Showing Posts For phantom.1675:
1 2
Ditto for me as well.
Not every time for me but experienced at least three hard crashes.
1 from wvw
1 from PvP lobby
1 from Auric basin
Eventually I was able to get back into the browser and join my guilds custom arena and play the match, but seems a real problem exists.
Yes this.
The rare quality Hero weapons you still receive from the Hero Reward Track say you can perform this upgrade.
It’s misleading to imply that down the road an item will be available and therefore you decide to do the reward track.
If you guys really don’t care about the movement speed then just make it so when you are using one of these mounts, you always move at the base unbuffed speed. On top of that, if you get on a mount, you are disallowed from using waypoints for 30 minutes unless you pay 1g+ the normal WP fee.
Gold sync incoming and you get to quote “build your char”. Job done.
I am having something similar happen for character parked all over the game. (And I am running no third party things).
It happens in PvP but also at various other load screens after exiting a PvP match.
Either
Load to PvP, try to swap, client hangs trying to load back into map, boots to char select, crashes and I must restart.
or
Load to PvP, try to swap, client crashes out of game.
Full restart client seems to fix but often not before match starts.
I have also crashed on the next load screen after leaving a PvP match, i.e.
Exit PvP match on char from match, try to travel into a new zone → same as above.
It’s true that these systems are not designed to have these placement games. Real rating systems start everyone at exactly the same rating and they play, with the same volatility calculation.
You do realize that the “placement” games are just UI and have no bearing on the algorithm itself.
“placement” games only exist so that players aren’t freaking out at the high rating changes that occur when a player is at extreme volatility. (all players start at high volatility)
So I guess my point is if you reset volatility at the start of each season (which does happen), they should start everyone at the same MMR. If they want to carry MMR from season to season, volatility should never reset. In addition, they need a better way of attributing what the expected outcome is as only 1/5 players in a team.
Take an extreme example like Sindrenerr/Misha who is winning at like 90% rate. If you are playing against those two and dont have a duo queue of pro league players, you are going to lose. In that situation you shouldnt be losing 10-20 rating, you should lose something like 0-2 and that just does not happen.
And yes I agree placement is just UI. But it’s UI that masks the fact that everyone’s starting MMR is not the same.
It’s true that these systems are not designed to have these placement games. Real rating systems start everyone at exactly the same rating and they play, with the same volatility calculation.
However, all of these systems are also not designed to find matches base on “average team rating” which is just trash for actually knowing what’s going on.
Example
Team A: 2000 + 4 × 1000, = 6000 rating
Team B: 5 × 1200 = 6000 rating
It’s very likely that the rating 2000 player can’t carry vs all 5 people alone. And all of the 1200 rating players should easily kill all the rank 1000 players.The game will compare his rating 2000 to their avg rating 1200 and say “why did you lose bro?”, boom -30 rating.
terrible example:
mm tries to get players of the same interval a such extreme match only will ocur in a very low ppulated our and if the 2000 player is duoing with one of the 1000, and the “punishment” in this case is so low for forcing the system to put them in “easy” matches
and losing
2000+1000 / 2 =1500
the system will try to find players arround 1500 for the duo and for the other team
I am aware they aren’t designed to match players with that different of a rating. However, I have been matched with ppl at both +400 and -400. So it happens. (These are in all solo queue games as well so duo queue does not matter). My example is just for ease of numbers and I realize that large of an extreme does not happen; point is the system does not prevent it from happening.
It’s true that these systems are not designed to have these placement games. Real rating systems start everyone at exactly the same rating and they play, with the same volatility calculation.
However, all of these systems are also not designed to find matches base on “average team rating” which is just trash for actually knowing what’s going on.
Example
Team A: 2000 + 4 × 1000, = 6000 rating
Team B: 5 × 1200 = 6000 rating
It’s very likely that the rating 2000 player can’t carry vs all 5 people alone. And all of the 1200 rating players should easily kill all the rank 1000 players.
The game will compare his rating 2000 to their avg rating 1200 and say “why did you lose bro?”, boom -30 rating.
PvP is basically a loot farm, much akin to a world boss train, except with fewer participants.
Most good players (not me) have left and there is really no incentive to improve knowledge of the game mode.
Players don’t know matchups and push into things that are basically just throws. People don’t know rotations and just afk on nodes while the enemy gets to 5v4. And honestly, all of that is fine; there is nothing wrong with not knowing and needing to learn.
