Didn’t someone suggest something like this, kinda like overflows?
That and my suggestion are like night and day.
Take a clue from sports. Or from medieval mercenary companies. Allow players/guilds to transfer to other servers for a reward. The less populated and lower-ranked the new server the higher the payout.
They’d only be able to do WvW for this new server, PvE and sPvP are still domain of their home server.
They would receive continuous rewards and/or loot/WXP buffs for the time of the stay (which would be non-definite and open-ended, presumably), but only till a certain point (temporal/economical) to prevent abuse.
Binding rewards to transfers to outnumbered servers would likely lead to a healthier pop distribution while not impacting PvE in any shape or form.
I could now theorycraft in depth about perfect length of stay:rank of server:reward ratios or anti-abuse mechanics, but what matters is the basic idea of server mercenaries, I’ll leave the specifics to the devs.
I relinquish any intellectual property to this idea.
(edited by Jamais vu.5284)
According to ANet, measures against blobbing can’t be done because it hurts the feeling of casuals, who’d feel excluded from the group.
I’d love some statistic on population transfers in the last weeks. It wouldn’t be a favourable “Iceland” statistic, but come on, WvW devs, release those juicy numbers you are most likely brooding over right now.
L2P. Thieves aren’t hard to counter. You’re just a bad player.
It is “spammable” to make it a combat element rather than purely a out-of-combat one.
To compensate, you also have the lowest innate survivability in the game tied with D/D eles.
Also spamming yet another thread about this tired topic instead for looking for a previous one (not per search function, but by OPENING YOUR EYES) should be a permabannable offense.
Stealth is still ok for thiefs, as long as its for recovering from the fight or breaking. Give them a debuff cannot attack after 30 or so seconds after going in stealth. Fine for getting away.
Why not remove dodging and replace it with a block RNG as well, if you’re already on the road to turn this into a WoW hotkey MMO?
Impossible because that would actually be interesting.
Until and unless there are significant changes in the engine, which isn’t on the table, we will not be raising the cap on player skill AoE.
Your engine desperately needs some work dude. The performance of this game in both FPS and latency of is abysmal. Try to get that in your honchos’ thick skulls.
Check out my suggestion in the signature (the second link).
It’s that some players (or other entities) become mutually invulnerable to others with more and more players on screen.
This would solve the lag issue.
WHAT?
Giving the players PvP features they have been requesting for two years?
Unprecedented
Yes OP, PVE rules!
This thread gives me the lols.
Also WvW?
It’s time to stop with the conspiracy theories. It’s distracting from the real issue. It’s like bringing 9/11 troof theories into a serious discussion about US Mid-East foreign policy.
The money they make with the few thousand players who will migrate would never make up for the bad publicity they are generating because of server stacking. Also I see no reason why they would resort to such a shifty, convoluted scheme when they could just sell wacky golem skins and even more finisher.
This is just incompetence. They thought leagues would lure in more players due to “fairer” chances, when all it leads to is kill off the bottom half by ranking of servers in both NA and EU.
They should have locked league rewards (not transfers themselves) to your current server right the very minute they announced Season 1. Though that still wouldn’t solve the essential problem of (leagues independent) server stacking.
The point is that Guardians and Eles don’t usually spec for high precision (outside PVE). While rangers and thieves do. It was a deliberate choice to not make those classes have perma-vigor quite as easily as they already do.
Conquest was a solid decision for a first game mode. Among other things, it encourages:
1. Team splits. These are necessary for professions that excel in smaller engagements.
2. Build variety. Without the trinity, a pure teamfight mode would generally have two roles: group support (guardians) and group dps/control (warriors, necros). Conquest creates the role of roamer, bunker, and nodefighter, while keeping the roles of group support and group dps.
3. Mobility. Some professions have better mobility than others; this needed to be rewarded without being overpowered. Conquest does that.New modes will be fun as well, but I don’t think it’s a simple as “Here’s king of the hill guys! Have fun discovering which three professions are best at it!” Nor is it simply a matter of homogenizing all the professions so they’ll all be equally good at it.
