Guild Wars 2

arron.7348:

there’s an absolutely horrendous number of zerker rangers doing pvp in this thread, and an awkward number of people claiming they only find ‘glass’ thieves

any good thief will kitten on you and you will be unable to kill them, you simply have nothing on a properly played thief. rangers are, quite literally, underpowered thieves

Maybe you’re just bad on your ranger

Rimmy.9217:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Rimmy.9217:

Jim Hunter.6821:

If Anet decides to test out a soft cap for a month or 2, they should re-open free transfers and then later set cost on the server based on it’s WvW population. Last time free transfers were terrible because people could stack on 1 server to steamroll everyone, but with a cap people will be encouraged to more evenly spread out.

Reducing the map cap would be a better idea than a dynamic cap for destacking and evening out server WvW populations. Otherwise, two servers with different prime times will result in both servers being frustrated. Make it sixty or forty, or whatever seems good based on the data that I assume ANet has, and people that still want to play and don’t want the queues will transfer.

And to the person/people who so rabidly wants to condense people to six maps (not surprising this comes from a T1 NA server, btw) and then add maps… that’s what EotM is. How have you enjoyed that particular solution to queues so far?

I used to think that would be the better option but there are people that enjoy running in groups larger than that. A soft cap wouldn’t stop them.

As far as your other point, I believe over time the servers with vastly different prime time numbers would even out on there own. That’s why I suggested they open up free transfers at least in the beginning.

I’m sure there are people that enjoy siege trolling and spawn camping, but it doesn’t mean they should be catered to.

If you have a dynamic cap, then it means that large guilds and even server communities as a whole can’t plan how they’re going to play, since it will depend on the turnout of the least-populated server at any given time. Putting a firm map cap on (like sixty) will let them say “Okay, this is where the game is at now” and decide if they need to leave their server or not.

I’d be all for testing out both ideas.

Rimmy.9217:

Jim Hunter.6821:

If Anet decides to test out a soft cap for a month or 2, they should re-open free transfers and then later set cost on the server based on it’s WvW population. Last time free transfers were terrible because people could stack on 1 server to steamroll everyone, but with a cap people will be encouraged to more evenly spread out.

Reducing the map cap would be a better idea than a dynamic cap for destacking and evening out server WvW populations. Otherwise, two servers with different prime times will result in both servers being frustrated. Make it sixty or forty, or whatever seems good based on the data that I assume ANet has, and people that still want to play and don’t want the queues will transfer.

And to the person/people who so rabidly wants to condense people to six maps (not surprising this comes from a T1 NA server, btw) and then add maps… that’s what EotM is. How have you enjoyed that particular solution to queues so far?

I used to think that would be the better option but there are people that enjoy running in groups larger than that. A soft cap wouldn’t stop them.

As far as your other point, I believe over time the servers with vastly different prime time numbers would even out on there own. That’s why I suggested they open up free transfers at least in the beginning.

coglin.1867:

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

So you hose 2 servers for the sake of 1. Again you create sever negative effect for 2 servers for the sake of 1. Yet you call it a “fair” solution.

No that is the situation right now when a server that massively outnumbers the other 2 servers gets thrown in a match with them. This makes the match boring for all 3 servers. Not sure why you think that is more “fair”.

I never remotely suggested that was “fair”. I simply suggested your suggestion was worse.

Which is your opinion based on zero evidence. Not saying you are wrong but we won’t know if we don’t give it a try. I thought I would absolutely hate the removal of white swords but I ended up loving it. A floating cap is something they could easily implement with no permanent consequences, unlike destroying servers, turning WvW into a megaserver, etc.

I will tell you right now, I have absolutely nothing against weekly trials in which they try something every week or every other week.

For the sake of testing alone, I am with ya. I would be more then happy to try it for a week. I may feel it will be detrimental, but I agree that it wouldn’t do any damage to try it, or a good deal of other ideas for that matter.

I think the events need to go for more than a week. I wasn’t a fan of no white swords for the first week but I loved it by the end. Any change needs at least a few weeks for people to learn to adapt. But yeah I would love for them to try other ideas as well as long as they are ideas that don’t permanently destroy any servers.

coglin.1867:

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

So you hose 2 servers for the sake of 1. Again you create sever negative effect for 2 servers for the sake of 1. Yet you call it a “fair” solution.

No that is the situation right now when a server that massively outnumbers the other 2 servers gets thrown in a match with them. This makes the match boring for all 3 servers. Not sure why you think that is more “fair”.

I never remotely suggested that was “fair”. I simply suggested your suggestion was worse.

