > > > > > You can. And it has. > > > > > > You should **consider** (not as your only source!) it for reasons mentioned above. I am not going to repeat myself. Just think about where this low population comes from. > > > > .... i am pretty confident that you are wrong, but do not want to waste more time on this. > > > > ok..Maybe one last note: > > > You can. And it has. > > In which patch does dumping down the game acutally benefitted game? The Thief adjustment of angle to chagne the distance of dagger 2; the nerf on portal etc... These dumping down changes do not help the game. > > > > Think about 2-3 years ago. How many low effort high reward builds you see? There is no condi druid, condi thief, trapper DH, flamethrower Scrapper. All these kitten builds emerge after the half done patch. > > > > Further dump things down, then there is no incentive to get good, because it does not matter, and the pvp will be truely dead. It's already sad to see p1 p2 games, ppl do not know how to rotate, how to kite, and tunnel vision on mid and close.... > > kitten, I can't stop. > > 1. it is not about dumbing down the game. > > 2. Nerfing toxic builds in low ranks has zero effect on the higher ranked players. Those builds simply don't work there. > > 3. We need to stop only regarding the top 5% of the players for balancing. If the other 95% have no fun in PVP, we will keep our population problem. That is a major issue. > > 4. Stop the chauvinism. 95% are more important than 5%. If any sports loses its playerbase, it loses all relevance. Why should Anet only cater the top 100 players, when they are the only ones left? Why should they invest any balancing effort into those 100 players, when there are 100.000 in PVE? It is not toxic builds that make newbies quit ( it is mixing hig skill and low skill players that make it toxic ) As my rank fell quite brutal due to a crash problem when i reatched low silver i could be top dmg with a full suport build and got called hacker etc. i think one dev once said that a good player had 5x to10x the damage output than the average player.

> @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Sansar.1302" said: > > Wonder why you cant have 6 vs 5 in spvp... > No I dont wonder that since sPvP is all about outmanouvering your enemy so you can win points (more often than not by outnumbering them on that point). > > Should we wonder why the winning team never forfeit the match because they are dominating the enemy and a win would be unfair and dumb? lol you bend every word , have seen you in other posts seam like you hate fighting yet you are active in a pvp sub board. WvW in my mind is only about fighting all else is only flavor and thus we all should aim to have a healty game mode ( and in my mind that should mean that even numbred figths should be the norm not the exeption. all the way from 1v1 to full squad vs full squad. ) Some deviation ofc, but as some the few last years active try to ruin any fair fight, why?

> @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Sansar.1302" said: > > i rather get destoyed in 1v1, 2v2 etc than win a 4 vs 3 as winning with more numbers is dumb and realy not a win at all > Yeah, you go do you then. > > I'd like to see you meet a melee weaver, condi rev and support scrapper top-of-the-server guild group and still somehow argue that yes, together with xXLegolasXx over there as a core level 72 ranger in green gear and a dog pet as well as HulkBoy on the other side as a hammer firebrand in full soldiers, this is exactly enough numbers to fight them, anything else would be **unfair** so others should stay away or the fight becomes **dumb**. > > I find it an absolutely ridiculous statement thats rejecting reality so hard its unbelievable. > > Also, how exactly do you reconcile this line of thought if the fight is 3v4, then the outnumbered kills 2 and the fight become a 3v2. Did it become unfair and the fight is now dumb and not really a win at all if they beat them? How does that even work? As i only play solo meting a grp like that is gonna send me back to respawn (and it does it alot ), in a 1v1 on the otherhand almost only a rly good thief can kill me ( most thiefs are dead b4 they understand what happend ) Never before have it been so hard to solo and that have nothing to do with ballance only how most dont leave spawn before they have a grp and if ppl go out in wvw with bad gear or not fully levled then why not tell them to come back when more prepaird ? Wonder why you cant have 6 vs 5 in spvp...

