WvW commanders/guilds kicking non-meta classes.

[Garfried.7295]

> @"Excellent Name.9574" said:

> Due to the game design any sort of balanced class viability is a pipe dream, that is something Anet will never be able to get right. Unfortunately this invokes the creation of the so called Meta builds, not just in WvW but in any co-op game type like PvP, Raids, Fractals...

>

> What "commanders" in WvW do not get is that people cherish their freedom and the right to choose whatever they want to play and no ammount of bullying into Meta build will change that.

>

> The shining example of that approach's downfall is Vabbi. Vabbi comms have been warned by players during the last 1.5 years that "exclusivity" won't work and will backfire sooner or later. I won't name any names but few commanders over there were so thickheaded they could not see it coming if it hit them full frontal...and here we are Vabbi is almost dead WvW wise, players just can't stand playing under those terms and with those kind of people. The sooner the elitists get this the sonner will WvW get better.

 

Vabbi was killed because of several factors, but the elitist attitude was not one of them. In fact, the elitist attitude was what made vabbi one of the biggest success stories in history of wvw.

 

The idea was simple: many veteran commanders and players were sick and tired of carrying players that dont want to take a little bit of effort and research good builds or join voice comms. Over the years, on every server the ratio between fighters and casuals shifted more towards casuals, and many fight oriented commanders quit because its annoying to tag for people that dont want to put in some effort in, themselves. Vabbi had always been the laughing stock of eu wvw and people joked about starting project vabbi for years, organizing a mass transfer to create a new server. But after the fighting community of piken collapsed, this was turned into reality.

 

After the initial success of vabbi, many players came to vabbi. Many adhered to its core values; which was to show that you want to contribute to the fighting effort by bringing a viable build and join voice comms. Some, however, came to get carried all over again.

 

Then a point was reached where so many people left the old main servers that the old servers themselves became linked. For 4 months, vabbi was linked to fsp, which had become a server filled with casual players since all of their fighting community was gone. This defeats the purpose of making a separate server to get away from the casual players. This, combined with many players bandwagoning to the rising WSR, and some drama between some members of vabbi, was what killed the server.

 

This should not detract from the fact that vabbi was the dominant fighting server for well over a year, because it was made and sustained by players who shared common goals and values. Saying that an elitist attitude is what killed vabbi is a misunderstanding, its what made it succesful in the first place.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Garfried.7295" said:

> Saying that an elitist attitude is what killed vabbi is a misunderstanding, its what made it succesful in the first place.

Even though you're saying it was killed by people leaving the server because they didnt want to play with casuals.

 

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Garfried.7295" said:

> vabbi one of the biggest success stories in history of wvw.

 

Vabbi was basically an irrelevance in the laughable "history of WvW" because the game mode had already declined to a pitiful state by then. I mean I am sure it was important to the meming bads who are addicted to the game and have such a low grasp of what constitutes decent PvP they are still banging on about "fights" in 2019, but to everyone else, who cares, game was already done.

 

Same thing with WSR, another server that "got gud" when the vast majority of those who were vaguely competent (by WvW's pathetically low standards) had already left the game.

 

[Erzian.5218]

> @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > @"Garfried.7295" said:

> > vabbi one of the biggest success stories in history of wvw.

>

> Vabbi was basically an irrelevance in the laughable "history of WvW" because the game mode had already declined to a pitiful state by then. I mean I am sure it was important to the meming bads who are addicted to the game and have such a low grasp of what constitutes decent PvP they are still banging on about "fights" in 2019, but to everyone else, who cares, game was already done.

>

> Same thing with WSR, another server that "got gud" when the vast majority of those who were vaguely competent (by WvW's pathetically low standards) had already left the game.

>

People keep saying this in about every game as it grows older: how the good players have already quit and now only worse players are left, but it is plain wrong. The older a game is, the better its players will be; not the other way round. People might be less innovative, however, that is not because they are worse but because the game has already been “solved” and plenty of resources for research are available (which also makes it a lot easier to get good).