Which is your opinion based on zero evidence. Not saying you are wrong but we won’t know if we don’t give it a try. I thought I would absolutely hate the removal of white swords but I ended up loving it. A floating cap is something they could easily implement with no permanent consequences, unlike destroying servers, turning WvW into a megaserver, etc.

coglin.1867:

So you hose 2 servers for the sake of 1. Again you create sever negative effect for 2 servers for the sake of 1. Yet you call it a “fair” solution.

No that is the situation right now when a server that massively outnumbers the other 2 servers gets thrown in a match with them. This makes the match boring for all 3 servers. Not sure why you think that is more “fair”.

Chaba.5410:

Jim Hunter.6821:

In my opinion this will benefit more people than it will harm, however the only way to be certain is to give it a trial run.

You keep suggesting that your idea is going to benefit more people than it harms yet 1) no one really has population statistics outside of Anet and 2) if the higher tier servers have enough population to spread out across all 24 servers and still be able to have large scale battles then that means most of the people are actually in the higher tiers. Like, there’s a reason why Anet divided Gold, Silver, and Bronze at 6, 9 and 9 servers rather than 9, 6, 9 or 9, 9, 6. That’s why what you’re saying makes little sense.

You act like this idea is an attack on higher tier servers. It’s not. This won’t suddenly triple the queue time in T1 because those servers are roughly equal in size.

If they implemented the idea this week the only servers that would take a hard hit would be SoS and Mag because they are in the wrong tiers and the population difference is so ridiculously large. However the servers that they are paired up against would actually have a fighting chance leading to a much more enjoyable match once you were in game. Over the long run the population size of each server would be more of a steady slope upwards instead of drastic jumps. This would lead to more variety in the match-ups and a healthier game.

lil devils x.6071:

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

There would be less in que with event maps being available than are currently in que when you add up all servers. This actually solves more of the que issue than it would create. In this system, you get more actual wvw maps when all servers que, currently you only get to go EoTM.

But you said the event maps only generate when all three servers hit que. Which is it? Is it when one server hits limit or all three?

What if one server doesn’t have the population count to get remotely near que. You can’t guarantee that if you merge servers you won’t get a mass exodus from the game due to huge queue times (there will be players who hate the event maps) and server pride loss and people whose computers can’t handle huge zergs.

Then you get at least 1 server that gets to have its players wait in PvE for a spot. That’s oh so fun.

Better option is to do things to increase the population in WvW. That way there are likely to be different match ups from time to time. Not just the same few match ups. Because different servers are likely to use different tactics. More servers means the chances at more tactics which could lead to more varied match ups. Which would help the issue of WvW being stale.

Merging servers doesn’t raise the population. It tells the players and potential players that this part of the game is dead/dying and that they’ve given up in trying to pump new life into it.

To open an event map ALL 3 need to have population to cover it, considering there is only 3-6 severs total, you will have much more population on all servers than present, allowing for both 1) more stable maps and 2) plenty of bonus maps for all sides.

ALSO They should allow free transfer to the server that has the lowest population, and have an alert to allow players to be aware, so if you do not want to sit in que, you can transfer to the server that needs you most for free.

Server pride was wiped with the mega server.. all we have left now is the last people in Kolmanskop refusing to leave. Them refusing to acknowledge the problem doesn’t make Kolmanskop any more desirable to new residents.

Reducing it to 3- 6 servers it would solve it so they would not need to do so again, rather than kick the can down the road again.

Couple problems with this. How long are we supposed to wait for them to develop new event maps? The speed they are going you are looking at about a 6 year wait.

I currently play on a T6 server, what you consider a wasteland, we still occasionally see maps queue during prime in this tier. Which means that every server above us can still queue maps. You expect all of us to squeeze into 3 servers while we wait for anet to develop maps that might end up being terrible?

SuzukiMethod.4732:

With any ranger build that isn’t double bow, thieves are free bags.

Agreed.

Firelysm.4967:

Zenith.7301:

Fluffball.8307:

Zenith.7301:

Why are people taking Entangle over RAO? Thieves are immune to entangle due to ports as well as eles, mesmers have staff to port out of it too on a low cd.

They are most definitely not immune, they have to use skills to get out. Either they use the teles to get out and can’t use them in another emergency, or you’ve already forced another emergency and now they can’t get out of entangle. That’s one of the main reasons I almost always use MT, drakehound and wolf, regardless of what build I’m running.

You can’t just spam entangle and expect it to land on anyone. They’ll just dodge it if nothing else.

sword port from thief and and mesmer staff blink most definitely are fairly spammable, and both of those classes have teleports/escapes/clears well below the cd of most ranger cc skills.

