Roaming is dying out

[Justine.6351]

> @ugrakarma.9416 said:

> Roaming is a niche, it was not an intentional game mode. So there has never been any builds with the intention of creating roamers, their existence is accidental.

>

> However it is a bad idea to let a niche die, it means less options to enjoy a game mode. The correct thing would be to explore that niche. The more role options for WvW the better.

 

There is a thing called sentries, camps and ruins. Not that a zergling would understand these things can be taken without 50 people.

[Zakka.2153]

As a warrior main/spellbreaker. I got pretty badly beat by a Ele today, and a thief/daredevil the other day while roaming.

 

Spellbreakers are good, but eh anyone who knows how to counter them can.

[Roxanne.6140]

Pls fix rallying off guards.

[apharma.3741]

> @HazyDaisy.4107 said:

> Because the majority won.

>

> All contrary arguments aside, a majority of roaming occured on lower tier servers. They had to, because they didn't have a tag to follow most times. So they learned to do things by themselves or with one or two others.

>

> There's still a few people that know you can solo or even duo any low tier keep if the timing is right, but those people are few and far between.

>

>

 

Yep, my guild is well known for flipping a T3 keep with 5 of us while 2 zergs are fighting outside some wall somewhere. Sometimes we will just open outer and fake getting pushed back while I hide in it. After 20 minutes I’ll port them in possibly with another 1 or 2 server roaming friends we tend to run into so we can get 3 guild rams or catas on inner, bam goes down and flips.

 

Piken cared more than FSP, FSP just goes ewwww PPT if a T3 keep flips to 5 people :/

[RlyOsim.2497]

@Justine.6351 said:

 

I like you. You're actually a good roamer I reckon.

[Jeknar.6184]

> @Roxanne.6140 said:

> Pls fix rallying off guards.

 

Can't fix what is intended

[PassionWhisky.3457]

> @ArmageddonAsh.6430 said:

> > @Jeknar.6184 said:

> > > @ArmageddonAsh.6430 said:

> > > > @PassionWhisky.3457 said:

> > > > > @Hesacon.8735 said:

> > > > > I roam every day of the week and I'm constantly running into enemy roamers trying to stop me.

> > > > >

> > > > > Warriors generally are broken because they take no power or condition damage. Every other class I've found beatable playing necro, thief, or ranger.

> > > > >

> > > > > I recently rolled a spellbreaker to try to find weakness in it, so far I haven't. I've won every fight where I didn't make a mistake that can be attributed to my learning the class.

> > > >

> > > > generally Broken? Are u Stupid for shure, we have Only resistance 9 sec, with 60 sec CD and Endure Pain 4 sec with deffensive Trait 2 Times. And u said no one class have it right ? OK Ranger have the Same skills (Signet of Renewal and Signet of Stone), Elementalist can Heal it self and have mist form, ingi same can heals up and have 2 mini forms, Guardian can heal and have the F functions and the elite. I mean all Classes have skills to hold yourself alive, do u listen your Traits/Skills already ?

> > > > And u can beat a Spellbreaker, i had more as 1 Duells this week with a Elemantalist and he have great Build, he played core Ele and kite me like Hell but he knocked me down. Warriors not so fast as u think, ez to kite and dodge. U think Spellbreaker is to OP then are u very bad of course.

> > >

> > > So you have to use a list of skills of MULTIPLE classes most of which arent actually as good as the Warrior versions to try and say that its not broken? Really!? "ONLY" 9 seconds of resistance at base, can reach MUCH higher if traited and/or with added boon duration. Signet of Renewal SUCKS its heavily reliant on AI, useless if you are in Beastmode AND a longer cool down at base by TEN seconds than the Warrior version. Comparing Mistform to Endure pain is just sad. Mistform where you cant do anything but move Vs Endure pain which STILL allows you to use skills, heals and everything else. Again Warrior one IS better, longer duration damage immunity, same cool down - all Mist form has is the added movement speed, easily counter by Warrior using one of his MANY mobility skills. I mean i could go on if you like...

> >

> > And let's not forget Spellbreaker also have skills that give resistance (2s from lulcounter when traited and 5s from Featherfoot Grace which is also a stunbreaker that give superspeed) and in last case scenarios, the warrior can still press the forbidden button (Healing Signet) for another 6s of resistance.

> > I can easily maintain perma resistance with Spellbreaker with Commander's Armor and Durability runes unless I'm fighting somenthing that can rip it off.