1. Secondary objectives. Also I do not understand how one can sanction the current “meta” where the common 1v2 situations on nodes are essentially a pre-determined fight unless a massive skill difference between players exists.
2. That works on paper, but in reality a too great focus on role specialisation is detrimental.
3. Again, secondary objectives.
Consider that what you wrote mostly reflects current map design dogmas, and doesn’t take into account secondary mechanisms like shrine rezes which would spread the players out in TDM.
In any case, conquest doesn’t have to be taken out. But the decision of ANet to make it the main (only) gamemode was hugely misguided.
I still wanna know the logic at play here. Most designers want to encourage balance in PvP. Why is Anet encouraging imbalance?
You didn’t play WvW in the first half year of it’s existence. They had the exact system you’re asking for.
Most servers were matched against the same ones for months at a time. It became tiresome.
The randomness could have been toned down a bit (we played against servers r10-11r above us), but there’s nothing wrong with a matchup of 6 ranks difference. There’s only so much you can do with 27/24 servers.
I know what to say, but I’m too polite to say it.
In all seriousness, this whole “test your skill” against stronger servers concept is something I’ve heard before and it’s not what the WvW public wants. No one on NSP is sitting around saying, “These match ups are all so easy, I wish we could really get a TEST of our skill!” GW2 didn’t design WvW to be the kind of game where skill trumps all. Skill is a huge factor in even population server battles, but there’s a huge drop off of skill and tactics mattering when you are massively outnumbered. Thus the nature of Zerg war. Exponentially, the servers on the higher tiers have higher WvW populations and more participating players. So the only mettle that is tested with this new match up system is “How many WvW players do you have?” This quickly leads to frustration and ultimately boring gameplay.
WvW players want epic battles. The best match I ever played was in the beginning of the year when HoD and GoM were fighting NSP. We were all evenly matched and it led to some incredable battles. There was an assault on our red keep that lasted 4 hours straight and involved a hundred players on both sides. THAT was the WvW I loved. These new match ups NEVER create those moments. It’s a crying shame. So consider the mettle tested, let’s move on to balanced match ups already.
Ok now I wish I would have read further before replying to this unfortunate thread. Your post is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on these forums.
Just a friendly advice: Don’t think you’re the spokesperson for the WvW public.
(edited by Jamais vu.5284)
Look, I can understand your qualms as long as the needed added server capacity takes a backseat to added server capacity for PvP purposes. Which probably wouldn’t happen. (Not unless they suddenly dramatically invest in their infrastructure for both PvP and condition-cap/PvE reasons)
Have you played WvW lately?
Removing the condition cap when it really only matters in a select few situations like this one is utter fluff compared to that.
And yes, the condition cap in PvE is due to a back end server bottleneck. This was stated by the devs already close after release.
I do not know. I can just confirm. My server is empty as well.
Honestly it fits my GW2 mood and the fact that I am waiting for a graphics card replacement. I needed a break.
Same is happening here Hule. Drakkar had a fair chance of competing in T2, but it just needed one major guild to leave to set the dominoes in motion.
Most WvW players will leave within the next two weeks. The lowest league will be too empty to provide serious gameplay value to players who chose WvW as their core activity in GW2. It’s as if you took out all but a few champion mobs and dungeon bosses would be for a PVEer.
WvW will only be visited for map completion and the odd daily.
Devon thinks leagues will somehow mobilize the players in those bottom 9/12 servers. But it won’t.
Saddening.
I am also hearing the same things from other servers in “Silver League”. Everyone wants to transfer to ioj as they are the current bandwagon server with 24h coverage, or to whichever server from Gold can win the Tanking race to drop to 13.
Thanks from the interesting insight from NA. I feared you’d have to deal with the same issues as we across the pond.
In the end it really does turn out that leagues are a nice idea with a horrible implementation (like most things in GW2).
Novelty has worn off.
(I’m referring to the first instance of SAB barely 5 months ago.)
Enjoy your free week Ranik. The Drakkar from our last matchup and the Drakkar by next Friday will be very different.
On my Rank 18 server, it’s already starting.