Simple dodge, makes engangled miss if you time it:
-dodge
- s/d thief can simpy port back
- blinding ranger will make him/her miss Ent
- stun-breaker

so easy to escape, to easy if u ask me … cuz casting is to long, if it would be 1/2 i would use it.

You forgot the biggest one. If a player stealths they can just walk out of it.
That means thieves, mesmers, rangers, and engi’s (the majority of roamers) can just walk out of it.

Entangle is good for its low cooldown when paired with certain runes and/or traits, but for a power build I almost always run rampage.

Xerox.6851:

Notice: Wall of text incoming.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I’m looking for a game where the player skill is more important than being able to call in a larger blob.

I had said before that you were being selfish. And yes, I don’t disagree that player skill should be a major factor in the game but that doesn’t give you the right to dictate how others should play. If you want more skilled combat then look into GvGs or fights guilds. Obviously the players that run around in those large blobs enjoy doing so.

Jim Hunter.6821:

My suggestion wouldn’t force anyone to move. The majority of the tiers have roughly equal numbers. Right now the only tiers that would be heavily affected would be tier 3 and 6 and I’m pretty sure the majority of the people in those match-ups would be having a lot more fun if things were more competitive.

Your suggesting is to put artificial floating player caps on all the servers as a way to keep player populations the same on all servers. This is why I said it only sounds good.

You can’t say that this idea wouldn’t force anyone to move. You will be increasing que times to some servers that already have ques on borderlands. Some people aren’t as forgiving as you and don’t want to wait that long. The server I am on had a minimum 20 man que this reset night. I didn’t even bother trying to get in and neither did some of the others in my guild.

That said, my server (dragonbrand) actually has a weaker NA then the other T2 servers we are with. So during the week when my guild raids the other T2 servers out number us by a little. This idea would restrict the other servers in our tier to match mine. I don’t want that.

It would make our server more competitive during NA (of which we do just fine) but it would restrict our off-hour coverage. Now, once again, that sounds fine until you consider how many people you have barred from entering WvW: A large number of YB and FA players, because they were forced to maintain our levels during NA, and a large number of DB players during our strong off-hour coverage. Those are players you have turned away from WvW. Either they transfer or they leave WvW all together because the coverage gaps between servers haven’t changed. Your argument is based around the idea that all the servers have roughly equal numbers, but they don’t. If they did, we wouldn’t be having this debate and the title wouldn’t be unbalanced match-ups.

And yes, this would have a major impact on T3. Not just in favor of the T3 servers, but also against the T2 server that moves down to T3. SoS can already make ques on every map. If say, HoD and NSP can only field 60 a map on reset then you are leaving out another 60 players per map. Those numbers are too drastic. And during the week when numbers go down, yes the match-up will be competitive. But you are ignoring the overall server strength to try and possibly highlight skill difference. All the numbers that are ignored though, are players that are frustrated and potentially leave GW2 entirely.

You and the people that overstacked a select few servers to cause such unbalanced match-ups are the ones being selfish. Your argument sounds like, “If I’m forced into a fair fight I will quit the game.”

If Anet decides to test out a soft cap for a month or 2, they should re-open free transfers and then later set cost on the server based on it’s WvW population. Last time free transfers were terrible because people could stack on 1 server to steamroll everyone, but with a cap people will be encouraged to more evenly spread out.

coglin.1867:

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

A floating cap locks players out artificially. A floating cap lowers when players log off. A few people DC. Now the cap lowers, forcing them out of the game.

No assumptions made. Does your suggestion not limit player caps based on the population of the weakest link? The lowest population server in the match up? If artificial caps are put on the more populated servers, it will not be a matter of people not wanting to play the game, the artificial cap your idea creates, literally disallows them to get into the game forcing unnecessary queues on them.

If your idea is something different, please, by all means, clarify.

That was not my point. My point was the forced queues your suggestion imposes on larger population servers, in an artificial manner, when they are matched up to lower population servers.

You prefer a horribly unbalanced match-up? I’d rather sit in queue for an hour than have 600 PPT all week with no one to fight because the other servers don’t stand a chance.

Some players may choose to move to have shorter queues which would actually end up being healthy for the game. Buying guilds and stacking 1 server would no longer be a guaranteed win.

That doesn’t make much sense to me. Redesigning the game to force higher populated servers’ players to move to lower populated servers? All that argument does, is open the flood gates for the argument that those with complaints about population now, be forced to move. How greedy do you have to be to demand the higher populations be forced to move, instead of forcing the lower populations? In what world does the ultra minority win over the majority?