 

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Erzian.5218" said:

> > @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > > @"Garfried.7295" said:

> > > vabbi one of the biggest success stories in history of wvw.

> >

> > Vabbi was basically an irrelevance in the laughable "history of WvW" because the game mode had already declined to a pitiful state by then. I mean I am sure it was important to the meming bads who are addicted to the game and have such a low grasp of what constitutes decent PvP they are still banging on about "fights" in 2019, but to everyone else, who cares, game was already done.

> >

> > Same thing with WSR, another server that "got gud" when the vast majority of those who were vaguely competent (by WvW's pathetically low standards) had already left the game.

> >

> People keep saying this in about every game as it grows older: how the good players have already quit and now only worse players are left, but it is plain wrong. The older a game is, the better its players will be; not the other way round.

 

People keep saying it, because that is how it works, the only person who is "plain wrong" is you.

 

The big thing that pushes the skill level of a playerbase is competition, for that you need firstly the population, but then also (especially in a game like this) you actually need players who put some level of priority on getting better / competing. Guess what both population and players interested in competing have been in short supply in WvW for a long time.

 

Then you have that generally the better players also move on once a game starts to lose that competition, people who did not value that competition however more commonly stay, but of course generally those that place less value of that competition are also not as good, nor ever will be.

 

Nor does playing a game for longer equate to being better, even more so for something like zerging about in WvW. I hate to break it to you, but this isn't Starcraft (and even then the skill of the SC playerbase is a joke now compared to when it was the e-sport). The skill cap of WvW is not high, players that were mediocre after 4 years will still be mediocre after 7 years, 99.99% (yes random number, but you get the point) of players still playing are not as good as the actual good PvP players who left the game 3+ years ago and they never will be, doesn't matter how long they play.

 

 

 

[Tinnel.4369]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"melandru.3876" said:

> > tell the squad you are a scout, and you will get an invite, and keep getting invites if u do your job properly. u get shared particaption, and you get appreciated

> I havent seen a commander do shared participation for like a year.

>

 

Cause it's not on metabattle and it's easier to find fights by tag watching.

[SloRules.3560]

> @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > @"Erzian.5218" said:

> > > @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > > > @"Garfried.7295" said:

> > > > vabbi one of the biggest success stories in history of wvw.

> > >

> > > Vabbi was basically an irrelevance in the laughable "history of WvW" because the game mode had already declined to a pitiful state by then. I mean I am sure it was important to the meming bads who are addicted to the game and have such a low grasp of what constitutes decent PvP they are still banging on about "fights" in 2019, but to everyone else, who cares, game was already done.

> > >

> > > Same thing with WSR, another server that "got gud" when the vast majority of those who were vaguely competent (by WvW's pathetically low standards) had already left the game.

> > >

> > People keep saying this in about every game as it grows older: how the good players have already quit and now only worse players are left, but it is plain wrong. The older a game is, the better its players will be; not the other way round.

>

> People keep saying it, because that is how it works, the only person who is "plain wrong" is you.

>

> The big thing that pushes the skill level of a playerbase is competition, for that you need firstly the population, but then also (especially in a game like this) you actually need players who put some level of priority on getting better / competing. Guess what both population and players interested in competing have been in short supply in WvW for a long time.

>

> Then you have that generally the better players also move on once a game starts to lose that competition, people who did not value that competition however more commonly stay, but of course generally those that place less value of that competition are also not as good, nor ever will be.

>

> Nor does playing a game for longer equate to being better, even more so for something like zerging about in WvW. I hate to break it to you, but this isn't Starcraft (and even then the skill of the SC playerbase is a joke now compared to when it was the e-sport). The skill cap of WvW is not high, players that were mediocre after 4 years will still be mediocre after 7 years, 99.99% (yes random number, but you get the point) of players still playing are not as good as the actual good PvP players who left the game 3+ years ago and they never will be, doesn't matter how long they play.

>

>

>

 

Skill cap in wvw is enormous. Also current meta is much less forgiving than vanilla one. There are really great players in WvW. (even your glorified PvP players come from WvW a lot of the times). Just that difference between great players and everyone else is just huge and not many actually attempt to cross it. This gap is only getting higher as more people leave.