The problem is the game mode is not competitive so people don’t learn, they just think they are playing properly and are there to get loot.
Any plans to fix this? With the deletion of ESL, there really is no “go play ESL if you want competitive” rebuttal anymore. If it’s not competitive then delete the word “competitive” from the achievement tab describing achievements for this game mode. Just change it to “time sync”.
Toughness is so useless they deleted Cleric amulet because they were bored right? Oh wait…
I would still prefer a system where each player committed to playing with a guild for wvw and anet spread guilds out across all the “servers” or guild alliances. If this were rerolled every 1-2 months, they would have the most cohesive small chunks they need. And would prevent stacking other than in a guild, which has predefined limits already which are very small.
This would of course eliminated their transfer revenue as transferring would basically be removed.
Solo players can just join whenever and the first time they do, get placed in an alliance.
Guild Wars could actually have guild wars…what an idea!
Anet wants the game balanced around Elite specs, not core specs. 2-3 Expansions from now, there will be 2-3 Elite Specs per class. All that will matter is that e.g. Daredevil is balanced against Thief Elite 2 and Thief Elite 3.
Anyone who played 522 matches to get legend… well, yeah… should get the title
Repetitive Grinder.
This is like saying “Rampage is broken OP, when a warrior goes into rampage I just get killed or have to run.”
Yeah, that’s the point. It’s an ELITE skill, what are you expecting? Things have counters, play more intelligently so you don’t get countered.
On the subject of giving up, it makes sense because it’s winner take all for the pip.
MMR can take into account loss differential. If you are losing 500-499, that’s basically a non loss as the winners shouldn’t get much more MMR increase and the losers shouldn’t get much decrease. This occurs in WvW already.
This is just another failure of the pip system to make games fun and competitive. Even season 1 gave incentive to keep games close against a better opponent by offering a non pip loss if you were outmatched.
What staggers me about season 4 is how they have gone backwards to basically the most illogical combination of rules for matchmaking and rank.
As has been pointed out, there is nothing wrong with 50/50 matchmaking. There is nothing wrong with pip matchmaking. But when you use MMR from a 50/50 matchmaking to promote rank via pips, #wtf
This thread was less about rage and more about how inconsistent anet is, although admittedly they are sort of saying “hey, most of the good players already got their stuff, so let the little guy get some achievements.” If that’s true, fine but just say it and don’t pretend.
I am competitive and think that better players should get more reward and more prestige. This includes both the in game currencies and the badge next to your name.
PIPS in all seasons so far have failed to represent good players.
In season 1 and 4, as has been explained here, someone with a low MMR can end up with easier games than someone with a high MMR and advance further (even though they are definitely worse, as per their MMR).
Season 2 and 3 tried to make pips mean something however they sort of failed too. Since there is a ceiling on reward and “rank” (legend), many players quit playing and create a vacuum of talent in legend. This lets people in diamond advance to legend when they should really get to a point and keep losing to low legend players. When the diamonds advance and quit, then the ruby players can too.
It’s like letting sediment rise to the top and then dumping off the top layer every once in a while: at any time you lok at the layers of sediment, the lightest stuff is at the top, but it’s not the lightest stuff that was ever there.
This means that getting to legend early in season 2 or 3 was harder since all teh good players were still active and climbing. In the end of season 2 and 3, they were all gone, and anyone who was still playing had an easier time (not competitive).
Decaying MMR doesn’t have this problem because it requires good players to keep playing and beating the players who are just slightly less good than they are. This enforces a meaningful MMR and ranking system.
I hope the number come in with season 4 having the least amount of games played out of all the seasons.
It’s spectacularly bad to think the competitive scene can benefit from rewards and titles not based on skill.
People getting locked into “MMR hell” needs to be correctly explained as “where you belong”, not addressed such that it screws over actually skilled participants.
I thought season 3 was a pretty excellent balance, with the reduced pip range for pooling players and the MMR spread it allowed.
Id prefer that there just were not any rewards/achievements for ranked and it was purely for the competitive nature of PvP. They can put the next shiny into generic achievements and let players grind for it.
Let players select a “WvW guild” for some period of time and then put guilds onto realms to play unitl the realms are full. Let this happen without gem cost and rotate it often.
Linking was a nice idea but currently the “population balance” that is happening on DH results in being outnumbered 10v1. This isn’t fun, it’s not competitive. It really serves no purpose and is a terrible experience.
