Guild Wars 2

My best guess would be that we’ll be seeing a change to our core mechanic in some way. The reason that is what I think we (and mostly every profession) will see is that the devs have stated that the specialization will have access to everything the base class has access to (correct me if I’m wrong), a druid can use all ranger traits, utilities and weapons yet a ranger can not use the druid specific stuff. If this is the case then why would anyone not play as the specialization? Having at least the core mechanic changed would give some incitament for players to stay as the base class if that ends up being the mechanic they prefer.

Have I misunderstood something or will everyone simply default change to the specialization? This would indeed solve itself once we see multiple specializations but that might be a while.

“New grandmaster trait – Modified Ammunition: Damage is increased by 2% per condition on the target, when wielding a pistol or rifle.”

Should this be interpreted as for each unique condition? (seems kind of right) or each condition stack (would get op really fast)?

I’ll admint to not having thought through all the implications of such a change, but at first look it seems to me as if doing something to the downed state would help create a more varied meta game.

As things stand right now you can not win a 1 v 2 (or 1 v 3 etc) scenario. Even if you down one of your opponents he will still be around to deal substantial damage to you while his alive partner will still be causing you trouble. You cannot stomp since that simply takes too long, either you get interupted or take too much damage to win the remainder of the fight. And please don’t claim that this is a l2p issue, you can win eventually but then your opponents were bad. Period.

Thus the popularity of bunkers and overly defensive builds, it’s the only way to stay alive against more than a single opponent. Since you can’t actually kill them, better ensure they can not kill you either. And that’s todays meta in a nutshell.

Ponder simply removing the downed state entirely, if your down your dead. People will actually be able to win 1 v 2 scenarior and not just stall forever. It would not unbalance anything since if the players are of equal skill the team of 2 should still beat the lone player.

This might just be my ranting for not enjoying downed mode in PvP but I feel that removing it, or at least allowing that option for custom servers, would be worth a shot to see what comes out of it.

Valkyriez.6578:

It’s actually a good idea. 2v1 should always slowly decrease the cap and neutralise it then eventually cap it. Force the enemy team to respond, and the bunker to actually do something bar cycle knock backs, stability etc.

Would also promote balanced builds, that can be defensive yet still dish out levels of damage.

My point being exactly that. The enemy team has to actually respond and not just trust the bunker to hold the point indefinately.

To those of you screaming about zerging, how is this different from the current system? 2v1 is hardly what I consider a zerg. And if the enemy goes 4v1 or 5v1, well then something is free for the takning elsewhere, and you have 4 players left against one or even no enemies. I fail to see how this promotes zerging as you still have to KEEP nodes to win.

If you cannot outmaneuvre a team moving in a zerg I feel that you are doing something wrong. (I am not talking about the 8v8 games here). You might have to adjust the speed in which things are capped to ensure that you can’t just zerg around too quickly either. I do see the risk for it but I do not think zerging would be a problem if things were implemented properly. You might be right though.

Hello. First off I must admit that I have not given this idea hours of thought so this is more a point of discussion than a sollution, so read it through and discuss.

I have seen a lot of people complain that the conquest game type is boring in the long run. With this I can agree somewhat. The current implementation is boring, and why is that? Because it encourages a meta where the role of bunkers are way too important (going with multiple bunkers is almost mandatory for success).
Why are bunkers this important then? To keep it short, a well played bunker can hold a point against one or a few opponents for a long enough time. The only drawback is that it can not quickly kill the attacker. This in turn leads most good teams to just leave a bunker at two points, and in most cases, no number of attackers will kill the bunker in time to flip the node.

How can we make this more dynamic then?

I propose a slight change to the way node capping works. Currently a node will only be change ownership if a team is alone in the node. Thus a bunker can delay capping for a long time. What if the mechanics allowed the team with MORE players inside the node to capture it? Then two player would be able to capture a point guarded by a single bunker. The defending team would have to either kill an attacker (to equal out the numbers) or send a roamer there quickly to reach the same effect. At that point it would come down to who can kill an opponent faster.

With this mechanic bunkers would still have a role to fill to help ensure a greater number at a node, but their weakness (barely no damage output) would become a real weakness. As of now it is irrelevant for them to kill since all they have to do is to stay where they are.

I would imagine that this would create a more dynamic sPvP environment where pure bunker teams would not be able to dominate by simply not dying. A good bunker team could still outplay their opponents by dynamicly relocating their players to keep the proper number of players at the right nodes, but it might be wiser to build a team with some damage to turn the battle.

Your thoughts?