I’m looking for a game where the player skill is more important than being able to call in a larger blob. My suggestion wouldn’t force anyone to move. The majority of the tiers have roughly equal numbers. Right now the only tiers that would be heavily affected would be tier 3 and 6 and I’m pretty sure the majority of the people in those match-ups would be having a lot more fun if things were more competitive.

coglin.1867:

A floating cap locks players out artificially. A floating cap lowers when players log off. A few people DC. Now the cap lowers, forcing them out of the game.

No assumptions made. Does your suggestion not limit player caps based on the population of the weakest link? The lowest population server in the match up? If artificial caps are put on the more populated servers, it will not be a matter of people not wanting to play the game, the artificial cap your idea creates, literally disallows them to get into the game forcing unnecessary queues on them.

If your idea is something different, please, by all means, clarify.

That was not my point. My point was the forced queues your suggestion imposes on larger population servers, in an artificial manner, when they are matched up to lower population servers.

You prefer a horribly unbalanced match-up? I’d rather sit in queue for an hour than have 600 PPT all week with no one to fight because the other servers don’t stand a chance.

Some players may choose to move to have shorter queues which would actually end up being healthy for the game. Buying guilds and stacking 1 server would no longer be a guaranteed win.

coglin.1867:

That doesn’t make any sense as I see it. As far as I know, players do not log in on off hours because they are sleeping, working, tending to kids, families, and school. If players were free to log in at off hours, then everyone would do so.

That’s absolutely untrue. Every server has fair weather players that log off when things are too challenging. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen players log in, ask if there is a zerg running and then log off when they don’t see a tag. Even players that constantly tag up and lead the push to regain keeps and towers can get burnt out on trying to gain ground against a group 3 times their size.

I’ll admit that there are times when I’ve pulled up the live map and saw that our PPT was in the teens and said screw it, I’ve got errands to run, let someone else cap everything back today. If I knew for a fact that the other servers could only field a roughly equal sized group instead of calling in the blob I would be a lot more likely to hop on and play.

coglin.1867:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Xerox.6851:

What you are suggesting is a selfish call for what YOU think WvW should be without excepting that not everyone plays the same style as you. It is for that reason that Anet has such a hard problem. There are many sub-groups of WvW players with many different styles of play. If Anet only focuses on one (Eotm) the general community isn’t happy about it.

What I’m suggesting is a solution to the problem being discussed.

No, it cuts ones nose off, to spite their face.

I think you miss the point. I believe the idea is to find a solution that doesn’t destroy the game mode more then the problem. Your suggestions may be a means to an end result, but it is a bad one. I agree with the other poster, that it is a selfish idea. It solves a smaller problem, while created a tremendous one.

Jim Hunter.6821:

A floating cap wouldn’t prevent large groups like T1 and T2 from having large scale fights. It would however make T3 much more enjoyable. I’ve been on both sides of lopsided matches, it’s terrible for everyone involved.

A floating cap locks players out artificially. A floating cap lowers when players log off. A few people DC. Now the cap lowers, forcing them out of the game.

You are making the assumption that people would rather not play the game. For your scenario to happen players from all 3 servers would have to DC at the same time and then choose to not log back in.

I’m willing to bet there are far more people that would log back in because they enjoy the game than there are people that try to manipulate the system by not playing.

It’s even more likely that more players would start logging on during off hours since they wouldn’t be hopelessly outnumbered.

Xerox.6851:

What you are suggesting is a selfish call for what YOU think WvW should be without excepting that not everyone plays the same style as you. It is for that reason that Anet has such a hard problem. There are many sub-groups of WvW players with many different styles of play. If Anet only focuses on one (Eotm) the general community isn’t happy about it.

What I’m suggesting is a solution to the problem being discussed.

A floating cap wouldn’t prevent large groups like T1 and T2 from having large scale fights. It would however make T3 much more enjoyable. I’ve been on both sides of lopsided matches, it’s terrible for everyone involved.

Swamurabi.7890:

I don’t really care who the specialist is, it’s not my call to make, or yours. After all, how many hours/kills/forum posts does one need in WvW before they know what’s needed. It’s not like the WvW meta has changed with any balance patch.

As long as the specialist communicates to the players more than what the WvW devs have in the past it’s a plus with me.

That’s one of the reasons it’s upsetting that they chose someone that had never posted in the WvW forums before. I’m worried he will occasionally make posts because he feels he needs to, which us much better than what we’ve had, but there are many people on this forum that are much more passionate about the subject and would devote much more of themselves to the job.

coglin.1867:

Tom Gore.4035:

Make the best personal rewards in WvW come from killing enemy players, not capturing objectives.

perhaps you are new to WvW, but killing enemy player is not, nor has every been, the actual object of the game mode.

