Guild Wars 2

Nothing as long as i adapt my gameplay to the situation, and my attitude to the present players.

For me the real difficulty in an MMO is when you need strong Resilience capacity in case of a defeat…Something you finaly don’t really need in Gw2.

I’m also playing an other MMO called Eve on line. If you want a high level of challenge, difficulty and big adrenaline discharges play it. To give you an idea When you are killed you lose all your equipment which can be partially looted…

To be honnest I play Gw2 to relax: to lose a fight has limited consequences….
In Eve you can lose lots of your assets at a personnal level or big sources of wealth at a guild level when you lose the control of a territory and/or a war…In that kind of game resilience is mandatory and not always easy to organise at a collective level.

Some people had and still have a loud voice on this forum against desertic border lands.

Of course that’s their right to express their opinion.

But when arenanet has called a maximum of player ( even those who are not often coming on this forum) to vote about it: they choose to keep it and to have it simultaneously with the rest of the maps.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-14-June-Desert-Borderlands-Closed/page/4#post6212591

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-27-June-Simultaneous-Borderlands/page/3#post6228777

As I have written somewhere else, I do not think it’s a good solution to call for a modification of the rules of the game (nerf and so on) each time someone meet a ingame difficulty to manage an opponent…

A thief can be a very good glass canon…a sort of assassin. That’s their role…but they are very “glassy”: a mistake in their stealth or dodge management and they are dead.

People have to chose their fight: If I play a guardian builded for a zerg, it’s obvious I will avoid them…as an exemple in WvW I will not travel alone in a an area where they are…
If I take such a risk and if they catch me…well…Nothing anormal if I die.

With a roaming character…well it depends…I choose my fight and sometime I win, sometime not…Nothing anormal

I do not think it’s a good solution to call for a modification of the rules of the game (nerf and so on) each time someone meet an ingame difficulty to manage an opponent…

Different solutions exist, from competencies to Tools as the stealh disruptor.
In WvW, a good solution is also to avoid the fight or to move with one or two mates…specialy if the players confronted to that kind of thief play zerg characters (isolated, they are the favorite prey of that kind of thief).

So, even with my guardian in a zerg configuration, they are not a big issue: I avoid them.
With my own roaming characters, it’s balanced: sometime they win, sometime I kill them (most of the case because I choose my fights): Nothing anormal.

Do not also forget that that kind of thief is not very interesting for their team has finally they do not earn a lot of point for their server.

As said in a previous post we already have a vote, and a large majority of people who voted wanted it to stay amid the other maps.

It’s a good concept: those who do not like it can play with the two others. In a more or less close future we can still hope arenanet team to create a third borderland map.

And honestly this map is interesting simply because it make players in a obligation to think a little bit different (path, tactics, …).

I agree with the actual 900 range too…after all a thief isn’t a ranger.

TwiceDead.1963 is right we have different Tools to engage and disengage (stealth or dodge specialization depending of the gameplay you prefer). According to me, double pistol is a game play of positioning. The correct management of the distance with the target is the key, specilay if you play a skirmisher around the main fight.

As long as ricochet wouldn’t be implemanted at the cost of the actual power of fire of the dual pistol set (meaning this addition would be juged balanced) why not…

I wouldn’t like to have a decrease of the actual power of fire of the dual pistol set (mainly vital shot, sneak Attack, and unload with might) or to lose one of the different control offered by the set, or even one of any actual traits of the specializations…

I use a double pistol thief for a lonnnnnnng time now.

Correctly builded (with some daredevil traits) and played a double pistol thief is an efficient mono target character and is more interesting to play than is was in the past, even with ricochet.

It’s fun to play (my opinion of course) even if it has never been considered as a powerfull gameplay.

Those videos found on the net are closed to what I have tried with that kind of thief:

A classic vintage thief (without HoT): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwo4QhWBqyg
A build based on invisibility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51l_gXEO-PQ
A build based on dodge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0_u96cKnCY

With a little effort you’ll find others on the net or by yourself (venom, etc…)

Have fun

There’s the same topic in the thief dedicated part of this forum.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/thief/Condi-Stealth-Trapper-Thief/first#post6201411

I guess the two topics could be merged.