[CrimsonNeonite.1048]

> @"Excellent Name.9574" said:

> Due to the game design any sort of balanced class viability is a pipe dream, that is something Anet will never be able to get right. Unfortunately this invokes the creation of the so called Meta builds, not just in WvW but in any co-op game type like PvP, Raids, Fractals...

>

> What "commanders" in WvW do not get is that people cherish their freedom and the right to choose whatever they want to play and no ammount of bullying into Meta build will change that.

>

> The shining example of that approach's downfall is Vabbi. Vabbi comms have been warned by players during the last 1.5 years that "exclusivity" won't work and will backfire sooner or later. I won't name any names but few commanders over there were so thickheaded they could not see it coming if it hit them full frontal...and here we are Vabbi is almost dead WvW wise, players just can't stand playing under those terms and with those kind of people. The sooner the elitists get this the sonner will WvW get better.

 

So you think 'exclusivity' is killing the game mode, when most servers nowadays, are doing it to get better squad/party synergy too?

It's frustrating to try to invite people into our wvw community, but they never join squad or Discord, nevermind, to get them to play proper zerg classes or builds.

 

They just run around like headless chickens, rallybotting everyone, or they just end up feeling like they made any contribution, when we manage to win a fight, with the lower numbers we have, thanks to them.

 

[Erzian.5218]

> @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > @"Erzian.5218" said:

> > > @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > > > @"Garfried.7295" said:

> > > > vabbi one of the biggest success stories in history of wvw.

> > >

> > > Vabbi was basically an irrelevance in the laughable "history of WvW" because the game mode had already declined to a pitiful state by then. I mean I am sure it was important to the meming bads who are addicted to the game and have such a low grasp of what constitutes decent PvP they are still banging on about "fights" in 2019, but to everyone else, who cares, game was already done.

> > >

> > > Same thing with WSR, another server that "got gud" when the vast majority of those who were vaguely competent (by WvW's pathetically low standards) had already left the game.

> > >

> > People keep saying this in about every game as it grows older: how the good players have already quit and now only worse players are left, but it is plain wrong. The older a game is, the better its players will be; not the other way round.

>

> People keep saying it, because that is how it works, the only person who is "plain wrong" is you.

>

> The big thing that pushes the skill level of a playerbase is competition, for that you need firstly the population, but then also (especially in a game like this) you actually need players who put some level of priority on getting better / competing. Guess what both population and players interested in competing have been in short supply in WvW for a long time.

>

> Then you have that generally the better players also move on once a game starts to lose that competition, people who did not value that competition however more commonly stay, but of course generally those that place less value of that competition are also not as good, nor ever will be.

>

> Nor does playing a game for longer equate to being better, even more so for something like zerging about in WvW. I hate to break it to you, but this isn't Starcraft (and even then the skill of the SC playerbase is a joke now compared to when it was the e-sport). The skill cap of WvW is not high, players that were mediocre after 4 years will still be mediocre after 7 years, 99.99% (yes random number, but you get the point) of players still playing are not as good as the actual good PvP players who left the game 3+ years ago and they never will be, doesn't matter how long they play.

>

>

>

 

As someone who has played 2 different games at the very top for several years and played those games in general for more than 6 years each, I can tell you that the people that you face actually do get better(not worse) over time. It is true that players who start early and keep competing often play exceptionally well but that's simply linked the amount of practice they have. It is also true that there is a decline of great players overtime, which is because the total amount of players decrases, but regardless of lower numbers, the skill level as a whole increases as long as a suffcient amount of players remains. A vast amount of teams competing with each other is not a requirement for improvement (although it might speed things up), it's enough if you have some teams/players that actually play against each other and try to improve (similar to how AI improves by trial-and-error/playing against itself).

