Showing Posts For dadada.1306:
The portable MF is extremely useful if you convert karma to gold by forging and salvaging karma vendor items.
Please don’t. Next to turret engie, this is the last build that needs a buff. If you’re not ripping up the competition with shatter mes, you’re doing it wrong.
After my original reply on this topic, I went back and actually played turret engineer, and against turret engineer in a combination of unranked and custom arenas. I used the turret build from here: http://metabattle.com/wiki/Build:Engineer_-_Turret.
Turret engineers appear to be successful because of two things: 1) a common misconception that you should always attack the turrets first, and 2) people who won’t even engage. To make turrets effective, the eng has to put everything into the turret traits—there’s very little flexibility here. This makes non-turret skills ineffective, and also makes the player extremely vulnerable without turrets (e.g., so they can’t help at another cap point, or move in Courtyard).
On the first point, some classes/builds can do well attacking turrets first (and if you’re 2v1 vs. the eng., it’s fairly easy to clear turrets for most pairings). The only time I had trouble was on thief, or condi necro. I’m not a pro thief, but in a 1v1, a good thief or necro can take out the eng. if they ignore common wisdom and just go for the player. Or to put it another way, the known hard counters mentioned with the build above actually work.
On the second point, it should never be the case that your build should be able to 1v1 every other build, so it makes sense that some people don’t engage 1v1. Although it looks like players who could engage successfully aren’t doing so.
If the build were as OP as I had thought (based on playing it 12-18 months ago), I would expect to see more turret engineers. Perhaps Anet has statistics on the builds being played, but there don’t seem to me to be a lot of them. Also, turret engineer is not in the current meta game according to the site referenced above.
Hopefully Anet makes any decisions about changes to this build based on actual statistics (number of players using the build, their success rate, etc.), and play testing. As it stands now, the crit change would make it tough, as the engineer is essentially useless until CD on the turrets. With the additional condition damage change, I don’t see turrets as a viable build, as every class and practically every build could clear the turrets easily, leaving the engineer with little offense/defense.
Would be nice to see something that makes turrets viable in WvW or PvE (imho they’re not currently). Or maybe some change to WvW that makes them useful…
Yea, we definitely should change aspects of wvw to make turrets viable there because all these poor players who rather depend on AI and not learn how to play the game don’t have a place to go to annoy everyone actually trying to have some meaningful pvp experience.
Meaningful PvP experience in WvW? Now that’s funny. By the same token, there shouldn’t be any ranger pets, necromancer minions, any NPCs, etc.
Yeah, turret engies need to be balanced, and I like the crit idea, but the condition thing bothers me, especially the justification that it makes it more like other minions. The thing that really turned me off of StarCraft 2 was that all of the races became much more similar to each other. The beauty of original SC was achieving balance with the races having distinct mechanics. Don’t decrease the diversity of the mechanics by making all minions the same. Instead make a weakness specific to turrets.
On the specific changes suggested, I suspect turret engineer will no longer be viable, but we’ll see. I’d personally like to see the crit damage added first, see the impact, and then add another nerf if the crit change doesn’t go far enough. IMHO better to do it that way than to over-nerf and then have to buff, or just allow turret builds to drop from play.
Would be nice to see something that makes turrets viable in WvW or PvE (imho they’re not currently). Or maybe some change to WvW that makes them useful…
(edited by dadada.1306)
If they had a test server most of these issues would have been discovered in 5 minutes. My game has been crashing and freezing constantly since the 16th.
They do have a test server and the game and all patches are QA tested on it before they roll them out. It just is not a public test server. The thing that most people fail to understand about software development is that you can test and test and test but until the product hits live and goes out to the clients, you will never catch every issue.
This game runs on so many different configurations of hardware, drivers and networks that (frankly) it amazes me that there are so few issues discovered. This is not even mentioning the stupendous number of different types of auto-runs and always running tools, utilities, helper programs and system enhancers that people have running on their system while trying to run the game. While you are probably have some sort of issue with the game, most of the player base is NOT. There are many thousands of people playing the game and a rather small percentage are having some sort of problem with installing or crashing.
I saw in you post log that you said you submitted reports but did you put in a request for service? Submitting the crash log when the game crashes just provides that information to ArenaNet to use in researching the issue. They do not respond to bug or crash reports. If you want personal service from ArenaNet, you need to create a service ticket and provide them with the information that will help them help you specifically.
Also, there are many people in the forums that will be glad to help you troubleshoot your specific issue. You can also post your crash logs and list what you have done to try and solve the issue yourself in a forum thread and you will see that there are many people willing to help you get back into the game.