Jim Hunter.6821:

@Op: You missed one of the better suggestions, using a floating player cap instead of a hard cap. Put the hard cap at something like 20-30 players per side per map and only raise it when the other servers reach the cap.

You mean one of the worst suggestions possible right? This idea does nothing more then *artificially forces the higher tear servers to experience the same problem of lower tier. I was under the impression the goal here was to increase the WvW player base. Not force them out with artificial queues.

Nope, the goal here is to prevent unbalanced match-ups. I guess you missed the thread title.

This would mean actual competitive matches where you had to outplay your opponents instead of just outnumbering them. People that are looking for PvD rather than competitive play can go to EotM while they wait in queue.

Guild groups looking for fights can organize something in Obsidian Sanctum if they can’t all make it onto the same map.

Dhemize.8649:

Jim Hunter.6821:

@Op: You missed one of the better suggestions, using a floating player cap instead of a hard cap. Put the hard cap at something like 20-30 players per side per map and only raise it when the other servers reach the cap.

This wouldn’t be the end all solution, they would still need to add things like better rewards, changing the scoring system, etc., but it would be a good start. At the very least it could be something they test out in one of their “events”.

Thought this idea was already debunked.

When servers reach that second or third soft cap and one server captures tons of objectives before quickly logging off, wouldn’t it force other servers to boot players or reset the soft cap when the try to log in? Then the server that capped can stay ahead while fighting a lower number of enemies until the match is over.

There is no reason for it to kick players already in game. If you have 30 players and the other servers have 30 players and you are beating them so bad that they decide to log off, the cap will hold until they have enough people log on to further raise the cap.

So if you steam roll and have everyone log off thinking you are going to force the enemy off the map you will be mistaken and you will leave your map undefended.

Also remember there is a 3rd server holding the cap so even if you are steamrolling 1 server to to the point where they log off and then you get your server to log off trying to prevent them from getting back in, you won’t be lowering the cap because the 3rd server still has players logged in.

Lord Kuru.3685:

How many of those who suggest server merges are actually in the lower tiers? How many of those are in T1 and T2, where that suggestion has very little effect on them?

What if I suggested we disband all T1 and T2 servers and spread them out into the lower tiers. I’m sure a lot of T3 and below wouldn’t mind this “fix” as it doesn’t damage their own servers. Does that mean this solution should even be entertained? Probably not.

You have to be careful with metrics and interpreting metrics. I don’t think counting forum posts to determine popularity of suggestions is a very good idea.

Hit the nail on the head.

@Op: You missed one of the better suggestions, using a floating player cap instead of a hard cap. Put the hard cap at something like 20-30 players per side per map and only raise it when the other servers reach the cap.

This wouldn’t be the end all solution, they would still need to add things like better rewards, changing the scoring system, etc., but it would be a good start. At the very least it could be something they test out in one of their “events”.

Mark Katzbach.9084:

The forum specialist program was announced to the whole forum via this post in the News and Announcements section and more than adequate time was given for applications to be sent in.
Now, we are not having a discussion on how you feel about who was chosen, because he has yet to have the time to submit a single report yet. If you feel disregarded, blame the others who do post here for not submitting an application.
Now, the WvW forum is not to discuss the merits of this program or those who have been chosen to represent each game mode. If you had been paying attention, you would notice that Marmatt is attempting to reach out and work with the players who do post here, despite the less-than-warm welcome that he has been greeted with.
Consider that he is a volunteer and is acting as a forum specialist in his own free time and of his own free will. To me, that means something. To me, this means that he’s committed to our goal of improving communication between players and the development team. If you think he doesn’t know enough about the game mode to accurately represent your interests, then talk to him. Explain your passions and why you feel the way you do. You might be surprised at how receptive he is.
Now, this is the last time I’m explaining this. We’re not having more threads about Marmatt or why he was chosen and not somebody else who may not have submitted an application. Instead, try working with him, and if you want to apply in the future, keep your eyes on the areas where we make forum-wide announcements.
We are serious about communication, but there appear to be a lot of people who would rather complain about communication than actually attempt to communicate.

It’s hard to believe you are serious about communication when we have 5 pages where the only red posts are in threads being locked.

The majority of the people that frequent this forum don’t bother checking the News and Announcements section for 2 reasons.
1.There are far more “news and announcements” on reddit, facebook, twitch, etc. than there are in that forum.
2. Because most of us only care about and only play the game for WvW and it would make sense for anything that affects WvW players to be posted in the WvW forum.

I have nothing against Marmatt and it’s great that he volunteered, but I’m not going to, “blame the others who do post here for not submitting an application” because I am positive they had no idea you were accepting applications.

