Multicolorhipster.9751

Unless the balance patch was to undo most-everything since Feb 25th. "Put that thing back where it came from or so help me!"

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > I mentioned this in the above comment, but imo these fake tradeoffs anet has added to Elite Specs hurt more then help then anything else, and there's a good reason why. > > Think about it for a moment. The real problems in this game arise from the mechanics of skills. The tradeoff's implemented on these elite specs are just bandaaid fixes rather then addressing the actual problems, and skills that are completely okay in design actually suffer additional punishment from an additional tradeoff that was never intended for said skill. This is why we see off meta builds dying when a meta build dies due to changes to the elite spec itself. Again good example is mirage going from having maybe 3 viable builds to 0 viable builds post feb. I mean, you're not wrong by any stretch. A lot of the 'tradeoffs' put on elites do just feel like bandaid fixes with no real impact, but then again there's elites like Mirage. Like you say; Mirage loses an entire dodge which is actually a pretty big, and dare I say smart tradeoff. The problem is some other elites having nothing of the sort. Either before and/or after Feb 25th. I'll use my main as an example: I play Spellbreaker. I imagine the tradeoff is supposed to be getting FC at the cost of only being able to use level 1 bursts. You get a strong defensive tool at the cost of damage(at least on paper.) It doesn't really compare to the tradeoff put on Mirage, Zerker, or a lot of elites really. Especially post-Feb 25th where nothing does hardly any damage anyway, so having a strong defensive tool is even less of a meaningful tradeoff. TL;DR- Tradeoffs would probably feel better if every elite had one, and they meant something at all. > And for this please refer to my previous comment. Opportunity cost, and cooldowns aren't real tradeoffs...they are fake...fugazzi...facade bandaid fixes. Again look no further then skills in gw1 where nearly every skill has about 3x times lower cooldown times...and in fact most skills could be perma'd, and the spam in that game is exponentially less then in gw2. It's no mistake why, it's because (most) skills could not be mind numbingly used without serious repercussions. Idunno. I never played Gw1. Partly for that reason. This is the second one, I think. Maybe CDs/Opportunity cost are fake tradeoffs, but like I say Utils really don't need tradeoffs. You push the button, the skill does something, then it goes on CD. We do this for 2 seconds and then 20ish seconds later we do it again. This is how its always been in Gw2. It's gucci, or it was gucci before that 20s CD became 12% of an entire match of conquest.

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > Even though i agree that the state of spvp is absolutely mind numbingly dull, i don't think imposing limits is the solution to that problem. Agree with this > This design decision was the seed to the very core issues the game has in it's design. They attempted to solve such problems with "trade-offs" but these aren't real trade-offs. Just like actions taken in nature and in the real world, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Everything you do should have a consequence. Look at some of these skills. Some of them have absolutely no counterplay. The ones that do, are tied to abilities or traits that you have to take in order to counter play them, instead of the skill inherently having counterplay built in, it's just bandaged over by adjusting other skills to do more things in an attempt to adhere to the initial design philosophy. > The idea is that there should be trade-offs to skills so that effects that return positive feedback loops should have an equal and opposite positive feedbackloop that prevents you from abusing said mechanic. An Example, Every time you use [Twist of Fate](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Twist_of_Fate), you should sacrifice barrier. The more often you use it, the more barrier is taken away. This prevents people from simply spamming it every 20 seconds on rotation and makes you question when to use it...Maybe even an exchange type of effect, where when you use Twist of Fate, you exchange that evade for double damage 1 second afterward (like [Frenzy ](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Frenzy)from Gw1) Kind of agree with these. I think tradeoffs are a good idea; way better than just nerfing everything and making the game super slow, but I don't think every skill in the game needs a tradeoff. I think they should only exist on class mechanics though(IE Zerker losing 300 toughness in Zerk-mode) and that tradeoffs like that should exist across all elite specs in a meaningful way that doesn't make the elite spec just a straight upgrade. When it comes to Utility skills, the tradeoff is usually the cooldown combined with having to give up any other utility skill in its place. If there really isn't a choice, and a skill is objectively better in every single way, that's when the nerf hammer should take a few swings at it. Instead of at literally everything. Seriously, CTRL + Z pls. Undo, UNDO!