I’ve been developing software for almost 40 years, and I have rarely seen a patch go out that had as many obvious bugs as the March 16th GW2 patch had. I’d put this one in the top 3 of the worst I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t take #1, because the client did still run the game after the patch. But look what made it past QA: the /bug reporting tool broken, guild chat broken, the various audio problems, etc. These are things that the most cursory testing (beyond “boot” testing) should have caught. Things like client/server crashes, sure, those things are affected by the plethora of hardware configurations, load, and corner-cases that can be difficult to hit in testing. What bothers me is the huge number of obvious bugs that were unleashed with this patch, and lends credence to the argument that we, the players/customers are being (ab)used as testers.
Yes. I’m guessing this is a sev 1 bug, and someone is sweating bullets (Dear Diary, Today I broke the code that’s responsible for my company’s revenue…)
Edit: 1 day later, still can’t buy gems. I guess it isn’t considered a severe problem, although I wish anet would SHADDUP AND TAKE MY MONEY!!! :-)
Maybe Mauveinmystic and I are the only ppl who can’t buy gems?
(edited by dadada.1306)
One-time access to the MS Project data for GW2 now in the Gem store—only 2000 gems. Includes 1 (one) detailed PERT chart and a certificate redeemable for 1 (one) clear answer to a “yes/no” question. :-)
FYI: “Guesting” doesn’t actually do anything now. When megaserver was first implemented, it did still put you on the server you selected. Now, it just drops you in the same place it would if you hadn’t tried to guest at all. It’s actually quite frustrating and makes me wish for the GW1 district selection mechanism.
Always gonna have rallybots follow the big blue dorito just feint push chokes and get them killed.
And you’ll become known as the commander who’s always getting people who follow him killed. I like it… weeds out the lame commanders.
One of my tunes is almost wxp rank 500 (several others are around 100) and I think the rewards sucked. Sorry if I’m too PvE/Casual to understand why I should find insulting rewards acceptable.
Allow me to address the original poster’s server in particular (Dragonbrand). I don’t know a single commander on DB running anything sufficiently complex to require TS. There are guild groups on DB doing such things, and using voice coms to coordinate. TS is helpful if you are trying to do something like “aegis chaining” in GW1—that is, you have multiple players of the same class that use a skill with a recharge longer than the duration, and you want to tell these players when to cast so they don’t overlap or waste their skill. There is almost never a non-guild group on DB doing anything remotely like this (guild groups have been known to use TS/vent/mumble to do so).
If you find that what you hear on TS is “stay on tag” and “we’re going for X next” then have your commander make a macro, and use team chat.
I can’t think of any reason that would require everyone to be in TS, or even a large percentage of people. And since you’re pretty much guaranteed that a large percentage will not be on TS, it’s up to you as a commander to deal with it.
Just tag off and force them join on ts if they want follow u.
LOL, a BG commander tried this once. Mass revolt, and almost the entire map decided to follow someone who wasn’t being a kitten-head.
There will always be people who aren’t on TS. Playing at work (naughty!), playing in a room where other things are occurring, being deaf, and other reasons. If you don’t put anything in chat as a commander, that’s your loss. If you tag down to prevent people from following you, you’re just a kitten.
Many of the balance issues in WvW are directly caused by a disparity in server populations. To remedy the issues caused by these disparities, A.Net should do the follow:
1. Determine divisions based on server population rather than previous performance.
2. Completely separate ranking for divisions. Being the winner in the division with the highest server populations should be no more prestigious than being the winner in the division with the lowest server populations.
3. Set a population quota based on the population of the most populated server in a division at the time of season announcement. Once those quotas are met (immediately for the most populated server), new server transfers will be ineligible for that season’s reward. People can flock to the strongest server in a given division if they like, during the season, but doing so will prevent them from claiming that season’s reward. They will then be eligible for the next season’s rewards, though enough server jumpers may push that server into the next division.
4. In relation to point 3, once the divisions have been announced, make information regarding the current population status of a server readily available to anyone considering a server change.
These simple changes will solve the following issues:
1. Coverage disparities: If servers have similar population sizes, they should be able to field similar numbers of players. One server won’t be able to steamroll the other two just because they can field as many people on all four maps as the other two servers can field on one.
2. Time disparities: If servers have similar population sizes, then regardless of which times they play, they should be fielding similar sized armies for similar proportions of the day. If their timing is similar, then they’ll be fielding those armies at the same time, contesting the map at the same time. If not, they should have control of the map during their play times, balancing each other out.
