Showing Posts For Spin Echo.8263:
You don’t get it. Your “immersion” is a fickle and irrational thing that is exclusively a you problem. Visual clutter in a game that requires visual cues is an everyone problem. You can get over your attacks not being as flash as you want them to be. Nobody can get over being unable to see.
Along the same lines, when I play GW2 on my netbook, I only get 10 fps which is unacceptable. I suppose I could reduce my texture settings to “low”, but I feel the existence of high-quality textures adds nothing to function, and therefore texture quality is likewise a “you problem”. By “you”, of course I mean everyone but me.
Anet, please disable all high-quality texture support with your next patch. Thanks.
RATE the Revealed Elite specs best to worst
in Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns
Posted by: Spin Echo.8263
Those of you putting Reaper above Dragonhunter: let’s compare the current wiki entries for the new longbow skills to the new greatsword skills:
LB#1: 574 damage, 3/4 sec cast
GS#1: 646 damage, 3/4 sec cast (with chain that causes chill on third strike)
LB#2: 1641 damage, 3/4 sec cast. 4 sec CD
GS#2: 1520 damage, 1.25 sec cast, 8 sec CD (can be reduced to 0)
LB#3: 615 damage & 4 sec blind, 0.25 sec cast, 10 sec CD
GS#3: 684 damage & 10 sec vuln (x12), 1 sec cast, 10 sec CD
LB#4: 2050 damage, vigor, & burn over 4 pulses, 0.75 sec cast, 15 sec CD
GS#4: 548 damage & blind over 4 pulses, 0.25 sec cast, 20 sec CD
LB#5: 205+1641 damage, cripples, & barriers, 2.75 sec cast, 60 sec CD
GS#5: 760 damage, poison, & pull, 0.75 sec cast, 25 sec CD
I think #1-4 would be roughly tied if they were both melee weapons. But at range 1200, I think the balance easily tips to Guardians. LB#5 is the only questionable skill, given the long cast time and CD.
The pie chart obviously shows XXXXX winning, but the one with just a sliver end up being picked. How is this even a thing? Do I just completely misunderstand how map voting works or is this broken?
If it were a vote, then of course the winner would be the map with the most votes. But the interface doesn’t even use the word “vote”. And it’s not a vote.
It’s a lottery. Select a lottery ticket, drop it in the jar, and just hope that you (or someone like-minded) is lucky. And as in any lottery, sometimes the guy with the worst odds turns out to be the big winner.
(edited by Spin Echo.8263)
-I still judge people with poor grammer (maybe just “your” as “you’re” but ugh)
It’s spelled “grammar”. Ugh.
I ended up with a little over 17,000 damage needed to reach the same HP/sec as un-traited signet of Resolve. Other than bunkers, your PvP will have between 16k and 20k HP, so you’d pretty much have to kill them outright in that 6 seconds. So it only works against the same people who face-tank a full 100blades.
You could do 17K damage much more easily using AoE in a group fight. Purging Flames alone can theoretically do 17K damage. So could JI + SoW.
Why isn’t there something as simple as power/precision/VIT?
There is, the Barbarian amulet.
The build editor often miscalculates values on my builds, even pretty simple spvp builds.
So if someone hits you for 1.000 damage @2600 armor, they would only hit you for 787 damage @3300 armor.
In words: You increase your armor by 27%, therefore you opponents hit you for 27% less.
Actually your opponents hit you for 21.3% less.
The ranged capability is missing from the Guardian toolset because Anet wants Guardians to be ‘first in, last out’ and ‘leading the charge’. It’s got nothing to do with a thematic reasoning; it’s completely based on the class concept that Anet wants the class to follow.
Guardians, like all professions, have always had ranged attacks. And like all professions, they have enough ranged weapons that they aren’t forced to equip a melee weapon at all.
What they lack are gap openers, stealth, and other ways to disengage. Their movement skills tend to be gap closers. I believe this is what Anet intends by “first in, last out”.
(edited by Spin Echo.8263)
If cosmetics are important then remember you’ll be spending a lot of time in kits wearing “hobo sacks”. IMHO, they are pretty monstrous on all races except Asura. Though on Charr, the monstrous hobo sack sort of suits the race.
Anyway, I suggest you watch some gameplay videos with engi kits before you decide.
Hey, be my guest, get your friends on a custom arena and set up the following
You: Thief
2 of your friends against you with power rangers
Stipulation: Your friends can only use directional keys dodge and rapid shot/normal/auto attack and point blank shot.
Let’s set up a custom arena with a mesmer against two thieves who are only allowed to use their auto, HS and C&D.
When the mesmer inevitably loses, is that proof that thieves should be nerfed?