If guilds want to stack that’s fine but just make the chance of a guild getting onto a realm based on how many guilds/players want onto that server and randomize it.
Linking sucks, gg.
This is the problem with the game mode, it favors so many “tricks” that only veterans can know about (like putting defensive siege where it can’t be hit unless you also know the “counter spot”) and is so offputting to any new players, that nobody wants to try it out, or if they do they get steamrolled and never go back.
These “Veterans” had to learn their tricks, just as the new players will learn eventually (if they have enough interest ofc). We all learned to play WvW the hard way, why new players need to be given a easy route? Sure, game mode is ‘dying’ and in need of players. But if these players give up in the first wipe, they are not meant to be in this game mode anyway.
/2copper.
For the same reason that there is a cap on daily achievement points. If it’s perceived as impossible to catch up to the leaders in a game, entry into that game stops. They limited achievement points from dailies so that new players have hopes of catching up and thus care about daily achievements. Something similar has to be done to keep 3 year vets from having too much advantage over 3 week noobs. Plenty of research into gamification and incentive in skilled areas shows this is true.
The “vets” should have an absurd advantage solution smells like Donald Trump.
Now once you balance numbers, there are still other problems, and my suggestion was to remove momentum that allows fortified keeps to be held easily all week with 1 defender vs 10-20 assaulters.
1 defender cannot hold that many people unless the attackers are completely stupid (and I know many are since I’ve done that kind of defense already). If an outnumbering attack force cannot breach wall when they have superior manpower they don’t deserve the keep.
I guess I dont agree with that. I feel like level 60 noobs in rare gear without full traits, if working as a group with supply should always win a 20 v 1 (in a keep with unlimited siege) no matter how badly they botch it.
This is the problem with the game mode, it favors so many “tricks” that only veterans can know about (like putting defensive siege where it can’t be hit unless you also know the “counter spot”) and is so offputting to any new players, that nobody wants to try it out, or if they do they get steamrolled and never go back.
I am in favor of skill, but to me there is no skill with siege, you get on the siege and you spam the button. I’d prefer if the skill came in where and what you attacked, and actual combat skill. Siege skill is an oxymoron as far as I am concerned.
No wonder the siege polls are winning lol, the ideas here are just….
What is your idea that is better than changes/additions to siege?
Dude, unless he is going to suggest removing the gates, anything is better than the two suggestions here to increase invulnerability on placed siege and remove siege disablers.
Instead of complaining about changes to siege, what would you like to see? ANet seems willing to try any simple changes that extend an existing mechanic, while they work on the more complicated underlying issues.
Pointing out that an idea has an obvious and predictable effect isn’t complaining. Both eliminating siege disablers fall into that category. It doesn’t take testing to figure the effects of those. They’ll give an advantage to the side with more numbers. I would not make any changes that favor larger sides over smaller sides. I’ll point out any others that do that as well.
As I pointed out, Anet is separately working to balance numbers. If numbers arent balanced, the gamemode will always be trash. Imagine sPvP where one team got 6 people and the other 4. Yeah, it would be complete garbage. That’s all that’s happening here.
Now once you balance numbers, there are still other problems, and my suggestion was to remove momentum that allows fortified keeps to be held easily all week with 1 defender vs 10-20 assaulters.
Can anet reveal how it’s counting pop? because i think it need some work.
DH is getting 10v1 ratio from both SF and CD hosts. So however they counted that balance, it’s completely garbage.
Having some visibility on how on earth they are counting would help since they are screwing over and causing people to quit on the lower servers.
Pact Supply Box (20 slot invis and equipment function) is still soulbound.
https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/20-Slot_Equipment_Pact_Box
As per this thread,
which was locked by a mod, it still needs a fix and would be kind of a cool item as it provides unique functionality. Is it that hard to swap an items properties to account bound from soulbound and allow all current items to be traded at a “bug vendor” which magically fixes all anet’s broken stuff?
When is the fix coming?
Note: it’s somewhat unfortunate that rather than keeping good, older threads alive, the forum policy is just to lose all that good info and clutter the forum up with new repeated stuff.
(edited by phantom.1675)
I liked the comments above about player driven. I probably wouldn’t prefer active interference from Anet to discourage zergs (like debuffs). I would just like the opportunity to outplay that strategy with another strategy that is more effective. Right now the mindless easy strategy is the best (at least at low to mid tier).