>

> Exactly, They have HUGE access to condition counters and iirc werent Warrior at the start of the game meant to be designed to be weaker against conditions? Yet they are currently one of the best against it. I still say Conditions wont be fixed until it gets to a point where they proper counter Warriors and even then, they would likely buff Warrior to put them above condis again anyway :/

 

Maybe dont Play condi? Condis are Crap, was crap 2015 and its crap today ;)

 

> @Zakka.2153 said:

> As a warrior main/spellbreaker. I got pretty badly beat by a Ele today, and a thief/daredevil the other day while roaming.

>

> Spellbreakers are good, but eh anyone who knows how to counter them can.

 

Exatly ,other Power Classes can bet us and these dudes Flaming the hole day about the counter.. Its more as Braindead spamming skills now ...

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> So.. maybe I am wrong but to me, roaming is solo and the OP is not wrong about the prevalence. At least on T-1 NA prime. (Though that's like saying you can't keep an ice cube in the desert in the summer..)

>

> 2-5 is a havoc group to me. We run 2-5 mobile classes to keep camps paper, supply starve an area, and draw the enemy Zerg to us.

>

> Yes, we hit solos running back to the Zerg, and try to keep our third's supply and towers functional.

Roaming isnt solo. Solo is solo. When roaming you have no control over players near you and often small groups will form at objectives. I would still call 5 random people ending up at a tower wall because one of them built a cata on 2 camp runs as roaming.

 

3 people even when in the same guild and part I wouldnt call havoc. Havocs are big enough to actually do something vs more fortified/defended towers and keeps, meaning more like 5-10 peeps. A "havoc" party of 3 can get roflstomped by a single enemy, or at the very least be easily driven off objectives by just a few defenders. Thats still clear within roaming limitations.

[Silverstone.4539]

> @coro.3176 said:

> In short, it's no fun for the prey so they leave, which makes it no fun for the predators.

>

> This is an inevitable result of the top roaming builds being SO MUCH more effective at what they do than "normal" builds.

>

> Why bother fighting a roaming spellbreaker if at best you'll stalemate them before their invulns/sustain come back, and at worst, they'll kill you in 2 hits.

>

> Why stick around to fight a roaming thief if you know they'll continually reset the fight and eventually catch you off guard with basi-venom up and burst you down?

>

> Why fight a roaming condi mes when your build doesn't pack enough cleanse to reasonably compete with their spam?

>

> Why fight a roaming scourge if you don't have 1200 range?

>

> There are so many situations where a player stands no chance in a fight that they tend to avoid 1v1 confrontations. They just assume (rightly, for the most part) that it's not worth trying, so instead they either give up and afk/die or run away and join the zerg. Then the roamers get bored because no one fights them and they go join the zerg too.

 

totally. ran into some mes that must have had a macro set, i was dead in less than a second. where is the fun in that. left for that night, and i was only on for 10 minutes.

[Justine.6351]

> @RlyOsim.2497 said:

> @Justine.6351 said:

>

> I like you. You're actually a good roamer I reckon.

 

Idk I just push buttons.

[Ravezaar.4951]

8 out of 10 ppl I see roam or duel in the borderlands after PoF is Spellbreakers, and that estimate may be on the low side.

[ArmageddonAsh.6430]

> @PassionWhisky.3457 said:

> Maybe dont Play condi? Condis are Crap, was crap 2015 and its crap today ;)

 

I dont actually play condi ;)

I do however NEED to use Immobilize and such and they just shrug that off as if its nothing at all. I was also pointing out, the reason condi hasnt been fixed is because its no threat to warrior. Only a bad warrior loses to Condi builds. Press a single button and boom. Immune, immune, immune. Then either just slap them to death or run away. Also it might be crap (as in boring to play) but its not crap because its highly effective thanks to application being through the roof and into space and removals/counters barely off the ground. Even dreadful players WILL get kills as a condi player because very few classes can reliably remove/counter conditions. Not saying they are unbeatable (at times) but you start the fight with a HUGE disadvantage because they will have more health, more amour than you while pumping out conditions like theres no tomorrow :/

 

[PassionWhisky.3457]

> @ArmageddonAsh.6430 said:

> > @PassionWhisky.3457 said:

> > Maybe dont Play condi? Condis are Crap, was crap 2015 and its crap today ;)

>

> I dont actually play condi ;)