 

At the same time, information becomes more readily available the older a game grows (as more information about the game is spread due to people sharing their experience and there is a deeper understanding of the game mechanics) which allows newer players (and older players who are more casual) to catch up. Guild wars 2 is certainly far away from a competitive esports title but claiming that all the good players have left and there is no competition left is wrong. Good players always leave (for a variety of reasons) but they will almost always be replaced by someone else.

 

Ironically, the best thing to do if you want people to remember you as talented player, is to stay just long enough to accomplish something and then leave as soon as possible afterwards. People will always glorify the past, perhaps because success in western culture is often linked to innovation and most of the innovation takes place when a game is new.

 

Anyway, let's not derail this thread. :)

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Erzian.5218" said:

> > @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > > @"Erzian.5218" said:

> > > > @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > > > > @"Garfried.7295" said:

> > > > > vabbi one of the biggest success stories in history of wvw.

> > > >

> > > > Vabbi was basically an irrelevance in the laughable "history of WvW" because the game mode had already declined to a pitiful state by then. I mean I am sure it was important to the meming bads who are addicted to the game and have such a low grasp of what constitutes decent PvP they are still banging on about "fights" in 2019, but to everyone else, who cares, game was already done.

> > > >

> > > > Same thing with WSR, another server that "got gud" when the vast majority of those who were vaguely competent (by WvW's pathetically low standards) had already left the game.

> > > >

> > > People keep saying this in about every game as it grows older: how the good players have already quit and now only worse players are left, but it is plain wrong. The older a game is, the better its players will be; not the other way round.

> >

> > People keep saying it, because that is how it works, the only person who is "plain wrong" is you.

> >

> > The big thing that pushes the skill level of a playerbase is competition, for that you need firstly the population, but then also (especially in a game like this) you actually need players who put some level of priority on getting better / competing. Guess what both population and players interested in competing have been in short supply in WvW for a long time.

> >

> > Then you have that generally the better players also move on once a game starts to lose that competition, people who did not value that competition however more commonly stay, but of course generally those that place less value of that competition are also not as good, nor ever will be.

> >

> > Nor does playing a game for longer equate to being better, even more so for something like zerging about in WvW. I hate to break it to you, but this isn't Starcraft (and even then the skill of the SC playerbase is a joke now compared to when it was the e-sport). The skill cap of WvW is not high, players that were mediocre after 4 years will still be mediocre after 7 years, 99.99% (yes random number, but you get the point) of players still playing are not as good as the actual good PvP players who left the game 3+ years ago and they never will be, doesn't matter how long they play.

> >

> >

> >

>

> As someone who has played 2 different games at the very top for several years and played those games in general for more than 6 years each, I can tell you that the people that you face actually do get better(not worse) over time. It is true that players who start early and keep competing often play exceptionally well but that's simply linked the amount of practice they have. It is also true that there is a decline of great players overtime, which is because the total amount of players decrases, but regardless of lower numbers, the skill level as a whole increases as long as a suffcient amount of players remains. A vast amount of teams competing with each other is not a requirement for improvement (although it might speed things up), it's enough if you have some teams/players that actually play against each other and try to improve (similar to how AI improves by trial-and-error/playing against itself).

>

> At the same time, information becomes more readily available the older a game grows (as more information about the game is spread due to people sharing their experience and there is a deeper understanding of the game mechanics) which allows newer players (and older players who are more casual) to catch up. Guild wars 2 is certainly far away from a competitive esports title but claiming that all the good players have left and there is no competition left is wrong. Good players always leave (for a variety of reasons) but they will almost always be replaced by someone else.

>

> Ironically, the best thing to do if you want people to remember you as talented player, is to stay just long enough to accomplish something and then leave as soon as possible afterwards. People will always glorify the past, perhaps because success in western culture is often linked to innovation and most of the innovation takes place when a game is new.

 

In a healthy, stable / growing competitive game, then yes overall the playerbase normally improves over time, but that is not what we are talking about with WvW. A game mode where T1/T2 matches made up of 6 servers have less activity than T4 used to have with three servers in a match, where everything that used to push "skill" - GvG, roaming, guild raids, etc has significantly dropped in activity, where the game is largely dead outside of primetime, which itself is shorter than ever and so on. In a declining game mode like that no, the overall playerbase does not get better, it gets worse, good (or even vaguely decent) players who played for some degree of competition either don't get replaced because the game is in decline or too often they get replaced by PvE heroes repairing walls in SM and who quit after a couple of lost fights.

