Showing Posts For lepewpwn.4726:
…Sapphire ranking over the last 3 days played – that’s running PUG solo, and with running in 2-4 man organized team groups here and there….
Got a few questions if you have the inclination to spare before you leave the forum:
1. which sapphire tier you ended in?
2. did your win rate improved after running in 2-4 man organized team groups (and is it with other sapphire players)?
that’s it I quit. something is very wrong, 25 loses in a row. and I’m not lying. Even on a bad day I have never, ever had that much, maybe 10, but not 25. what have they done to this matchmaking system?! I’m just solo queuing.
Losing doesn’t mean you didn’t played well.
Playing devil’s advocate here, but correct me if I’m wrong that the incentive to try hard is the potential chance to win? Isn’t that enough?
I don’t mind losing 499-500 and lose a pip, actually happened in one match last season. Now, who doesn’t want free pips (or at least not lose any) but if you are arguing about incentive, then the mindset of wanting to win and try really hard right to the end is shared much more homogenously amongst players the higher division you go. With the changes of matchmaking, this will likely be less of a problem.
Players shouldn’t be able to cap points whilst stealth as in my humble opinion, this would primarily centre pvp interactions around stealth (its counter detection and so on) which would narrow the pvp experience.
The second part of your post about your pvp encounter with a thief, who might not know about the stealth mechanic limitations. I’m inclined to support on your suggestion to at least have an option to reject a boon (or cancel it especially stealth without having to enter combat). I think that is a great idea. Something as simple as right clicking on the stealth boon to cancel it.
OP since you brought up the issue, why do you need to redefine “pay 2 win”? You already answered it in the opening post that others state:
“I have to buy HOT to be relevant”
That statement is very true. You can participate, but you have to buy the expansion to remain relevant, because it is the new competitive standard.
Also OP, what is the issue with “pay 2 win” anyway? Regardless of its competitive potential, most games do require a significant investment in time or money or both to be able to reach a competitive level. So why are you exactly bothered by the phrase.
Would be nice if a crafting profession like a scribe could offer their services to smaller guilds for a commission.
Any class, as long as you have access to speed for your character (passive 25% movement or prolonged swiftness uptime). There can be a lot of running to as much as away from, so prioritize speed. Play a class you enjoy playing already, so engineer is fine. If you like to play support, then you need to join a group to play with regularly, so the need of your support character might change. I suggest that should be your priority before diving into wvw.
People can be so dramatic. I don’t see why private commander tags need to be a thing. If random wvw players join in then whats the problem exactly? If you’re trying to conduct a guild wvw event, then the more the merrier. If random players can interfere to an extent that you can’t complete your guild event, then that kind of interference (due to numbers) is a problem many would be glad to have. Its a recruitment opportunity for your guild.
If you have a problem using commander tag on your server, as it interferes with your server’s regular map commander, then its your server’s issue. They need to deal with it.
I run my guild’s wvw activities, and to this day I do not think any second of development time should be wasted towards developing private commander tag.
Could it be harmful? Of course. Guilds could decide to only put up a private commander tag, effectively forcing random players to join guilds to participate in wvw. That is a worse outcome than what we have at the moment.
Random players are not a negative reason to implement an enhancing feature. Thats the kind of elitist logic that I’m glad should not be entertained.
Supreme if your concern is with spending less time at foefire, then surely you have tried forming a party of 5 with an agreement to vote away from foefire right? You have valid reasons, but you also have ways at your disposal to still play the game to your preference half of the time.
While you’re at it, how about make it so that if a teammate disconnects at any point, your team doesn’t lose a Pip for not winning, and you instantly give that teammate who disconnected dishonor. You know, instead of the current system where everyone loses a Pip. I don’t care if he comes back in 1 minute, you fall behind real quick in PvP when you’re doing 5v4. But hey, at least that teammate came back and he didn’t get dishonor!!!11
I think it is a fair suggestion, and not accusing or implying anything to what you are suggesting however, if implemented incorrectly a team could easily abuse this by having one person get dishonor to save losing a pip for the rest of the team in a losing or unfavorable match-up. There has to be a balance in punishment, for not severely punishing people with unintentional disconnections or otherwise. If the rate of disconnection is tracked per account, and the information is transparent. Maybe such an information could be used for pre-made (or planned) teams to decide upon, and/or another metric for system assigned teams.
I disagree that people are getting more toxic. It’s always the same regardless. The more competitive the scene (or perceived to be) the more toxic people can get, in any game. Which also means (and to address your comment Xanctus) even if arenanet is doing something right, the same crowd spurting putrid letter arrangements will still do so regardless. I do not agree with having arenanet intervene any further. The options we have at our disposal, the filter chat or to block others is more than sufficient.
