Showing Posts For Xiaka.2814:
It’s showing Top 250 is now minimum 1349 rating. Is this because people are quitting PvP?
The games played requirement updated. Whenever this happens, you’ll see a big leaderboard shift as people who don’t have the minimum get knocked out. New people don’t get added to the board until they’ve played a game, so it takes a little while for things to normalize again.
I have a doubt about it, how many games will we need to stay in leaderboard at the end of the season? 120? or 135?
Imo AT should be:
- Always active, not an off-season filler. We are talking about promoting team-creation, 1 month every 3 will not be useful.
- Small and short tournament formats for daily AT, maybe 4-8 teams competing in a single elimination format,
- If we can also have a team ladder (as a result from the AT results) and we have enough teams maybe we can have daily AT for different levels with different rewards, so new teams are not facing the stronger teams in their tournaments.
- Daily AT can give us Qualification points for monthly or weekly AT (thus being streamed if there is enough interest). The monthly and weekly AT can have a swiss-system format allowing the participation of a bigger number of teams (I’m being optimistic maybe with the number of teams)
As an add will be very useful for the teams progression to have some tools to track their own performance, such as statistics, offline replay of the games, etc. But I know this is mos t a dream than a possibility.
I think will be so interesting to have as an option (I know a lot of people does not like cluttered UI) the ability to know if your traits with ICD are in cooldown or ready to use, yes I know you can count the time yourself (but there is a lack of precision in it). Just the icons of the traits that have icd (we don’t need the ones without icd to appear) and a shadow recharge animation like in the skills bar.
And if it is possible, can we also have runes and sigils icd also tracked in there?
Thanks!
Evan, these ideas are good and I like balancing sigils. However you have to realize how much this change impacts Balance. Removal of blood/air/fire may be a good idea in theory, but it will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce ALL damage in this game. That will inheritantly buff condi classes and sustain builds. These are the implications:
Druid and scrapper are stronger again due to direct damage basically not able to kill them any longer.
Guardians will be utterly unviable (rip me) since a significant amount of damage comes from crit sigils.
Necros, warriors, mesmers will be gods again.Basically you might take thief since pulmonary is God mode, but besides that it’s all tank +condi builds.
I like the direction this ATTEMPTED to make but the effects on balance are far too significant for pvp to be healthy following a patch like this.
Oh well time to welcome the necro+warrior overlord meta.
We’re definitely aware of the impact of removing sigils that create free damage, and are looking at sustain nerfs that will ship at the same time as the sigil update.
Are those changes going to be introduced mid-season?
We had a balance patch two weeks ago and almost nothing changed in pvp (because most of the patch was designed for pve raids imo). I don’t like mid-season changes but otherwise we have to wait till summer for changes, can we have a consistent schedule for balance patches? With the HoT release they were the they after season, now it looks like 2 weeks after season and maybe mid-season patch?
Thanks
We could achieve more balanced competition in a world-versus-world setting if we had more pieces to join together with the World Linking System. It currently is not possible for us to establish an “equal” number of players on each link/world with the current world sizes. You may recall this initially was mentioned by Tyler a few months ago.
For example, world populations currently look something like this:
• World 1: 95%
• World 2: 82%
• World 3: 81%
• World 4: 60%
• World 5: 30%
• World 6: 10%Since our final world total needs to be divisible by 3 because we need a team for each color—Red, Blue, and Green—we either need to avoid linking any of the worlds, or link some worlds even if the result is that they have the advantage of a larger population.
• Worlds 1+6: 105%
• Worlds 2+5: 112%
• Worlds 3+4: 141%After linking, the difference in population between the highest and lowest teams is much narrower, but the third rank server still has significantly more population than the server that previously was ranked first. Also, the result of this theoretical world linking is that all worlds are now above our goal population cap, and probably have moderate to heavy queues.
If we instead had twice as many worlds, but if each had about half the population, it would be much easier to create linked teams with similar populations. This would lead to better matchups for everyone, and encounters would be less predictable. In this scenario, we would allow players free transfers to the new empty worlds for a period of time. These worlds would start out linked so that they wouldn’t begin in an empty state in a match-up. We would lower the player population cap on all worlds so that more worlds would become and stay “Full.” The result would be that guilds that want to expand would have an excellent option to do so with a move to these new open worlds.
Having outlined some of the thinking behind this proposal, we’d like your feedback on these three topics.
1. How do you feel about this proposal?
2. What, if anything, would you change about this current proposal?
3. Would you be interested in transferring to a new free world?
Fast and simple:
- It looks similar to unlink worlds (previous situation), but linking is not really working because a linked server has more potential population than unlinked ones. Although reducing server population cap could be very interesting.