According to me the trap thief is not an issue for a player who moves a minimum…
Or the player can break its invisibility (revenant, engineer…gadgets as stealth trap) and it’s possible to kill the trap thief quickely, or he can’t and the combat can be easily avoided, leaving the trap thief quite…useless on a WvW battlefield.

You should have a look on this post:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-31-May-Mixed-Borderlands-CLOSED/page/8#post6187581

We all should keep in mind that as some people didn’t apreciate the complexity of DBL mechanism some other people bored on old maps and mechanical dating back to the beginning of the game.

Sure having DBL together with old maps instead of a rotation would be a good compromise and a potential window to the creation of a 4th map:
If you see some previous posts of the dev team you’ll see that a 4th map could be created in case of having all the maps together instead of a rotation.
Furthermore, it seems obvious that a removal of DBL may make harder to take the risk of creating a new map later…In that case I hope people really love ABL as they risk to play with it a very long time.

We will see soon…

That’s also true. One of the basic rule about that:

“Never feed the troll”

Sadly, trolls are part of any MMO…Block and eventually report…It’s the best solution.

An other one: do not use the map chat channel but a vocal one…You’ll loss some information but normally the main one about the game and your team moves will be saved.

8 months … DBL isn’t old days

And the paradox is that it was designed to answer to a lot of players’ requests:
- Decrease the influence of the zerg play style on the score
- Make the Attack of the gate a less obvious option
- …

Sure having them together with old maps would have been a good compromise and a potential window to the creation of a 4th map (see some posts of the team).

Well the result is here and we will see the futur, but be sure that as some people didn’t apreciate the complexity of DBL mechanism some other people bored on old maps and mechanical dating back to the beginning of the game.

This is no more a question.

You should read that post and the following ones:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-31-May-Mixed-Borderlands-CLOSED/page/6#post6187164

We’ll see … but if this leads as announced in a survey to know whether to permanently delete the map DBL … somewhere it’s some mess:

If the map is retained it will make much people embittered … and if the map is removed it will make a lot of people disappointed … .No consensus or compromise and necessarily dissatisfied people to the exit.

Furthermore a removal of DBL may make it harder to take the risk of creating a new map later…In that case I hope people really love ABL as they risk to play with it a very long time.

Well I read that some people really didn’t like DBL ( )…

Solution seems easy: do not play on it, and leave those who enjoy it to use it.

Exactly the same resonning that people use to play on CBE or ABL, as some of them do not like the other one….

And we shouldn’t forget that the desert map is an investment. If it’s lost without finding a small place, it should be not so easy for someone to take the risk to invest money in any new map.

Well…yes…perhaps…but…even if Rugby is just a story of 30 guys in shorts running after a small ballon….never play Rugby…just video games

I find it rather unfortunate …

It facilitates the direct assault of the doors by a zerg and it seems to diminish interest to organize the siege: choice of a place to build machines, organisation of the supply line to feed that place (specially against guerilla tactics of harassment in case of a low number opponent), and its defense against the counter attack…

This seems to reduce the substance of the game in its strategic side.

I understand what you mean…but remember that in such a game, massive PvP is not END-game content but one of the theme proposed as an activity to the players.
Low level players are part of that activity: up to us to guide and help them.

Finally the real end-game content closed to newbies is high level PvE (fractal 80-100, raid…)

Once more I’ m curious to discover results

In massive PvP game, spying is something current and difficult to manage for a game editor.

It’s boring in a “match approach” of that kind of PvP as in GW2, but it’s not as developped as it can be in some other games…I’m thinking “sandbox” MMO.

To give you an idea of that phenomena let me tell you the story of the fall of Band of Brothers (BoB), a big alliance of guilds (PvP specialized ones) that have dominated the game “Eve online” (a space opera MMO I also play) at a moment of its history.

To understand just keep in mind that this MMO is a “sandbox” one, in which guilds are called corporations and constitute alliances as they want to control territories that provide them different kind of ressources. In that game, death is very punitive as the player loose all the Equipment of its avatar and have to replace it. Even the biggest “crafting structures” are build by players and can be destroyed. So the control of those territories and ressorces is very very important.

