Guild Wars 2

I posted a suggestion in Irenio’s Scrapper discussion thread, and a couple people wanted me to re-post in my own thread, so here we are.

The goal I had in mind when I set out were to build towards a more robust Scrapper identity, aesthetically as well as mechanically. A secondary goal was to widen the usefulness of Scrapper mechanics across more game modes.

In my opinion, the Function Gyros need to be strong pillar for the mechanical identity of the Scrapper, what really sets apart a Scrapper from an Engineer. This is the class mechanic we get from the first minor trait, a parallel to Reaper’s Shroud, Celestial Avatar, Overload Attunement, Continuum Split, Dragonhunter Virtues, Facet of Nature, Primal Bursts.

Other than the Scrapper, only the Daredevil’s third dodge bar doesn’t really alter the profession mechanics significantly from the core profession.

Currently, the Scrapper defining minor trait reads this: “You gain access to the Function Gyro, which can finish a foe or revive an ally at range.”

What I would suggest is:

Function Gyro: Gain access to up to 3 non-combative (unable to be damaged or targeted) Function Gyros which closely encircle you. Periodically construct a function Gyro every 60 seconds. Command a Function Gyro to join the fray (becoming targetable) to finish foes or revive allies. (20s CD).

Reworking Impact Savant, the last Minor, as well:

Impact Savant: Insert Universally Appealing Effect here, and reduce the duration of incoming stuns by 10% for each encircling Function Gyro.

Player suggestions ITT for Impact Savant that are based on how many Function Gyros are available:

• Apply Slow when disabling foes
• % Condi durration increase (helps with vulnerability as well as dmg-condi).
• % Boon durration increase.
• % Movementspeed.
• Regular might/boon stacking.
• Regular vulnerability stacking (Gyros fire weak vuln stacking bolts).

Further ideas, player suggestions ITT – for a complete change to Impact Savant:

• ‘Gain +x% damage for xs when CCing your foe. You also gain x Endurance when hit by CC.’
• ‘When CCing a foe, deal moderate damage to nearby enemies and Cripple them. When hit while CCed, your foes are Slowed for xs.’
• ’Grant x Stacks of Might for xs to nearby allies when CCing a foe. Gain Regeneration when hit while CCed.
• ‘Super Speed applied by you also grants a x% damage bonus. You receive x% less damage while under the effect of Super Speed.’

What this accomplishes is creates a system of Gyro management that Scrappers in all game modes would be able to manipulate to their benefit. With infrequent use of the Function Gyros, Scrappers would benefit from Impact Savant’s effect per idle Function Gyro. Frequent use of help from a Function Gyro every 20 seconds will be possible in spurts, if they managed production well, and didn’t deplete resources.

Best of all, it’d be a constantly present theme that adds a bit more substance to the Scrapper’s core class mechanic, keeping it closer to the same feel players had when watching the Scrapper in the HoT trailer, visually, with Gyros always at their command. In my opinion the profession mechanics should be solid, whether the utility skills are used or not.

I’d like to hear feedback as well as suggestions on how to re-work the utility based Gyros away from the impending turret-state and, for example, into more unique and short-lived Gyro based attacks, rather than autonomous A.I with independent health pools. (Not to put ideas in your head!)

Thanks for reading

Hi folks. As you know, the leaderboards reset on Friday, and a new algorithm was implemented that reflected: “a much stronger focus on wins, with less weight given to the sheer number of games played over a period of time.”

Immediately that sounded like great news to me. I thought the 2 or so individuals equipped with in-chair toiletry and an overhead feed dispenser tube would be finally be overcame as the holders of the Arenanet given titles, “leaders of PvP.”

So now it’s Sunday morning, and there’s been 2 sleeps since the leaderboard reset, I check it out to see how things are progressing.

So, the #1 guy on NA has logged 104 games at the time of this post. If you factor in the two, 8hr sleeps we’ve had, that means for every waking hour, they’ve completed 5 games that hour. Impressive. The guy has 61 points. 55 wins and 49 losses, and 52.88% win rate.

I look at the very close #2 guy on NA, and he has 59 points. 56 wins, and 26 losses, for a 68.29% win rate.

There is not a darn thing that the #1 guy has over the #2 guy, besides twice the amount of losses, of course.

How is this explainable by the language used to describe the new Algorithm? There is a disconnect between reality and expectations here. This is not a focus on win ratio (maximizing wins, minimizing losses) at all. This is still just a focus on farming wins.

After a little research, what was changed was the ability to gain points from losses was nerfed.

What needed to happen to give any credibility to these leaderboards are for losses to affect you negatively.

Having more points than you have wins? How does going 50 wins and 50 losses in a low MMR bracket result in 60 points? Shouldn’t it be slightly closer to um, 0 points than 60 points? (Not saying it should be zero gain, but just a very very very slow gain.) Am I the only one taking crazy pills here?

