Showing Posts For Voilodion.3791:
Here’s yet another way to look at it: if you don’t want to unbalance the game by adding super-powerful boons that the commander provides and which would be shut down or reversed when you assassinate them, what benefits do commanders currently and uniquely provide, that the game could shut down?
1. They provide a blue icon for players to group around. Could we make the commander icon deactivate when the commander is killed completely? This might work. It would then become less obvious where reinforcements should go. I don’t think it would have much impact on the army already there, but it’s something.
2. They give orders and directions in map chat that people are more likely to follow than those of non-commanders. Do we make dead commanders unable to use chat? I don’t think you could single commanders out for such a penalty while all other players get to keep talking while dead, and then you’re talking about muting everyone when dead. That would be so annoying and unpopular that Anet would never do it, despite the realism.
Honestly, commanders don’t have that big an impact on immediate battle outcomes, in my experience. A GW2 army is a chaotic rabble, not a disciplined force following orders in unison, and that rabble generally keeps on rabbling whether the commander is alive or not.
To be more clear, it really bothers me that if I get someone down, and then finish them, they can be revived on the field. That is such a kick in the teeth at times and I’ll explain why.
One of my favorite things to do in my small-time organized group is hunt down and assassinate commanders in the heart of the zerg. I’ll give two scenario’s in which this happened and was ruined.
It takes far longer to revive someone who has been finished off than to revive someone still propped on one elbow. The fact that the enemy commanders were revived after you finished them simply means that your own forces had not won the engagement or controlled the field. You don’t have any justification for being bothered by what the enemy can do in territory they still control. Win the rest of the battle and they won’t be able to revive the commander.
You seem to be playing some version of the game that exists only in your own head, in which commanders are far more critical to immediate battle outcomes than they are in the game the rest of us are playing. The fact that they can recover from your heroics (as skillful as those heroics may be) is balanced by the fact that their main benefit to the army is often just a marker around which to say “everyone go here next”.
To put it another way, if you want a coded mechanic in the game that cripples an army to some degree when you assassinate a commander, you need to also suggest a coded mechanic that provides a significant and tangible benefit to the army when the commander is alive, beyond just being the talking blue markers that they are now. (You will then, of course, have to figure out how to do your assassinations in the face of the enemy army being much more aware of the need to protect the commander, but that seems only fair.)
(edited by Voilodion.3791)
We shouldn’t suffer because you figured out 9 months later that people would want ranks in WvW…
So sayeth ARM
You’re “suffering” because of this. Wow. I can barely imagine the torment you must have endured back when WXP had not even been announced or expected. We should get Amnesty International on this right away, maybe even have the U.N. prosecute Anet at the Hague under international war crimes statutes.
Currently Guardian is stronger than Ranger. So you should pick that.
Any of the top 6 servers are pretty active in wvw. But if you don’t want too much queue come to tier 2 (rank 4 to rank 6). Consider joining us in Kaineng. ^^
And you say this because you’ve played extensively on both Tier 7 and Tier 8 and verified that there’s really no WvW activity there? Uh-huh, right. I play Tier 8, and despite the bashing it gets around here, it’s active. I’m sure our zergs are not as large as those on the higher tiers, but that’s already been said. I suggest you confine your assertions to things you actually know about and then let the OP make his own decision.
Middle or lower tier servers (T3-T8) probably have lower queue times than the top tiers, though I couldn’t verify that personally.
As far as community goes, guild choice is probably much more important than server choice. Every server will have its supportive & cohesive guilds, and its guilds that don’t share those qualities. Pick a server, then get out in WvW for a while and get familiar with the active guilds, follow their commanders around, and see which ones have the characteristics you’re looking for.
I’ve noticed that the leveling curve is much flatter here than in in other MMOs I’ve played. The early levels come much more slowly than in other games, but that time-per-level stays much more constant all the way to 80, so you don’t have your last 10 levels taking as much time as 1-70 did, as is common in other games.