Also, there is a trait line that provides siege invulnerability … but it only last for i think 4 seconds or so. (Supply Master: 5 : Deployed siege sites are invulnerable for a short duration)
Agreed, a simple extension of this time is all I am asking for as a test.
GOALS: Fix mega-servers/home world, fix 1 man siege defense
2) Make siege invulnerable (or invulnerable siege option) for a short time (need testing).
1 defender with 5 well placed AC’s thwarting 10-15 players from taking objectives encourages too many large zergs to have free reign all over the place.
Defending vs outnumbered should be more of a combination of defensive siege AND minimal numbers in open field combat. The 1 defender can AC the players while 5-10 more players actually fight them near the structure/assault point.
By making siege invulnerable upon building, it also encourages more flash building of defensive siege by a minimal number of players which enables above (but requires there be > 1 defender).
This allows more smaller groups 5-15 to take objectives and requires similar sized groups to defender against it. This keeps 5 players from defending entire fortified maps while the rest zerg ball on another borderland. Mostly it enables comeback potential where having fortified stuff doesn’t snowball the entire week’s scoring.
This is very favorable to stacked servers, requiring matching numbers to defend anything. It turns the BLs and BL thirds of less populated servers into a Karma train for the stacked server unless they dissolve their main force into a havok for each map, conceding EBG and likely losing their home BL as well.
I didn’t say I wanted matching numbers. I said I wanted sane numbers, 20 versus 1 should always win, given they have 3-4 siege weapons placed. The problem is siege is stupid and cant dodge the AC, players can. If 20 guys get wiped by 1 AC, I am ok with that. But even if 20 players can survive a single AC, the siege never will and that’s what allows taking of objectives and makes WvW interesting.
As to what is favored, I would love to see a test, because I don’t believe you. And you (or I) can’t possibly know until someone tests it, otherwise it’s just unfounded guesswork.
Furthemore, Anet is supposed to address the population imbalance overall. I am simply talking about where players are given roughly equal numbers. If you both teams have 100 players, the current system favors putting the smallest amount possible (i.e. 1) to defend each objective by manning siege and have the largest zerg ball of zerker run around somewhere. This isn’t interesting and it isn’t fun.
I am favoring anything which forces a split of zerg balls into much smaller teams and encourages fights rather than 1 guy hiding in a keep with 5-6 siege weapons able to hold off versus 20 enemies.
For what it’s worth I am on DH getting the anet rickroll of the CD conglomerate. The issue is, everything gets fortified and we dont have enough players to take anything. Either our siege is wiped by 1 guy with balli/AC or enough of the siege is eliminated that he can hold out for the zerg ball to come and just roll us over. This is happening to us because we are Low Pop.
GOALS: Fix mega-servers/home world, fix 1 man siege defense
1) Alarm mechanics announce in home worlds.
Since the advent of mega-servers, the ability to notice anything happening in WvW on your home server in PvE is gone. It would be nice (akin to GW1 HoH announcements) to have some kind of broadcast (toggle-able game message) visible in PvE based on home world.
This could be tied to how upgraded a given structure is (any garrison that is fortified produces the message) or allow it to be player trigged by a defender in WvW. This mechanic could help restore some of the server comradery removed by megaservers.
2) Make siege invulnerable (or invulnerable siege option) for a short time (need testing).
1 defender with 5 well placed AC’s thwarting 10-15 players from taking objectives encourages too many large zergs to have free reign all over the place.
Defending vs outnumbered should be more of a combination of defensive siege AND minimal numbers in open field combat. The 1 defender can AC the players while 5-10 more players actually fight them near the structure/assault point.
By making siege invulnerable upon building, it also encourages more flash building of defensive siege by a minimal number of players which enables above (but requires there be > 1 defender).
This allows more smaller groups 5-15 to take objectives and requires similar sized groups to defender against it. This keeps 5 players from defending entire fortified maps while the rest zerg ball on another borderland. Mostly it enables comeback potential where having fortified stuff doesn’t snowball the entire week’s scoring.
So first of all, the repair hammer and the latest poll about cannons are about trying them out, not adding them forever (they state this explicitly in the poll).
WvW is in such a bad state in so many of the tiers (dont know about T1) that I voted for them to try anything and everything because #science.
There is no way that anyone against adding the things, or the devs, or anyone can actually know the outcome; it’s just speculation. And as others have posted these forums offer the speculation of at most 1% of the wvw player base.
