What will we have now:
Imune warrior goes in circle and contest it for ~10 ses and then dies. Next warrior goes in and contest structure for next ~10 sec and so on and so on… Ally’s blob arrive and we have epic fight.Can you contest while invulnerable?
I belive Endure Pain does not prevent contesting, since it’s not total invulnerability… But you can pop all 3 stances and be immune to everything without the penality of a guardian with renewed focus, for exemple, would have.
I belive Endure Pain does not prevent contesting, since it’s not total invulnerability… But you can pop all 3 stances and be immune to everything without the penality of a guardian with renewed focus, for exemple, would have.
Strip stability, punt warrior.
Good riddance to that! The only people who are going to cry over this are those that were doing it. Yes I’m talking to you warriors. It never should have worked on NPC’s in the first place. After all, other revive skills from other professions/classes could never revive lords and all that, what makes warriors so overpoweringly special?
Good change. Finally fixed.
After all, other revive skills from other professions/classes could never revive lords and all that, what makes warriors so overpoweringly special?
Actually any skill that could rise a downed player would work on NPCs with the except of mesmer’s Illusion of Life. Let’s no be unfair on that saying that only warriors could do it…
Banners were more common simply because warriors can become immune to everything and drop the banner. Unlike the other classes…
This is a bad change.
Yeah, I hope you guys are enjoying the new k-train meta.
This COULD be a viable change if cap circles were all the size of vale… but they aren’t. It COULD be viable if circle didn’t cap so fast… but they do.
The circles are just too small. Range has no real way to affect the fight because you need melee to contest, but they’ll just die and rally anyone you get down with ranged. You need to have an entire melee stack ready to go before you push in, but the circle caps too quickly for you to be more than 3 or 4 seconds away.
I mean, you COULD contest and defend, but attackers have such an enormous advantage now.
about time, reviving dead npcs was kitten
It was ridiculous how warriors could keep ressing the lord over and over again making it impossible for a small force to capture something sometimes before the zerg shows up. But, removing it completely is terrible. You should be able to res the lord, just not indefinitely. 3 times would be good enough, the same as with players. You res a downed player 3 times, they die outright the 3rd time they drop. That would have been good enough to stop it from being as ridiculous as it was without ruining it like they did. This was a bad change that really screws over defenders.
This was a bad change that really screws over defenders.
It really isn’t – it just moves the fight from the lord’s room out to where the siege is.
Sorry people, your comfortable ruts have been filled in and graded.
Did you know rocket jumping and strafe jumping wasn’t an intended feature in the old Quake games? The developers didn’t even know it existed until players found out and it became the meta.
But because the Devs aren’t fickle about their game, they let it stay, since players really liked it. And from that point on, Quake was considered one of the best online multiplayer shooters on the planet.
Take some notes. Unless something is SERIOUSLY breaking the game, you should NEVER take away strategic options in your game. Lord Bannering is stoppable by covering entrances and locking enemy players down. But because that is apparently too hard, just get rid of Lord Rezzing…
From what I’ve seen, you could have a dozen Green ants waving their arms about on the mini-map and still defend a keep successfully without being properly organized.
Maybe slowing down the cap time, giving defenders more time to contest would balance things out?
Did you know rocket jumping and strafe jumping wasn’t an intended feature in the old Quake games? The developers didn’t even know it existed until players found out and it became the meta.
But because the Devs aren’t fickle about their game, they let it stay, since players really liked it. And from that point on, Quake was considered one of the best online multiplayer shooters on the planet.
Take some notes. Unless something is SERIOUSLY breaking the game, you should NEVER take away strategic options in your game. Lord Bannering is stoppable by covering entrances and locking enemy players down. But because that is apparently too hard, just get rid of Lord Rezzing…
Did you know that, in GW1, the devs would regularly change a handful of skills, often without notice?
Sometimes to increase functionality of the lesser used skills, but often specifically to interfere with meta builds or “must have” skills?