> @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"gloflop.3510" said: > > > @"Sansar.1302" said: > > > Why is most so affraid of figths with eqaul numbers in solo/smal scale. > > > > > > > > This is for me also the biggest question. Imagine you run with a friend across the map. You find 2 players doing the same. What are these two players doing? Precisely! The run away. If it happens once, ok. I also sometimes dodge fights. But if this happens again and again, one may slowly ask "what the heck am I playing?". It gets weirder when I lose my wing-man and suddenly find myself attacked by the same 2 players who dodged us before. > The biggest question is why people would ever consider this the biggest question. > > A player in WvW doesnt automatically equal another player no matter how much people believe it. > > There's been plenty of times where I've been running in a 2 man group and meeting 2 enemies that stand no chance, they just get crushed. > And similarly there's been plenty of times where we've met another 2 man group that we stand no chance at winning against. > > Whether it be the perfect class or build counter combo or if it's skill is completely irrevelevant. > > And yes, *of course* the groups that we need 4v2 to beat is often the same groups that will whisper and go *"boohoo you kitten suck you come fight us with equal numbers you noobs"* because people have absolutely **zero** respect for their own skill. I can understand them, why would they train get good etc if they are blobbed down. What is the point in that ? i rather get destoyed in 1v1, 2v2 etc than win a 4 vs 3 as winning with more numbers is dumb and realy not a win at all imo.

> @"SweetPotato.7456" said: > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > @"SweetPotato.7456" said: > > > There are small maps, for instant take SMC and fight on the wall and harassed anyone trying to pass by. > > > and There are big maps, more challenges with many ways to travel around. a strong squad that won't have to keep porting back from the spawn, will win on Red Borderland > > > > > > BTW: This is a competitive map, knowing the map/terrain wins half the battle. I do not think that asking for the map to be change is fair play. > > > > > > ArenaNet gives us choices, big map, small maps, go to the one you like. Red borderland is one of the map that is actually interesting enough to keep me want to go back to WvW no-a-days. every server already become "xx server" no one is interested to defend anything, no one wants to play when there isn't a tag running with a zerg to zerg down everything they see in their path. Everyone has an alt account that they play when one of their account is on low time (no one playing time) > > > > > > Please do not destroy what little is left that is interesting for players who like the Red Borderland. > > > > > > Learn the map, please do no try to destroy it, it was VOTED to stay as one of the WvW map, it's not hard to travel around it once you know which path to take to go where. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > It may interest you but the lack of activity in comparison to the other maps clearly shows that no amount of cajoling, begging in team chat, calling people noobs who are 'too afraid of redbl', demanding that people play in a map they don't enjoy, or insisting that every one just needs to, 'learn the map', is going to make players choose to play there. > > Just delete it and help reduce the blood pressure of those three people per server who are screaming in /t every time no one will come help them on their beloved empty map. > > Not on my Red Borderland there's plenty of activities. My Redborderland is always awesome, theres always a lot of fights, defending and attacking alike, we have 3 ways fights in Fire and Air keep too. I can always get to where I want in time, and do things I like. Sneaking as an invaders to take the keeps on RedbL is also super fun. What sever are you on? here it is totaly dead and have been for the longest time (Piken) Think i can run around there 4 an hour without seeing any one. Biggest problem is that every week 1 of 3 servers are missing their home alpine and many then wait so they get home alpine next week.

But at this point it seams like we never are getting a new map anyway so best would be to remove it and have 3 alpine maps again as they atleast are fun to fight on

> @"SweetPotato.7456" said: > There are small maps, for instant take SMC and fight on the wall and harassed anyone trying to pass by. > and There are big maps, more challenges with many ways to travel around. a strong squad that won't have to keep porting back from the spawn, will win on Red Borderland > > BTW: This is a competitive map, knowing the map/terrain wins half the battle. I do not think that asking for the map to be change is fair play. > > ArenaNet gives us choices, big map, small maps, go to the one you like. Red borderland is one of the map that is actually interesting enough to keep me want to go back to WvW no-a-days. every server already become "xx server" no one is interested to defend anything, no one wants to play when there isn't a tag running with a zerg to zerg down everything they see in their path. Everyone has an alt account that they play when one of their account is on low time (no one playing time) > > Please do not destroy what little is left that is interesting for players who like the Red Borderland. > > Learn the map, please do no try to destroy it, it was VOTED to stay as one of the WvW map, it's not hard to travel around it once you know which path to take to go where. > > Thank you. > We voted too keep it because the devs said if we voted to get rid off it we would never get a new wvw map again.

Make no mistake the sword changes where a nerf

Same here, crashing after this patch. Tried deleting Local.dat dont help, i am 100% sure it is not my pc as my laptop also gets same crash (both with a 10-series gtx, gtx 1080 in main pc and gtx 1060 in laptop) Both pcs are 100% stabel in all other games and applications. (including 3dmark loop) Crash faster in spvp than any other places.

in windows guild wars use dx9 NOT OpenGL