I agree it adds to queues.
For those saying it adds to numbers of players in these “population counts” I say this:
if the data analysts at anet can figure out how to send a poll only to players that have ranked up, they can certainly figure out how to only count players that have ranked up. If you dont rank up in a day, you don’t count.
If those analytics can’t make that inference, well you can see why we have so many problems balancing population.
Takes 7 hours to complete a WvW reward track. If you want to bring in WvW players, address this slap in the face garbage loot system they just released, then tuned, and have still left idiotic.
If you just queue PvP and lose every game youll roll the reward track much faster than 7 hours. Why would anyone bother with WvW given this?
Why not just have a system where if you don’t participate in an event for … 10 minutes you get kicked? Rather than it be based on “are you moving”, then the people only using the crafting stations for more than 10 minutes will just get booted and queues will keep moving?
90%+ of the time there are not queues on most servers (I am not T1) so I don’t see why you have to try to patch in a pathetic fix for only T1 servers during peak hours that makes fewer people enter WvW in all other Tiers.
You know how many times I have been in WvW (with no queue) crafting and I see callouts for defends and go help? It happens a lot and now it’s gone.
What would be really awesome is if they fixed this so it worked as an account bound bag like
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Uncanny_Jar
and
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Bandit_Coin_Purse_
or
any of the fractal bags which are account bound (not soulbound)
Joining Party or saying yes to map prompt in PvP Lobby exits queue…
WHY do player lose pips when a player DC’s for the whole 2nd half of game?
Fix plox. Get a clue devs. not fun
Does this change the base item to Zojja’s shield if you do berserker for example? Would be kind nice if the one of a kind item stayed as “Glint’s Bastion” or whatever other item it was originally.
1) No other box is soulbound, change to account bound.
2) While this is not a bug, it would be great if it only prioritized grabbing soulbound and account bound armor weapons to finally solve the problem of your stuff scattering in inventory when you go from 2 1H weapons to 1 2H weapon.
Thx
any fix for the pieces of mistward armor that were already soulbound to the wrong character before they “fixed” it?
Came here to ask the exact same thing.
It really speaks to the poor quality of a dev team that can’t release patches to some small portion of the game without breaking the whole thing. GW2 must have the most fragile code base/ release process I have ever seen.
My problem with the “beyond their control” argument is, I wouldn’t punish someone for a single disconnect but if you disconnect repeatedly due to any reason, dont queue. It’s disrespectful to people who you are in a match with; and there’s a good chance you know it will happen.
Even if anet could tell you dropped due to connection and didn’t leave, you should get dishonor anyway. That was the point of hte system to allow some meter to fill up slowly and only punish those who repeatedly do things against the interests of other players.
25% of games have a DC or a rage quit, please do something to punish these people so I don’t sit in queue for 5-10 minutes to just have a steamroll match.
The worst part about this is there was dishonor and then it was removed to be “revamped” and just never came back. Where is the dev work on this? I would prefer a fixed queue system to “new game modes” because any mode you add will have this same problem.
Was chatting with Phantaram, looks like the earth toughness does same thing, 150 always 300 when attuned.
So I am presuming that the base stats (with no trait effects or gear) should give me 1000 power.
When I equip the fire traitline one of the minors reads "gain 150 power while attuned to fire. Even when not attuned to fire, by taking the fire trait line, I gain 150 power. When I attune to fire, I gain 300 power, for a total of 1300 power.
That does not seem right. It seems like when not attuned to fire my base power should be 1000. When attuned to fire it should be 1150.
I tested in LA by removing all armor/weapons/trinkets.
In PvP I equipped a rabid amulet which has no power on it.
When I take off all my gear and do not have fire selected as a train line, i have 1000 power (the correct number).
When I take fire as a trait line I have 1150 power when not attuned to fire and 1300 power when attuned to fire. This seems to be 150 more power (all the time) than fire should give (I haven’t selected any master traits, just the minors are present). So either the minor traits are still giving the old +50 power or “empowering flame” gives the bonus all the time and then again when attuned to fire.
This is true in PvE (test in LA) and in the PvP lobby.
Can anyone verify I am not seeing things?
Seems like the reversion to the old hidden thief and the merging of the falling trait into the GM trait is a huge hit to a very popular WvW roaming spec for no apparent reason.
Prior to this merge(rearrange) you could take
Blinding Power on fall, Stealth Blinds and Shadow Rejuv at the same time.
