I personally think that a slight buff to critstrikes thief is more necessary than nerf to Panic Strike.
The solo queue experience is the same here on NA servers. Don’t expect too much OP.
getting lots of crits with low power is generally not as good as having fewer crits with high power…
Should make it 7v7 or 8v8… but you can only queue into it with a party of 5. So you always have 2-3 wildcards to “balance the matchmaking.”
huehue.
Could be interesting, but something like that would invalidate the whole point scoring system they have going on…
Who cares about the score? I want a victory, not a high score.
higher team score does net you a victory at the end of the match….
Could be interesting, but something like that would invalidate the whole point scoring system they have going on…
Berseker will do the same damage vs turrets as soldiers…
should probably just delete engineers from the game. They are the cancer class and game would be more balanced without them.
hue.
Basically, I’m sick of getting terribads as allies in solo queue and would like to get carried instead, as anet thought it would be a fantastic idea to not reset MMR with a leaderboard reset.
What is the most efficient method to tank my MMR? Do I just throw matches? Or would just quitting the game or d/c’ing be faster? Any other methods that come to mind?
All help would be very much appreciated.
(edited by Reikou.7068)
Currently the ladder is a ‘beta’ season. We are testing numbers, but this is not the feature complete design. This means things are missing that will be included later.
Wait what?
If the ladder is not feature complete… that means we’re alpha testing this PvP stuff?
this isn’t even a beta test yet (regardless of what you guys try to name it.)
I really don’t get all the hate for the OP…
We kinda need these threads because how else are we going to compare players? The PvP leaderboards? lel.
We kinda need these threads because how else are we going to compare players?
We kinda need these threads
need
I am sorry you feel this way… Truly
woooooosh
I really don’t get all the hate for the OP…
We kinda need these threads because how else are we going to compare players? The PvP leaderboards? lel.
I just wanna know where the hell the bad freaking match tracking thread is. I am so god kitten sick of getting kittens that try soloing lord right at the start of the game, or people that think the beasts on forest are the most important kittening thing on the god kitten map.
6 losses in a row and no matter how hard I try to support my team they just blow, and wind up costing the match thinking they are doing something that is useful. Trying to be polite doesn’t freaking work either.
This is happening because for some reason that absolutely boggles my mind, they decided not to reset MMR when resetting the leaderboards. This is a huge indicator that they simply want to go futher towards the grind based leaderboard and not make a MMR or similar based leaderboard.
If they want a grind/points based leaderboard, MMR and matchmaking should be thrown out the window.
If they want “fun matches” and thus keep the shoddy matchmaking, they should throw the points leaderboaed out the window.
(edited by Reikou.7068)
The devs see resetting MMR as a disruptive and bad experience for the PvP population because people would be complaining about getting bad matchups until the MMR was re-issued properly.
What they don’t take into account is the huge imbalance that MMR has on leaderboard point generation.
I guess at the end of the day this is one of the big reasons why we’re not seeing an MMR-based leaderboard…
Still, what a complete joke.
I’m pretty sure they didn’t even reset MMR for this new leaderboard test.
What a complete joke.
I’m just wondering why they’re not testing a system that actually WORKS instead of one that has been proven time and time again to not work.
The solution to all of this is to either.
1. Keep points based leaderboard but make remove MMR from matchmaking completely. Make it a random arena. Doesn’t matter what your MMR is. You could fight against a day 1 full solo queue group as the best team in the game, or you have the same chance to fight another group of your same level. Same with vice-versa. This is the only way a points-based leaderboard could work. It will also make queuing as anything less than 5 will also be much more “viable.”
2. Make it a MMR based leaderboard, and have MMR-based matchmaking.
(edited by Reikou.7068)
Are we getting any info on how this new leaderboard works at all?
It’s in the link. They said they’re going to focus on wins more. It’s cool and stuff but with current matchmaking it won’t really be any better, I’m afraid.
So, turret engis remain happy.
I meant some real info.
How exactly will scoring work
Whats the rating algorithm and how will matchmaking work
etc.
Are we getting any info on how this new leaderboard works at all?
Pretty much this.
Ranked doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll run into more good players. I always solo into Ranked now, but sometimes I queue unranked because the queues are faster. Sometimes I queue unranked if theres a bunch of premades in ranked that I know I could beat with a real group, but I get PuGs that don’t have a clue what they’re doing. I don’t mind being smashed by a good team, but against subpar teams that I know I can beat it’s just not fun. So thats a reason to queue in unranked sometimes. We need Divisions with incentive.
b-b-b-b-but it’ll make bad players feel bad!
Do you want nobody but elite kitten pvpers to do pvp and have the entire game lose interest in pvp? Cause thats how you get that.
The game needs MMR, actual match making. So people can not feel overwhelmed when they try pvp because the games idiotic developers want pvp gameplay to last 3.5 nanosecs.
If the game wants MMR Matchmaking we need a MMR based leaderboard.