 

I didn't claim all the good players have left, the majority have, both in WvW and PvP. If you think whichever four teams get to the last four of the next monthly AT are better than TCG, Orange Logo, etc because you think the overall skill of the playerbase improves over time, then you are sorely mistaken. And no that is not me "gloryfying" the past, it is simply the reality that the game was much more competitive back then than it is now and competition in games just like everywhere else, breeds excellence.

 

> Anyway, let's not derail this thread. :)

 

This thread has probably already been derailed multiple times. But whatever. :)

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Excellent Name.9574" said:

> What "commanders" in WvW do not get is that people cherish their freedom and the right to choose whatever they want to play and no ammount of bullying into Meta build will change that.

 

The irony is when the individualistic mindset cries about not being on a team.

[Erzian.5218]

Just ask yourself this:

pvp: are frostball/cookie/boyce/etc really worse than helseth/tage/lypion/frae/etc.? Having played against all of them, I have no reason to believe so.

Was e.g. Cheese Mode (when they were considered the best team) really better than today's MAT winners? I lost with a score > 0 against CM in an ESL final, I'd probably lose with 0 to the last MAT winners (assuming I had similar teammates, not some that carry me).

 

wvw: was red guard (game play wise) really better than today's people? If look at their raid claips, it certainly doesn't look that way.

Was roaming really more skilled in the old gw2 days? When I roamed during the first year of gw2, I was pretty much handed free wins just by running a proper build/gear. Most 1v1s were actually easily winable on sword only thief.

 

As long as people try to improve (and even if it's only 2 teams playing against each other over and over again), they will improve and just by listening to people on Gandara ts in the last 2 days I can tell you that there are definitely people left who want to get better. Just by looking at this very topic, you can actually see that people still care. Otherwise they wouldn't kick inferior classes from the squad.

 

On a side note: People already made similar claims to yourself before HoT was even released. Nonetheless, people now are much better than they were pre-HoT. You can see that simply by comparing how many people can actually put up a fight against e.g. ROM now and how many could back then.

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Erzian.5218" said:

> Just ask yourself this:

> pvp: are frostball/cookie/boyce/etc really worse than helseth/tage/lypion/frae/etc.?

 

You know the other week I watched Rom stream and he was going on about the meta in AT's and people pointing to AT's as some sort of justification for what is balanced or not, and how the lack of depth in terms of good players now effects that. So he took mesmers as an example and how the current best mesmer who still actively plays PvP alot is not in the same league as Helseth, Frostball, Misha, Kervv, etc (I assume he doesn't consider however much Frostball was playing PvP at the point as very much) when they were at peak and that Boyce as a warrior is much stronger as a warrior than the mesmer guy is as a mesmer, so that effects what gets played at ATs more than when the game had a bigger pool of good players.

 

So basically the pool of actual good players in the game is so pitifully small now that the quality of good players between classes is more varied, which is why I specifically said 4 teams, and no I don't think you can make 4 teams now that have the same level of player as the four best teams when TCG, Orange Logo, etc were winning those LAN tournies.

 

And then even looking at one team the proof of the pudding is doing it when it counts, not some worthless AT in a 7 year old game on life support.

 

> wvw: was red guard (game play wise) really better than today's people? If look at their raid claips, it certainly doesn't look that way.

 

To an extent, but then on the other hand I'd pick TA over any guild left in the game.

 

> As long as people try to improve (and even if it's only 2 teams playing against each other over and over again), they will improve.

 

I don't disagree with that, but it is irrelevant when considering the playerbase as a whole.

 

Firstly there are diminishing returns, even more so in something as relatively low skilled as blobbing in WvW, which is why some guy playing for 6 years as opposed to 3 years is basically meaningless, if a player has not managed to get good at blobbing in three years the tiny improvement they are going to get from the next 3 is not going to turn them into a good player.