> I do however NEED to use Immobilize and such and they just shrug that off as if its nothing at all. I was also pointing out, the reason condi hasnt been fixed is because its no threat to warrior. Only a bad warrior loses to Condi builds. Press a single button and boom. Immune, immune, immune. Then either just slap them to death or run away. Also it might be crap (as in boring to play) but its not crap because its highly effective thanks to application being through the roof and into space and removals/counters barely off the ground. Even dreadful players WILL get kills as a condi player because very few classes can reliably remove/counter conditions. Not saying they are unbeatable (at times) but you start the fight with a HUGE disadvantage because they will have more health, more amour than you while pumping out conditions like theres no tomorrow :/

>

 

exact ^^ no good warri will run about one single condi player, it was befor PoF and after ^^ In my Opionion is Conditional always crap, u didnt need Skill to Play with Conditionals

best example:

HUGE disadvantage? The Most Conditional Builds, always by Necs have 3k defense, Warris have always Berserker or Marodeur Armor..

[ArmageddonAsh.6430]

 

 

> @PassionWhisky.3457 said:

> > @ArmageddonAsh.6430 said:

> > > @PassionWhisky.3457 said:

> > > Maybe dont Play condi? Condis are Crap, was crap 2015 and its crap today ;)

> >

> > I dont actually play condi ;)

> > I do however NEED to use Immobilize and such and they just shrug that off as if its nothing at all. I was also pointing out, the reason condi hasnt been fixed is because its no threat to warrior. Only a bad warrior loses to Condi builds. Press a single button and boom. Immune, immune, immune. Then either just slap them to death or run away. Also it might be crap (as in boring to play) but its not crap because its highly effective thanks to application being through the roof and into space and removals/counters barely off the ground. Even dreadful players WILL get kills as a condi player because very few classes can reliably remove/counter conditions. Not saying they are unbeatable (at times) but you start the fight with a HUGE disadvantage because they will have more health, more amour than you while pumping out conditions like theres no tomorrow :/

> >

>

> exact ^^ no good warri will run about one single condi player, it was befor PoF and after ^^ In my Opionion is Conditional always crap, u didnt need Skill to Play with Conditionals

> best example:

>

> HUGE disadvantage? The Most Conditional Builds, always by Necs have 3k defense, Warris have always Berserker or Marodeur Armor..

 

Have you forgotten what forum you are posting in? Show some WvW gameplay, not PvP. Thats just sad. Why are you posting a PvP video in a WvW forum about WvW roaming!? Lol.

[Mirrodin.8729]

> @ArmageddonAsh.6430 said:

> Exactly, They have HUGE access to condition counters and iirc werent **Warrior **at the start of the game meant to be designed to be weaker against conditions? Yet they are currently one of the best against it. I still say Conditions wont be fixed until it gets to a point where they proper counter Warriors and even then, they would likely buff Warrior to put them above condis again anyway :/

 

Good thing is they are not warriors anymore, but **spellbreakers**, also the game evolved, unless you are a thief main who wants the old 12k backstabs back into the game, perma stab, and so on, mmos are always "learn to adapt" maybe in few months we will be posting about idk, revenants beign the dominant roaming class maybe? adapt and move on

 

[Choppy.4183]

> @Dawdler.8521 said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > So.. maybe I am wrong but to me, roaming is solo and the OP is not wrong about the prevalence. At least on T-1 NA prime. (Though that's like saying you can't keep an ice cube in the desert in the summer..)

> >

> > 2-5 is a havoc group to me. We run 2-5 mobile classes to keep camps paper, supply starve an area, and draw the enemy Zerg to us.

> >

> > Yes, we hit solos running back to the Zerg, and try to keep our third's supply and towers functional.

> Roaming isnt solo. Solo is solo. When roaming you have no control over players near you and often small groups will form at objectives. I would still call 5 random people ending up at a tower wall because one of them built a cata on 2 camp runs as roaming.

>

> 3 people even when in the same guild and part I wouldnt call havoc. Havocs are big enough to actually do something vs more fortified/defended towers and keeps, meaning more like 5-10 peeps. A "havoc" party of 3 can get roflstomped by a single enemy, or at the very least be easily driven off objectives by just a few defenders. Thats still clear within roaming limitations.

 

It just goes to show how definitions have changed. Before squads had a management interface like parties, havoc was five people working together, and roaming was usually one person, maybe two, working pretty independently.