- Probably we will end with a few full servers and the rest empty or almost empty like now. Maybe could be more interesting to allow players only to migrate once per 4 months, free transfer for anything below high population.
- What will happen to EU? We have several languages all across the servers, this is avoiding the proper world linking, will you ask through communities poll to allow linking with servers with other main languages? And what will happen to Baruch Bay? if server population cap is reduced I guess not all spanish people will be able to play in it, if it’s splitted let’s say in 2 servers will be the only possible linking available.
Hello everyone,
I think can be interesting to have a summary of the state of WvW to have in mind all the issues we have yet ingame. It’s a long post but I will try to do it as short as I can. I hope everyone can share his vision on every aspect so
Scoring:
A new system is going to be implemented “soon”. We had some information about it time ago, but maybe we need an update from Anet to let us know more details on what they are working on. So I will not go any deeper here, it’s clear we need a new scoring system to avoid coverage being so powerful and let’s hope the new system is robust enough to make coverage less important.
Population and World linking:
Probably one of the main topics nowadays with the recent world linking changes. After few months of world linking we still have old issues and new ones, there is not a fast answer on how to balance world population but from what we know any system needs to match the next criteria:
CRITERIA
- (only EU) People should be able to enjoy the game with other people speaking the same main language (german, french and spanish).
- Bring interesting matchups, with close gap in skill and population between servers => makes the game fun for everyone. Preventing blowouts.
- Spread people through different servers. The ideal case will be that every server has a similar amount of people for every single time frame, this has proven to be imposible but at least make it as closest as posible.
World linking was meant to solve some of those problems but the real situation is.
Good things:
- More people playing in the same matchup, cause lower tier server are mostly linked with someone, making it easy to find enemies to fight and allies to support. Making sometimes more equal matches.
- People from linked servers can meet new people, this is a good thing, isn’kitten
- This system allows people from EU to keep interacting with people with the same main language.
Bad things:
- Blowout matchups still happen.
- The changes are artificial to meet special requeriments, so the player has the sensation of matchup and ranking manipulation by Anet.
- After world linking are done need to wait 2 or 3 weeks till the glicko is adjusted to start enjoying the matchups. No matter how world linkings are done we end having some monster servers (now it looks we have FSP) and some have very small chance to win any other servers (GH + Vabbi), so new links needs to be done at some point starting again.
- Many people complains about the server community being destroyed. Two main reasons, the first one being how easy is now to join a winning server (since you can transfer to a low populated server linked to a big one by a low amount of gems). Also makes hard to handle strategies, community, voice chat, etc. with new people coming and leaving from a linked server.
The solution to the population problem is hard to handle and we all have to assume we will never have a perfect solution to it with the server structure that we have. Some people suggested removing the requeriment of having national servers to allow more spread of people, I’m not sure if this will help but in any case a poll should be created on those servers to evaluate their opinion.
Transfers are the other big thing here, because at the end of the day it has been demonstrated that people tends to join winning servers. An idea to adress it is with a rewards system (after new scoring system is implemented, which I guess will bring rewards in the small skirmishes of 2 hours duration), making the rewards you win for your server victory depending on how much people has participated compared to the other 2 servers, so if you win just by numbers you will get a very small reward, and if you win in lower numbers you will get a big reward, this can help people to move to servers less populated or mid populated instead of stacking in the winning one. The reward track can also be affected by this “proportion number”, so the more people on your server slower advance in the reward track. Making people feel interested into joining into a no winning server is one of the biggest issues with server population, I suggested 2 ideas, but a deeper thought on it should be done. Server transfers should not cost so big amount of gems (I know business here is important), instead maybe we need a larger CD on how often we can change servers. But this is another big topic on his own.
Balance:
There are 2 diferent fighting styles in WvW, small scale and big scale.
- Small scale right now is quite good, maybe more build diversity will be welcome but almost any class has a viable build to play. Still some gimmick builds are out there, but should not be difficult to fix them.
- Big scale: As always, only some classes has chances to be in this style without being to be carried by the others. Right now druids and scrappers are in a bad position for zerg gameplay (maybe thieves and mesmers are also in a bad spot). Also there are some mechanics which needs to be addressed: durability rune, boon stacking, easy heal + prot with auromancer, condition stacking, and some other issues. This is also a giant topic on it’s own but I’m only giving some thoughts on it.
