Showing Posts For Monty.8263:
Agree with OP. Also the outmanned buff needs to do more, especially with the disablers coming into play. Possibly make traps and tricks only usable by a world which has the outmanned buff? What do you think? The disabler just makes the more populated world stronger.
Would have added my idea to that tread but its locked. I consider any group larger than 25 a large group, the game also classifies groups this way due to orange swords showing on the map.
I also like outnumbered fights, but not a whole map queue vs whole map queue. Or whole map vs 1-30. Whole map vs whole map eventually turns into a lagfest of spamming 1.
My idea is meant to punish players who stack on each other and use 2 to 3 skills only and just move as one big blob spamming the same skills over and over. Sadly with the rumors of this dis-abler it sounds like this play style will continue.
In my opinion this play style or commanding style just makes players worse at playing the game properly. I.e. using all your skills and not just winning via strength in numbers.
Hello,
WvW has been zergy for a long time. I have noticed that WvW population has been decreasing in my NA est playtime. One simple change that Arenanet could bring to the game to revitalize WvW is the following.
Add a “zerg breaker” trap to the game.
The trap would cost 20 dragonite ingots, 20 stars, 20 bricks, 100 BoH, and 5 gold to purchase from the vendor.
The trap would be a siege blueprint requiring 100 supply to build in the field.
Being a piece of siege the max targets value would be 50 like all siege is.
The trap would be unblockable and invisible like all traps are.
Only one trap could be placed on a given real estate in WvW, traps would not be allowed to be “stacked” on top of each other.
The trap is account bound and only one “zerg breaker” trap can be deployed in WvW per account.
The trap disappears after one hour and must be reconstructed, one hour is the standard siege timer.
The trap ONLY TRIGGERS IF MORE THAN 25 ACCOUNTS ARE WITHIN THE TRAPS BORDERS.
When the trap triggers 50 targets within the border take 10,000 direct damage.
The damage values will benefit and be mitigated by other WvW masteries, i.e. siege might, siege bunker.
Pretty simple I think, makes zerg play style types be punished for engaging through a chokepoint. I would agree with the trigger value being any where between 20 an 30 accounts. I would agree with the direct damage value being between 10k and 13k.
What do you think?
Thank you,
Monty
Thank you Anet, these transfer prices are pretty logical and hopefully they will be effective in creating better competition like we all hope they will.
I am glad you (Anet) are finally starting to implement logical solutions to problems we all see within the game. Instead of remarks stated in these forums, by devs, before the start of our 1st season. If only this transfer pricing plan was in place…… after guesting was working. The game would have been better for it, hindsight is 20/20. May your vision become 20/20 in the future, Anet.
Thanks again!
Proposal Overview
Most of your changes in Eotm are excellent. The changes I don’t want to see implemented in the other four maps are; increased emphasis on verticality; shorter match time. Most importantly, your mentally and thought process behind “Scoring on capture of objectives” needs to be desperately changed. I propose using a mechanic which is already in your game to become the cure for the current attack/zerg happy karma train way of life in WvW. What mechanic do I speak of? Currently guilds in the game can upgrade various things to gain buffs, stat bonuses, and even start guild missions in the pve mode of your game. What I am proposing is that you, Anet, redesign guild missions to become the driving force behind WvW.
Goal of Proposal
I am using guild missions to attempt to cure the always attack mindset of WvW. Also this mechanic could add unbelievable depth to your game. For example, after an objective has been captured and claimed by a guild the amount of upper level upgrades available to a player at said objective should expand because of the claim by said guild. These upgrades can include things like objective bounty, increasing point accumulation based on time claimed, legendary supervisors, increasing reward value for both defending and capturing, stat increases for all friendly NPC’s and players, Wvw exp ticks after an event timer terminates, pulsing supply buff.
Proposal Functionality
Does this work in the current design of WvW? I believe it does, it encourages the fight between players by rewarding defensive as much as offensive. The majority of players enjoy the epic feeling after a long hard fought bout. This guild mission mechanic puts the ball in the players’ court to allow guilds to create guild wars over objectives in Guild Wars 2.
Associated Risks
Large potential for griefing, and power leveling exploitation. And probably unforseen risks with redesigning the maps. Hopefully, zergs will never pass each other like ships in the night, again.