> @"Sheobix.8796" said: > Just tired of the bunker builds. If you down someone today, good luck stomping. There's so much CC and passive healing going around that actually finishing a kill is a luxury if there are 2 people. It's true. I've been playing a CC-spam bunker warrior build and I tend to get the rez off on most of the people that go down. Nerfing CC just lead to an overabundance of it. Why use it to combo when the CC itself does no damage, and the follow up skill only does a fraction of the damage it used to? Why go full zerks to do less damage than demolisher's used to do when I can load up on tank stats & 13 different CC skills, boop someone once, and force them to use their stunbreaks which take a good 5% of the entire match to recharge now? Without a doubt, probably the single worst patch in PvP's history. The follow up patches haven't really been any better, essentially getting praise for solving issues the patch created months after the fact. Dug people into a hole, then gave them a shovel, now everything's good. ? Amazing. 10/10. _It was a good step in the right direction._

> @"choovanski.5462" said: > honestly, we need a full solo queue and a mixed queue that does groups of 2, 3 and 5. it won't take long for the community to realise that people playing in a party both afk far less and play more seriously and team orientated. I would bet the mixed queue would be highly popular. This is the play, and like I say its been done before. I get that PvP doesn't really get a lot of attention, and there's not much chance of a completely new mode. This is just a case of putting something that was once there back in though, so hopefully.

> @"Archer.4362" said: > > @"Shao.7236" said: > > Based on the average of 8 teams or so that show up in AT's which is one entire continent, with you telling me that can't be interested in doing AT's. The TeamQ will be dead in a week even if Anet hyped it up. > > It would be very easy to implement, a checkbox like the fortress mode, you want to pair up with groups of people V or X, you don't want queues alone, you want to, you can enter those groups, and solved. It would be very easy to implement because its already been done before Probably right that it would probably be dead on arrival too, but that really doesn't matter. Worst-case scenario people keep playing ATs and SoloQ. The big thing is more fair matchmaking in Ranked. Unless the 'pros' are right. According to them; the first time the queues were split it was apparently SoloQ that died out, and Teams became the more popular mode. PepeLaugh Also disagree with the whole DuoQ existing, but restricted thing. It would be fun for a few seasons, but I reckon the 'pros' would force another 51-49 poll to no fanfare/announcement, and then we'd be back in the same spot a few seasons later.

> @"wilykcat.5864" said: > This time it was when I was eating chex mix. Can't see chat in vid. Did you tell them you were eating chex mix? Maybe they really don't like Chex mix.

was this the same game with the starburst incident?

I think its accurate so long as the warrior doesn't have a target just barely outside that 1200 range. If someone is just barely out of range and I GS 5 them, sometimes i'll get a random little speed boost at the end of rush and go further than I probably should have. I'd much rather the lag-o-port rushes get fixed where the warrior just teleports mid-rush and suddenly the other person just takes random damage. And also the reliability too. Terrain can just mess up the skill completely and that's if it decides to hit what you're targeting. It doesn't always.

Good idea. A lot of games that have some form of buildcraft usually let you view your team and the enemy team's builds to strategize around that. I mean, we get over a minute to sit around and look pretty. Would be cool to actually be able to use that time for something other than playing a scuffed game of hot potato where the last person who loads in with their counterpick wins the boring little metagame.

Totally agree with the low pop argument being dumb. Low pop is a big reason why the queues need to be split, not a reason for it to stay merged. Most the people who pull out that excuse are people that have been carried by DuoQ since season 13 and wouldn't dare risk losing their figurative(and in some cases literal; here's looking at you, boosters) gold mine. That, or they know the queue times for teams would probably be pretty awful. In a low pop game, the tendency is usually to go Solo. Here's an ancient quote from Ben P with some statistics: [https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/302906#Comment_302906](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/302906#Comment_302906) ~92% of players SoloQ, even with the option to queue in parties. In the end do you either: A: Burn ~8% of that population by giving them their own queue with long queue times and wacky mactchmaking B: Burn over 90% of the population to make that 8% feel better Should be a no-brainer. There's also many other reasons: Like being restricted to playing with just 1 other person. Like people using DuoQ to snipe easy wins and essentially match manipulate through boring metagaming. Like how every season since DuoQ got unrestricted there's been a rating gap on the leaderboard(starting at about top 50 usually) that essentially shows who does and doesn't DuoQ. Like how it makes the only competitive mode outside of ATs less competitive. And like you say some people just don't have the patience or time for ATs. The list goes on and on. There really isn't a single positive to take away from merged Solo/DuoQ. There's playing with friends I guess, but you'd get that either way with split queues, and with more friends to boot.

Agree. Rating gain/loss should be more skill-based rather than totally RNG, and top stats aren't a very good measurement of that.

Rating does do stuff to matchmaking, but then again it also doesn't because of the low pop and DuoQ Also don't afk. I know its tempting.

If you build full glass in some vain attempt to recreate the old; imo, more fun meta then yes you will get 1-shot like @"Ragnar.4257" said. You will also be able to 1-shot other people trying to do the same thing. Once you run into one of the bunkery meta builds(and almost all the meta builds right now are bunker or high sustain) and you find yourself doing the same damage you would have been doing with demolishers a year ago; only with full zerks now, then you'll probably give that up super quick and join the tickle party. That middle ground between 1-shot and bunker is long gone. You could argue that the pendulum swung more towards the unhealthy 1-shot side for a while, but now its swung over to the bunkery nothing ever dies side.