Gear:
Getting equipment in WvW has improved if we compare it to the situation 2-3 years ago. WvW is one of those places in GW2 where Ascended equipment is relevant and is still difficult to get it if you play WvW most part of your time. HoT stats and other stats are easier to get now, so this is good but we still not have any way to get all the pieces of our equipment with our desired stats (I’m talking about everything here, armors, weapons, runes, sigils, trinkets) without spending a lot of time outside from WvW and playing content we are not interested in because GW2 is a really big game, Anet cannot expect that we feel interested in every single mode, in fact, is more common to find people focused only in 1-2 modes (sPvP, WvW, fractals, dungeons, open world, raids, big world events, etc) instead of everything at the same time, so forcing players to play an specific content doesn’t look a great idea.
So this is my summary of WvW state now, what will you add? In which points am I wrong? What do you think can be improved? Do you have ideas?
I like the idea of the automated tournaments (I enjoyed them a lot in GW1). It will encourage the formation of new teams to play into those tournaments.
I prefer to play a 5 team vs 5 team match than a 5 random vs 5 random match.
From my experience in GW1 and GW2 we will need to add some modifications to the original system but it could work almost for sure, some of the modifications that come to my mind are:
- More than 3 tournaments at day (8 hours between tournaments was so big, so if you miss one just for a few minutes you will not be able to play one till 8 hours later. Maybe every hour can have a tournament (anet take your data and make the numbers).
- Teams should have dishonor, not joining the tournament or not playing it entirely should end with a team dishonor (I do not mean dishonor for every player, A team should have it’s own dishonor, not allowing them to join a tournament for some period, or not having rewards for the next tournament).
- One player cannot be in more than one team joining the tournament.
- Stacking classes should not be allowed (Don’t know how to implement it, but it will make games more interesting).
- Team ladder should score according to the tournament performance of a team instead ranked matches (so you cannot take score for winning a 5 random man team in ranked match).
- Maps for the games should have a predefined order (like GW1).
- Maybe then we should have a limit of 2-3 teams per account to avoid abusive behaviours.
I also received this message, AP removed… “God walking amongst mere mortals” title removed… Let’s see what’s going on…
Aside from skill adjustments, another way we can adjust balance in PvP is by looking at the runes/sigils/amulets that are available for use through the customization panel.
I would be interested in hearing thoughts (with the high-level goals from the blog in-mind) on adding/removing various sigils/amulets/runes. In general, our goal for PvP is to be faster-paced with a higher-level of lethality than what we’re seeing in S1.
I know we’ve had this conversation a few times before, but it’s always important to have this discussion with the correct context in mind.
About Amulets: More customization will be welcome, maybe split stats in 2 different amulets will bring more viable options for the amulets that actually are not being used by anyone.
About Sigils: Lots of sigils in the game, but only a few are useful for diffferent reasons.
Sigil of Rage: It was nerfed to the ground time ago, quickness is a very strong buff but 30 seconds cooldown is too much. Maybe a diferent functionality such as gain fury (3 or 5 seconds) on weapon swap will be better. Currently any sigil allows you to gain fury.
Sigil of Nullification: RIght now this is a 1 boon removal every 10 seconds, depending on critical hit and no control about when is it going to trigger. This sigil will be much more interesting if it was in the category of “weapon swap” (because you can control when is it going to trigger) and maybe if it removes 2 boons instead of 1.
All sigils in Chance on hit category: They have a tiny effect and a high cooldown, maybe a slightly increase on the effect or a slightly decrease in the cooldown will make them more useful.
Sigil categories: Maybe adding new trigger categories will be fun.
About Runes: We have a lot of runes in game right now, but most of them are not useful.
Rune of the citadel: The rune is right but the effect of summoning a bomb is just not strong enough compared to other offensive runes, because it depends on you getting hit, so it should be a defensive effect. Maybe a blinding flash (no damage, just blind) with a 15 or 20 seconds cooldown when struck will be more useful.
Rune of the fighter: Adding protection to the number 6 effect will make this run stronger giving offensive and defensive bonus. It should have a larger cooldown on that effect (15 seconds?) for not abusing with some fast recharged healing skills.
Rune of Lyssa: Maybe increasing the condition duration to 10-15% will be better. Also adding 10-15% boon duration effect will make this runes stronger because it converts conditions into boons through number 6 efffect. However number 4 effect is not strong enough, maybe “when using a heal skill gain fury for 5 seconds and a random boon (cooldown: 10 secs)”
Rune of Rata Sum: Number 6 effect has an insane cooldown. Decreasing it to 15-20 seconds will make the rune more effective. Maybe add an effect on number 4 such as, “50% chance to poison enemies around you when struck 15 seconds cooldown)”.
Rune of the Dolyak: Add a -25% condition (like melandru) duration on you will be useful for self tanky builds. Maybe regeneration from number 6 should scale with Healing power in a stronger way.