Goonswarm, an other alliance and one of BoB’s largest and longest enemies gained a Director (a sort of GM) spy in its umbrella corporation. 2009, february 5th, The director kicked all of the members without roles from the corporation, and disbanded the umbrella corporation for the alliance. The différents corporations of BoB see themselves has ennemies….And immediatly Goonswarm attacked them. BoB lost all of its sovereignty in the Eve Universe , a capital fleet (the most powerfull weapons which are very very expensive), and a large sum of ISK (the money of the game). Goonswarm promptly put in an application for an alliance under the name of BoB and effectively prevented the alliance from ever getting to hold its namesake again.

In that game this action has never been considered as an exploit, and is in fact considered as one of the most famous spying/destabilzation operation in its history.

Up to the players to limit spying and build strategies for that as an absolute control of their TS/mumble.
Lots of guilds ask also for the API of the player who want to join them to study their game account and see if something seems anormal.

I guess that if in Gw2 WvW, spying become a real issue that can modify a match result, players will have to develop strategies against as the most efficient answer to the issue.

“Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)”

It may be the longest to develop … but this is something that may have the most interesting impact for renewed interest in the match.

“Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)”

It may be the longest to develop … but this is something that may have the most interesting impact for renewed interest in the match.

Draeyon.4392:

Baldrick.8967:

Draeyon.4392:

Like many have posted already, scoring being scaled to population (or lack there of) would be the best option presented.

I don’t like the idea of certain hours (timezones) contributing more to the score than others.

I disagree strongly with it being the best option.

If you score for action rather than passive ticks like it is now, then the population differences at different times of day are mitigated, and huge over night swings can no longer happen. See my earlier posts.

Any sort of ‘multiplier’ is a terrible idea which would lead to gaming of the system as well as a lot of ‘salt’.

R.I.P

Misread the first post, I thought the multiplier ideas were a certainty instead of a possibility.
Would rather not have it but if they forced it into he game, having it be based on population differences instead of a locked prime time would be the better of the 2.

A score is a measurement tool to evaluate teams’ performances (collective and indicudual skills) to define a winer.

In the score PPT is the Key Performance Indicator that evaluate the skill of a team to hold a territory. Of course it’s usefull in a such a game.

It’s easiest for a team with a lot of player to hold a territory than for a team with less people.

That’s why it could be a good idea to build the PPT calculation on a evolving system, depending of the population trends (The 4 maps together, players travel) at each “tic”.

Draeyon.4392:

Baldrick.8967:

Draeyon.4392:

Like many have posted already, scoring being scaled to population (or lack there of) would be the best option presented.

I don’t like the idea of certain hours (timezones) contributing more to the score than others.

I disagree strongly with it being the best option.

If you score for action rather than passive ticks like it is now, then the population differences at different times of day are mitigated, and huge over night swings can no longer happen. See my earlier posts.

Any sort of ‘multiplier’ is a terrible idea which would lead to gaming of the system as well as a lot of ‘salt’.

R.I.P

Misread the first post, I thought the multiplier ideas were a certainty instead of a possibility.
Would rather not have it but if they forced it into he game, having it be based on population differences instead of a locked prime time would be the better of the 2.

A score is a measurement tool to evaluate teams’ performances (collective and indicudual skills) to define a winer.

In the score PPT is the Key Performance Indicator that evaluate the skill of a team to hold a territory. Of course it’s usefull in a such a game.

It’s easiest for a team with a lot of player to hold a territory than for a team with less people.

That’s why it could be a good idea to also think the PPT calculation on a evolving system, depending of the population trends (4 maps together, players travel) at each “tic”.

And an other advantage of that kind of approach would be to make day/night debat obsolete.

UmbraNoctis.1907:

(…)

@ those that want to “punish” server with higher population and want to give smaller servers the same chances to win a matchup

Population differences are not only a problem because of the scoring. It is a problem because it often creates unfun situations (boring onesided fights, spawncamping, …) regardless of the scoring system. So the scoring system should still allow the separation of high and low population, to match them against similar populated server and create as even matchups as possible – not only score wise.