[Jeknar.6184]

> @Choppy.4183 said:

> > @Dawdler.8521 said:

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

> > > So.. maybe I am wrong but to me, roaming is solo and the OP is not wrong about the prevalence. At least on T-1 NA prime. (Though that's like saying you can't keep an ice cube in the desert in the summer..)

> > >

> > > 2-5 is a havoc group to me. We run 2-5 mobile classes to keep camps paper, supply starve an area, and draw the enemy Zerg to us.

> > >

> > > Yes, we hit solos running back to the Zerg, and try to keep our third's supply and towers functional.

> > Roaming isnt solo. Solo is solo. When roaming you have no control over players near you and often small groups will form at objectives. I would still call 5 random people ending up at a tower wall because one of them built a cata on 2 camp runs as roaming.

> >

> > 3 people even when in the same guild and part I wouldnt call havoc. Havocs are big enough to actually do something vs more fortified/defended towers and keeps, meaning more like 5-10 peeps. A "havoc" party of 3 can get roflstomped by a single enemy, or at the very least be easily driven off objectives by just a few defenders. Thats still clear within roaming limitations.

>

> It just goes to show how definitions have changed. Before squads had a management interface like parties, havoc was five people working together, and roaming was usually one person, maybe two, working pretty independently.

 

Idk Biff... Ever since I saw the light and stopped being a zergling (about 4 years ago) people been calling roaming anything up to a single party size (5). Anything bigger than that would be havok and then zerg, blob, etc... The only people I see saying that "Roaming is only solo" are problably thief players that cannot easily gank another roamer because they are not alone.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @Jeknar.6184 said:

> > @Choppy.4183 said:

> > > @Dawdler.8521 said:

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

> > > > So.. maybe I am wrong but to me, roaming is solo and the OP is not wrong about the prevalence. At least on T-1 NA prime. (Though that's like saying you can't keep an ice cube in the desert in the summer..)

> > > >

> > > > 2-5 is a havoc group to me. We run 2-5 mobile classes to keep camps paper, supply starve an area, and draw the enemy Zerg to us.

> > > >

> > > > Yes, we hit solos running back to the Zerg, and try to keep our third's supply and towers functional.

> > > Roaming isnt solo. Solo is solo. When roaming you have no control over players near you and often small groups will form at objectives. I would still call 5 random people ending up at a tower wall because one of them built a cata on 2 camp runs as roaming.

> > >

> > > 3 people even when in the same guild and part I wouldnt call havoc. Havocs are big enough to actually do something vs more fortified/defended towers and keeps, meaning more like 5-10 peeps. A "havoc" party of 3 can get roflstomped by a single enemy, or at the very least be easily driven off objectives by just a few defenders. Thats still clear within roaming limitations.

> >

> > It just goes to show how definitions have changed. Before squads had a management interface like parties, havoc was five people working together, and roaming was usually one person, maybe two, working pretty independently.

>

> Idk Biff... Ever since I saw the light and stopped being a zergling (about 4 years ago) people been calling roaming anything up to a single party size (5). Anything bigger than that would be havok and then zerg, blob, etc... The only people I see saying that "Roaming is only solo" are problably thief players that cannot easily gank another roamer because they are not alone.

 

lolwut? Could it be you call yourself a roamed in a group of 5 because you can't run solo?

[Choppy.4183]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @Jeknar.6184 said:

> > > @Choppy.4183 said:

> > > > @Dawdler.8521 said:

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

> > > > > So.. maybe I am wrong but to me, roaming is solo and the OP is not wrong about the prevalence. At least on T-1 NA prime. (Though that's like saying you can't keep an ice cube in the desert in the summer..)

> > > > >

> > > > > 2-5 is a havoc group to me. We run 2-5 mobile classes to keep camps paper, supply starve an area, and draw the enemy Zerg to us.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, we hit solos running back to the Zerg, and try to keep our third's supply and towers functional.

> > > > Roaming isnt solo. Solo is solo. When roaming you have no control over players near you and often small groups will form at objectives. I would still call 5 random people ending up at a tower wall because one of them built a cata on 2 camp runs as roaming.

> > > >

> > > > 3 people even when in the same guild and part I wouldnt call havoc. Havocs are big enough to actually do something vs more fortified/defended towers and keeps, meaning more like 5-10 peeps. A "havoc" party of 3 can get roflstomped by a single enemy, or at the very least be easily driven off objectives by just a few defenders. Thats still clear within roaming limitations.

