The transmutation charge systems means that, for the first time since launch, it’s actually practical to obtain transmutes for your level 80 gear without touching the gemstore and transmutes bought on the gemstore are now cheaper than before.
People really need to stop acting like condi duration is even remotely comparable to the investment a power build needs to get similar results. You get it from runes sigils traits and food and it allows you to literally double your damage while still running stupid things like +700 vit and toughness from dire. Compare that to a power build where running full zerker only gives you 40% more dps than full soldier with the same traits. A condi bunker’s food does that.
You also shouldn’t ignore that the condi meta mandated condi clearing we run, which is absolutely necessary to stand a chance against a condi build, makes the condis from non condi builds utterly trivial. Immobilise is barely noticeable when a power build does it but when a condi build does it and multiple cover condis that all get applied by auto attacks or crit procs you get ridiculous situations like ether renewal failing to break immobilise despite removing 8 condis over 4 seconds.
This would surely create perfect balance in all wvw matches forever. Zero players in every map is the epitome of balance.
If you can’t outrun a zerg you deserve the death.
Other MMOs don’t have evade frames, high uptime stability or low cooldown stunbreakers.
It’s been said that “if you ain’t dyin’, you ain’t tryin’”. Make death exorbitantly expensive and I doubt many people will be tryin’.
All this ppt gazing misses the point entirely. If you can’t get a structure past t1 and are getting mowed down by 3:1 numerical odds all the time, are you suddenly going to have more fun just because the score is closer?
The problem with unbalance is that it’s not fun to play in. Changing the rate at which the number at the top of the screen goes up won’t make an unbalanced match more fun.
‘The Guild Wars’ is a backstory event designed to be a title drop for the original Guild Wars game, which was called that because of a heavy design focus on pvp and gvg content.
When we go against huge blobs (I’m talking 15-20 vs 50+) the problem we have to deal with in order to stand a chance of winning is never how much damage we can do to them, it’s how much damage they can do to us. It’s honestly harder to get people down in 15v15 gvgs with melee trains that are only 6-8 deep than it is to drop a number of people in a blob, but their numbers give them the ability to do more damage than we can possibly sustain.
Blobs aren’t beating you because you can’t damage them. They’re beating you because you because you can’t survive their damage. Who do you think is going to get the bigger boost from the removal of aoe caps?
Winning a world championship is infinitely more legendary than grinding pve.
Are people in this thread seriously trying to say that the time investment required to obtain a legendary is in any way comparable to the investment of the people that have a serious shot at winning this tournament? One does not simply win a world championship. Nobody here is just participating for a few days and winning a tournament. Legendaries can be gotten with about 200 hours of just watching the game playing itself. Even the players that are going to get humiliated in the first round of this tournament will have spent over 2000 hours of playing pvp.
If we were to compare the dedication of someone with one legendary vs a player from the team that wins this tournament, the legendary holder wouldn’t even measure up to the tournament winner’s ankles. Additionally, as this reward is only being issued to the best team in the world, these will be the only legendaries in the entirety of GW2 that actually deserve the title of legendary.
Pveasy in every game ever made is a no skill loot conveyor belt. It’s not going to stop just because you’ve realised it takes no skill.
Hey look an Orr QQ thread.
You’re supposed to sneak past that champ, no spy kits or teammates needed.
There was a time when we were told that elementalist was to be the ‘king of versatility’, however for various reasons we know this to be a large pile of male bovine excrement. The attunement mechanic was given to us in place of the standard weapon swap on other classes to facilitate versatility (if ten skills are good, twenty must be better!), but ironically, it is this mechanic that shackles us the most.
Without traits, attunements are a drawback to something that has no benefit. The sole effect of attunments in this state is to lock you out of skills, leading to situations like staff users losing the ability to do any meaningful damage for a whole 13 seconds if leaving fire.
With traits added, there’s finally some benefit to activating attunements. Traits attach powerful effects like boons, healing, cleanses and damage to the attunements themselves, but this leaves us with two major problems. Firstly, you have to take specific traits for attunements to be beneficial at all, and secondly, you need to be activating each attunement as often as possible to get the most out of these benefits. It is this second problem that I wish to address.
Currently the cooldown on an attunement starts only when you leave that attunement. Combined with attunement bonuses being triggered when activating an attunement, this punishes elementalists for staying in an attunement for any longer than the barest minimum. To give an example, the standard source of sustain for most elementalists is water attunement, which gives an immediate heal, up to two conditions cleared depending on what traits are taken and further healing over time through regeneration and soothing mist. Because these effects are gained when activating water attunement and the cooldown on water attunement does not start until you leave it, this paradoxically means that every second you spend in water attunement is a second during which you are not benefitting from water attunement.