Yep…but unfortunatly, I’m afraid we have to consider that unbalanced populations and asymmetric confrontations are part of massive online PvP games.

Some tried to regulate population during the massive pvp fights.
As an exemple some years ago Funcom have tried something to regulate populations during big PvP confrontations in its MMO Age of Conan using a sort of rendezvous system.
At the origin of the game these confrontations were organised around the capture of a keep controled by a Guild. Each week the guild controling the keep had to choose a timeslot during which another guild could attack. The guilds who wanted to attack competed in a sort of auction to select the one who could attack. During the attack, the map was instantiated to become a sort of private battelfield. Players were limited to 48 by teams, but even with this short limit, it was not rare to have asymetric fights.
Finaly too rigid, the system was not considered fun by most of players.

In fact the easiest way to deal with the natural unbalanced populations in Massive PvP games is to leave players free to constitute guild alliances as they want. That system is quite well adapted to sandbox MMO as eveonline. In that game population issue is not a topic.

But it doesn’t work very well on an instantiated game as Gw2 mainly because massive players confrontations in a game like Gw2 are highly regulated in term of time and space, and because teams are divided by rigid servers which have not an equal access to players. An other important difference between the 2 kind of MMO is the reason of massive PvP confrontations: In a sandbox MMO, players fight to control a territory for its ressources and that’s why, finally they have no need of a score.

Managing the score in a game like Gw2 is not a matter of punishment, but a matter of fair competition organisation.

Draeyon.4392:

Like many have posted already, scoring being scaled to population (or lack there of) would be the best option presented.

(…)

During a same match, a team can have to play a conventional warfare, or an asymmetric warfare (being time to time the conventional forces or the guerrilla).

That’s why it could have been a good idea to build the score calculation on an evolving system, depending of the population trends at each “tic”.

And an other advantage of that kind of approach would have to make day/night debat obsolete.

But it seems we have a system, wait and see

I understand what you mean.

But I’m afraid we have to consider that unbalanced populations and asymmetric confrontations are part of massive online PvP games.

The easiest way to deal with that is to leave players free to constitute guild alliances as they want. That system is quite well adapted to sandbox MMO as eveonline.

But it doesn’t work very well on an instantiated game as Gw2 mainly because massive players confrontations are highly regulated in term of time and space, and because teams are divided by rigid servers which have not an equal access to players. An other important difference between the 2 kind of MMO is the reason of massive PvP confrontations: In a sandbox MMO, players fight to control a territory for its ressources and there’s no need of a score.

So, regarding a game as Gw2, according to me the best way is to consider this asymmetry as a part of the game, and to manage it as in similar games that use a score to define a winner, specialy wargames.

In wargames simulating assymetric warfare, players have not exactly the same kind of goals and/or the captured objectives do not pay the same amount of points to their score, depending if they play the conventional army or the guerrilla forces.

The reason is simple: A guerilla force and a conventional army have not the same gameplay. And as the goal of a score is to classify players’ skills to define a winner, scoring does not measure the same things.

For a conventional army, it’s mainly its ability to control a territory, and for a guerilla force its ability to harrass and destabilize the first one.

Finally the main difference between that kind of wargame and a game as Gw2 WvW is the fact that the situation evoluates during the play, following a moving path.
During a same match, a team can have to play a conventional warfare, or an asymmetric warfare (being time to time the conventional forces or the guerrilla).

That’s why I proposed to build the score calculation on a evolving system, depending of the population trends at each “tic”.

And an other advantage of that kind of approach is to make day/night debat obsolete.

Some people suggest that people will stop to play a skirmish if they feel that it’s lost.

Perhaps… But the maps are not reset between skirmishes. If they do that, they abandon the maps to the 2 other teams and compromise possibilities of victory for the next round, and possibly for the all match.

That’s why I think that good players who feel that they are going to loose a skirmish, will adapt their objective to prepare better as possible the map for the next round.

I think we should consider the thing without day/night cap perspective.

The “skirmisher” system would limit the impact of a team that could paint all the maps with its colour whatever day or night at certain moment of the match, simply because it has the population to do that.

Day or night…finally it’s not the main topic in the core system proposed to us.