I don’t disagree with you though, but I’m just stating what the situation is.
IMO witht the current leaderboard and system they’re going for, its probably better to remove MMR based matchmaking completely.
Unfortunately it seems that not very many people want/care to participate in a discussion like this.
Just wanna step in and say I’ll definitely be relaying this in my report. Great research and info!
Thanks for the support. I hope more people will step in and participate in this thread.
@ Random Weird Guy
Re-read my post about Ranger play
The shift from r1-e9 to r9-e1 off-point has already been detailed
What the OP is looking for however, is on-point skirmish rating
“1. The name of the game is conquest. MUs should be discussed under the assumption both parties are vying for control of a side node ie: Mine or Henge on Forest, Quarry or Waterfall on Foefire, and Windmill/ or Mansion on Kyhlo.
Both parties don’t have to stand on the point the entire time, one party may even be allowed to cap a point for a short period, but please be reasonable. Killing your opponent while letting him have full control of the node for 3 minutes is a disadvantaged matchup. "
Updated spreadsheet with whatever new information is posted here
Some matchups were discussed multiple times. For those that came out to a similar rating, (one person said 6:4 and the other said 7:3, or similar.) I left them as is. For those with conflicting reports, I have highlighted them in orange, as they require some further discussion.
Did a read of the post here so far, and added whatever Information I could. Please focus on the highlighted numbers for each matchup.
These are “first pass” MU numbers taken from a very small sample size with little to no discussion.
Spreadsheet has been updated as well to include whatever information on here.
In the case of match up numbers that were not in agreement, I went with the better explained MU. If anyone has any disagreements regarding the listed MU numbers please make a post as well as start a discussion as to why.
Also, booms if you could add some insight as to why you think those guardian matchups are as you see them, I would very much appreciate it. As well as perhaps shed some light onto Hammer Medi Guardian matchups.
I also didn’t have the time to add in Trevor’s ranger matchups. I’ll do that next pass.
(edited by Reikou.7068)
The steps for rating should be as follows.
1. A person who mains or play a specific build a lot supply his perceived match-up rating.
If it is based of one feedback only it is perceived as weak, and any other feedback in other match-up discussions would trump it, or slide it towards the middle of none-agreements (depending on how strong that other MU has been discussed).
2. From this a discussion usually follows, with new recommendations for the MU-scoring.
Specific match-ups people disagree with the scoring for are discussed as for investigating tools or options that may have been neglected and so on. Here one usually challenge the specific tools one have towards each other, provide skill data, ideas of counterplay, certain approaches of interest and in general contribute towards the “facts” for reaching understanding for those viewpoints. Unless there is an agreement the share numbers of sympathizers for a certain setups would determine what score is given, unless the MU-of the counter party has been discussed in great detail and found it agreeable towards the minority vote.
Post template:
State your build/builds that you play/the point of view you are coming from.
List perceived matchups for that build.
Provide supporting information.
(very) Rough example:
Build: D/P Executioner.
Matchup: Vs Turret Engineer, proposed MU Ratio 2:8 or 1:9.
Reason Example reasoning.
Another rough example:
Build: Cele Rifle Engineer
Matchup: Vs Cele D/D Ele, Proposed MU ratio 6:4 Engi favor
General Rules:
1. The name of the game is conquest. MUs should be discussed under the assumption both parties are vying for control of a side node ie: Mine or Henge on Forest, Quarry or Waterfall on Foefire, and Windmill/ or Mansion on Kyhlo.
Both parties don’t have to stand on the point the entire time, one party may even be allowed to cap a point for a short period, but please be reasonable. Killing your opponent while letting him have full control of the node for 3 minutes is a disadvantaged matchup.
2. Fights are to the death, or similar. Leaving and resetting a fight does not result in a 5:5 stalemate, but a disadvantaged matchup.
3. Stalemates are 5:5 ratio.
If I am missing any of the major meta builds from that list, please let me know. I will consider adding them.
(edited by Reikou.7068)
With the advent of WTS Boston and (slight) resurgence of interest in PvP, I thought it would be a good time to try this project. Basically, it is an attempt to see how the PvP community in Guild Wars 2 views the various matchups between the different builds in the current meta and thus build a tier list off that. The basic format for this is taken from various fighting games and how they build their tier lists, with matchups. Bear in mind, the game of Guild Wars 2 does not revolve around 1v1s, but I think it would be a good project to see how the community views the relative power level of various meta builds in this game.
This is an estimation and discussion thread regarding the tier list of GW2 PvP.
This list contains a combination of the Match-up rating discussion estimates at different corners of our community, and it must be underlined that one do not claim that this is final or something to be slapped as official at its current stage. These are simply estimates that we as a community has put forth thus far, and some with very little discussion or evaluation/second look at current stage. Thus it should not be taken as scientific fact, or otherwise be used as proof. It is simply put forwards for those of us which want to debate it further.
You can view the collected data here.