As for WvW, unless you are specifically and solely aiming at solo or 5-man roaming skirmish groups, give up the need for endgame skills and equipment, and just get out there and start having fun. You’ll need time to get familiar with the maps, how siege works, and so on, and upleveled characters can do fine, and gain levels, while running with larger groups. I probably gained about half of my elementalist’s 80 levels in WvW, and it was almost always, “oh, look at that, I gained two levels in that session, didn’t even notice.”
Also, you might pick up a craft. I have been told that skilling a craft from 0 to 400 will net you about 10 levels, and I’ve found cooking at least to be quite useful. In keeping with that, always gather herbs, wood, and minerals as you’re running around. It’s easy xp, and will provide you with either raw materials for your craft, or money from selling the commodities.
We always have ppl rotating in/out of tower/keep watch and have many scouts. Rarely are we surprised by an attack to the point we can’t go straight to the lords room and start to defend. I would like to see rewards for people defending though. It does get boring after a couple hours, but it is worth every minute if we are winning.
That’s great that you do all that, but Slamz’s larger point still stands. In any game like this players will gravitate to those activities for which the developers have set out explicit rewards, and they will find the most efficient means of gaining those rewards. The best game design is one where the most fun activity (or just whatever activity the developers want to encourage) is also the one that most efficiently gives you points, loot, rankings, etc.
Telling people to stop complaining and do it the hard and thankless way like you do won’t convince anyone except the few who already enjoy it that way like you do. Again, credit to you for playing that way, but what you’re saying is equivalent to telling a kid who hates broccoli, “come on, just start liking broccoli.” The design and mechanics of the game really need to change so that the activities the developers have said they want players to engage in are rewarded both tangibly and intangibly.
(edited by Voilodion.3791)
Not sure about building siege. Wouldn’t mind so much but as been said, you’ll probably get people emptying supplies and siege capping a area with useless siege unless you get your stuff in first.
The WXP rewarded doesn’t have to be huge. I think a lot of players would just like to see something for their efforts in activities that are supposed to be central to WvW.
If you only give WXP for siege once it has actually damaged an appropriate enemy target, as I said just above your post, and keep the WXP for building it moderately low, it will not be worth the effort and risk for people to use up an entire depot of supply on superfluous siege, and legitimate players will still be rewarded.
Exploiting siege for WXP (i.e., building 20 rams inside your own keep, etc.) is easily remedied. Only award the WXP once the siege weapon has actually done damage to an enemy player, npc, or structure. Thus, the incentive only exists for placing siege weapons in appropriate places and situations on the battlefield.
You’re not seeing the T1 zergs. It’s not epic at all…
This suggests that the root of the problem is not the game mechanics, but the server populations, and that the numbers you’ve been throwing out are simply those that would cause or reduce lag on T1. You say at the top that 40 vs 20 vs 20 would be fun, but in a later post that 70 vs 70 is not. Honestly, what’s the difference, tactically? You can’t really think that in 40 vs 20 vs 20 you’re somehow using all sorts of tactics and finesse that don’t come into play in 70 vs 70. They’re both large numbers of people running around tab-targeting whoever’s closest and trying to backpedal in time to avoid dying.
If 40 vs 20 vs 20 is really what you want, take a server transfer to T8. We have exactly that (especially this past week), and it does periodically include coordinated attacks on multiple targets, locking down waypoints before major assaults, and so forth.
I know you mean well, but I can’t help but conclude that you’re assuming T1’s numbers and issues are shared by all other tiers, and that’s making you focus on gameplay mechanics that won’t solve larger population issues.
So, a small group of players planning ahead and making efforts to coordinate their attacks manages to defeat a large disorganized rabble of players who weren’t really paying attention to what their enemies were doing.
I see no issue here, even ignoring the mathematical inaccuracies already pointed out.
Interesting read. You make some valid points about zerging in general, as well as at least one sensible suggestion, but I do have some nitpicks:
- Your title is perhaps unnecessarily provocative, in that it paints the debate as “zerg vs. non-zerg”, whereas most players probably appreciate aspects of both zerg and small skirmish styles of play. We’re probably better off if we don’t start thinking of the discussion in terms of those two pigeonholes.