Did you know that this actually made the game better, because there was a constant shifting in the way people did things, rather than doing the same thing every single time?
Take some notes: banner your lord BEFORE he goes down – play better and be useful rather than using an OP skill to make up for sloppy scouting, defending, and mobility.
If it takes a group to break through your outer wall and your inner wall, you want to do nothing until they’re in your lord’s room? And then you want ONE GUY to reset things since you couldn’t be bothered to save him before, or convince enough of your other people to come help?
It’s a terrible way to play the game, and as has been noted earlier this is the upper tier servers that are crying about this, not the lower tier servers. Sounds like there’s less flexibility and adaptability in the top half of the game, which is also where so many of the “this game is getting stale” threads come from.
Learn to play in a new way. Or drop down a few tiers and we’ll teach you.
Did you know rocket jumping and strafe jumping wasn’t an intended feature in the old Quake games? The developers didn’t even know it existed until players found out and it became the meta.
But because the Devs aren’t fickle about their game, they let it stay, since players really liked it. And from that point on, Quake was considered one of the best online multiplayer shooters on the planet.
Take some notes. Unless something is SERIOUSLY breaking the game, you should NEVER take away strategic options in your game. Lord Bannering is stoppable by covering entrances and locking enemy players down. But because that is apparently too hard, just get rid of Lord Rezzing…
Did you know that, in GW1, the devs would regularly change a handful of skills, often without notice?
Sometimes to increase functionality of the lesser used skills, but often specifically to interfere with meta builds or “must have” skills?
Did you know that this actually made the game better, because there was a constant shifting in the way people did things, rather than doing the same thing every single time?
Take some notes: banner your lord BEFORE he goes down – play better and be useful rather than using an OP skill to make up for sloppy scouting, defending, and mobility.
If it takes a group to break through your outer wall and your inner wall, you want to do nothing until they’re in your lord’s room? And then you want ONE GUY to reset things since you couldn’t be bothered to save him before, or convince enough of your other people to come help?
It’s a terrible way to play the game, and as has been noted earlier this is the upper tier servers that are crying about this, not the lower tier servers. Sounds like there’s less flexibility and adaptability in the top half of the game, which is also where so many of the “this game is getting stale” threads come from.
Learn to play in a new way. Or drop down a few tiers and we’ll teach you.
Meanwhile, GW1 struggles to keep players, and Quake/Counter Strike continue to be some of the most played games on PC. Changing things for the sake of changing them isn’t a smart idea when things weren’t in need of changing. This is how you BREAK things.
Changes should only be made if they are needed. Doing so to keep player interests only shows that what you had before wasn’t worth playing in the first place, and repeated changes for the same reason proves the devs can’t make a solid online experience to save their lives.
What next? Take my portals away?
Meanwhile, GW1 struggles to keep players, and Quake/Counter Strike continue to be some of the most played games on PC. Changing things for the sake of changing them isn’t a smart idea when things weren’t in need of changing. This is how you BREAK things.
Changes should only be made if they are needed. Doing so to keep player interests only shows that what you had before wasn’t worth playing in the first place, and repeated changes for the same reason proves the devs can’t make a solid online experience to save their lives.
I’m not sure that GW1 is struggling to keep any players, frankly. Is there even a revenue stream from it anymore?
Counter-strike: Global Offensive ranks in at 3.41% of time played in 2014, versus Guild Wars 2 at 1.22%. Quake doesn’t even make the list.
As for “changes should only be made when needed”, this was needed. Bannering a live lord to keep him up, fine. Bannering a dead lord indefinitely, not fine. There’s more than zerg play to this game, unless you prefer stale and predictable.
Yet another change for the worse I see. I am not a class that can just ‘banner’ a lord, but I am a defender so – I’m sorry but if your offensive group (no matter the size) cannot kill a few players AND the lord, then the defenders have a well deserved victory. It’s bad enough ANET plays favoritism toward ktrainers/zergers/offenders but now they just made yet ANOTHER move in their favor…
This is sickening… I could even be in favor of putting some kind of limitation on it, but flat out removing it. Ridiculous…
Why do so many of the complainers about this not realize than the siege disabler means they don’t get to your lord in the first place?!