Cantur Soulfyre.5409:

^

I agree. too many people just want to lash out instead of at least giving it a go.

Also, too all of those who were posting about his WvW experience I have this to say:

His title is FORUM Specialist – WvW and NOT WvW Specialist – Forum. And next time Anet opens up applying for something like this, then those who have been complaining had better put their name in the hat.

Reading comprehension ftw.

Yes a forum specialist that had 0 posts in the forum he is “specialized” in.

I’m sure plenty of WvW regulars would have been happy to throw their names in the hat if they had any idea the hat existed. Can you point me to the red post in the WvW forum announcing that they were looking for someone to represent the WvW players?

I have nothing against Marmatt but let’s not pretend like WvW wasn’t screwed over once again.

Mark Katzbach.9084:

If you feel Marmatt’s WvW experience isn’t up to snuff to take on this responsibility, keep it to yourself.

Wait it out and see how he does. If, after his stint is up, you still feel he wasn’t up to snuff then apply yourself instead of complaining about it.

Valid question, are you going to make a post in the WvW forum to let us (active WvW players and regular posters) know when his stint is up and you are looking for a player to represent us?

I’m pretty sure most of the people in this forum don’t have anything against Marmatt, their problem is with how WvW players were once again completely disregarded. And in your choosing of a pve player to represent us it feels like you are actively looking for ways to further ignore us.

If you are serious about communicating with us and working to improve WvW then let us have a representative that is aware of our concerns and is passionate about the game mode.

Tiffany.8576:

This is this guy’s first post in the WvW forum.

GG.

Yup, just another ”kitten you” from anet.

Maybe they’ll make me their fractal specialist, I haven’t really spent any time in them but I’m aware that they exist, I’m pretty sure that makes me qualified.

I’d suggest getting zerk gear and weapons and if you are dying too easily just replace 1 or 2 of your trinkets with Knights or soldiers to give yourself some more toughness/vitality.

anduriell.6280:

Yes i agree but would would you do it?

I don’t understand your question.

I think torch on a power build is pretty pointless, especially when you are using condi duration food for 1 low ticking condition. Also having only 1 condi clear that is also your only stun break on a 60 sec cooldown is a death sentence in WvW.

Glass thieves are crazy easy to kill because the majority of them rarely have more than 1 stun break and most of those end up blowing that stun break to close the distance on you.

When I’m running power and a thief gets in melee range I just swap to GS and use it to block/counterattack their backstab, leap to them, hilt bash, maul, wolf fear, rapid fire. (save point blank shot for if they use their stun break during fear)They are rarely alive after that.

If they are running condi I slot sic ’em and watch them panic as I kill them, and then I laugh spam their corpse for running such a toxic cheese build.

If I’m running condi it’s not even a fight, they just tend to fall over when they get close to me.

coglin.1867:

I have been in WvW all evening, and currently am now as well. I am not having lag issues. Perhaps you shouldn’t claim WvW as a whole is having a problem. That only makes you appear angry and uninterested in solving the issue. Unless you offer server, specific map, and time, how do you expect help?

I don’t expect help, I expect WvW to be ignored as usual.

For the record (not like it matters since we don’t get red names on this forum) I play on AR, I was on FCbl and the problem occurred at the time of my post and for about an hour before that (which is when I logged on).

The players I was talking to in TS were having the same problem and like I said, switching to PvE completely cleared up the lag for me but my guildies in WvW still had it. Of course PvE in this game is just awful so now I’m just logging off for the night.

The lag in WvW is absolutely unplayable tonight, I was on a bl, no zergs around and I had skills not activating or taking 20-30 seconds before going off.

For kittens and giggles I decided to hop onto some random PvE maps to see how bad it was there, ran into a 30+ person group spamming 1 against a champ and I had 0 lag and skill delay.

Glad to see y’all are evenly distributing your resources.

I use it quite a bit when I’m running a condi build.

Tragic Positive.9356:

Jim Hunter.6821:

As much as I would love this Rangers have an evade built into the GS auto attack… it would be way too powerful.

There’s a 10 second internal cooldown anyways.
I don’t see how would this make the Ranger overpowered, considering he can already cleanse over 20 conditions per 10 seconds.

That’s a good point. Sorry, my brain doesn’t function well before I have my morning coffee.

As much as I would love this Rangers have an evade built into the GS auto attack… it would be way too powerful.

Tribio.8531:

If you wanna make them friendly to you, wouldn’t they be enemy to your enemies?
I’m more a fan of just plainly removing all that PvE stuff.. I wanna see PLAYERS in WvW, not some silly moa’s..

Seconded. Just get rid of the kittening things.