Still looking for this "balance patch." I'll let you know if I find it. 

Gw2's PvP in an animated nutshell: 

IMO Ranked was fun a few years ago PvP in general was fun up until ~1 year ago Less players hurt both Unranked and Ranked, but you feel it more in Ranked because that's where all the bots are going to go. The whiners and AFKers tend to go there too, because most people playing Unranked are just trying to soldier through dailies and sometimes get that incentive to keep trying. In Ranked, there's also no real penalty to AFKers or bots, because the bots are going to get their sweet sweet pips regardless of contribution, winning, or losing. The AFKers only lose rating based on who they're matched with too, so if a Gold player gets matched with a bunch of plats(Which happens more often than you'd probably think) they're only set to lose about -10 rating while their higher-rated teammates lose a lot more.

Mixed Solo/Duo queue is the real problem. People should be able to team, and they shouldn't be restricted to just 2 people People should also be able to SoloQ separately because its pretty much a completely different game Solo, and a lot of people prefer to play that way. Less restrictions, more options.

Mind you the same person/group of people mostly responsible for the balance patches after Feb 25th, fell into this same category at some point. And if you're having a good ol' fun time now, that's actually impressive. I'm jealous. As an average plat2 player before giving up; I, and most other people in or around that level understand as much about balance as everyone else. We're all incredibly biased, and we'd likely make incredibly biased balance decisions. Heck, the only reason more than half of us were and still are even there is because we were carried by DuoQ anyway.

> @"choovanski.5462" said: > the gw2 PvP forum has been full of crying since release. it has never liked current meta, and has always looked on the past with rose tinted glasses even though the forum was always full of tears regardless of meta. > > why? because this is where people come to vent their frustrations. no one is coming here after a great game to post. it's basically entirely salt posting. I mean... U rite. I feel that. Anet should take those things we say with a grain of salt, and they shouldn't listen to us so much. That's how we end up in places like this. Should be about scale really. If a bunch of people are complaining about one thing, then its probably worth looking into. If one person makes a thread asking for an amulet to be removed, and it gets little to no support, then its probably better to ignore it. Also, is that a rose-tinted glasses comment? The classic LULW > if you think that kind of a communities opinion is indicative of anything, well hey buddy I have some shiny rocks to sell you. hmu in the DMs, they start at around £300. It is pretty telling honestly. If you look at most competitive games, their forums are usually just filled with cringey inside memes. The kind that if you find yourself unfortunate enough to click on, will never leave your YouTube recommends for forever. I'll pass on the shiny rocks for now, but i'll keep you added just incase we keep going this direction. > @"Arheundel.6451" said: > What I learnt here is that people "love" damage as long as they're the ones dealing it and they hate bunkers when they're not the ones doing the bunkering That's interesting really. Personally, I've been playing a bunker build for the past year and I actually hate it. I do love damage though. Damage is pretty neat. Even before; playing bunker builds occasionally, much preferred the threat of damage dealers to the threat of rising blood pressure and cortisol levels brought on by the excessive caffeine consumption I need to get through a single daily in the current slogfest.

It's like they looked at some of the most unfun periods in PvP's history and said: "Hey, let's do that again." These polls are popping up daily, and the majority of people seem to dislike it. Even if you don't subscribe to the whole "majority rules" mentality, maybe you'll agree that it was probably a bad idea to force something so polarizing on a gamemode that was already bleeding players.

Overall boring. Best way I could describe it: It's like that awkward moment in Chess where both people have only their kings left and keep trying for whatever reason until someone gives up or a draw is forced. And Chess is already pretty boring on its own. > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > I mean..... it's not been the same meta for the last year? On the other hand, this is very true. Its not like it hasn't changed at all like some people would have you believe. Plenty of meta builds have come and gone even through 2020, while some have been staples throughout most of the year. Pretty much like any other year tbh; which, is really only a problem here because we were promised faster balance patches which didn't happen. And because we were stuck with builds that most people don't find very fun to play or fight against at all.

? That clip just speaks for itself and the state of PvP Not too late to CRTL + Z these patches, Anet. Think it over.

Really wouldn't be necessary if everything wasn't nerfed to oblivion.

It was fun to play before Feb 25th. After Feb 25th PvP is just too boring to bother with and it just gets progressively worse with every patch. Too much listening to the people who are never happy regardless and complain about balance 24/7 It also wasn't really that bad before, but I know its impossible to say that without the cliché "rose tinted glasses" response. I see you writing that, miss me with it pls.