What write Serraphin Storm.2369, is also a point of view that can be defend about decorations.

Finaly a guild tax system should be useful in any case as a tool to manage guild Investment in its hall and in consumables ^^

Furajir.3815 says something sensible that can help you to deal with your HP issue.

Myself, I use some soldier pieces of armor and food that increase my survivabilty.

My daredevil can follow a zerg with few issues if i play correctly…

In roaming situation, it’s often a surprise for a glass canon, as another thief, to realize that its primary burst didn’t kill me…And as themselves are very fragile the soldier pieces of armor I wear are not an issue for me to counter Attack.

Swagger.1459:

That’s not a god idea…

I have a better one, how about the devs give us the tools to create unique spaces. Scribes can still create unique decorations requiring minor guild member support. The devs can release guild hall decoration packs on the gem store as well.

I understand what you mean.

Perhaps should we consider that 2 kinds of feature are provided by the hall: Cosmetics one (decorations), and facilities which can impact the game play (WvW improvements, banners as the hero one, and so on).

Perhaps decorations and facilities should be consider separatly in term of cost mechanism.
My idea of a tax system comes from another game I play in which guilds build facilities that give them advantages in the game….That’s why they have a cost and represent a collective Investment guilds decided to do or not to do. In that game, a optional tax system is a tool they have to manage that Investment.

I agree decorations are something different because they have no impact on the gameplay itself.

About what I’ve called a threshold effect, you’re right. That’s a risk.

But this would mean that almost all players of a same team would be ready to stop playing to do such a thing….being all ok with such a beahvior, depriving themselves of the pleasure of playing.

Honestly, when I see the difficulty most of them have to coordinate their zergs and roaming groups, the probability of such an exploit seems reasonably low enough to me.
And the team trying to do such a thing on a long period of time would take itself a big risk to loose the match because of the natural indiscipline of players.

But perhaps we should still imagine that threshold effect doesn’t take place the last 24 hours of a match if we want to mitigate such a risk a little bit more.

The risk you describe is also a reason why a threshold effect should be relatively small if it was used.
If really Arenanet observes such a behavior, their team could adjust the percentage down.

And yes, even if I think the mechanism should be tried, if we discover that in practice it’s to easy to abuse threshold effect, abandon it and look for something else to manage extreme situations, as the momentary absence of a team.

Perhaps we simply miss a guild tax system as those you can find in games where guilds need hudge amount of ressources to develop facilities.

It would be very useful because from HOT, construction of the hall and manufacture of guild consumables are expensive.

An adjustable tax from 0% to X% of all money received (quest) or droped by players representing a guild would be useful.

Each guild and players could agree on a % automatically charged to feed the guild wallet…
A choice of 0% means the absence of joint effort and therefore a choice not to enjoy the fruits of this collective effort.

This feature would allow players to manage guild Investments without forcing them to:
– Either hold tedious accounts about members’ participation, avoiding recovery.
– Either leave the bulk of the effort to weigh on part of the guild, while the other part only enjoy.

Incidentally it would avoid any tension between players about collective effort once the tax rate agreed.

If your objective is to use double pistols as a CC source and a Might source, perhaps you could try something else than a bow.

Of course you’d loose the mobilty of the bow but you could be able to incrase the power of an other set (staff, etc.).

Finaly the idea could be to replace the bow by 2 pistols as a secondary weapon set, making a choise between mobilty, AOE and power, CC improvement.

Hello,

I have already posted most of the following ideas in other messages, somewhere…
As some people (thanks for their comments) found them good, and as some others, in game, say to me I should create a topic about them…well I do it.

I just wish this contribution will feed the reflexion. As usual with this kind of message, just prepare a coffee before reading

ROOTS OF THE SCORING ISSUE

WvW is a match.

The first principle of every organized match is equity in chances to win for all teams : Only collective and individual skills should make the decision.

That’s why collective games have a simple rule: same amount of players (football, soccer, rugby, basket….).
The only reason for a handball/football/rugby/etc. team to have less player than another is because of a penalty…and it’s always one of the biggest penalty because to play with less players is always considered as a huge disadvantage.