What I would change, therefore, is to make attunement cooldowns start immediately when activated. The global cooldown would remain unchanged and you would not be able to activate an attunement that is already active, but you would now be able to use an attunement for as long or as short as you like without being punished for it. A staff user would only lose out on damage for the time it takes to use whichever defensive skills are required. Any elementalist could make use of the water weapon skills without limiting their access to the water attunement bonuses. In general, elementalists would be able to use the right skill at the right time, rather than whatever happens to be available at a given time.
Rangers are simply handicapped. Everything they can do well depends on utility slots which locks them into being able to do one thing only. You can CC if you take traps, you can support if you take spirits, you can DPS if you take signets, but you can’t even attempt to combine those things without ruining all of it.
There’s no role that a ranger can perform well either. You may be able to get some impressive looking stats but the coefficients on your skills are just insulting. The auto-chain for greatsword hits for 0.55*3, 0.55*3, 0.65*3, compare to guardian greatsword at 0.8*3, 0.8*3, 1.2*3 or warrior hammer at an astonishing 0.9*3, 0.9*3, 1.2*5. At the same effective power a warrior can do more than twice as much damage to a group than a ranger. There’s no overcoming such a massive deficit, ranger cannot bring enough utility to compensate for such poor damage.
It’s not much better when you look at backline roles either. The only useful trick they can do is some aoe cripples and immobilises, which are already in plentiful supply from the frontliners. You could try to use it as counter-periph, but while you have the damage you’re vulnerable to reflects from eles and lack the aoe stealth that mesmers and thieves can use to keep their own backliners safe.
At the end of the day, no gvg team needs a class that can do many things poorly when it can just use good group composition to do everything well.
If you think warriors swapping to double endure pain double balanced stance to banner is bad, just wait til you see an ele using renewal of water while in obsidian flesh. Way lower cooldown than banner, heals it to full (dat overgrowth lord) and there’s absolutely nothing anybody can do about it.
What the game suffers from currently is that personal and team rewards don’t align. Rewards being given out per objective that you are personally present for the completion of encourages people to jump around in a massive 80 man blob and bash down each tower and keep one by one.
If that 80 man blob split into four 20 man zergs and split their targets they would be more efficient at capturing all your base, but each group will get less rewards and if the enemy team is blobbing up then at least one of the groups is going to get wiped in the process. All in all, the team benefits, but the players suffer.
Additionally, most players find PPT play to be unimaginably boring. Who really wants to just walk next to a yak for 5 minutes popping swiftness? How many people are having fun when trebs are doing anything (usually extremely slowly)? Who wants to just sit in a tower doing absolutely nothing on the off chance they’ll need to call out an approaching enemy? Players are required to give up their personal enjoyment of the game in order to win it.
I think what wvw needs is to make PPT more enjoyable to work for and base its personal rewards on whole-team accomplishments. In WoW battlegrounds the primary reward is the end of round bonus, which is naturally largest for the winning team. As a result everyone wants to focus on the objectives, so you can always get good fights by sticking to objectives and people rarely zerg up and all hit one point at a time. Wvw isn’t instanced or based on short rounds, so any team reward system would have to be carefully constructed, but rewarding strategy would go a long way toward increasing strategic play.
nice try but he is not. he is my guild mate. he is a PvE player named Dub from the top PvE guild retaliate [rT] and the guys chasing are the wvw ones.
gg no re
No wonder he was using one of the most broken, passive builds in the entire game then. The reason why 1vX happens in wvw is because the x are fairweathers and karma trainers; aka pvers using builds that are not suitable for small scale pvp while the 1 is using a build minmaxed for the purpose. It’s a zero skill win, just like 100% of pve.
Try winning a 1v3 as a gvg spec staff ele and you might qualify for moderately skilled at pvp.
Are you going to tell me that fighting someone that doesn’t want to PvP and does not care about how good they are at PvP is going to be a good quality fight? They try to lure PvE’rs to WvW with stuff like league achievements and living story but at the end of the day PvE’rs don’t want to PvP, therefore a fight against them is not enjoyable for anyone.
It’s hardly elitism to not want to fight people that are not experienced at PvP because of the fact that they don’t want to be experienced at it.
If they let us kill people in the mists map while they are doing their LS, this will be the best move ever.
If I wanted faceroll easy kills that spit out free loot I would be playing PvE. Bringing PvE’rs to WvW can only decrease the quality of the fights.