Fuzzion.2504:

It is quite normal to lag a tad bit when you have over 2 mega blobs on a map. But if you face this problem even in small fights, it may be something on your end.

kitten near everyone on my server has been complaining about the same problem lately, I doubt we are all having individual problems. For some reason the lag/skill delay is worse on EB than it is on the bl’s.

Manekk.6981:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Manekk.6981:

witcher.3197:

That mine cart is like 50% transparent when it comes to projectiles. You can’t walk throught it, but you can shoot through. Yesterday I had a downed 1v1 going on and the mine cart was between us yet we were able to throw dirt/rocks at each other. And it’s not like projectiles were only going through the edge of the object but rather the middle of the cart.

Not actually related to the OPs question but I realized the other day your own pet will obstruct you if he’s between you and your opponent when you are both down your oppnent will still hit you however.

You’ve got that backwards. Your pet can block an enemies projectile but not your own.

It might be some uncommon bug, usually your pet will not stand right in between you and another downed opponent I assumed I never noticed before because of that but I am not mistaken I was spamming the attack skill and obstructed message followed every time and we where quite close to eachother on even ground so I don’t see what else it could have been.

I know it doesn’t make sense but no pet related issue surprises me anymore in this game.

more likely it was just buggy terrain. I use my pet to LoS attacks all the time and have no problems shooting through it.

I use Raven quite a bit in PvP and WvW roaming. It hits like a truck and the blind is very useful for stomping.

Balgus.3468:

@jim Hunter, I like the range on LB better than having a S/WH. I do see the benefit from the WH because of WH 5, but I think for my play style, it fits better with a LB because of stealth. I can stealth away like a thief to gather some distance, and attack said distance, as opposed to infighting with a sword. I think it primarily comes down to my playstyle. I’m more of an outfighter with my Ranger, so I like having the range advantage.

Might want to test it with main hand axe then. You’d still get the range, a nice bleed burst, chill, might stacking which would really benefit a hybrid build, and you can bring whatever offhand best suits you.

Manekk.6981:

witcher.3197:

That mine cart is like 50% transparent when it comes to projectiles. You can’t walk throught it, but you can shoot through. Yesterday I had a downed 1v1 going on and the mine cart was between us yet we were able to throw dirt/rocks at each other. And it’s not like projectiles were only going through the edge of the object but rather the middle of the cart.

Not actually related to the OPs question but I realized the other day your own pet will obstruct you if he’s between you and your opponent when you are both down your oppnent will still hit you however.

You’ve got that backwards. Your pet can block an enemies projectile but not your own.

Bakabaka.6185:

muckshifter.9731:

I can’t find many pets, seems that ANet have deleted most of them.

No just put some effort into it and you will find them, nothing in this world is free.

Right!? I mean why should rangers just automatically have full access to their class mechanic? It’s not like we are the only class that has to do a scavenger hunt to have full access to our skills. Oh wait…..

runeblade.7514:

Bakabaka.6185:

I have no problems with pets so far?

Why should I take any pet other than Wolf, Krytan Drakehound, Drakes or Spider then?

Because birds and cats are awesome and hit hard as hell (when they aren’t screwed over by pathing, dumb ai, etc.)

I’m struggling to see how bringing longbow is better than any other weapon for this build. If the whole reason is to have a channeled skill to proc bleeds why don’t you bring war horn? S/x would increase your mobility and 1v1 potential, axe/x would give you a burst bleed, might, and the access to chill that you were looking for. The only thing longbow is really providing is another stealth and a knock back, but that’s not enough to make it compare to your other choices.

I think we should get WvW reward tracks similar to the ones in pvp. Give us the dungeon tracks for armor and weapons, and give us a WvW specific track that gives us a choice of guild siege at the end.

Fluffball.8307:

I would take Jim’s point further and say the GS is not as useful for disengaging, s/d is better for that because of the high evade and mobility. GS is better for spiking, as is s/a.

Absolutely agree, I find GS to be better for chasing due to the ranged cripple and 1100 range leap and s/x better for evading around and escaping. Although there are a lot of times when the GS block is more useful than the evades.

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

Jim Hunter.6821:

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Trapper rangers are extremely vulnerable to chain cc.

More so than other classes?

Absolutely. Trap rangers have to sacrifice their stun breaks. Even with the trapper runes to provide stealth a trapper ranger will always die to an equally skilled player in a 1v1 fight.

I don’t know about “always” but I would certainly agree about it being vulnerable to CC. I’ve found in my many hours roaming as a melee trapper Ranger that my worst nightmare is being immobilized. If a Warrior lands a Pin Down on me, Ranger lands Entangle, Necromancer lands Dark Pact, etc. it’s pretty much GG because trapper relies heavily on evasion. I might be as slippery as the greased up deaf guy from Family Guy but if you manage to land some CC on me or immobilize me I melt like butter. That’s why I try not to get too spammy with my evades so I have them when I need them.