The original reasons for the exodus of a major WvW guild were possibly only partially related to league concerns. But the guild transfers that followed are due to the weakened, now improbable to be able to compete in T2, nature of the server.
This is a fiasco for WvW that surpasses even the insanely long free-transfer period in 2012.
I blame Devon and his team entirely. You killed one server’s, and quite likely 9 server’s, WvW communities.
But you don’t care. You only care about numbers. Disgusting. Inhumane.
I don’t intend to be another QQ’er.
But you do QQ.
Believe it or not, but ability to coordinate in a larger group is a player skill too.
If you (and every other player present) can’t do that, you might be not as skilled you think you are.
Play some WvW, for perspective. Dodging hugely telegraphed attacks while putting out maximum DPS like you do in every other piece of PVE content is not the only measure of a player’s skill level.
lol, I mean seriously claw of Jormag is fun, this is well… 15 minutes of straight cannon shots and hes still at 94% health.
Did everyone go on test day yeah this bad kitten something we can’t beat?
It’s not like they took away Claw and Shatterer for your easymode dragon needs.
i wanted to thank the devs for the new BL’s. …
im in tier 1.
…hope everyone else is having a lot of fun!
Really?
What does your opposition to bloodlust have to do with the points he emphasized as positive?
ANet doesn’t care about how destructive overflows are.
I very well remember an interview from 2009 or 2010 and even back then they clearly laid out the overflow mechanic they wanted to implement, the exact same we got today.
They’ve done literally nothing in 3-4 years to improve it.
ANet doesn’t care about how destructive overflows are.
I very well remember an interview from 2009 or 2010 and even back then they clearly laid out the overflow mechanic they wanted to implement, the exact same we got today.
They’ve done literally nothing in 3-4 years to improve it.
At the moment the fight has zero longevity. The reward is marginally better, a small chance to get a reskinned ascended weapon. But this is not worth the massive frustration, pain and effort required to beat this boss.
I’ve done many fractal runs that ultimately failed. 1-2 hours or so down the drain. And that is just GW2 content.
I think I can live with failing Teq a couple times for a maximum of 15 minutes each.
Those that are the diehard tryhards that just want to get the kill, will get it eventually. But after that first rush, for that first kill, the kills after that are never going to feel as good. No point redoing the boss if the reward is hardly any better then a much easier event.
Not everyone is Terrahero. The prospect of fighting and beating a hard boss is for many alluring in itself. Also the potential gold/h for this boss is perfectly fine.
As a result this event will eventually just stop being played. Every once in a while a bored guild might have a serious crack at it and thats probably about it.
Your conjecture doesn’t add up. You’re essentially saying the only reason it “won’t get played” is because of the difficulty. But that is relative. People will get better at it – not everyone of course, but many. And to those, those people on that baseline, there’s no reason why they wouldn’t consider doing Teq, since it’s just another world boss to them, but with much better loot and with more attractive fight mechanics than just autoattacking from a safe spot.
What an annoying issue still.
+1
Pointed it out the day when they changed it.
It needs to be darker.
Try capping it yourself with 15-20 people running between all the points, meanwhile you are out numbered like always and just barely holding on to towers and retaking those you have lost only to know its only a matter of time before they are lost again…
Aha. That is an interesting thing to say. Because if that happens you’ll be alleviated 15-20 enemy players on the map. Which means the system is working as intended.
30 upscaled staff elementalists in glass cannon gear will get thrashed good by sup ACs, yes, as they should.
It’s nice to see it working and making baddies frustrate.
Here’s an idea: Why didn’t you sent in your plates to kill the ACs first, instead of mindlessly running through the chokepoint with your whole troupe as soon as the gate fell?
and were mostly useless in zergs.
Spammable blast finishers, mass blinds or leeching fields = mostly useless?
Most skill groups in WvW don’t want any thieves in their mix because of their overly squishy nature.
They are not significantly squishier than rangers or engis (since armor becomes much more useful in ZvZs), and I’d say they’re actually better at survivability if you go for a evasion build.