The problem with trying to use PvE to raise the skill level of players is that a PvE encounter is not a challenge to be overcome, but a puzzle to be solved. Completing a PvE encounter does not help a player become better at the game just as completing a jigsaw puzzle does not help a person be better at puzzles in general. If a player goes from performing badly at this event to performing well, they haven’t become better at the game, they’ve merely learned the solution to this specific encounter.
I think ‘cannot revive defeated players while in combat’ is the most practical change that could be made to how downed/defeated works that wouldn’t break the system in small scale fights but would still disallow larger groups from benefitting too severely from the existing mechanics.
Or because every other warrior healing skill is bogged down in pointless utility that warriors can get better versions of elsewhere and healing signet is the only one that just heals and heals high. Does it heal too much? I don’t 1v1 warriors enough to know. But the simple fact is warriors will always use the highest HP/s heal in their list.
Perhaps the heal interval should be lengthened so it heals every 3 seconds instead to accentuate the weakness to burst in return for the large heal rate.
Like:
-Big fights. Even 50v50 can be nail-biting if both groups are using VOIP.
-Strategic warfare. There really is nothing like being able to say ‘Your T3 siege capped garrison is closed due to tactical genius’.
-Spontaneous PvP. I dislike most ‘hardcore’ PvP modes like TPvP or MOBAs because they can get to the point where every match feels like it was scripted and routines overtake skill. I feel like skill can only truly matter when nobody knows what will happen next.
Dislike:
-PvE. I don’t want to fight AI in a PvP game, I want to fight players. I don’t want to grind out stuff either, I want to fight people with the same power that I have, no more, no less.
-Siege. This should only be able to supplement boots on the ground, not render them redundant (mainly an issue with defensive siege).
-Min-maxing. Having different combat roles is great, but they require people to min-max hard in contrary directions. A roaming build is useless to a group and a group oriented build cannot defeat a roaming build. There’s far too much ‘my build is better than your build’ instead of ‘I outplayed you here’.
The problem isn’t teamwork in a multiplayer game, it’s a given that we have to do that. The problem is that watching another group die while twiddling your thumbs is most definitely not teamwork, yet it’s what this event forces you to do.
Why not both?
Have easier, pug friendly and less rewarding versions in the open world and harder, more complex and more rewarding versions as instanced guild missions. It would be similar to the difference between LFR and standard raids in WoW, and guild missions and Teq-style bosses are both intended to be ‘raid style content’.
Ignore the first paragraph of my last post, it won’t edit and the math there is dodgy.
The assertion that damage stats scale linearly and toughness has diminishing returns comes from not measuring them in the same way. Damage stats and defensive stats alike will produce a linear effect when measured as an increase to your parameters (effective power, effective hp). In the same way when you measure any stat by their impact on an opponent they will show diminishing returns (time to kill, percent damage taken).
Lets say for example player 1 with power P is attacking player 2 with armour A. Player 1 deals a constant 1000 dps to player 2, who has exactly 10000 hp and is not healed at any point. Therefore at 1P and 1A player 1 has a dps of 1000 and a TTK of 10 seconds, while player 2 has an effective hp of 10000 and a damage reduction of 0%. If we then do this at 2P, player 1 has a dps of 2000 and a TTK of 5 seconds. At 3P, it’s now a dps of 3000 and a TTK of 3.33 seconds and at 4P the dps is 4000 and the TTK is 2.5 seconds. Notice how, for a linear increase in dps the TTK (time to kill in case you forgot) appears to have diminishing returns.
This ‘diminishing returns’ effect is because dps measures only the size of the power investment, while TTK measures that investment by its size relative to the whole. Likewise, effective hp measures the size of a toughness investment while percent damage taken measures that investment relative to the whole. 100 power will always add the same dps to your total, but 100 power is smaller as a percentage of 2000 power than it is of 1000 power. This is also the truth for precision, critical damage/ferocity, condition damage, vitality and toughness. Healing power works slightly differently but I won’t go into that here. As an added point, if player 1 has 2P and player 2 has 2A, the dps and TTK are identical to when it was 1P and 1A.
To give a practical example, an elementalist with no vitality or toughness wearing exotic gear has 10805 hp and 1836 armour. As 1836 is the lowest armour a character can have while wearing exotics, this is typically considered the base armour. If the elementalist adds 150 toughness (1986 armour) he takes 0.927 times the damage (-0.073) he did at base and has 11687.76 effective hp (882.76). Adding a further 150 toughness (2136 armour) brings the damage down to 0.86 times what he took at 1836 armour (-0.14, not quite 2*0.073) and raises his effective hp to 12570.52 (1765.52, which is 2*882.76).