It’s funny how you minimize my effort and compare it to a class that uses 2 abilities 90% of the time to win just about any other class at long range.
There are matchups that are meant to put thieves at a great disadvantage regardless of their effort. And that’s fair, because there are also matchups that put thieves at a great advantage.
Do you think it’s fair that a shatter mesmer has little chance of fending off two thieves, regardless of the mesmer’s effort?
Power rangers can easily be countered by other classes, for example engis.
(edited by Spin Echo.8263)
The effort it takes to keep 2 guards or warriors or mesmers or turret engineers in bay is minimalistic compared to 2 rangers. If almost impossible for the latter.
If thieves can keep any two opponents at bay, then thieves are OP. There should be at least one 2v1 matchup that is unfavorable for a solo thief.
I know that Illusionary Persona can greatly increase your Mind Wrack damage. But it seems to me that the damage comparisons (e.g. here) assume that all the clones hit, including yourself.
If I understand the math correctly, there is no damage increase with IP if you keep your distance from the target when using Mind Wrack. Is this correct, or am I overlooking something?
It pulses 2 seconds of stability 10 times. That means if you stand in it for the full duration, you’ll have stability for a total of 20 seconds. The same counts for your allies who stand in it.
I don’t think this is true. Stability only stacks in duration three times. After the last pulse, you might have 6 seconds or so of stability left.
Ok, here’s a crazy idea that might even work:
1. Put a bank and TP in HoTM.
2. Get rid of the ability to instantly travel to PvP
3. Instead, you can use a teleportation stone (like for Hall of Monuments) to reach HoTM, but …
3a. The stone is consumable
3b. You get only one to start with
3c. You get another one every time you finish a match
4. If you run out of stones, there’s an Asuran gate in LA that takes you back to HoTM
Not only would this provide TP/bank servies, it would also discourage PVE players from using HoTM as a shortcut to Lion’s Arch AND discourage PvP players from quitting matches. It’s win-win-win!
In sPVP, everyone can “reset” a fight. Without stealth, you are transported back to your spawn point first. With stealth, you can stick around a little closer and maybe get back into the fight a little sooner. Either way, you’re out of action for a little while.
Of course if you reset using stealth, then your opponent won’t experience the joy of stomping you right before you take your time-out. But that’s a problem only if you mistakenly assume that the purpose of sPVP is to rack up stomps.
(edited by Spin Echo.8263)
You say it’s a team based game. Meaning that you have to team up in order to play. I disagree. And given the fact that I’ve managed to avoid teams quite successfully so far, it’s hard to give your view preference over mine isn’kitten
And this is not a zero sum game. I’m not asking for team ups to be removed. All I’m asking is for goals to be designed in such a way as to reduce the need to be cooperative.
I think you are contradicting yourself. If you feel that the goals are designed in a way that require cooperation, then that’s the same as saying that GW2 is designed as a team-based game.
It’s true that you can get through some of the content without teaming up. But it’s pretty clear that the end-game content (dungeons, fractals, WvW, PvP) in GW2 is intentionally designed to force you to team up with and rely on other players, which is completely unlike the endgame in GW1.
And I believe the developers have stated that this is their intention. They do not want to make it easier to duel, solo dungeons, etc. Probably because if they did, they would have to balance the game much differently.
(edited by Spin Echo.8263)
Well, it’s not logically necessary to have loot drops in PvE either. Everyone can just play in starter skin gear!
Well, PvE is theoretically an RPG with a story arc, an evolving “zero to hero” narrative. And in most RPGs, loot progression helps to illustrate character progression. I know that GW2 is not exactly a typical RPG, but that’s their underlying model.
During my 10+ years of playing competetive online games ive learned one thing:
The vast majority of players dont pvp for the sake of it. They need “carrots” to stay motivated.
Seriously? I don’t think any of the old-school online games offer anything at all to winners, other than the possibility of moving up a ladder to face tougher opponents. For instance Starcraft, Battlefront 1942, etc.
I realize there is a trend nowadays to attach carrots to everything you do with a computer, even clicking on a cow. But it’s hardly necessary.
(edited by Spin Echo.8263)
There’s no practical disadvantage. But it’s not logically necessary, either.
You’re assuming that the game is designed to motivate you to get better. I don’t think that’s the case at all. People motivate themselves to get better because they intrinsically want to get better. And sometimes they don’t, which is fine too in a casual game.
Instead, the game is designed to make each match fun for the players. That means making sure opponents are equally skilled, so the outcome is not predictable. It means rewarding both teams, so players have an incentive to finish the match. And it means rewarding the winning team more, so players have an incentive to try to win. Whether their skills improve over time is of secondary importance.