I play warrior, I agree healing signet is a little overpowered clearly. I play an attrition build with quick breathing, shout heals, runes making shouts cure conditions. Why do I play this build? I play this way because many patches ago another condition was added to the game post launch, i.e. torment. I have been in discussions with many people in my guild saying that the addition of this condition was and still is game breaking. The mechanics of how the condition works and what damage it does is not the game breaking part. The game breaking part is the very existence of this condition. This existence has made conditions the meta for quite some time. Torment is a condition, to bring balance to the game and change your overall meta. You, Anet, need to think hard about adding a little more condition cleansing/conversion to the game. Does every class need this “little more” no but a couple of classes do need help in this area. Off the top of my head ranger is one.
Your recent updates to healing skills would have been awesome if burst style gameplay was the meta across the board, but sadly conditions still rule the day.
1) Server populations
More importantly, how do you as a developer determine your server populations?
I.e. do you just do a count of concurrent active accounts in the PvE world. If so, you need to expand your count to include another metric. This metric should be an average active account count in WvW taken every six hours. This metric should be displayed to your consumers in the world selection window.
The large majority of the topics you see suggested in this thread are directly related to population. (skill lag, zerging, WvW coverage)
Do not try and reinvent the wheel here. You have a great design, but even great designs need working dynamic controls to maintain them. The metric I suggested should help even out server populations in WvW, thus allowing you as a developer to focus your manpower and time on improving on other things. This thread is full of these “other things”.
Thank you
Easy fix. (Keep everything the outmanned buff currently does, but add the following)
Tier the outmanned buff 3 ways (cause it is WvWvW)
1st tier: Your server needs to capture 3 objectives per BL to get Bloodlust buff.
2nd tier: Your server needs to capture 2 objectives per BL to get Bloodlust buff.
3rd tier: Your server needs to capture 1 objective per BL to get Bloodlust buff.
1st = no outmanned buff (high population)
2nd = outmanned buff (medium population)
3rd = outmanned buff (lowest population)
Is this dynamic?
Devon, and other WvW devs,
I think you guys are trying to do to much at once. I would first say focus on getting the new objectives around the lake in the borderlands maps, in game, live, first! After these buff controlling objectives are in game, be patient and most importantly, observe how the WvW community reacts and utilizes these objectives in matches.
From the little information you have released about these objectives, I can tell this is your attempt at providing the player base a micro-level of control over fighting zergs while out-manned. I.e. if the out-manned server has buffs individual players become more effective, thus trying to account for the difference in population. Also five new objectives will spread out players more than your previous build which is a good thing in the current state of the game.
This lastest Sept. 3 patch was a great one for WvW because it provides great incentives for player’s new to WvW to participate due to ascended materials dropping off lords and such. This is an awesome addition to your game, I hope to see more of this in the future.
With the information that has been released about these leagues, I believe from what has been stated on these forums you will destroy many communities you have worked so hard to create over the passed year. Some communities will survive, but others will die. Please, if your manifesto still hold true in your hearts, don’t implement these leagues yet. Put them on the back burner, until you can sort out how to make WvW more about skill and less about population.
I still believe you are a community building developer, not a video game developer.
But my belief hangs in the balance!
Enuff said.
Adding this as a column in the guild roster is a small, and probably difficult change because it is character based.
I am always a fan of easy access to information. As a side effect this might unintentionally start rivalry’s between guildmates over rank.
Guild Wars 2 will soon have its first anniversary, unbelievable its been almost a year since launch! The following is all my opinion.
Unbelievable, because the game is still a lot of fun, in all three phases PvE, sPvP, and WvW. This is without a doubt a testament to Arenanet.
While the guild I am a part of is primarily a WvW guild, we have become less active in WvW, and more active in PvE and sPvP. Their are a number of reasons why; the ooo shiny is gone; player’s leveling alts; the living story Anet has implemented drawing time away from WvW.
I still play all phases, and still tend to put more time into WvW than any other phase. My server like other servers is starting to see drop offs in concurrent player-base in the WvW phase. Some of my guild mates have suggested that the implementation of living story in PvE is why the drop off is happening. I don’t know if this is true, but I do believe more players find the fun in the game in PvE more than WvW. Do you agree?