Rune of Mercy: Add the effect “gain 2-3 seconds of resistance when you start to revive an ally” to the current effects.
Rune of Resistance: All the effects should be reworked. Number 2 effect: Gain resistance (2 second) when you are struck (15 seconds cooldown), Number 4 effect Gain protection (2-3 seconds) when you are struck (15 seconds cooldown), Number 6 effect: Gain a small amount of health (scales through Healing power) when you use a signet (5-10 seconds cooldown).
Runes in the category of vitality, ferocity and Healing Power have in general a very weak special effects with long cooldowns, the list will be enormous if I continue.
Hi everybody,
Is Anet planning to introduce replays of your own team matches to watch whenever you want? It should work like many of the esports or competitive games where you can watch again an entire match from all the diferent players point of view. It helps to improve yourself or learn from others. This feature was also in the original GW and it is mandatory in any game that really wants to be an e-sport. Also have access to recent statistics like damage dealt, healing one to allies in your last matches could be so useful.
Thanks
This trait is not working properly. Tested in Heart of the Mists and is not giving 8s of swiftness. It just gives 4-5 seconds when overloading and attunement even if the tooltip says the correct number.
Edited: Added the tooltip clarification
I honestly don’t think they want us having complete flexibility with our stats. (see minstrel removal) It seems the devs feel that certain stat combinations are unhealthy for the the pvp playing field. (which may be true) If this is the case however, it does feel like a lame restriction.
Maybe full flexibility will be unhealthy, but the system I propose will avoid those unhealthy ones, for example, with my proposal you cannot create minstrel stats. I also feel unhealthy to go all or nothing, because no matter how many amulets you keep introducing to the game, the same amulets will be used over and over, as I said in my first post. 3 years of game and (cele, marauder (old berserk), soldier, cleric, settler, condi amulet) are the ones that has been used in the 99% of the games.
My conclusion is: if they don’t want to add flexibility is useless to add new amulets, cause they will be worse than the ones we have. Having a system to mix stats will improve playing styles, for example d/d eles oriented to dps or to bunker instead of the “go cele” we have right now because it’s the only viable option for eles, think about that most of the professions in this game are binded to one-two (3 if they are lucky) amulets, eles celestial, thief maruader, mesmer marauder or condi, engi soldier marauder cele, ranger marauder… and this will probably extend to the new elite specializations with just one or two exceptions (I’m thinking about druid). I don’t see it to be healthy to the game.
It’s me again… I also forgot to add that with the new trait system we lost more flexibility. At least in the past you could complement your stats through trait lines.
A lot of discussion about amulets and stats has been done lately in this forum and in game chat (New amulets, minstrel removed, cele meta, etc). I think that maybe the big issue with this is that even if we have a lot of amulets available most of them are not being used, cause they are useless except in a very very specific situations. Maybe I’m not wrong if I say that not more of 5 or 6 are commonly used and the other are useless most of the time cause they are missing one “key” stat.
What we need imo is more flexibility, maybe dividing our stats in 2 pieces (dunno if 50/50, 60/40, 70/30).
For example you can go cele using two cele amulets (each of them gives you the half of the points they give right now), or you can go half cele half marauder for a more offensive configuration without becoming a pure cannon glass.
Or you can use one of those non used amulets just combinig it with another that gives you the missing stat in a low amount making it viable to be played, for example half cavalier (one that I don’t see anyone is using) and half assasin to compensate the lack of precision in the first one, the total amount will be (in 50/50 case) 900 power, 600 precision, 600 toughness and 900 ferocity, which will be again an offensive configuration but without becoming a connon glass.
I think that 2 pieces will be ok, not adding almost complexity to the system and open flexibility to new configurations. Ofc the metagame will be the metagame and at the end a low number of configurations will be used often but we will have more diversity than the actual (cele, marauder, settler, cleric, did I miss anyone?) metagame.
Imo this is one of the best changes done. Yesterday with our guild raid it was possible to handle fsp or sfr blobs because CC bombs now work for real!! It’s true, you can’t push with stability up (aka I don’t care about what you do I will get close to you). Metagame is open now for very different options and dummy stability push is not the only viable way now.
Hello everybody,
I was really excited with stronghold but after they said that it will share queues with ranked and unranked conquest mode I felt really disappointed. I will explain why it should have their own queue in my opinion.