(edited by Spin Echo.8263)
Would the new player be rewarded for being on a winning team? If so, you might end up with teams creating and selling an opening when on the verge of winning, just like dungeon parties sell openings on the verge of completion. That’s tolerated in PvE, but would be problematic in the leaderboards of PvP.
This idea has come up in a couple of threads, so maybe you’ve heard this before:
The basic idea of balancing team numbers is good. But taking someone out of the game indefinitely is not optimal. It’s frustrating for the person who is out. And it could potentially be gamed; for certain team comps, you might have an incentive to avoid stomping opponents in order to keep a different player “on the bench”.
I think you could get the best of both worlds simply by changing respawn times. For example, if you are on the 4-person team, then your respawn time is reduced to zero seconds. If you are on the 5-person team, then your respawn time is increased to 40-60 seconds. This means that the 4-person team always has 4 people in the game, and the 5-person team on average has 4 people in the game. But if you are on the 5-person team and die, there is no uncertainty on anyone’s part regarding when you will return to the game.
(edited by Spin Echo.8263)
no – because this guy who would have to sit out can´t lsoe anything
He loses the time he could’ve spent playing a game, rather than waiting. And waiting is much worse when you don’t know when it will end.
when his team wins than fine he get rewards for a win + ranking
when his team lose he get reward for the lose but lose no ranking
Rewards aren’t everything. In hotjoin, for instance, getting autobalanced means that you automatically get the win rewards. Yet even with the guarantee, it’s rare for anyone to volunteer. Sometimes playing with your team is more important than the rewards.
Taking someone out of the match is fair, but drastic for the person who sits out and doesn’t know if and when they will ever return to the match. They might be tempted to go afk or quit.
Another way to balance the teams is to change the respawn timers. For instance, the team with 4 players has their respawn timer reduced to zero, and the team with 5 players has their respawn timer increased to X seconds. If X is set to the average interval between kills (40 seconds?) then the teams will tend to be equally large.
I think this is basically the right solution. The only problem is that it’s unpredictable for the player stuck in spawn, and in some cases they might spend very little time playing (e.g. if they are the only glass cannon on the team).
Instead, I suggest changing the respawn timers for both teams. For the 4-man team, the respawn timer should be reduced to 5 seconds or even zero. For the 5-man team, the respawn timer should be increased to 40-60 seconds or more. This would make both teams play with even numbers most of the time, but nobody would be stuck wondering when they would return to the game.
(edited by Spin Echo.8263)
Rather than punishing players who leave a game, perhaps a simple solution would be to change the respawn timer when teams are mismatched. A 5-man team with a sufficiently long respawn timer operates with the same effectiveness as a 4-man team with a normal timer.
(edited by Spin Echo.8263)
I don’t know if this would be such a great idea. An illusion that persists after target death is not much different from a necro minion or ranger pet. That means they would have to be rebalanced: either like necro minions (with decreased pet damage, longer cool downs, and/or lower health) or, even worse, like ranger pets (with decreased player damage). Either way, mesmers would need to start micromanaging like necs and rangers in order to keep pets alive as long as possible.
We can already play beastmasters and minion masters. Right now, illusions are unique among all pets: they are truly “fire and forget”. Eliminating that feature would be a turn for the worse.
(edited by Spin Echo.8263)
The scepter autoattack SHOULD have a unique aspect that the clones can inherit.
The scepter autoattack SHOULD NOT have a condition.
Just a random thought: What if the third scepter autoattack caused a very short (0.5 sec) stealth?
The main effect would be to break targeting. It would also cause the mesmer to suddenly pop into appearance, making it easier to hide among the clones. Both contribute to scepter “trickiness”.
Some potential synergy with PU, too.
- Greatsword phantasm
- Focus phantasm
- Staff clones
- F1 shatter
- Chaos Storm
- Into the void, especially with a trait that causes damage on interrupt
- Illusionary elasticity trait, which works for staff auto-attack, Mirror Blade, and Magic Bullet
- Piercing effect of greatsword auto-attack or Confusing Images
Image you didnt interrupt, “just” one daze. Everyone will deal ø7500 DpS approximately. Now Image you daze, 5 stacks for 10 sec. IF the enemy lives so long (bosses will still get vournability even with their buff on) You deal ~20’000 passive damage. Just – this – daze. Thats why I want this trait so bad.
Wait, what? 5 stacks of vulnerability for 10 sec result in total passive damage of half of your DPS, so if everyone is dealing 7500 DPS then the total damage is only 3750.
And the trait doesn’t even give 10 seconds of vulnerability, only 8 seconds. So in this example one daze would do 3000 total damage.
Even looking at weapon kits this holds true: bomb kit, two soft CCs (blind + immobilize)
I think you’re forgetting knockback on Big Ol’ Bomb.