The particularity of the GW2 WvW is the length of the match (168 hours) and the size of the teams (up to 4×80=320 players according to my memory).
Teams have not the same amount of players to relay themselves on the field during the 168 hours and do not have an access to the same category of players (in term of time zone coverage specially in Europe with the mix of “national language based teams” and “european teams”).

In fact Gw2 WvW organizes “asymmetric confrontation”…but does not manage enough that asymmetry.

This is unsatisfactory.

And what we call “night-capping” is only a symptom of that general situation.

According to me, there are two main axes of progress.

FIRST AXIS OF PROGRESS: GIVE A SENSE TO THE SCORE

As a competition WvW needs to be a challenge. If the challenge doesn’t exist, scoring itself has no interest.
It’s should be the base: Nowhere you’ll find a never-ending league as we have.
According to my mind the first thing we need is an organized season like in football. Perhaps one or two per civil year…I don’t know but we need something similar.
At the end of the season we could have an annual (bi annual…) tournament.

Imagine: A WvW season starting in September, finishing at the end of may just before university exams…a break of about one month and then a summer tournament until the end of august. Scoring would be interesting. The confrontations would have sense.

SECOND AXIS OF PROGRESS: MAKE ASYMMETRIC WARFARE INTERESTING IN TERM OF SCORING

Once the interest the match established, equity should be organized.

“Teams have not the same amount of players during the match…” Well, well, well,…

So the challenge is to make interesting an asymmetric confrontation, as well as a conventional one during a same match.

And we are not limited to a single measure.

First measure: PPK (already done).
I consider this as a step in the good direction: a team with less people can make a good amount of points against a biggest one if they play better, choosing their fight as in a guerrilla warfare.
It’s a good system as long as a killed player can’t give a victory point before a short cooldown after is death.

PPK exits, keep it preciously.

Second measure: PPT calculation impacted by a team population at the “tic”

According to me it should be a solution to explore because it doesn’t not focus on this or that category of player but on the potential asymmetry of the populations each times the points given by structures are calculated.

The more the players of a team are present on the field at the “tic”, the less the structures should give points to that team. It would change nothing when populations are equivalent, but this would balance asymmetric situations.
The all population of the 4 maps should be considered together because players travel from a map to another, and teams develop for a long time “multi maps zerg”.

There are certainly different clever calculations. however, even if it seems a complex thing to manage, the calculation should remains as simple as possible in its principles.

I recognize that it’s not an easy exercise, but I’m proposing one:

Third measure: threshold effect.

A thing could be done to limit the impact of an unusual or extreme situation, as when one team is momentarily absent.

We could imagine a threshold effect:

As soon as one of the three teams has less than a percentage of its maximum number of players on the field (the 4 maps together) at a “tic”, PPT is 0 for the three teams as long as the situation continue. It does not prevent the other teams to capture structures or PPK, but it limits the impact of the situation and preserve the interest of the match.

One more time that percentage would be an adjustment tool used by Arenanet team.

If we take an example of 5%, it would mean that as soon as a team as less than 320×0.05=16 players divided on the 4 maps, the three teams mark no points for their controlled structure.
Even if they can still take an advantage conquering structures of the absent team, and mark Points by the ppk way, the score is not too distorted, and the interest of the match is preserved

CONCLUSION.

Whatever future decisions nearly taken, they should focus on the sense of the scoring itself and manage asymmetric confrontations, in term of scoring, which are a characteristic of Gw2 WvW whatever day or night.

The objective should be to improve the interest of the competition for everybody, those who play in big teams and enjoy that, and those who prefer small teams and guerilla approach.
Up to all the players who enjoy WvW to adapt their gameplay to win a match, using conventional, guerrilla, counterinsurgency strategies and tactics at the good moment.

Thanks for reading, prepare a second coffee…

Humm…before asking for a nerf to adress a tactical issue, perhaps should we adpat our play style first?

Breaking canons, and so on is still quick if you have the number in your zerg with you, and/or you can always use balistas for that.

A good organisation is also to ask to roaming groups to prepare the zerg assaut destroying canons and so on with balista. Two players are sufficient to build and use a balista.