Dear Mr Condibombopener,
I sincerely regret to read comments from others in this thread, who would if I may suggest be a tad more sensitive towards how you feel. Let me be the first to offer my most sincere apologies to you and all your ilk who can’t condi bomb as an opening attack. It is unfair that there is absolutely no way around it, that you are forced to rely on others or even adapt your build or change your approach or play another. Really, I imagine it must be hard and selfish of those who play with such a diamond skin trait, and to carelessly extinguish away only all your fun. Pvp must not feel balanced for you at all. Again, I hope the next round of pvp balancing fixes will be kinder to you.
Yours regretfully,
ImainDSele
So you’re saying, eles should have a permanent resistance buff until hp falls below 90%?
That sounds like a curious idea. Would need some work (NPC balance when poor players login vs good players logging in would be an issue), but could be something. This is something I envision in EotM rather than borderlands, though.
Poorly skilled players will learn as long as the game remains engaging, rather than stop trying because the obstacles to enjoy the game mode is insurmountable.
That sounds good on paper in terms of maintaining constant activity and could even be made quite simple e.g. basically have siegerazer events that trigger automatically without needing 5 players around him. The siegerazer event will attack the nearest keep and supporting camps/towers, NPCs follow nearest commander etc. But I don’t know if that would be good for the game mode as a whole.
It can be chaotic and disorganized at first, but with instructions from a human player become much more organized. It’s important that it is immersive.
People are already complaining about auto upgrades. Imagine the QQ if something like this ever gets introduced. You’d basically be turning it into a siege warfare simulation with zero player input required.
Autoupgrades may be an attempt to fix server coverage issues and timezone imbalances, prevalent in mid to lower tier servers. Those that feel this impedes their wvw experience may be roamers, whom now have a higher resource obstacle to influence. A war simulation (nicely termed) reduces the obstacle for all sides, and rewarding thought over simply numbers, that can only be trumped by a larger organized team.
The last thing WvW needs is more PvE. Well, second to last: the last thing we need is Anet trying to “improve” the game mode.
It will be the same wvw game at higher tiers when the map is fully populated.
Wvw isnt pvp. Npcs may not be an ideal replacement, but it still captures the feel of an massive conflict, maintaining some level of immersion. A very different experience to pve.
Just a thought for discussion.
Replace what would have been players in an empty map with respective npcs (until it reaches the player cap of that map), that is organized and constantly fight to capture and hold key strategic areas, in a perpetual conflict that would (without intervention) result in a balance equilibrium or equal points to each team. When a player does log on, they will randomly replace an npc. If enough players log on, then all the npcs will be replaced. Depending on the numbers of npcs remaining on map, their roles may change as well. Imagine the forever epic feel of logging on a map to find fights always happening!
Now a privileged player (one with commander tag or some other ability or prerequisite) could influence npcs and give them instructions and focus. So in theory, even if only one human player plays on a server in tier 8, for a few hours a day, could make a difference to their server if they make good decisions to manage the npcs.
In another scenario, imagine a lesser populated server paired off against a larger populated one. It may give a cunning player a fighting chance if the player could instruct the npcs to attempt to capture points all over the map forcing the larger group to commit players to defend.
I agree with what your concerns are Devata. I think it is absolutely not wrong for you to feel that more can be done to cater for the various kinds of players that populate the game we all enjoy. I do agree that this new guild system discounted those that prefer to play in a smaller knit social group. The key issue is that the previous guild system at least gave an equally relevant benefit to whichever numbers it accomodated for. Now for that to be taken away, there has to be a way to scale down the guild to help smaller groups to obtain perks of having a guild that is relevant to them (or even to a one person guild). There needs to be more thought put into what is relevant for each group (if you consider facilitating the eventual progression to a larger group being the endpoint) then features need to be functional incentives.
So I really just don’t understand it. I thought the idea behind the collection was to have players running around completing challenges to obtain this amazing item. Not throwing money at the TP, as if the collection just didn’t exist.
When I first heard about the news I was under the same impression as you. Though, at the time I thought since map completion was part of the required process to craft a legendary weapon, adding more tasks or challenges just to obtain a precursor would not necessarily enrich the experience to obtain it overall.
The amount of resources you now need for a guaranteed precursor is at least set to a finite amount. I recall before, you could literally waste gold, and would not yield a precursor from the mystic forge. A painful experience indeed to the hopeful, and thus this is a welcomed change.
The requirements to obtain a legendary weapon may be better defined now, but still I sympathize to anyone who can be just as determined, but suffer the arduous repetitive task needed that lies ahead of them. It may be a personal achievement, but it doesn’t have to be an individual effort. Food for thought.