- ‘Efficient’ and ‘Effective’ are not the same thing. Zerging IS effective, in that it gets the job done, quite thoroughly. It is not always efficient, as you describe. Even with that being said, it still has a certain efficiency from the view of the individual player, whose chances of survival are greater with the zerg than alone or in a small group. This makes it an efficient use of that player’s time, in reducing respawns and long runs back to the battle. This doesn’t negate your larger argument, but it should be considered when devising solutions that will motivate players to change their playstyle.
- Your debate format is a time-honored one, having been used by Plato, I believe. However, you make “Y” seem rather naive and uninformed, which I think weakens the effect. It’s no accomplishment to sound convincing against someone who asks leading questions and produces no substantial counterarguments of their own. (Plato did the same thing, IIRC)
- Reducing the effectiveness of the downed system (or removing it altogether) won’t discourage zerg play. It will encourage it, as the penalty for dying becomes more severe (guaranteed run back, possibly over a long distance), and players go for safety in numbers to avoid that penalty. Doing something like adding more respawn points around the maps would make players more comfortable running around in smaller groups.
- Regarding your solutions, I think the only one you proposed that would actually work is the one Anet is least likely to adopt: splitting WXP (and/or other rewards). Changing the AoE cap has already been talked about by others here. Making 20-player warbands—what is preventing people from doing so now? That is indeed a goal, but you don’t state in that sentence how you will get people to not agglomerate into even larger groups.
- In addition, I think zerg play will be discouraged if Anet actually rewarded more behaviors that don’t require it, such as giving WXP for repairing structures, escorting dolyaks, doing upgrades, and so on. All of this has been suggested more than once in other threads recently. This would encourage some players to stay behind and work at an objective that has just been taken while the rest of the force moves on.
Ultimately, though, players in all of these games will gravitate to the path of least resistance toward the rewards the developers have put in front of them. If you want more small group play, Anet will have to change the system so that small group play is the MOST efficient way to get point and loot rewards. I’m very skeptical that they will ever do that, but who knows.
Implying that there’s no space for someone to be having fun and at the same time see ways in which the game could be improved. Is the rest of your world black and white too?
I will camp EB JP everyday if this way i can prevent my enemy to get more sieges.
While I have no problems with people attacking other people anywhere in a WvW zone, please don’t try to convince us that you do it for some noble strategic reason, and not because it’s a chance to gank people who weren’t planning to fight back. You’re not fooling anyone.
The whole point of the abilities is that they should be under-whelming. If they actually made a significant difference to your efficiency, then people would be forced into grinding out max rank on a single character asap, and players coming late to WvW would be completely kitten
You are not the only one here who has decided that the only ways these could have been implemented are either “insignificant” or “overpowered”. There is certainly a middle ground. Using DAoC’s ability cost system would have enabled this: make each level of an ability give a small but useful bonus, and make it the same amount at each level, but make the costs increase dramatically from one level to the next. Then new players can gain the early cheap levels quickly and narrow the performance gap, while veteran players still have the later expensive levels to work towards.
As it is, they’re a nice little boost, but not neccesary.
For the most part, they’re not nice little boosts. They’re completely irrelevant to battle outcomes or player tactics. Something that doesn’t change any results or influence you to play any differently might as well not even exist.
These posts are about “what’s wrong” rather than “how to fix it”, hence the reference to “needless QQ”. Obviously this system isn’t perfect, but whining about it in an unconstructive manner is simply /zzzz.
People post things like, “I don’t like that WXP is per character and not per account,” or “The ability values seem underwhelming,” or “I’m disappointed they didn’t include ‘do more damage to siege’”, and you really need to be told explicitly what the fixes would be?
Nothing will be stupid OP like so many games but over time they will add up to make you better in WvW.
I don’t see the majority of them adding up to making any significant difference at all. The bonus values are just too weak. +5% siege damage, so a door that would have taken 20 ram swings to break will now take 19. This won’t change any battle outcomes, or anyone’s tactics.