And for the doors…well…if they are correctly defended, why not to choose to Attack a less defended wall section with catapults?….

Honnestly I do not see the issue with Hardened Gates and Hardened Siege.

They just make you, as a commander, in an obligation to better organize your assault…perhaps by setting up a real siege making a “ninja operation” less easy.

To conquer a correctly defended keep you need to weaken it first…cutting supply, perhaps conquering its support points first (towers), and finlay organizing a network of siege machine (treb protected by shield generators, balistas, and perharps carts…)…

And it ’s a good thing for the interest of the game.

I agree.

WvW organizes “asymmetric confrontation”…but actually does not manage enough that asymmetry. what we call “night-capping” is only a symptom of that general situation.

So one of the challenge about scoring is to make interesting asymetric warfare in term of … scoring (regardless day or night).

I wouldn’t have said it better

If you combined “bounding dodger” with shadow arts traits and a pistol in left hand, you’ll have a good source of stealth for a classical “stealth model of survivability”.

If you combined “unhindered combatant” with accrobatics traits and little other things you will develop what is called in some other games a “speed tank” model of survivability. As an exemple in eve online (space opera MMO), most of the players flying fighters use that model.
It’s fragile, but interesting to be played.
It’s very dynamic, as long as you manage correctly your dodges, I mean at a minimum you are able to control their direction

For targetting, perhaps you should use the keybord which is, according to my mind, more efficient than with the mouse.

Those notifications are rare enough as structures do not change so often, and very usefull to constantly keep in mind the the general evolution of the match on the map where we are.
In my own case it has never been an issue even in roaming situations I can play with my thief.

It shouldn’t be difficult to kill them. Myself, when I meet one with my own P/P daredevil, I kill him.

It’s normal as with the update, some people want to try P/P…They need time to discover the concept, to develop their skills or to choose to play something else if it doesn’t suit to them.

It’s a good Idea that needs to be tried.

To play P/P, one needs to think different. It offers opportunity not to play the everlasting shortbow. I do not use one anymore.

@Zsymon.8457

I do not played that build but what I can say is if you spam “unload” your lifespan is generally short.

As you do not have a huge primary burst, you have to use correctly the different controls offered by the weapon set to manage your oponent. Of course you have to combine that with your choosen model of survivability (stealth or dodge).

And it’s a thing impossible to do if you spam “unload”. You have to chose the good moments to use it simply because its use prevents you to use an other Attack during the long time of its animation.

Keep also in mind that if the chosen model of survability is steath, “unload” is not the only main source of damage. Sneak Attack is often use too for that, saving initiative for more controls.

I think it’s not an error to say that it’s a a good weapon set to counterattack …that’s perhaps the reason I couldn’t describe a classic or repetitive rotation. Each time I do Something different with the controls. And this counterattack side affects the choices in term of build, the rest of the Equipment, the food, etc… This is also a reason to explain why it seems so untypical to classical thief players.

If it can help you, i always have some soldier pieces of armor on my thief in WvW.

This choice gives to me some more thoughness and vitality but not at the expense of power (I do not play condi).

Combined with my build and the way I play, It gives me enough survivability to resist to the primary attack of another thief.

And it sufficient for me to counterattack.

In other situations, as I play P/P, my own gameplay is not based on a “primary burst”. The DPS of that weapon set is weakest than most of the traditionnal ones but also more linear in the time. that’s why I like to be a little more resistant than most of the thieves. Combined with some traits it gives also to me the necessary time to manage naughty things as a reflect wall etc…

Scoring…definitively.

My motivations (wrotten in an other topic):

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Reduce-the-impact-of-night-capping/page/3#post6132871

Hello,

WvW is a match.

The first principle of every organized match is equity in chances to win for all teams : Only collective and individual skills should make the decision.

That’s why they have a simple rule: same amount of players (football, soccer, rugby, basket….).
The only reason for a handball/football/rugby/etc. team to have less player than another is because of a penalty…and it’s always one of the biggest penalty because to play with less players is always consider as a huge disadvantage.

