Showing Posts For aristotle.2813:
What do you call such people? WvW snobs?
What is considered as player’s skill? Certain conditions affecting “player’s skill” can affect the result.
1. Better ping
2. Faster PC
3. Ascended armor/gear/legendary weapons
4. Utilities/Nourishment
Consider oneself as a “skilled player” if one’s opponents are similarly equipped. Don’t feed one’s ego and don’t assume that skill alone was the result of one’s win.
IMO if Anet isn’t going to do server merges then the linking system needs a major revamp. Main thing that needs to change is guest servers being able to have their own score over time, and more recognition of their accomplishments such as names over objectives. There should be a fixed set of criteria for promoting guest servers to host servers based on their performance/individual server score.
Even if this is done, removing the old lower tier servers and creating new ones might be a necessary step – hopefully let players start on new server with new history.
Much have been said about the CD quad servers. In T4 they were too strong but in T3 they are getting stomped. Actually the CD quad servers can do much better but for many reasons they are not as well as they were in T4.
It is reasonable to think that many players in KN, ET and BP are not putting much effort in T3 as they did in T4. Firstly, their server has no identity except for the host server CD.
While CD has been complaining about their Glicko ratings, and that they deserved to be in T3, this is not necessarily the opinion of their partner servers.
Both KN and ET were formerly linked to TC and BG respectively and the vast difference between their former hosts and current one may have lessened their enthusiasm in participating in WvW and wait for a better linkup.
The latest patch plus Living World Season 3 drew many away to play PvE rather than WvW.
There is not much communication between the 4 servers.
I hope ANet reads this and do something about the linking as many WvW players dislike how it was done. The problem with merging has much to do with the PvE population in each server. Separate PvE and WvW players altogether and merged the WvW players will work.
You just described fairweathers buddy. “These guys can’t carry me anymore, so I’ll just sit out of the match until I can be carried again”.
Not entirely true as every server has their fair share of similar player base. The facts are there if one were to visit the websites of all the servers which by themselves shows the quality of the server community. How dedicated they are in recruiting, how to join their TS groups, what meta builds are current etc.
When another server is linked to a host server, it would be easy for them to get to know their host server by going to their website that provide all the information without the need to ask too many questions. That is one of the reasons for successful linkages between servers but if the Host server has poor communication nor an active community, then we see the Host server and their partner servers underperforming.
If WvW players are 100% your ideal type i.e. “non-fairweather” then there is no need for further discussion but they don’t exist and will never happen as every player in PvE, sPvP and WvW are playing the game for their own selfish reason.
Strangely in most discussions no one mentioned about the role of commanders and how they affect each server’s/server group’s performance. There are good and bad ones and some that really stands out as par excellent. Maybe it is a sensitive subject. For example, I have followed one that does not speak English nor is on TS, but yet when he is leading, you will find scores of players joining in knowing they are in for a good time. Then there are others that care nothing about their followers nor what is happening on the map, focusing on taking camps and forts whilst their keep is being taken out. Some are kamikaze commanders, their groups being wiped time and again, yet doggedly attacking same objective against all odds.
The problem with the CD quad servers not doing well in T3 is basically CD itself is not up to par as a T3 server. Maybe not even T4 standard and their partners may be uncomfortable following a sub-par server. Unlike their previous linkup to T1 servers, namely BG and TC that carried them successfully, CD is no where close to their standards, without proper TS links, members that focused mainly on setting up defenses and defending, providing Speedy Yaks etc. For example, TC has not one but many TS groups, CD has what, one? I could be wrong so correct me. CD can succeed in T3 provided their linked servers have some confidence in their leadership as the lead server, otherwise most will stay out until the next linkup with what they hope will be a better lead server than their current one.
OP is so naive to believe that his region’s night is the same for everyone else. Like the proverbial frog in the well, he thinks those who lived in other regions like China, EU or New Zealand also sleep at the same time. Are those nightcappers he is whinging about sleep during the day in his timezone and like nocturnal animals come out only at night?