 

Secondly it just highlights my point about competition breeding excellence, If you put two teams against each other they will improve (at a diminishing rate), now take the best 10 players from those two teams and compare them to the best 10 you get from having 30 teams keep playing each other, guess what 10 will be better bar some freak chance... (and as I expect you still don't get it, if some of those players from the first group of two teams were in the second group of 30, those exact same players would improve more there than they would have in that original 2 team setup). A bit like how training a model in machine learning works. ;)

 

Thirdly in a game like GW2 the type of player has a massive effect, this is not CS:GO, Rainbow Six Siege, etc where nearly everyone to some degree is reading from the same page, this is a game where most of the playerbase is primarily concerned with playing fashion wars with gameplay, let alone getting good a long way behind. And just like every other MMORPG the hardcore players (especially for all things PvP) are there at beta and launch, and as the game progresses and they leave (and they left WvW in droves with HoT), but unlike say CS:GO they are largely replaced (those that are actually replaced at all in a game mode that has hugely declined) with people less concerned about being good, and the obvious effect of that on the skill of the playerbase.

 

Which is why for instance FSP from 4 or so years ago would wipe the floor with WSR, RoS or Kodash of today.

 

> @"Erzian.5218" said:

> On a side note: People already made similar claims to yourself before HoT was even released. Nonetheless, people now are much better than they were pre-HoT. You can see that simply by comparing how many people can actually put up a fight against e.g. ROM now and how many could back then.

 

Or maybe Rom isn't quite the player he once was, doesn't play as much or as seriously any more, is largely playing solo/duo which doesn't really show what was the real difference between the top 3 or so teams and the rest (working as a full team, the decision making, awareness, etc) and that the powercreep from HoT (even more from PoF) reduced the gap in regard to combat between players of various skill levels.

 

Then beyond that having watched him stream, the "quality" of some of the people he is put in with is hilarious. (And just to be clear I am not having a go at those people, just merely they should not be in the same match and that they are speaks volumes about the state of the playerbase)

 

[Erzian.5218]

Many claims and examples that you give are perfectly alright and I won't (and never have) argued against them. What I disagree with is that you seemingly place all emphasis on the amount of available competitors (which doesn't even necessarily translate into higher competition) but almost completely ignore that there is variety of factors that influence human performance. As a result, you conclude that players get worse over time which is something that I could never witness in any game (despite constantly reading claims similar to yours and probably having made the very same claim at some point too).

 

This becomes apparent in your example of 2 vs 30 teams. Yes, you are completely right that in the case of 30 teams, the improvement is going to be quicker. However, we don't have 2 groups starting from the same level in the case of old vs. new players. We have 2 different groups:

Group A ) The group of 30 teams who improve their mechanical skill and gameplay and tactical knowledge. <- The "old" generation.

Group B ) The groupf of 2 teams who improve their mechanical skill (perhaps slower than group a but since we are talking about players and not teams here, there are probably enough competitors left so the difference shoulnd't be too big) and only have to build upon the gameplay and tactical knowledge of group A, as the information is already available and does not have to be discovered again (perhaps minus a minor loss). <-The "new" generation.

 

Group A has to create and produce new concepts whereas group B only has to remember, understand and apply them, which is much easier than creating them (they are pretty much taught by the old generation). As such, Group B will learn much quicker and have an easier time reaching a similar level as group A. Group B then only has to improve what they were taught in order to surpass group A once the old generation has quit.

 

To illustrate this: When I started playing ranger in gvg in guild wars 1, there were already established builds and tactics on how to play ranger in all kind of situations. Contrary to the rangers of the "old generation" (Group A), I didn't actually have to figure out which skills to use or how to use them in what kind of situation. Neither did I have to come up with a strategy on how to approach different situations. I simply asked experienced players of group A or looked for information on the internet. Instead of having to discover everything that group A had discovered in over 2 years myself, I simply had to soak up the information, memorize and apply it (lowest cognitive skills -> easy). As such, I could focus much more on acquiring mechanical skill and needed a lot less practice to actually get on the same level as the people of group A. When group A quit, I kept playing. The amount of players and therefore competitors kept decreasing over the following years and so did my rate of improvement (perhaps it even stagnated at some point), but I had still improved beyond of what the old generation aka group A was capable of. Could I have improved more quickly if the competition was higher? Probably, but contrary to those who quit, I had still made an improvement even if it was only a minor one.