This thread amuses me due to the implied math fail.
The irony =P.
No.
-snip-
edit: this paragraph had dodgy maths.
The easiest way to see it is that your percentage damage taken is oldarmour/newarmour. To work out the effective hp you are getting you take your current hp and divide it by the percentage damage taken. When you divide by a fraction it is the same as multiplying by its inverse, so the formula for effective hp is truehp*newarmour/oldarmour. This means that if an addition of toughness adds 5% to your effective hp, it adds that 5% regardless of how much toughness you already have. Every stat currently in the game has this scaling. The ‘diminishing returns’ you are seeing is because each point of a stat is less as a percentage of the whole than the one before it, which again is true for every stat.
(edited by Coldtart.4785)
This thread amuses me due to the implied math fail.
We can clearly see that doubling armour halves incoming damage and that quadrupling armour reduces incoming damage to a quarter, but not many seem to make the correlation that halving or quartering damage taken means doubling or quadrupling the amount of effective damage you can survive. In other words, a linear increase in toughness produces a linear increase in effective hp as a percentage of actual hp.
This is no different to measuring dps stats in terms of the increase to dps, which is the standard form of measurement and is readily understood to be linear. We can, however, apply the same ‘diminishing returns’ logic to dps stats by measuring them in terms of time to kill (TTK). If we double our dps, we half the TTK and if we quadruple our dps, we reduce the TTK to a quarter.
Whenever you measure things, you must keep the method of measurement consistent or you might find yourself suggesting something that is already the case.
An already terrible gear set can’t be “gged” or “nerfed” because it sucked in the first place.
Short version ^
I’ve spent hours of min-maxing in gw2skills and the conclusion I came to was that you should never, ever slot even a single piece of celestial gear. Inter-stat synergy means that stacking a smaller number of stats to a higher level is always much stronger than getting a tiny amount of each stat. Any investment in celestial has always been, and will remain a waste, barring a large buff in the future.
I’d like to know if anything is planned for how min-max focused the game is getting. In spvp you generally have only bunkers and roamers, while in wvw you have gvg or 1v1 specs only. In all cases there’s typically very little thinking involved as you just stack up traits and utilities that focus on one aspect of combat only and call it a day.
There’s not a lot of point having so many options if the only effective ones look more like the pre-built checklist based specialisations from WoW. It leads to a lot of no-skill rock-paper-scissors gameplay as well.
The idea that gets thrown around of ‘scaling by difficulty’ is about as hilarious as the night capping whining itself. If something is being difficult to take it’s because your strategy is bad, if it’s easy then your strategy is good. Trying to take a siege capped, t3, supply capped keep with 50 defenders in it is not only going to be a boring fight but is strategically foolish. Taking the same keep when its 50 defenders don’t realise what you’re doing is great strategy and lets you potentially get an open field fight against the enemy zerg.
Any attempt to scale the strategic reward for an objective based on the amount of fighting that goes on over it merely exacerbates the coverage wars and would be easy to exploit.
Apparently using trial and error to find the correct response to every boss action that leads to a win is what passes for skill in pve these days. The only reason why people can fail at pve content is because they don’t know the method to win, whether through never having played the content or through ignorance of it. If you know the method of a boss, you cannot fail.
Pve can never require skill because it was designed to be beaten. Nothing that can be called skill can be obtained in the course of defeating something that was made to lose.
Yes, kneeling in place for 4 seconds to place an incredibly obvious trap will surely kill every thief that ever lived. If such a thing were to be done surely all thieves would have no choice but to uninstall.
That’s a veil-bomb counter. It stops invaders from concealing the nature of their charge with veil. No thief fears it. Even if they somehow get hit by it, it’s trivial to retreat and wait out the timer.
I’ve never seen a ‘stealth counter’ that I couldn’t easily find a workaround for as a thief based on cursory experience playing it. The fact that these ‘counters’ get results simply proves that thief promotes unskilled play.
Yet they deserve a bunch of lootbags more than any other player on the map.
Dying is not always failure. Did the person that ran in to contest a cap for just long enough for reinforcements to arrive fail by dying? If he hadn’t, that tower/keep would have been lost. Yet this system ensures that even the enemy team, which did fail, gets more of a reward than he does.
Hilarious. PvEasy has never required skill and will never require skill, not in this game, nor in any other. Dungeon scrubs at their finest.
The amount of pve in wvw does make it take a lot of searching to find a skilful fight, though. It’s quite rare for a solo roamer to find something that isn’t a lone gvger that gets hard-countered by their 1v1 build or a group that steamrolls them. Likewise a gvg team is rarely going to find a group of similar size and organisation. The suggestion that any of it is easier than anything in standard pve is still absolutely ridiculous; like saying a positive integer can be less than zero.