Now any class can stop a siege for arguably longer than the lord lasts while standing in the middle of a zerg – stop looking at the lord’s room and start playing with the more flexible tool you’ve been given.
Why do so many of the complainers about this not realize than the siege disabler means they don’t get to your lord in the first place?!
Now any class can stop a siege for arguably longer than the lord lasts while standing in the middle of a zerg – stop looking at the lord’s room and start playing with the more flexible tool you’ve been given.
And on the opposite side of that fence the offender can get in that much quicker because they disable your defensive siege. I know personally first-hand because this has happened to me!
Why do so many of the complainers about this not realize than the siege disabler means they don’t get to your lord in the first place?!
Now any class can stop a siege for arguably longer than the lord lasts while standing in the middle of a zerg – stop looking at the lord’s room and start playing with the more flexible tool you’ve been given.
And on the opposite side of that fence the offender can get in that much quicker because they disable your defensive siege. I know personally first-hand because this has happened to me!
And why you didn’t disabled their siege when you had your disabled? Stalemate…
Why do so many of the complainers about this not realize than the siege disabler means they don’t get to your lord in the first place?!
Now any class can stop a siege for arguably longer than the lord lasts while standing in the middle of a zerg – stop looking at the lord’s room and start playing with the more flexible tool you’ve been given.
And on the opposite side of that fence the offender can get in that much quicker because they disable your defensive siege. I know personally first-hand because this has happened to me!
And why you didn’t disabled their siege when you had your disabled? Stalemate…
Maybe at this point it would be, but at the time I didn’t even know such a stupid item existed. Yes, some people (like myself) actually just play, rather USED to play, the game without reading the website/patch notes/living on the forums.
Why do so many of the complainers about this not realize than the siege disabler means they don’t get to your lord in the first place?!
Now any class can stop a siege for arguably longer than the lord lasts while standing in the middle of a zerg – stop looking at the lord’s room and start playing with the more flexible tool you’ve been given.
And on the opposite side of that fence the offender can get in that much quicker because they disable your defensive siege. I know personally first-hand because this has happened to me!
Are you putting your siege in the same old places, then? Rams are next to useless now, unless it’s an unoccupied structure or there are no supplies inside. So forget those.
Arrowcarts have to be placed further away from the gates, laterally along the wall. Yes, this means that you don’t get as much coverage BUT it means that it either takes more disablers (costing them more supplies, and you DID drop a supply trap by your gate, didn’t you?) or they end up standing in your fire.
Catapults and trebuchets are the order of the day, and if you have built counter catas/trebs inside and you are sending people out to disable theirs in the field, how are they getting your anti-siege disabled?
I wonder if they’re they’re getting inside faster for you because they are dropping rams, you’re throwing the disabler (possibly through the gate), and then going up top to try to destroy the rams while they’re down, and they’re painting the walls with marks and aoe fire.
And on the opposite side of that fence the offender can get in that much quicker because they disable your defensive siege. I know personally first-hand because this has happened to me!
And why you didn’t disabled their siege when you had your disabled? Stalemate…
Maybe at this point it would be, but at the time I didn’t even know such a stupid item existed. Yes, some people (like myself) actually just play, rather USED to play, the game without reading the website/patch notes/living on the forums.
That’s like saying you just play and are upset that your walls got knocked down by flaming rocks from the sky, because you didn’t know that trebs existed. Have you never been the victim of a supply trap before?
To be fair, it’s only been a few days so people are still getting used to siege disablers, but on my server at least they’ve been a godsend. It’s changed up the way we break into structures, and it’s certainly changed how we defend.
But if you play as though they don’t exist then yes, you’re probably going to have a bad time.
What next? Take my portals away?
I suspect so… and I wouldn’t protest, either!
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.