I totally disagree for crafters taking up space in WvW which is meant for players to fight for their servers. Do your crafting and PvE stuff elsewhere if you have the need. You can always get back into WvW after you are done.
I don’t understand why there should be an argument about the implementation of TS or similar communication software as communication is important whether in PvE, PvP or WvW.
If a guild or server wants an improvement to their game teamwork in order to move up the ranks, then they should make use of something worthwhile. How much does it cost to have one, it does not cost the earth.
CD being the host server should make an effort to take the leader role as having 3 other servers as partners may make teamwork difficult. I have observed tags that simple disappear because no one follows or appear to understand what is required of them. If I am tagging and everyone is running around doing their own thing, I too will throw in the towel.
Kaineng and ET both formerly linked to the 2 top tier servers did learned a thing or 2 from their peers during their time together. The overwhelming hospitality and friendly environment enjoyed makes it an memorable experience. The same cannot be said for the others like DB and YB who from personal experience were quite hostile and not sharing TS and some even made nasty comments about their partners.
That said, maybe others from Kaineng and ET would like to comment on the above?
I find it amusing that TS wants a group of 5 defenders coming out to face a 70+ zerg attacking. In fact there are times these 5 defenders have to defend their keep when BG has 6 Omegas and a zerg banging on their gates.
It’s no wonder YB loses their keep everyday and even TC at times. I would dare say the only server that dares fight BG on their own terms would be TC despite the odds stacked against them bringing the fight to BG’s doorsteps.
The above scenarios are in EBG from my experience, although it’s probably the same story in the BL’s.
Never had issue taking towers/keep equipped with shield generators. Some people are better at devising counter strategy than others. One key difference: One actually active find way to counter, one raged quit and went to forum to vent, and hopefully it will be nerfed so they won’t have to think about countering.
Yes no one has an issue about taking towers/keep equipped with shield generators. If you read what OP wrote perhaps you can understand what he is referring to.
When I bring up the topic of defense in WvW I understand I am speaking for the minority here. Maybe more people would do it if it was more plausible. When I say defense, I mean holding objectives such as towers to the castle.
Don’t you agree that maybe only 5% of the WvW community in every server are concerned and make every effort to fortify and hold what they have? As for the rest of the 95%, capping, body loot and everything else has more priorities. Who cares about losing a camp/fort/keep as long as they are there for re-capping. It’s a game of musical chairs as there are no incentives nor rewards. To them, let the fools do all the work defending and if they are free they will help out but please do your best to defend as we are busy capping yet another camp/fort/keep elsewhere.
And you know what? The longer you stay in forts and keeps with time and effort wasted to prepare their defense, the less rewarding it will be for you.
Physics doesn’t need to apply in a game where I can conjure fireballs from my hands and call meteors from the sky.
You can’t take real-world logic into a game that doesn’t accept real-world logic.
I understand where you are coming from and perhaps readers will also agree real world logic does not apply in a game.
My point is that Anet designed the game mechanics for WvW and using the real world as it’s basis. What is suitable for PvE may not necessarily be so for WvW or PvP for that matter.
Simply put, the design for WvW fort/keep walls was to allow players to put siege weapons on top to have an advantage against attackers. Surely a well fortified T3 fort with defenders using siege weapons can fend off most attacks. Sadly that is not the case as a zerg force can take it down in less than 3 minutes. This is ridiculous don’t you think?
An ele or bunch of eles are able to attacked kill defenders or destroy siege weapons on walls of forts/keeps almost instantaneouly. Defenders are unable to retaliate by casting same skills or use their ranged weapons from a higher position to defend. There is no logic in this. As a ranger I cannot shoot arrows downwards at attackers directly below or as an ele cannot cast my skills.
I rarely see anyone using Oil Pots due to being very vulnerable to getting insta-killed as it is hard to disengage fast enough when using a siege weapon.
Situation is such that as far as possible, defenders built siege weapons far from the walls for this reason.
Obviously Anet does not play WvW or do not understand that high walls are meant to protect the defenders and siege weapons. It takes one defender some time to build a siege which can be instantly demolished by one enemy. This is I repeat is not logical.