The particularity of the GW2 WvW is the length of the match (168 hours) and the size of the teams (up to 4×80=320 players according to my memory).
Teams have not the same amount of players to relay themselves on the field during the 168 hours and do not have an access to the same category of players (in term of time zone coverage specially in Europe with the mix of “national language based team” and “european teams”).

In fact Gw2 WvW organizes “asymmetric confrontation”…but does not manage enough that asymmetry.

This is unsatisfactory.

And what we call “night-capping” is only a symptom of that general situation.

During three years the arenanet management refuses to consider that issue (I remember messages explaining that on this forum).

Things seems to change. It’s the first time the arenanet team offers to do something, asking the players there advices: we would be silly not to encourage them in that direction.

That’s the reason I vote “scoring”.

If that orientation is validated we can propose things to the team in charge of the WvW.

FIRST THING TO DO: GIVE A SENSE TO THE SCORE

As a competition WvW needs to be a challenge. If the challenge doesn’t exist, scoring itself has no interest. It’s should be the base: Nowhere you’ll find a never-ending league as we have.
According to my mind the first thing we need is an organized season like in football. One or two per civil year…I don’t know but we need something similar.
At the end of the season we could have an annual (bi annual…) tournament.

Imagine: a WvW season starting in September, finishing at the end of may just before university exams…a break of about one month and then a summer tournament until the end of august. Scoring would be interesting. The confrontations would have sense.

SECOND THING TO DO: MAKE ASYMMETRIC WARFARE INTERESTING IN TERM OF SCORING

Once the interest the match established, equity should be organized.

“Teams have not the same amount of players during the match…” Well, well, well,…

So the challenge is to make interesting an asymmetric confrontation, as well as a conventional one.

And we are not limited to a single measure.

First measure: PPK (already done).
I consider this as a step in the good direction: a team with less people can make a good amount of points against a biggest one if they play better, choosing their fight as in a guerrilla warfare.
PPK exits, keep it preciously.

Second measure: PPT calculation impacted by a team population at the “tic”

Swedemon.4670:

PPT should be impacted by current WvW population in a scaled manner. Scaled meaning that the PPT multiplier gradually goes up or down based on average population per server per time interval.
(…)
Main thing to avoid here is that roamers are not impacted and general players don’t feel they are better off leaving to benefit ppt.

That’s another solution!

Different ways to introduce a penalty linked to the amount of players of a team present at the tic in term of ppt are surely possible. The more the players of a team are on the field (the all population of the 4 maps together) at the “tic”, the less the structures should give points to that team. It would change nothing when populations are equivalent, but this would balance assymetric situations.

Third measure: threshold effect.

A thing could be done to limit the impact of an unusual situation, as when one team is momentarily absent.
We could imagine a threshold effect:
As soon as one of the three team has less than a percentage of its maximum number of players on the field (the 4 maps together) at a “tic”, PPT is 0 for the three teams as long as the situation continue. It does not prevent the other teams to capture structures or PPK, but it limits the impact of the situation and preserve the interest of the match.

It depends of the situation. As a P/P daredevil I feel more confortable in a skirmisher role harassing the ennemy, than in an assassin role. According to me the weapon set is more usefull played in that perspective.

In spite of that it’s totally possible to win 1/1 engagement.

As an exemple Yesterday, i think the DH who were hunting around our keep in WvW was a little bit under pressure as I was Killing him in spite of his bow and reflect skills.

i have just temporized when it was usefull to do that, playing more with the decor than him…And himself didn’t see the moment he should have disengage.

After all time management during a fight is a part of the game.

My mistake perhaps: I called F2 and F4 “body shot” and “head shot”.

To be honest with you I do not play a lot of small PvP arena match. I prefer WvW and PvE.

But it appears clear to me that the weapon set is not adapted to defend a point.
Like a traditionnal thief I think…according to my small experience in that part of Gw2, his role is to capture points and quickely assist another player, not to defend or to glue itself in a long fight.

To manage players with reflects skills you first need to avoid spamming “unload” at all cost.
You need to observe your opponent to know when its reflects skills are “in cooldown”. Do not also forget that majority of walls can be bypassed using your speed superiority, teleportation skills or your stealth skills.
In a certain amont of situation, you can also try a basilik Venom (unblockable interrupt) Attack.