Guild Wars 2

Yup, still playing Berserker Necro with a slight focus on condition duration for WvW. Only now it’ll be even better.

I think it’s a great idea so long as the abilities reflect the idea of hunting and trapping which to my meager knowledge of them they do so far. I can see why some of you possibly don’t like the title but from a design perspective it’s holistic and relevant to what is going on in the world at the moment. My sole worry is that traps feel underwhelming to use in general so I’m interested in how Anet will make these fun.

As for the name, maybe Dragon Bane sounds slightly cooler? /shrug

It’s difficult to put all those changes into perspective. I really didn’t expect that different of a map so this is a surprise. I’d be interested in a developer doing a video where he or she discusses how all these new things in the desert borderland facilitate a better wvw experience and player issues.

I think it might happen with Heart of Thorns. It is kind of related to the idea of specializations which I’m certain is another thing players will want to be able to switch on the fly.

I’m still a proponent of the “crowded” debuff. It would read something like if/while =>20 within the radius of “x”, then Crowded.

Crowded = -50% crit chance, -50% movement speed

Of course these numbers are flexible but it would discourage inefficiently large groups and it makes sense in that if that many people were really that close I don’t think they’d be able to move very fast or accurately strike.

Don’t support them. In fact, in addition to not supporting them you should advertise a smaller group and support smaller objectives. It’s not enough to just say you don’t like it, you’ve got to take action on how you’re going to fix it.

In theory, three smaller teams can take objectives quicker than one large group if if each is using the same amount of force which is likely. Large zergs have way too many people taking one objective. It’s actually a complete waste of resources. If you have 40 people using four rams to take a gate down opposed to 4 people doing the same thing then what use are the other 36 people? that’s an extreme comparison but what if we said we had two groups of 20 hitting different objectives opposed to 40 hitting one? Seems more efficient don’t you think?

Wow sounds like you’ve got a lot to choose from then. You might want to simply start at the top before you get lost in options! Also, do you cater?

Maybe one day we’ll be able to craft the legendary spork

Wish I had kept some of the Halloween foods to give a suggestion on what you could try next but all I recall is the ghost berry….

too early for thinking, need more coffee

Anima.8521:

I transfered to TC, and the difference is huge, even at 4am there were people roaming everywhere and talking all the time. In SF at the same hour there were literally 3 people trying to defend a keep from a middle sized group, that’s all the action I could find at that hour.

Welcome to the coast with the most.

Well keep in mind this is totally off the top of my head and purely selfish rather than oriented around any sort of balance but it would be totally awesome to summon a Legendary NPC to fight on your side when you’re outnumbered. The mechanic kind of already exists with the NPC commanders. Another way to obtain them that already exists could be through the capture and defending of npc camps like the Centaurs and what not.

I’d love to be able to summon like Rytlock or Braham, have them give everyone in the vicinity a buff, and attack a couple towers or something.

You can’t just make it harder for players to move to a server. You have to give them a reason to want to go somewhere else. The point I like in the OP’s suggestion is that due to the megaserver, transferring servers really does only affect WvW.

Maybe the emphasis on defending coming in HoT alongside the new borderlands and the new mechanics in the borderlands will affect this issue in some positive ways.

Great stuff. I think some of the holiday foods would be particularly interesting to see. Keep up the great work.

Egg Shennn.6240:

Quells.2498:

I still think the answer is simple. You DO have two specializations, example being a Ranger OR a Druid.

No, that’s incorrect.

Ranger is the base class, not a specialization.

Druid is a specialization, and if what they said is true;
1 specialization per class in HoT.
“you’ll be able to swap from one specialization to another outside of combat”

How do you swap from one specialization to another when there is only one?

Please stop saying the base class is a specialization, because it isn’t.

Show us where someone from Anet told you the base class isn’t a specialization

The only thing I can even think of that I want that wasn’t mentioned is more difficult content. Please keep it five player oriented. That is all.

I still think the answer is simple. You DO have two specializations, example being a Ranger OR a Druid.

People want it all. People are more likely to post when they’re upset rather than when they’re happy. People don’t realize that on these forums they are actually the minority of the player population regardless of how “loud” they are. Nothing has changed.

Maybe a more relevant question is whether or not players plan to use Tomes of Knowledge to instantly make their Revenant level 80 or not. Myself, I haven’t decided but I’m leaning towards not doing so. I know it’s a long trek but I tend to learn more about a profession if I level it “normally.”

It’s a poorly conceptualized article and I respect the persons opinion but he digs himself a hole in mentioning Ultima Online.