Is there a way to draw PvE players into WvW? I think this depends on what is “fun” for the individual player. From what I have seen over the past year, “fun” in WvW can be classified into two categories. Groups of players who only enjoy killing other players. Groups of players who enjoy winning the match and derive very little enjoyment from killing other players. (killing is a bonus in their eyes) I think I am apart of both groups at times it largely depends on what group I am running with. I rarely roam around solo, because I derive my “fun” from group play and team work. Combo fields make me smile!
Do you agree with this categorization? If so, where do you derive your “fun” from in WvW?
Final question, can Anet make changes to the current mechanics of WvW to improve server unity with out segregating players into groups like stated above?
Ya, sorry for adding to the confusion. At one time Borlis Pass had 3 “[WAR]” guilds. Now I believe we have 2 but one is a one person guild I believe. Ascension our main guild operates two other guilds as well we use for various things. One of those other two has [WAR] as a tag as well.
Here is more confusion…..blanking mesmers! Btw I hear mesmers are getting a buff soon gratz.
The following is just my opinion of the WvW match for these three servers.
Ehmry has the skill, and organization of a T2/3 server. But the “active” population of a T4/5 server.
Devona’s has the skill, and organization of a T4 server. But the “active” population of a T6 server.
Borlis Pass has the skill, and organization of a T6 server. But the “active” population of a T3/4 server.
I am an officer in Ascension [WAR]. We currently are playing on Borlis Pass. For the first three months after launch, we as a guild, played on SoR as our home server. We left that server after staring at 6 hour queues while being in T2.
I rarely post because these forums are always full of negative comments from many many individuals.
I am not the best or the worst player out there. But I can say the majority of Ehmry bay players are better than me on either of my two 80’s.
As for Borlis Pass, we are a true pick up group server. We have some organization but not all the time, because organization is the enemy of chaos. I enjoy WvW much more when it embraces the chaos that makes it so much fun for me. As a server we are starting to focus on the fun, which is always a good thing.
Agree, would really give players more incentive to promote server pride and building communities through the use of guilds.
The only elephant in the room is culling. The WvW missions would might increase the amount of data going back and forth server to client etc. Anet has been trying to reduce the amount data to improve culling.
My only 80 and main is a thief.
After some testing with a guild mate, I have come to the conclusion that the following skills are bugged or broken or need clarification in their tooltips.
Shadowshot
Infiltrator’s Arrow
Infiltrator’s Signet
My guild mate used a net turret on an engineer to immobilize me in sPvP.
These 3 skills allowed me to move (shadowstep) to another location. In my opinion, shadowstepping should not allow a thief to move from point A to point B, with the condition of immobilize applied. Even though said thief still has the immobilize condition on them when they reach point B, the shadowstep should not be allowed to occur in the first place. This just breaks my logical understanding of the word immobilize.
As others have stated before, I agree stealth should break on direct damage to the thief.
If you believe the behavior of an individual player is unacceptable or disrespectful. Block that player from your view via the options in the social tab in game, it is there for this reason. Eventually, if this player continues this pattern of behavior he will be segregated from the majority of players on the server naturally. I.e. no one likes being yelled at all the time.
Furthermore, players need to step up and block players who they find to be offensive instead of requesting help from a developer. The developer gives you the power to segregate that individual player, do so, use the tools at your disposal. Individual players acting appropriately will eventually gain followers and eventually friends. Treat people the way you want to be treated. If you follow this statement your server will eventually become stronger for it, but you as the individual need to do your part for the server to grow.
+1
I completely agree.
This lack of action of Arenanet is frustrating to say the least. Especially since Arenanet claims to be a community building company and not a video game company. For those veterans of games like DAOC and Warhammer one of the key factors in building server pride (a huge part of the “community” for many players including myself) is the ability to limit what accounts are on a particular server at any given time.
With free transfers still active but on a 1 day cooldown, Arenanet is failing on two fronts simultaneously. With many accounts changing servers on a weekly basis any decisions made off of the metrics generated to rank servers are going to be skewed heavily because of the transfers. So the “balancing” is currently a waste of time and resources imo.
If the transfers continue and Arenanet fails to limit them by both a money value and a time value a community will never be built within each individual server and the server matchups will never become balanced.
The ball has always been in your court Anet, I personally would like to see a 1 month cooldown on all transfers. and 10 U.S. dollars per transfer sounds good to me.