The extra supply is the only one they did right: a noticeable difference that may actually alter how you play (even if only slightly) but which will take a long time
to reach full potency. The others will be quickly earned and then ignored as irrelevant; at their current values they were a waste of development resources.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_Experience
says:
1/3/6/10/+15 supply capacity
Those values are disputed by the in-game interface as well as the “talk” page of the wiki, linked in the center of the page you linked.
Handin, you make fair points about having the right mindset so that WXP doesn’t feel like a grind. However, the problem is the underwhelming values of the bonuses.
These buffs don’t change WvW AT ALL, they just give you a cool new reward system with some fun buffs.
This is the problem. These rewards are statistical bonuses. Statistical bonuses that don’t change WvW at all might as well not even exist. Please tell me what the added “fun” is from +0.5% cannon damage. If the buffs are meant to just be fun, they should have created mushroom clouds or turned players into chickens, or some other flavor addition. +5% siege damage doesn’t make ramming a door down more fun; it lets you get through the door in 19 swings of the ram instead of 20. For bonuses like this to be fun, they need to be significant enough to be noticed, to make players change their tactics just a bit as a result of having them.
I think you (and others expressing the same view that these abilities need to be kept at very very low potency) have fallen into a false dichotomy, thinking that the only ways these abilities can be implemented are “insignificant” or “overpowered”. There is surely a middle ground where the abilities can be strong enough to make players glad they chose them, without throwing the rest of the battlefield out of balance. Find that middle ground, and I think many of the grinding complaints will disappear of their own accord. The extra supply ability is the one that they did right: it will take a long time to get that +5, but you’ll notice the difference once you get there, and decide that the long push was worth it.
The new WvW abilities seem mostly impotent. A total of +5% maximum to siege damage? That means that ramming a door that would have taken 20 swings to destroy will now take…19! +0.5% damage with cannons? Really, why even bother? +5 to supply is probably the only notable (i.e., useful) exception to this trend.
These abilities should not, of course, be so strong as to upset game balance, but if the bonuses are so slight as to be unnoticeable and have no effect on gameplay, why even put them in?
It would have been much better to give bonuses that are actually strong enough to spur people to change their tactics because of them, but take a page from DAoC’s book and make each level cost much more than the last. E.g., +2% to siege damage per level (instead of +1%), but the five levels cost 3 points, then 6, then 9, then 15, then 25.
Stop this karma-train madness.
…
Play WvW for fun.
Play WvW to fight.…Come fight with those who play this game for fun.
While there are some good posts in this thread about how ANet might encourage different playstyles, it’s still rather pretentious to assume that so many other people are not already playing “for fun”, or that they must view taking keeps with as much disdain as you do.
Things like points, levels, and new abilities are fun for a lot of people, especially when they’re new. I’m all for skillful play and keeping grinding to a minimum, but how about if you give other players a little more credit and assume that they can judge for themselves when they’re having fun and when they’re not?
I suppose it’s safe to assume the numerical slots indicate the total up to that point.
E.g., Guard Killer gives 5% total at level 5, not +1%2%3%4%5%=15%. Right?
Duly noted. Thanks for the replies.
I left DAoC because of the RR grind and how overpowered it became in terms of its impact on player vs player.
I’m with OP on this one. It is preferable that we all compete with the skills we currently have without adding any additional stat advantages that effect player vs player.
From what I have seen ANet seems to be on the right track with the WvW abilities as they make the player more effective in certain roles for WvW without impacting player vs player combat.
I understand what you mean. I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that we have to have the same suite of raw stat boosts (e.g., WvW abilities that boost Precision, Condition damage, etc.) that DAoC provided, but just that the abilities they do give us need to be potent enough to actually notice, and hopefully lead players to factor their WvW bonuses into battlefield decisions. For example, if the maximum extra siege damage you can get after buying all possible levels in it is +5%, I would consider that a waste of our WXP points (and by extension, a waste of ANet’s development resources). That would save you maybe one ram swing over the entire time of ramming a keep door down from 100%, and thus wouldn’t lead you change your gameplay any to make strategic use of the points you’ve spent.