In the end, group A might have done more work as they had figure out things themselves but I had still reacher a higher level thanks to their efforts, despite "growing up" in a less competitive environment.

[ArchonWing.9480]

What happens is people eventually plateau and thus skill levels become more uniform and thus everyone looks more mediocre. It is true that diminishing returns hit elsewhere. When nobody knows how to play and a few do, the skill difference looks big.

 

However, speculation aside, you also must remember that in 2012 and 2013 people were also farming uplevels and people that didn't have exotic gear yet, as well as people running pve builds because wvw ones didn't exist yet. So it'd be much easier to farm said players. Yes this still happens but exotic gear is literally handed out to new accounts, level 80 boosts, etc. Simply put the barrier to entry for mediocrity is much lower since it's now just buy 40s exotics and get linked to metabattle. Back then I could beat people on an uplevel thief... now, well.

 

I mean, when Starcraft 2 came out, I was like top 100 world for 4v4.... of course that's only because nobody gave a damn about that so really anyone could have been there when nobody knew how to play. As for blobbing in WvW.... lol

 

Nobody is arguing that Gw2 is a competitive game. It simply isn't. But all we have is really just anecdotes that are about 5x longer than anyone really cares about.

[Aridon.8362]

This is what happens in a communist game where everyone and everything you do is equal. The only thing that's not equal is balance, and this is why I stopped playing this crap, it's either have this dps have this build have this crap or die.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @"Aridon.8362" said:

> This is what happens in a communist game where everyone and everything you do is equal. The only thing that's not equal is balance, and this is why I stopped playing this kitten, it's either have this dps have this build have this kitten or die.

 

? As opposed to a capitalist game where it's have money or die?

[DKRathalos.9625]

Ranger and Thief are best when not in squad, they need to do their own things. Just find where the fight is and do pin sniping, both classes doesn't need to be in squad to do that.

[Aridon.8362]

> @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > This is what happens in a communist game where everyone and everything you do is equal. The only thing that's not equal is balance, and this is why I stopped playing this kitten, it's either have this dps have this build have this kitten or die.

>

> ? As opposed to a capitalist game where it's have money or die?

 

A capitalist game like ESO where it's buy to play, have over 500 different viable builds to try, no p2w mechanics, a working progression system, and an actual unique non-rails adventure with plot twits story lines and interesting events to go through? Yes please.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > > This is what happens in a communist game where everyone and everything you do is equal. The only thing that's not equal is balance, and this is why I stopped playing this kitten, it's either have this dps have this build have this kitten or die.

> >

> > ? As opposed to a capitalist game where it's have money or die?

>

> A capitalist game like ESO where it's buy to play, have over 500 different viable builds to try, no p2w mechanics, a working progression system, and an actual unique non-rails adventure with plot twits story lines and interesting events to go through? Yes please.

 

How can a game be capitalist if there's no p2w?

[Garrus.7403]

> @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > > This is what happens in a communist game where everyone and everything you do is equal. The only thing that's not equal is balance, and this is why I stopped playing this kitten, it's either have this dps have this build have this kitten or die.

> >

> > ? As opposed to a capitalist game where it's have money or die?

>

> A capitalist game like ESO where it's buy to play, have over 500 different viable builds to try, no p2w mechanics, a working progression system, and an actual unique non-rails adventure with plot twits story lines and interesting events to go through? Yes please.

 

What are you doing in here then? Hush hush to Tamriel you go.

[Aridon.8362]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > > @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > > > This is what happens in a communist game where everyone and everything you do is equal. The only thing that's not equal is balance, and this is why I stopped playing this kitten, it's either have this dps have this build have this kitten or die.