> > >

> > > It just goes to show how definitions have changed. Before squads had a management interface like parties, havoc was five people working together, and roaming was usually one person, maybe two, working pretty independently.

> >

> > Idk Biff... Ever since I saw the light and stopped being a zergling (about 4 years ago) people been calling roaming anything up to a single party size (5). Anything bigger than that would be havok and then zerg, blob, etc... The only people I see saying that "Roaming is only solo" are problably thief players that cannot easily gank another roamer because they are not alone.

>

> lolwut? Could it be you call yourself a roamed in a group of 5 because you can't run solo?

 

Nah, Jeknar's legit. He could go solo, he's just from Darkhaven.... DH has always needed ten people where Ehmry's only needed five. :)

 

Shots fired.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @Choppy.4183 said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @Jeknar.6184 said:

> > > > @Choppy.4183 said:

> > > > > @Dawdler.8521 said:

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

> > > > > > So.. maybe I am wrong but to me, roaming is solo and the OP is not wrong about the prevalence. At least on T-1 NA prime. (Though that's like saying you can't keep an ice cube in the desert in the summer..)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2-5 is a havoc group to me. We run 2-5 mobile classes to keep camps paper, supply starve an area, and draw the enemy Zerg to us.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yes, we hit solos running back to the Zerg, and try to keep our third's supply and towers functional.

> > > > > Roaming isnt solo. Solo is solo. When roaming you have no control over players near you and often small groups will form at objectives. I would still call 5 random people ending up at a tower wall because one of them built a cata on 2 camp runs as roaming.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3 people even when in the same guild and part I wouldnt call havoc. Havocs are big enough to actually do something vs more fortified/defended towers and keeps, meaning more like 5-10 peeps. A "havoc" party of 3 can get roflstomped by a single enemy, or at the very least be easily driven off objectives by just a few defenders. Thats still clear within roaming limitations.

> > > >

> > > > It just goes to show how definitions have changed. Before squads had a management interface like parties, havoc was five people working together, and roaming was usually one person, maybe two, working pretty independently.

> > >

> > > Idk Biff... Ever since I saw the light and stopped being a zergling (about 4 years ago) people been calling roaming anything up to a single party size (5). Anything bigger than that would be havok and then zerg, blob, etc... The only people I see saying that "Roaming is only solo" are problably thief players that cannot easily gank another roamer because they are not alone.

> >

> > lolwut? Could it be you call yourself a roamed in a group of 5 because you can't run solo?

>

> Nah, Jeknar's legit. He could go solo, he's just from Darkhaven.... DH has always needed ten people where Ehmry's only needed five. :)

>

> Shots fired.

 

Fair enough. ?

 

I know I am not good enough to roam, so I tend to be with 2-3 others and havoc.

[ArmageddonAsh.6430]

> @Mirrodin.8729 said:

> > @ArmageddonAsh.6430 said:

> > Exactly, They have HUGE access to condition counters and iirc werent **Warrior **at the start of the game meant to be designed to be weaker against conditions? Yet they are currently one of the best against it. I still say Conditions wont be fixed until it gets to a point where they proper counter Warriors and even then, they would likely buff Warrior to put them above condis again anyway :/

>

> Good thing is they are not warriors anymore, but **spellbreakers**, also the game evolved, unless you are a thief main who wants the old 12k backstabs back into the game, perma stab, and so on, mmos are always "learn to adapt" maybe in few months we will be posting about idk, revenants beign the dominant roaming class maybe? adapt and move on

>

 

Except they ARE warriors. They have access to everything warrior has and more. MMOs when WELL designed and WELL balanced are "learn to adapt" The problem here is, that GW2 is neither. It's a shame that 90% (if not more...) of the player base is "find the strongest, play until they get nerfed. Move on to the next strongest" Im loving Soul Beast msyelf, even with the fact i cant use many of the skills, traits and such because they have limited or even NO use at all with the specs mechanic, plus most of the pets SUCK! :(

[Jeknar.6184]

> @Choppy.4183 said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @Jeknar.6184 said:

> > > > @Choppy.4183 said:

> > > > > @Dawdler.8521 said:

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

> > > > > > So.. maybe I am wrong but to me, roaming is solo and the OP is not wrong about the prevalence. At least on T-1 NA prime. (Though that's like saying you can't keep an ice cube in the desert in the summer..)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2-5 is a havoc group to me. We run 2-5 mobile classes to keep camps paper, supply starve an area, and draw the enemy Zerg to us.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yes, we hit solos running back to the Zerg, and try to keep our third's supply and towers functional.