Of course if you insist on a gimmicky zerkers nuke build, you won’t do good in a zerg fight.
People don’t complain that Guardians or Warriors are OP in WvW zergtrains. I wonder why. Maybe it’s because they can’t get beat up by them as easily in a 1v1 or 1v2.
Thieves’ strength lies in very small scale skirmishing, while having a structural weakness in larger group combat situations. Other classes strength lies in larger group battles, while their weakness is in the area thief excels.
Only ignoramuses ignorant to that fact say they are an OP class.
Evidently it didn’t work. The exclusive armors didn’t lure players in to do actual PvP. Instead they ask for it to be put in carebear country as well. And honestly I don’t blame you, for the simple fact that an armor acquisition in PvP is much less attractive than one in PvE.
A way to keep both would be to make any unlock in PvP – including the two (and any future) exclusive armor sets – count for PvE as well, i.e. you would unlock the ability to craft/buy the skin for PvE use.
That would be a workable solution. And of course reduce the rank grind for skins in PvP.
Not even half a day old and some people already whine.
Believe it or not, but there are games where you’re not expected to beat the content on the very first try.
How are servers and consequently their players and commanders supposed to organize themselves in voice chat and all if everyone is constantly getting put in overflows?
On EU servers people don’t even speak the same language.
The overflow mechanic is getting more and more ridiculous as we get more time-dependent events.
So much facepalm from this thread.
If you think getting 180 iron ingots and his buddies is grind you’re wrong in the head.
sooo when u guys think that we gona get a new mode? mid 2014?
That is awfully optimistic.
Hate to break your echo chamber but
The fact that a.net announces their intent does not give that intent merit. Regardless of what has been said, no reasonable argument can be mounted for keeping the WvW rank system character based. For obvious reasons, the system would be far better had it been account based. It’s just yet another bad decision by the WvW design team (if there even is such a thing) that we now have to live with.
Since when does you not understanding their reasons = them having no reasonable argument?
The argument is very straightforward. If you spend even one more minute on your character, or preferably in-game at all, due to the WXP progression mechanic than you would otherwise, it’s being effective.
If you don’t stat brand new twinks as gimmicks with full trees (treb gimmick, AC gimmick, etc.) and cycle between them without a single thought spent on the actual points distribution, it’s being effective.
I know that that’s probably a much less sexy, individually appealing reason for the existence of this particular reward mechanism than usually expected, but so is reducing your carbon footprint for the environment.
(edited by Jamais vu.5284)
Well I still think this topic is current.
New Dagger 4: costs 3 initiative, .5 sec cast time, 900 range
“Dragon Dagger”: Throw a flaming dagger at your target, apply (low damage) burning, after 5 seconds the blade explodes doing a small amount of damage and applying aoe (higher damage) burning to 5 enemies within 300 range of target.
What the hell is this? Dragon Dagger? Burning? Why? This isn’t Elementalist, and D/D is everything but a ranged DOT set.
Dancing Dagger needs it’s activation time and projectile speed buffed. That’s it.
New Dagger 5: costs 6 initiative, 0 cast time, 600 range
“Criminal Bond”: Chain yourself to your target for 4 seconds, if the distance between you both exceeds 600, the chain breaks and applies cripple to your target and regeneration to yourself, target suffers from poison as long as the chain stays intact.
“Break Chains”: Break the chain and enter stealth, your target gains swiftness.
More workable. Though not as a replacement for CnD. Suggesting removing CnD is crazy talk.
I always loved Augury of Death/Scorpion Wire on Caster-Assassin in GW classic. Your suggestion is somewhat similar to it. Would make a nice utility skill or elite.
(edited by Jamais vu.5284)
I’m sure it’s an allusion to Guild Wars 1.
- Codex Arena died because it was kittenty and because you removed TA which was great for players without GvG-guilds.
- AB died because it was less-rewarded than JQ.
- RA died because: no monk = no win. Monk in op team = rez/quit/rage.
- You removed HB because it has no balance.PvP in GW1 died because of balance with class and with rewards, not because there was too many modes.