> > >

> > > ? As opposed to a capitalist game where it's have money or die?

> >

> > A capitalist game like ESO where it's buy to play, have over 500 different viable builds to try, no p2w mechanics, a working progression system, and an actual unique non-rails adventure with plot twits story lines and interesting events to go through? Yes please.

>

> How can a game be capitalist if there's no p2w?

 

Have over 500 different viable builds to try, were not some commie pigs running Berserkers/Vipers armor damage all the time.

[Kraljevo.2801]

> @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > > > @"Rashagar.8349" said:

> > > > > @"Aridon.8362" said:

> > > > > This is what happens in a communist game where everyone and everything you do is equal. The only thing that's not equal is balance, and this is why I stopped playing this kitten, it's either have this dps have this build have this kitten or die.

> > > >

> > > > ? As opposed to a capitalist game where it's have money or die?

> > >

> > > A capitalist game like ESO where it's buy to play, have over 500 different viable builds to try, no p2w mechanics, a working progression system, and an actual unique non-rails adventure with plot twits story lines and interesting events to go through? Yes please.

> >

> > How can a game be capitalist if there's no p2w?

>

> Have over 500 different viable builds to try, were not some commie pigs running Berserkers/Vipers armor damage all the time.

 

Good luck joining a competitive raiding guild in ESO with a hipster build, or playing in cyrodiil without heavy armor during prime time because it is so laggy.

 

The grass is always greener on the other side, buddy.

 

 

[nthmetal.9652]

> Good luck joining a competitive raiding guild in ESO with a hipster build

 

Nothing shows the different mentalities in the community better than this comment.

There is no really good solution to this. Maybe games catering to such different mentalities need to put way more effort into grouping players of the same skill level together. In WvW the current server-based grouping obviously cannot do that.

 

Maybe such games need some kind of "handicap" system, combined with a reward system tailored to the handicaps; this approach can backfire easily at many points though: The handicap is supposed to bring players of different skills more to the same level, maybe by giving lower skill players specific bonuses or higher tier players negative effects - either system could possibly upset higher-skill level players.

The combination with better rewards can possibly upset lower-skill players, who are unable to progress beyong a certain point and thus might never be able to get certain rewards. Depending on the kind of reward, especially if the reward would offer a mechanical benefit, this can be problematic.

 

I can say this from personal experience: I cannot tell you how much it upsets me, that I have not all those HoT masteries done. It has nothing to do with really _needing_ them, I can play the game fine as it is, but everytime I open that menu and see those missing masteries something inside me grumbles and rages. Yet I was so far unable to obtain these missing masteries due to a lack of skill. It's as if someone was waving something around in front of my nose and teasing "Here! You could have this. If only you tried hard enough. If you were just a little better." .... GREEAAARHAHAAAARGH!

[Kylden Ar.3724]

> @"Kovu.7560" said:

> > @"RisenHowl.2419" said:

> > On the flip side of that, if you have really bad damage, cleansing, strip, heal, and boon output.... why would you want to run that build at all?

>

> Single target pick builds probably won't register as particularly high in any of those categories, but they do serve a niche contributive role. No replacement for a meta guard, necro, scrapper etc. -- but should otherwise fall into your loose criteria of not being detrimental.

>

> Also, while I generally run straight dps on my necro, I have saved a lot more people on my transfusion build, sometimes leading to swinging the fight in my team's favor.

> Its just the fuckups that are more memorable and visible-- with everyone being clumped up, and some of those "fuckups" were caused by unwanted delayed teleporting. That teleport AI is about as unreliable as Ranger's SnR.

>

> ~ Kovu

 

When I tag up ([usually to defend](

) home BL) I have no problem with single target builds/classes as long as the players _can follow the target I call._ I call, you all kill it, then we finish it and keep going.

 

Seems like every push I see fail is cause when the commander calls target no one follows it and it doesn't go down. Now tag-a-longs outside the squad can't see these calls, but those in it have no excuse.