3. Jumping ship to the largest server in a division: With server rewards locked once divisions are announced and server populations are equalized, and no guarantee that a server will remain in the division for the following season, there is no longer incentive to server hop to the leading servers within a division.
4. Intentionally losing to become the big fish in a smaller pond: If server population rather than previous performance determine division, this is no longer an issue what so ever.
By implementing these changes A.Net can go a long way in improving the WvW experience.
Simple question: If the applicable rules above had been in effect for season 1, which matchups would have changed for the better?
I can think of some examples of servers that might have moved up or down a league based on wvw population, but the change would not have been for the better.
I.e., if performance is so completely tied to coverage, then the performance metric should be at least as good as a coverage metric, thus the current performance metric is likely better than a population metric.
As an alternative, how about:
1) To be qualified to play on a server during league play, you need to have been on the server for a month before league play starts. This is so the results of the “qualifying rounds” actually reflect the players on the servers being ranked for the league.
2) To qualify for league play, individual players should have to pass a “mini-meta” each of the four weeks prior to league play. The problem I’m trying to address here is the issue of servers sandbagging to get into lower divisions. I don’t think this is a great solution, as it’s still possible to game the system, but at least people would have to show up (not be completely absent), and accomplish some goals.
3) If you qualify for league play, but change servers, you’re either ineligible for that season, or alternatively, if you enter wvw, you do it for the server on which you qualified. I’d lean towards the former option.
Edit:
Another idea. In addition, have wvw league and “regular” wvw instances running simultaneously. People who don’t qualify for league play, or don’t want to participate in league play, can play in the regular wvw instances. A server without sufficient population interested in league play need not participate in league play at all in a given season.
(edited by dadada.1306)
Engineer bomb kit becomes suicide bomb kit.
what are you complaining? you got what you deserved. you think you gonna get precursor or tons of gold by band wagoning the top server?
INSTANT KARMA KITTEN. CHOKE ON THAT.
(1800 gems lol.roflcopter.lol and 1800 gem to move to another server again)great job a net!!!!
you really kick the kittens out here
Actually, a free server transfer, and some motivation to move would have been an excellent move. Not 1800 gems that could be spent on anything, but a server transfer. Give this to the top servers, and attempt to create some balance.
I don’t understand why ppl keep making this a PvE vs WvW thing. Anet could have made perfectly good WvW-only rewards that would not have rewarded PvE bandwagoners, but instead it was junk all around.
The Redeemer (from Unreal), as an outnumbered-only siege device. Also inflicts friendly fire damage. T1 zerg spawn camping you with 80 players? Redeem yourself.
I had my expectations set extremely low for the wvw reward, e.g., they made cape trim temporary in GW1, so I figured the finisher would be temporary. But anet has managed to fall short of even my low expectations. I figured we’d get some badges (maybe 250-500), maybe a keg of wxp—just general, unsellable wvw-related stuff. Instead, a taste of wxp, ascended mats that I’m already TRASHING because I can’t store any more, and rares that I could get from SB in Queensdale. The league meta required more effort than ANYTHING so far in this game (not to say it was huge, but still more than anything else so far). I would rather Anet had simply sent a mail to key-holders saying F*** Y** in 86-point font—at least that would have been good for a laugh. BTW, if a dev reads this, feel free to send me that email, it would still be amusing (devs only, I don’t want to be spammed :-).
Having not established rules for breaking ties before the league play started, I’d say the only fair thing is to give both servers 3rd place awards. E.g., if there were a tie for 1st, then the top two servers should get 1st place awards and the next one down should get 3rd place awards (no 2nd place awards in this, impossible to occur this season, scenario).
If anet were to establish tie-breaker rules for the future, the standard way to do this would be to go to head-to-head play (most wins in head to head is the winner), if this is also a tie, then count points against for all matches in the season (the team with lower points against is then the winner). Probability of a tie after this is almost 0, so coin toss after this :-)
Btw, you do “points against” instead of “points for” to avoid having servers run up the scores in easy matches, although in the wvw format they’re sort of similar… hmmm.
Poor SBI. They did some of the worst spawn camping I’ve seen in this game in over a year of playing in their match vs DB last week. It’s amazing SBI hasn’t faced more 2v1. Oh, SBI vs. FA vs. DB this week. Good luck!
You know who thinks that their match is 2v1 against them? Everyone. You know how often it’s actually happening? Almost never. You could log into 3 servers playing each other, and every one will have chatter saying the other two are working together against them.