What is the thief supposed to do in this situation if the target activates a blind or block? You say you want skillful play but offer nothing they can do in this situation besides stand around til stealth wears off and try it again
This is the big problem I have with the thief mindset. ‘Why should any of my attacks have an opportunity cost?’. Currently a thief can enter stealth, whiff backstab three times, regain all the initiative lost from CnD and just try again immediately (6 initiative cost, 2 regained on stealth, 4 seconds of standard regen). Any other class that whiffs an attack, for any reason (blinded, blocked, invul, latency, etc.) has to pay the full opportunity cost for that attack, usually at least 30s cooldown for the most valuable attacks.
Thief should have opportunity costs on its most valuable skills. Stealth is already a large tactical advantage, preventing players from seeing your actions as is normally the case for every other class, and also grants large mechanical advantages through traits such as healing and burst damage. Having no true opportunity cost in addition to all this makes it so obviously the most powerful effect a thief can focus on, close to mandatory for success.
What I’m saying if that if your build is better than/or perfectly suited to defeating another build, then you’re going to win. If you have more people you’re going to win. If you have less lag you’re going to win. If you have more sleep so you have better reflexes due to lack of fatigue you’re going to win.
A better build/build matchup makes you more likely to win.
Having more people makes you more likely to win.
Having less lag makes you more likely to win.
Having better concentration makes you more likely to win.
None of those things can guarantee a win. All of them influence the outcome but no single factor can decide it. You know what can make a build better? A 12-13% overall statistical performance increase. If a fight is 8v8 and your entire team has ascended while the enemy’s entire team doesn’t, you have the equivalent of one more person, without the logistical needs of another person.
Stats always matter. There’s a reason why we spend so much time min-maxing our builds. Anything that makes you stronger is an advantage. Any advantage improves your capability to win. A good player can pull a win out of even the slightest advantage. If your opponent has even one more piece of ascended across their whole team than you, you are at a disadvantage.
Such a hilarious argument. Anyone in ascended is automatically less skilled than anyone in exotic so it balances out? Are you serious? Do you really expect me to believe than an overall statistical performance boost of 12-13% can be utterly disregarded? Not to mention that skill cannot be measured so we can only measure the performance of a class/build by assuming it’s being played to its maximum potential, which is obviously higher with ascended than without.
Yeah…. no need to do every level 10+ times in order to get all the upgrades and/or achievements and stuff like that… Oh wait..
In other words, despite having requirements to repeat the content for 100% completion the SAB still felt less grindy than the other living story brackets. Someone at Anet should be taking notes.
Movement is the single most important and least latency dependent aspect of combat and here we have a suggestion to greatly restrict it and make it the most latency dependent part of the game.
Full cleric’s M/S guards for everyone! We can start fighting over hills at reset and finish when the next reset kicks us all out! =D
It looks like you reflected its attack. Imps do a slow, high damage projectile so that kind of damage isn’t unreasonable.
Every time you complain about night capping, an oceanic guild burns a garrison. Save the garrisons; stop complaining about a 24/7 game mode being played 24/7.
‘Stop living in a different time zone to me! You’re violating my game mode!!’
Given that I’m usually in that smaller group that wipes a larger pug zerg I can tell you that aoe killzones are a massive part of what gets the job done.
You’re forgetting that attacks aren’t the only aoes in this game. There are ways to get around 1k heal per second using only aoe heals. If every member of an 80 man zerg was using this kind of heal, all 80 players would be getting 80k heals per second. On top of this they would all have retaliation being reapplied much more rapidly than you could remove it so any aoe attacker would suffer over 20k damage per hit that they cannot do a single thing about.
Your suggestions would turn numbers into an absolutely insurmountable advantage. There would be no possible strategy to beat such a zerg that doesn’t require similar numbers on your own side.
Anyone that thinks they can follow one guy and win is about to get killed by a group half their size, guaranteed.
You could mindlessly aoe spam all you want but a large enough zerg would be able to use its uncapped aoe support to just facetank through it – no skill involved on either side and the larger group gets an autowin, exactly what you’re trying to claim happens now.
Currently an organised group can achieve 1 condi cleared for each member of the group approximately once every five-sixths of a second. This is with capped aoe condi clears. If you remove this cap it could easily get so fast that it may as well be immunity, and since a large portion of current condi clears convert those condis to boons you would struggle greatly to strip/corrupt their boons to prevent their stability and retaliation from ruining your day.