I’m not arguing that you can’t outplay other people while using the build.

Most of the players you run across aren’t very good. That’s why you see so many people running super cheesy builds like PU mesmer and condi thief, in the hopes that the build will carry them.

Heck on the last ranger I leveled I started looking for 1v1’s when I was around lvl 40ish and I killed dozens of players before I finished him off.

I just firmly believe that the best roaming builds are the ones that are as versatile as possible. There isn’t a perfect build for every situation but having no active stun break or condi clear leaves a ranger with 2 very big weaknesses for others to exploit.

Kraljevo.2801:

TymX.8017:

The thing is, when I said sw/to ax/da ranger, I was thinking something like Gladomers build, and not the trapper.

http://en.gw2skills.net/editor/?fNMQRAnY8fjEqUzaLL+rQ1aABhaVA0uGu3Ww9QcDfdFrkC-TRiAABJ8AA6Z/hE1PAwBB4U1f44IAIpSwKOBAip8LAACwMLzysMDO6RP6RP6RbmzcmzcmzsUAwMNC-e

That’s the common condi survival build, yes. Usable in PvP and WvW, with slight variations. The rune choice on Gladomer’s build is questionable but each to his own I guess.

Yup, I prefer krait runes for how well they work with entangle. Also when I’m roaming and not just dueling I usually swap to healing spring, sharpening stone to guard and switch SotF for natures voice. I find the perma speed boost for me and/or my party keeps us alive a lot longer than a couple more condi cleanses while roaming.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Jim Hunter.6821:

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Trapper rangers are extremely vulnerable to chain cc.

More so than other classes?

Absolutely. Trap rangers have to sacrifice their stun breaks. Even with the trapper runes to provide stealth a trapper ranger will always die to an equally skilled player in a 1v1 fight.

lots of other builds don’t carry stun breaks either.

I don’t think that this criticism is wrong, I just don’t see how it’s specific to Trapper Rangers.

as for your claim that they “always” lose against equally skilled opponent .. that’s nonsense.

You’re right, I should have said they will always lose to a good player. It is entirely possible a bad player that is running trap ranger can run into another equally bad player that they are able to kill.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Trapper rangers are extremely vulnerable to chain cc.

More so than other classes?

Absolutely. Trap rangers have to sacrifice their stun breaks. Even with the trapper runes to provide stealth a trapper ranger will always die to an equally skilled player in a 1v1 fight.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Vague Memory.2817:

Junkpile.7439:

Thief of course.

I’m curious as well, why no one has mentioned thief, probably the strongest solo roamer.

They generally don’t do well 1v1 against non-glass-cannons and they probably have the hardest time solo-ing camps/towers. They mostly shine when they can harass enemies that are already engaged against other players or NPCs.

my vote for strongest solo roamer would probably be Trapper Rangers right now

Trapper rangers are extremely vulnerable to chain cc. The build has high burst potential but it isn’t very effective against good players.

lil devils x.6071:

I personally think any class can be the best roamer, it is just a matter of how you play it, I do not think there is any " best class" instead it is a matter of " best class for how you choose to play".

Although they are going to make it very difficult for roamers if what we have heard about the expansion is correct and they are creating tower choke points that will prevent roamers from accessing the rest of the map unless they take the choke point, at that point RIP roamers, because the chokepoints should be well sieged and defended unless you are on an empty sever.

That’s assuming the choke point towers block the only path to the rest of the map, which would be an awful design decision (so judging by a-nets past decisions it is very possible they will do this).

@Op: I think you will be best off making several characters and figuring out which one meshes better with your team. I think when played correctly a condi ranger is kitten near unstoppable 1v1, a power ranger with the right build can move around and cap objectives quicker, and also kill people trying to run, but having a thief or mesmers easy access to group stealth might save your friends more often.

In this game individual skill is less important than comping your group to support each other.

Siobhan.3582:

Sword for wvw is great. however you need to read up and see all the wonderful tips/tricks about it that is posted the boards.

If you are going to roam, GS won’t help out outside of disengaging. Any half way decent roamer won’t let maul hit.. Which is why you use GS

Any half way decent ranger knows how to cancel maul if the opponent dodges or blocks so it goes on a shorter cooldown.

GS provides a block, ranged cripple, interrupt/stun/daze, double leap finisher, nasty burst, and multiple evades.

Claiming it is only useful for disengaging just tells me you don’t know how to use the weapon to its full potential.