“The game didn’t suddenly switch gears on you and become something else or expect you to change your playstyle or daily activities. You pretty much kept doing what you were already doing.”

In fact, I don’t see how anyone could argue that Guild Wars 2 is more in line with his wants than any other game before it.

I love Guild Wars 2 and what I know of the expansion so far. The only other thing I was hoping for was a pvp server even though I know it doesn’t really fit Anets vision for the game. I just personally like playing on PVP servers as I feel it adds another layer of complex social interaction that feels interesting.

Yeah Siphoning can use some work and this is a great opportunity to make the mechanic more interesting. Also, I can’t help but wonder what the Specialization will be called….

Blood Knight
Spectral Avatar
Fearmonger

I’ve already got a lvl 80 Sylvari so I guess I’ll just wait until the release to make another. The problem is that I know I won’t split my time leveling a Sylvari and play a Revenant at the same time.

I don’t even attempt fractals or dungeons on Necro anymore but it would be nice to do so. I’m personally hoping for a power based weapon with lots of cleaving and life siphon. I think it would compliment the profession well and play on already existing traits and abilities the Necro has.

Well the reason I think it’ll be 1-80 is 1) The new area is separated into three zones and 2) guild halls will be located there and it would be difficult for anyone under level 80 to run through a level 80 area to get to the hall.

Of course that’s all assumption but /shrug

You said it in the title, versatility. Sums it up perfectly.

I’m glad this was reposted because the original time I read it I deciphered it as we should create a Sylvari AFTER the release of HoT to potentially experience something new. This is saying we should create one beforehand if we haven’t already played one so now I don’t know what to think. I’ve only got two more Professions to level to 80, Ranger and Mesmer, and I wanted to level one in HoT as I suspect Heart of Maguuma will be a lvl 1-80 area.

Nightman.6173:

they also said that there are gonna be different mechanics to a class once it’s specialised
so i’m thinking that the ranger, once a druid could shapeshift into any of his pets

kitten that would be RAD!!

Man, that would be cool. I don’t like playing professions with pets. They annoy me. But if I could shapeshift into different animals which gave me different abilities that would be really awesome. Guild Wars 2 conceivably already has the structure for such a thing to exist. You could swap animal spirits like an Elementalist swaps Attunements!

Yeah but I look so fing good in this game, best dressed NA.

Yeah, we already have an equipment slot for them Anet……[backpiece]

It sounds like fun but it negates a lot of the logic that Anet has built directly into the game, namely the lack of “trinity” and along with that the ability to break free of a “role” and be mostly self-sufficient. Also, there’s no raids.

It’s a weird conundrum. If you create a character of a class that has only recently been discovered then how could the character possibly have a history pre-dating that profession? Since Rytlock is the first we have to assume that a Revenants history must start from at least that day that Rytlock was declared a Revenant right?

I suppose there’s two simple answers: 1) Nothing in the personal story changes or 2) A few missions are added to the beginning of the personal story involving Rytlock and the Revenant.

So then it’s more likely that the Sylvari story will change somehow beyond HoT?

Assuming they’ll have one, what will it be about and how will it play out? Since Rytlock is the first Revenant he’ll likely be a part of it. I’m wondering if Heart of Maguuma will be a level 1-80 area to accommodate the new professions personal story.

And I’m okay with that.

I’ll buy three copies. All but my little two year old baby girl play the game in my house and we can’t wait to make the journey together.

It will likely be a one time cost expansion under $60. I would almost guarantee it.

Heart of Maguuma may be level 80+ so I don’t think I’ll plan on the Revenant being my “main” for it. However, Anet did say something about Guild Halls being located there so maybe I’m wrong.

In any case, I prefer to play Warrior and Elementalist in PvE. My Elementalist is a Sylvari so I will likely play him since this story is kind of personal for them.

Anet may view it as after releasing one specialization a player has two choices, the original state of the class as we know it or the new specialization. So in the Rangers case you can either be a Ranger or a Druid, not a Ranger Druid or a Ranger “x”.

then use the parameter of total number of players for a server throughout all BL’s.

All of that is a long and complicated process. Why not set limits on population based on the lowest population server on each BL? So if “Server C” has 50 people on a BL then “Server A” and “Server B” can only have 50 people on that BL and so on for each BL.

In this scenario it will truly come down to nothing but skill as theoretically a lowest tier server could still fight a higher tier server. This will also encourage populations to move to new servers since coverage won’t matter anymore if you can’t get the people in.