> > > > > Roaming isnt solo. Solo is solo. When roaming you have no control over players near you and often small groups will form at objectives. I would still call 5 random people ending up at a tower wall because one of them built a cata on 2 camp runs as roaming.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3 people even when in the same guild and part I wouldnt call havoc. Havocs are big enough to actually do something vs more fortified/defended towers and keeps, meaning more like 5-10 peeps. A "havoc" party of 3 can get roflstomped by a single enemy, or at the very least be easily driven off objectives by just a few defenders. Thats still clear within roaming limitations.

> > > >

> > > > It just goes to show how definitions have changed. Before squads had a management interface like parties, havoc was five people working together, and roaming was usually one person, maybe two, working pretty independently.

> > >

> > > Idk Biff... Ever since I saw the light and stopped being a zergling (about 4 years ago) people been calling roaming anything up to a single party size (5). Anything bigger than that would be havok and then zerg, blob, etc... The only people I see saying that "Roaming is only solo" are problably thief players that cannot easily gank another roamer because they are not alone.

> >

> > lolwut? Could it be you call yourself a roamed in a group of 5 because you can't run solo?

>

> Nah, Jeknar's legit. He could go solo, he's just from Darkhaven.... DH has always needed ten people where Ehmry's only needed five. :)

>

> Shots fired.

 

I'll make sure to put you on my list for this week Biff

[nomdeplums.5780]

I think everyone needs to take their nostalgia goggles off.

 

For roaming to die, it needs to have been alive at some point. It was never a popular form of play. The same complaints everyone has now about certain types of builds dominating the population of roamers have been brought up since the game was released. People used to complain about "Nike" warriors that ran sword and shield and were uncatchable. People used to complain about shadow arts thieves that could remain in stealth indefinitely while they healed and laughed off conditions.

 

Every time I see these complaints, I can't help but think its because someone is mad that their preferred build or style of play isn't as optimal relative to everything else, and they don't want to adapt. Roaming has always favored self-sufficient and mobile builds. That's not new. The only thing that has changed is which builds and classes are most effective at this. If anything there's a lot more variety in builds and classes now, than there was at launch. Before specializations came out, if you tried to roam with a ranger or necro, you would be laughed at and looked at as a free bag, which you were.

 

As far as roaming population goes, that's mostly affected by how everyone else in the match-up plays. Is the match-up dominated by pug zergs following tags around the map? Probably not good for roaming, since there's a fewer amount of people contesting side objectives, since they want to ride the pip train. Is it mostly filled with guilds who run medium-sized groups? Probably better for roaming, since I find that guild groups tend to be less receptive to pugs (meaning a bigger population of players floating around the map), and less likely to waste time chasing around roamers. And holy quaggans do people in T1 love chasing and zerging down roamers.

 

The only design choice I can really point to as being awful for roaming, is automatically upgrading objectives with the addition of Tactics and the sentry aura that automatically reveals you on the map. Makes it completely impossible to take any significantly upgraded objective without the brute force of 30+ people. Before, a group of 5-10 people could conceivably backdoor objectives pretty easily, and made it much more efficient to split across the map instead of stacking people on one tag.

[Kyon.9735]

Meta builds are not fun to fight against, that's why. Sure, people will say "you need to evolve too to counter them". That's 100% true, **but are you having fun?**

 

At the end of the day, people roam to have fun. But to adjust by playing specific classes and builds just to not easily die from meta builds is not fun for everyone. Sure there are people who still play undertuned classes builds and simply use their piloting skills to survive but they're a minority compared to the vast majority of possible casual WvW players if the game mode wasn't hugely dependent on the current meta.

 

Ever wondered why Obsi Sanc duels are long gone? That was a place where people can test their personal builds in a WvW setting. It started dying out when condi got buffed to the roof and then people started playing specific classes and builds to counter them. Everyday you'd just see specific meta classes with their specific meta builds and it was not fun fighting the same exact thing over and over again.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

Good, most likely unintended game play anyways. spvp banned sat combos, full ascended vs players in greens, full solo builds vs players in zerg builds.

 

Then they post a videos on youtube of one thief with permastealth ganking lvl 20's in blues, and put really bad music to it. Good Riddance.