1. As they told us it looks like Stronghold will have a very different metagame from Conquest (different builds, different roles for each player etc.). If both modes are in the same queue the result will be that you cannot specifically prepare yourself for a specific mode , because you will only have 1 minute to change your character or build before the match start…. so it has 0 sense to prepare your team for a Stronghold match because you will probably play a Conquest map (more possibilities, 5 maps vs 1 deathmatch (courtyard) vs 1 Stronghold). So people will create team and builds to play Conquest and they will vote Conquest in consequence so most of the matchs will be in Conquest mode (maybe not the first days, because Stronghold will be the “new thing” but after some time it will be like that).
2. I don’t know if I am wrong… but they stated during the presentation of HoT (24th january) that will be a guild leaderboard… so from that I understood that if you join your guild team you only will face other guild teams in a specific queue for that (most like GW1 GvG mode) . But now it looks like you will play against random teams (guild teams, pug teams, mixed teams, etc), and only if you are lucky and you get a Stronghold map mode and not a Conquest one. Maybe there is something missing that has to be told about that but if we don’t have a specific queue system for that the leaderboard will feel like a total waste of time, because as I told before you will playing Conquest mode most of the times and from time to time you will play one Stronghold game…
Before I end my post I also want to say that I really loved GW1 GvG system and leaderboard (playing it for almost 6 years) and one thing that I loved is the feeling of playing together as a team (even if we had to split 3-3-2, 4-3-1, etc). But with the map design in Stronghold there are a lot of simultaneous objectives (take supply, push line, take hero, defend your line, intercept enemy supplies, etc) and with teams of 5 it looks like we will have to split a lot to cover all those things and giving us more 1v1, 2v1, 2v2 battles more than “teamfights” of 4v4, 5v5, 4v5, 3v3, etc. I can be wrong because we still have to play the game mode and maybe it will not be like that, but every time I think about it I end with that idea.
Let me start with this quote:
When I’ve been working on WvW for 11 months, then we’ll talk.
So, 11 months have passed, let’s talk then?
1. What is currently being worked on for WvW?
2. Why are things, that have been in the top of the player requests for over an year not only not implemented, but even not talked about from your side?
3. We haven’t heard from you since you posted in the “new maps” thread several months ago… and that was after around 6 months of you not posting. Do you think if you communicated better you’d avoid some of the huge negativity and toxicity on the WvW forums? Any plans to do something besides hiring more mods and creating additional CoC rules?Feel free to add more questions guys.
I am going to jump in here answer these as honestly as I am able.
- We can’t talk about that right now. Once the in-development features reach a state where we, as a company, are comfortable talking about them, we will.
- Some player requests are under development. What those are and when they will be completed, I can’t say at this time for reasons mentioned above.
- Devon is very busy with his job duties and only has limited time to devote to reading the forums. If he spent the time demanded of him responding to threads on the forums, his work would suffer. My job duties have me reading and reporting on the forums regularly to ensure that Devon and the rest of the team are aware of active concerns within the WvW community. I do this for other parts of the forum as well. As has been mentioned a multitude of times previously, our developers read the forums as much as they are able, but time prevents them from responding to everything they read.
1. This is the exact mentality that has lead people to think ArenaNet doesn’t listen or care. You guys might want to rethink your information strategies as it’s having a large negative impact on the community. Sure talking about features you might not do or even scrap can be bad, but if you keep the community updated about them it won’t be nearly as toxic as your current strategy of letting the community wallow in despair and hate. Of course the only reason I can think of for continuing down this path is that the updates for WvW are so lackluster that informing the community that is all that’s in the works for them would kill what’s left of the community.
2. While I don’t doubt that you’re using some player requests, that was also true a year ago and we’ve yet to see or even hear anything. See point #1, you cannot just keep saying we can’t talk about it.
3. Then you need to report back to the WvW team that their silence and lack of a simple MONTHLY or even QUARTERLY information update on what’s happening is helping to kill wvw. We don’t need devon to make posts here, he is just a figurehead, what we need is an ArenaNet representative to keep us informed and hopeful. It doesn’t take buy 10mins to throw together some basic information on what’s being worked on, what got scrapped, and what they would love to do but aren’t working on yet. Yes, some people will be upset if something gets scrapped, but do you think the negativity then is anything like what it is currently?
Honestly you guys are doing way more harm than good. Let’s try a different tact and put it into business terms. You guys need to think of players like investors, if every 3 months at the investor meeting you say nothing the players aren’t going to invest. Not only that they are going to dump your company and invest somewhere else where they get the information they want.
I agree with you. +1
I don’t know if it has been posted before… but anyways.
- Trebs can hit through doors. It means that rams can be easily destroyed by placing a treb inside your tower looking at the door.
- AC can hit through doors, walls and even the ground. You get hit by AC that you will never see and you will never be able to take down. For example an AC in the lord room of any tower can hit the door of the tower and also the rams and players behind it.