Since losing games still doesn’t matter at low MMR levels, it’s still simply a matter about how many wins can be farmed, and losses are disregarded. Look at the #1 and #2 players on NA leaderboards to see this is true.

At low MMR, any amount of defeats are never going to negatively affect accumulated points. If you repeatedly lose, sure, you’re not getting wins, but fast queue times allow you to do 4-5 per hour intead of 2.5-3 at high MMR. On a model that’s still 100% based on how many wins you can grind, now instead of how many wins and losses you can grind, it’s really not changed anything.

That brings me to touch on the experiences of a high MMR players.

• As a high MMR solo, or duo in Ranked queue, you’re a beacon that pulls all middle to high tier teams against you, magnifying the imbalances that matchmaking can’t account for, teamspeak/coordination, high performance comp. High MMR solo queue has a severely handicapped win rate. Personally, I find it unplayable due to the extreme pressure/frustration to shepherd players with widely fluctuating experience and effectiveness, against a coordinated foe.

• As a high MMR four queue, the 5th player is often going to be the equilivant of an assassin’s amulet 6/6/0/0/1 Staff Elementalist who’s taking their first baby steps of the game, creating frustration for this one player, and essentially a 4v5 scenario. It’s a handicap that is quite annoying, and will always be a clear decision for the group to simply picking up a competent 5th.

• This leads to the realization that medium to high MMR players can only attempt to achieve quality matches, with a competitive win rate representative of their skill, without severe handicaps, when they queue as a full group. This further limits group playtime to a couple hours a day, where a group of 5 competent players can be organized and continuously play. This creates a further disadvantage in win farming compared to low MMR solo queuers.

• High MMR gameplay in any size incurs a 6-10 Minute queue time. This drastically reduces leaderboard point generation. We’re talking like, low MMR players can fit 4-5 in a leaderboard update, and high MMR players can fit 2-3. It’s cut by around 33-40%. I can’t stress enough that this is an entirely unfair and imbalanced mechanic that nearly ruins the balance of who can farm more wins, which the current rankings are now based on.

If I could make anything clear from this wall of text on my matchmaking / leaderboard thoughts, it is that:

It’s wrong that rapid fire, low MMR, low quality, imbalanced matches, are the optimal way to progress towards mastering the leaderboards. It’s so completely backwards and nonsensical. High MMR players are punished in almost every way, unless they form a premade which is the other extreme, totally circumventing all balance handicaps, often facing non-premades with only a few good players, who have to carry ridiculously hard to win. Leaderboard progress at no point ever, will reflect the progress in mastering the game, or becoming stronger.

Qaelyn.7612:

I understand the argument. I guess I just see an equally viable one, that what happens on the very high end affects only a tiny percentage of players and so it makes more sense from a business standpoint not to orient the game around them.

Especially a game like this one that is intended to be easy to pick up.

What you call “scrubs” Arenanet calls “paying customers”. The top 100 PvPers aren’t any more important to the bottom line than any other 100 players. I’m not saying their needs should be ignored, just not prioritized.

Specifically, making game balance decisions in a casual game that tick off 10,000+ players because of game balance issues that affect 100 players is bad management. Many of the proposed changes in this thread fall into that category.

Most GW2 players aren’t interested in PvP for reasons that have nothing to do with fine-tuning class balance at the highest levels.

What makes you think that the BALANCE needs of casual players is different than the BALANCE needs of top players?

You keep going on about the ‘needs’ of the top 100 players and how they’re to blame for the negative experience of casual players, because the top players’ needs are being prioritized over the others.

What happens at the high end does not only affect a tiny percentage of players. All these assumptions you have about balance are more like you’re combining PvP modes, PvP rewards, PvP features AND PvP balance all together. Rewards, modes, and features CAN cater to ‘top players’ more than ‘casual players’ – so I see where you are drawing these conclusions from – but remember this is about skills & balance. They don’t cater to any crowd, unless Arenanet was ignoring the state of balance at various skill levels of PvP, which would be crazy to suggest. If you were paying attention, almost all of the builds that ‘top players’ are advocating be nerfed are the ones that are wreaking havoc on solo q & hotjoins. These builds are setups that turn a terrible player into a superhero. They probably create even more grief at a casual level – top players can almost always overcome the overpowered builds with enough tenacity. It’s the casual players that are encountering these mass produced OP builds and hitting a brick wall, and quitting the game.

So, I hope you see how in BALANCE, the needs and wants of top players and casual players are usually aligned pretty much perfectly.

This is a balance discussion .. Having a stable risk / reward ratio for as many builds as possible, and eliminating the threat of super safe, effective, and easy builds is in everyone’e best interest.

If you can actually provide a flaw in the suggestions where it would only balance the mechanic at a high skill level, but will leave it an unbalanced mess for casual players, then I’m sure the players in this thread will actually listen to you.

I hope you understand where I am coming from, and I hope you understand why you shouldn’t oppose good game balance at all skill levels just because a known PvPer is suggesting them.