Lastly, it will encourage more small group play. In my eyes this meets the three major needs that everyone has been complaining about for so long. If Anet deems it unfair to limit the population to the exact number of the lowest population server then they could set a parameter such as Lowest population server + 20% to allow more of the players in to wvw but not overwhelm.

Reporting won’t do anything. Anet won’t ban a player for simply placing siege. Besides, we already know their names…

Add “counters” to deployed siege. A “counter” is given when a player interacts with the deployed siege and clicks an ability on it that says “veto.” If a piece of deployed siege reaches 20 “counters” it is dismantled and the supply is put back into the maps spawn location supply depot. No player may vote on any one piece of deployed siege more than once.

They won’t do it. Ever. I promise.

They cannot ban a player for placing siege and using supply. Lets just eliminate that line of thought right now. The player only has to claim ignorance and then Anet as a company is liable for discrimination.

So far all of these ideas punish other players. Remember it has to be something that can mitigate immoral play without too much of an effect on others.

Add “counters” to deployed siege. A “counter” is given when a player interacts with the deployed siege and clicks an ability on it that says “veto.” If a piece of deployed siege reaches 20 “counters” it is dismantled and the supply is put back into the maps spawn location supply depot. No player may vote on any one piece of deployed siege more than once.

Add “counters” to deployed siege. A “counter” is given when a player interacts with the deployed siege and clicks an ability on it that says “veto.” If a piece of deployed siege reaches 20 “counters” it is dismantled and the supply is put back into the maps spawn location supply depot. No player may vote on any one piece of deployed siege more than once.

There’s no perfect way to stop this. Something will suffer but each solution needs to address both the siege capping AND the waste of supply. I believe this veto system will do so. The counters need to be high enough that the enemy would have to pool significant amounts of people to dismantle siege but that homeland players can do so with a small force. I think a good balance is in the 20-25 counter range. Also, note that deployed does not mean finished siege. If we specify finished siege then the enemy will just build it to 75%.

Deniara,

We’re dealing with a subject that is difficult to summarize and while I still disagree with you I will recognize the amount of thought you’ve put into it. With that in mind I want to suggest that you think of WvW not in terms of balance but instead how it offers something no other mode in the game can. I’m certain that it was designed with that in mind as if a player wants “balance” they can go to PvP theoretically. WvW is a place where large scale chaos needs to be possible mostly because of the absurdity of it and not because of the balance or fairness.

The player base is increasing. Anet continues to release free content on a pretty ambitious scale, whether it is the content you will like I cannot say. Lastly, you already bought another copy so you’ve already made your choice. Play what you love and if others do the same then the game will live for a very long time.

1) If added verticality is a great thing, then Skyhammer must be the best pvp map ever. Just check the pvp subforums and you can enormous amount of players complaining about that map. E.g.

One maps lack of popularity is not a sign that verticality itself is the problem. Also, one pvp subforum isn’t either. Considering you are a designer you should understand the high relevance and popularity of verticality throughout multiplayer gaming in general right now. Lastly, as much as the players think they are design professionals they are not so quoting their opinions is of little use.

2) Choke points are not an effective counter against zerging without massive sieging. Most AoE skills in this game have a 5 player limit and those which don’t are usually countered by retaliation.

You’re not considering the possibilities of a choke point beyond a flat plane. Retaliation doesn’t counter anything.

3) A good WvWvW map should be balanced. Adding more imbalance to an already imbalanced game mode can easily skew it even further. In worst case we are talking about 99%-1% blown outs.

As much as players will hate me for saying this I must say that balance is bad design. It allows for no interesting decisions to be made as there’s a correct answer for each scenario. At that point the player isn’t playing but rather attempting to answer a quiz question correctly and in the appropriate amount of time. Play needs to feel fair but fair and balanced are not the same thing. You, the designer, should already know this as well.

I’ll apologize if this sounds crass but if you’re going to throw your credentials out there then you should expect other design professionals to challenge your opinions.

“If you really think so, why don’t you enlighten us “clueless” people why EotM map design is so great.
Note: I have worked as game designer and programmer and teaching the topic for over 10 years at university.
In my analysis EotM has:
- way too much verticality
- way too many chokepoints
- way too many edges where you can fall into void
- way too many distracting visual effects (flying sand)
- unbalanced overpowered NPCs and buffs for the different colors
- completely lacks the element of water (some players enjoy underwater)”

Most of those reasons are exactly why it’s a good pvp map. I am having a hard time believing your assertion that you’re a designer based on these comments as you should be the one person that I don’t have to explain why they create interesting decisions.