Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Stand The Wall.6987

Members
  • Posts

    6,264
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stand The Wall.6987

  1. > @"Lan Deathrider.5910" said:

    > ^ This. Do you know how many warriors would kill to have the knockback on Staggering Blow and Kick reduced to 100? Serious Ranger buff right there.

     

    if you buff kick war might be able to land bursts. unthinkable, ban thee from forum use heathen!!

  2. > @"Hesione.9412" said:

    > > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said:

    > > > @"Hesione.9412" said:

    > > > The only time it is difficult to take a fully sieged structure without resorting to a blob is when there is a blob defending it. Siege without players is just useless structures.

    > > > This is what I don't understand: is it fun being in a blob and taking everything as a blob?

    > >

    > > tell me, how do i build 6 catas/ rams 2 shield gens and a balli or 2 with a small group?

    >

    > I should have clarified, my second sentence was referring to towers and keeps with siege, but not enough players to use all of it. You can have 5 superior or guild catapults available for use, but only 2 players in the structure.

     

    alright, i've felt that pain.

  3. > @"Hesione.9412" said:

    > The only time it is difficult to take a fully sieged structure without resorting to a blob is when there is a blob defending it. Siege without players is just useless structures.

    > This is what I don't understand: is it fun being in a blob and taking everything as a blob?

     

    tell me, how do i build 6 catas/ rams 2 shield gens and a balli or 2 with a small group? t3 structures aren't even approachable without at least 30 people, which plenty of people would call a zerg or blob. why would you assume a scenario where there aren't people manning siege? obviously there is no difficulty in taking said structure.

     

    whats even less fun for the majority of the wvw populace (as evidenced by the fact that there are way more people band wagoning/ in big zergs) are siege wars that take an hour but the fight takes 3 min. when the majority of someones time is taken up by dealing with players thru siege (not everyone can get on siege much less have the desire to do so, so they're just standing around), what reason is there to stick around? they aren't there for siege wars. if we're talking about a good keep siege where there are enough defenders to put up a counter resistance with their own zerg then siege wars are tolerable, but often enough this isn't the case.

  4. > @"Ubi.4136" said:

    > The balance has never favored defenders.

    > Instantly, people flock to a link to make a bunch of megalinks that rarely can lose a fight, because they know the enemy has 1/4th their numbers and the attacker has the advantage.

     

    have you ever tried to take a fully sieged structure with less then a zerg? its impossible. maybe a lot of those transfers are due to this fact. imo the game mode is dying cuz people would rather play siege wars then fight each other in pvp combat. both should be viable, but when you have to have a zerg to take anything, are they both really viable?

  5. > @"KrHome.1920" said:

    > ANet does balance for the top100.

     

    you might be right and they changed their approach, but in the past they balanced for middle tiers. will be interesting to see how this plays out.

  6. > @"Kuma.1503" said:

    > Now I can run into a fight, facetank a full burst combo because immob ranger disables my dodge key (fun), and still live through it.

     

    i don't know why everyone keeps saying this, my full bursts and anyone that targets me results in a down. maybe i'm just bad tho lol.

  7. i think the problem is everyone got used to burst meta and thats how the game was perceived. now that it has changed its viewed as negative. don't get me wrong i think damage is too low right now (personally i would lower cds first) but pre megapatch this game was a joke.

×
×
  • Create New...