No thief is going to bother taking any GM besides shadow rejuv and this hurts d/d the most which was already seeing less play than d/p. Both builds lose the certainly not OP but obviously fun falling trait.
In addition this seemed to have been done to leave hidden thief in place without giving it the blinding powder on steal/fall which was originally proposed a few months back. Nobody takes hidden thief now and nobody is going to start taking it now.
As other have pointed out elsewhere this was one of the huge falling traits people actually used and having it as a GM is pretty insulting as it is now the best part of the GM trait.
Is there any reason I am not seeing for how this is a good change? Seems like everyone is going to take the same traits in SA and none of them are very interesting.
Thoughts?
Couldn’t turn in items to Magg during the collection event today.
I would like to see ferocious winds reworked to something less vanilla and more interesting. Look at thief 7% crit chance while behind/side, great trait to support unique profession style in the same spot.
I would really like to see something more interesting like increased ferocity while moving as an adept and also replace Zephyr’s speed with One With Air.
Also look at the minor trait necro gets in power, different effects at 25%, 33,% 50%. Since you can no longer take Bolt to the Heart and Fresh Air, Bolt to the Heart should be buffed to do something else interesting, a condition or boon on hit at 33% would make it have more play to it than a flat damage buff. Also the vuln on crit is now pretty underwhelming compared to other traits, longer vuln duration perhaps?
Also either ferocious winds should give ferocity or the air training master should give ferocity, both seems overkill. Would be nice if something actually gave a bonus to precision, a flat 10% crit chance while in air, seems decent for air training, similar to the flat bonuses in fire and water for their respective trainings.
Given what other classes get, Air attunement should have a unique feel to it which I think is a combination of quick bursts of movement and damage. Traits should support these styles, not healing and a 10% flat buff to speed.
TLDR;
One with Air replace Zephyrs speed → new adept
Ferocious Winds more interesting → while moving, while having swiftness etc
Air training: 150 Ferocity becomes 10% flat crit chance boost
GM Minor Slight buff
Bolt to the Heart needs unique effect to keep different but as good as necro/thief traits
→ boon or condition on hit/crit etc
Some good ideas here about more subtle and gentle changes.
My skepticism about Ele Attune is as follows:
1) without the 30% boon duration it’s not as strong.
2) lingering elements is still bad
3) there isn’t a good trait at the master level unless you are a tank.
Expanding on (3), much like what was said in the mesmer discussion “you dont want retal on hit cuz you are squishy”… well elemental contingency seems pretty bad for the a zerker ele and also for the aformentioned playstyle of “dodge ele”. Yes a dodge ele that is forced to be hit to have a useful trait. If there were something more reasonable to take as a master trait, I would be more willing to try out the GM Ele attune.
Going on what was said above, I’d like to see the “condition on crit trait” replaced with a personal weak Ele attune and have the GM buff the duration(multiple boons perhaps?) and apply to allies. Then please do something about lingering elements either replacing with the condition on crit one, or rework it in some way to be more compelling. I’d like to see the condition on crit as a master which helped out elementalist condition builds somehow, but as a minor grandmaster it just seems too weak/specific to one playstyle (if you have really low crit, 10% chance on crit will never happen).
Just my thoughts on what I have seen so far.
I tried mapping into WvW on two characters and the load screen lagged out.
I had to close the client and restart it, then I can login on other characters but those 2 characters are stuck and causes client to hang everytime.
“Unlocked skins can be applied to items infinitely (for just one Transmutation Charge), which makes it much less stressful to try out a new look for your character, since you can always switch back (for just one more Transmutation Charge)!”
Wait. That’s how its going to work? Not just unlock with a charge/crystal then use it as you like? No playing dress-up willy nilly? Well, this is bloody pointless.
yeah a lot of people are hyped, but looks like it will basically be the same as current system in practice, with most of the flaws, though a few benefits.
Yep. It benefits people who have been hoarding skins but not those who would like to have a few looks hot-swappable onto the same stat armor (which would make me unlock charge a lot more skins). As it stands, ill get a bunch of unlocks from the stuff I currently have, probably buy full dungeon sets and salvage them just to fill the thing up, and then pretend this update never happened. It certainly won’t make me buy more stones/charges cuz I already like the look I have, but wouldnt mind a second one if there was a one time cost to having the option to switch between a few.
Oh well, at least they did something besides LS.
1 2