I guess I’m just hoping that ANet is equally conscious of finding that sweet spot where WvW abilities will actually affect your gameplay in certain situations but not make you overpowered compared to someone just getting started with them.
Question from a relatively new elementalist: What skill/trait do we have that blocks siege damage? I’ve seen this mentioned a few times on forums and in WvW, that elementalists fend off siege damage somehow, but I don’t know what skill is being referred to. Thanks.
This is a fair request, but they also need to be strong enough to make players care about gaining them, and notice a difference in combat as a result of having them. One way to do this would be to make each level of an ability good enough to make a small but noticeable difference, but have each succeeding level cost more.
DAoC’s realm abilities worked this way. You could, for example, buy passive increases to Strength (or whatever stat), which gave +5 Strength (I don’t remember if the # was actually 5) at each level. At the maximum 5 levels, the +25 you then had was very significant, but the tradeoff was that the 5 levels cost you 1 point, then 3, then 7, then 10, then 14. So newer players could very quickly pick up the first 2 or 3 levels and narrow the gap, while players putting in many months of play were still getting rewarded for it (albeit much more slowly by that point).
My main worry is really the opposite of the OPs: that the WvW abilities will be either so weak or so quickly maxed out by everyone playing that you won’t even notice their benefits.
I don’t know what calculation they will use, but I would guess that since upleveled characters tend to be weaker than fully traited and geared 80s, they will die more often and thus be worth fewer points. So indirectly, it will be the case.
Anyway, I’m sure that that point scheme is only in place to keep people from finding an isolated corner somewhere and farming WXP by trading kills in rapid succession.
Thought I’d show something more postive about Tier 8 instead of all the SF whining
Grats on negating the first half of your sentence with the second half. There are vocal minorities of whiners on all three servers, and plenty of good-spirited players on all three as well.
I honestly prefer it the way it is. World exploration should be hard. I got WvW map completion on a server that was losing consistently, and it was difficult. It wouldn’t be fair to people like me to nerf the challenge for everyone else.
Well done, but the situation is already unfair by default. You may relish the challenge, but some people just find it frustrating, while others don’t even have to worry about it, all because of their unwitting server choices (i.e., few people, if any, planned ahead and chose servers on the basis of WvW map domination and ease of exploration). You’re asking for that unfairness to be perpetuated.
Besides, if the setup is changed in the future, why is that unfair to you? You like a challenge, and you got it. How do the future experiences of players you’ll never meet diminish your own past accomplishments?
Having very challenging objectives in a game is great, but that challenge should not vary from one player to the next simply because of WvW populations those players couldn’t control and didn’t know anything about when they chose servers.
For me, the answer has been a definitive no. I’ve leveled a necromancer to 45 and an engineer to 62 so far, leveling off of an even mix of zone completion, events, and WvW (plus the crafting itself). Collecting enough of the fine claws/venom sacs/etc. for even one craft that requires them (per character) has trailed so far behind my leveling progress that it’s ridiculous. By contrast, equivalent items on the trading post are dirt cheap, and even that is expensive compared to the nearly effortless approach of keeping yourself outfitted in karma gear.
Your mileage may vary, of course, but for me it has been very disappointing. I like doing crafting in any game that offers it, and I really like the discovery mechanics GW2 has, but keeping myself equipped in my own crafted gear as I level has been so expensive and time-consuming compared to the alternatives, that I’ve given it up until I hit 80 and see if things are different then.
Yet another thread where carebears want the entire WvW community to bend to their will. I hope you feel the cause is worth giving all of us an excuse to laugh at yet another member of the entitlement generation.
So you consider having your WvW home zone (whatever the right terminology is) being located in the center of the world map instead of on the left side like it was last week to be “bending to his will”? That’s a bit melodramatic, don’t you think?
Guess what? The 3 server maps are identical, except for the flavor names. Switching those names around once in a while doesn’t affect your success in WvW in the slightest. Ridiculing someone who makes a request that doesn’t affect you just shows that you’re an a—. Get over yourself.