I don’t know why you keep saying “died” because they were all reasonably vigorous (save for Codex) for a game that didn’t receive much PvP development in it’s latter years.
Speaking of which, Jonathan, I understand your concerns about splitting the playerbase (even though personally I think it’s greatly exaggerated). Because of this, why not consider emulating Hero’s Ascent? Basically everything you currently have in GW2 and are considering was there. Conquest, team deathmatch, KOTH, CTF, all in one framework. I think it would be beneficial in multiple ways: to bundle the population in one queue, to make more casual tournament play more popular, to counteract “game mode fatigue” (one type over an over again becomes boring), and to really test player skill across all gamemodes. It would also lead to a more diverse meta, because you couldn’t just spec for bunkering in at cap nodes for example, you need to be balanced too for running flags or killing things during TDM matches.
The strictly “mono-mode” queues could be reserved for hotjoin.
BB is 8 ranks higher from You.
They are again 10r above us right now (the r10 from last week was just a short slump), and the match before they recent one they were 11 places above us. If you’re being pedantic at least do it right.
Vabbi
Huh?
We are loosing week after week because of these random matchups. And people dont want to login again.
Just don’t make it sound like you’re the only one who has to fight against the odds. I’m sure Gunnars had plenty of stacked matches as well. But do I (we) throw in the towel and cry in the matchup thread? kitten no.
Then stomp poor […] Vabbi.
Once again, what?
Fight agains endless numbers from FR and being stomped by BB again? Was it fun?
We didn’t get stomped by Baruch. Maybe purely by PPT. In numerically equal or slightly disadvantaged fights we were often superior. They simply had the better coverage from overseas players. That BB isn’t exactly the best server technically is a well known fact.
And yes, we lost the Ranik matchup but it was fun. Not least because we had quite some history against them and the sudden transformation of them (because of transfers from T1) was an interesting thing to witness.
I am focusing on PvE until league will start. Then we will have some even matches. Not this 6 ranks difference.
We had two matchups against Baruch in the last three weeks.
They are 10+ ranks above us.
3. It’s completely unnecessary for PvE.
4. Its existence was made possible by the destruction of a universally useful skill.
3. What are you exactly saying? That they should abandon to try and make PVE anything other than a faceroll DPSfest where defensive actions don’t matter?
4. It was a vanilla damage skill that should be spammed on recharge for maximum efficiency. This isn’t exactly the design or indeed mentality they want to cultivate.
Second, the idea that Rangers with direct control over their pet’s 2nd and 3rd abilities would require rebalancing. This is absurd. All other professions have direct control over all of their mandatory abilities, and are able to execute CC lockdowns, chain stunblock and the like…
Yeah. Not two at a time.
actual its not the case. the skills are already there and used. the only difference is they are used by ai and not the pp.
I explained in that quote why it makes such a difference that it can be directly controlled by the player, rather than the AI.
(edited by Jamais vu.5284)
and modifying the possible sequence of randomly selected fractals so you don’t get the longest and most difficult ones all on the same run.
If you do that keep in mind that it’ll greatly diminish what makes Fractals stand out among your instanced content, which is the unpredictable aspect. Notably it would also lead to probably unforeseen by you cheesetactics like rerolling the first Fractal over and over again and hoping for the easiest/shortest of the designated “hard”/long fractals. Because then you’d know the rest of the run will be a cakewalk. I can imagine that would become the standard modus operandi of a new speedrun.
I guessed it was common sense that they only meant hitherto unequipped MF pieces.
Why would they make equipment already belonging to a character suddenly account bound? That would be an entirely different function than making tradeable pieces account-bound for the simple reason of preventing a (minor) economic meltdown by everyone buying up and hoarding MF gear to sell as Berserker’s et al later.
How you want to re-distribute your gear among your characters figures in exactly nowhere in that equation.
Your display of logic is too alien for me.
Jamais, did you happen to crash from the Eternal Battlegrounds Jumping Puzzle?
Not in the JP, but still WvW.
I also had it in Caledon Forest and in a dungeon, it doesn’t seem to be dependent on location.