It is incomplete, but could still be viewed as an interesting piece of work in regards for further discussion here at the forums. It was last updated 10/3/2015
Builds in template and for subject of discussion.
Guardian
Bunker Guardian
Meditation Guardian
Warrior
Shoutbow Warrior
Engineer
Celestial Rifle Engineer
Condi Engineer
Turret Engineer
Ranger
Condi Survival Ranger
Power Ranger
Thief
S/D Thief
D/P Panic Strike Thief
D/P Executioner Thief
Elementalist
Dagger/Dagger Celestial Elementalist
S/F Fresh Air Elementalist
Mesmer
Staff/GS Ranged Shatter Mesmer
Sword/Torch Shatter Mesmer
Necromancer
Terrormancer
Power Necro
Here’s a breakdown on what each ratio means.
5:5
A pure skill match up. “Extremely well balanced.”
6:4 / 4:6
This is, in fact, a very equal match up. The only time you will ever really notice the match up difference is when both players are truly of equal skill level. Even then it is winnable for either side. A 6-4 can be caused by any number of factors from one build just being overall better than the other or it could be a specific situation like a certian skill that doesn’t work or works only in this match up.
7:3 / 3:7
This is when a match up becomes noticeably slanted in one’s favor. Even when the two players aren’t perfectly even but still on the same level you will see that one build holds an advantage over the other. If the two players are about even with each other the “3” needs a little luck on top of being on point with their game. Because of this, 7-3’s are often considered controversial (if we dare use that word) as they stir up a lot of differing opinions. 7-3’s exist in virtually every competitive game out there.
8:2 / 2:8
There is no question that this match up is unbalanced. Usually there is one specific reason for this 8:2 in addition to lots of other examples. No one with any sense will question that this match up is unfair but to what extent is often debated
9:1 / 1:9
This ratio exists usually not just because of a specific situation or a number of situations but a design flaw by the developers. Some opinion’s say that 10-0’s default to this since, “you can’t put a 10-0 on paper”. These should be rare in competitive games. Basically the “1” might as well just AFK.
(edited by Reikou.7068)
However from a competitive point of view, diversity at the cost of balance is definitely not worth it as these should be games of skill, not who plays the most broken builds.
Diversity does NOT mean that balance is ignored. Proper diversity means that a given build or composition is not the best each and every time.
Yes, but the OP was this:
Anet has already added assassin, magi, sentinel and cavelier. Next step is add all the stats that we are still missing. Even if they create new op/meta builds it can be fixed later and will give us more options and diversity.
So yeah… the OP was proposing prioritizing diversity over balance.
While I agree with you there is a huge skill disparity, I have to disagree with your assessment that a mesmer at skillcap is worse than a thief at skillcap. Its the other way around.
Diversity is nice, but it should never take priority over balance in a competitive game.
When diversity is low, it’s hard to achieve Perfect Imbalance. If a small group of “balanced” options is always best, the game gets stale quickly. You need a large enough pool of options such that none is always the best.
Adding stat diversity is often confused with adding a considerable permutations to the balance space. This is a bad way to analyze it. Instead, you need to look at stats as a multidimensional tradespace. Because the total amount of stats is fixed, the extremes are known, and are pretty much what we have now. If an extreme is not overly powerful at any one aspect, then something between the extremes is unlikely to be as well. You can also consider perfect balance (celestial) as another test point in the trade space.
The only negative impact which an increase on stat diversity would have on balance is that it creates many more viable builds. This isn’t necessarily a bad problem to have. Some might be overpowered, but how is that any worse than the current state with a few exceptionally strong builds and less build diversity?
A good example of the shortcomings of the current system is with offensive power builds. In order for a power damage build to work, it needs a lot of power, since this gives the biggest return per point, a decent amount of precision (crit chance) and some ferocity (crit damage). That’s what berserker has. However, few builds have a lot of escapes (e.g. thief) or heavy damage reduction. This makes them fall victim to berserker builds which have ample survivability from the profession skills. So most professions would also want some survivability. The best increase per point at low armor levels would be Toughness. On a light armor profession, a few hundred points can get you 15% damage reduction.
The other amulet choices provide excessive amounts of survivability, often in a poor balance, and lack damage. Soldier, Valkyrie, Knight, Barbarian, Cavalier. With no precision or no ferocity and lower power, the build just doesn’t have the damage to pressure a target.
Using runes is not a good solution either. Runes provide +175 to the primary stat, which usually isn’t enough. Additionally, the effects on runes are valuable to many builds, so they lose that benefit. And lastly, using a non-power rune significantly decreases damage output, especially for builds which don’t go into their power trait line.
A experiment which could “easily” be done in the interim is to add a 50% Berserker 50% Soldier amulet. In theory, that would enable more offensive builds which are currently too weak against thieves.
Normally from a casual point of view I would tend to agree with you. The concept of imperfect balance itself is meant for the casual gamer as at that level keeping the game itself fun, varied and interesting is important. However from a competitive point of view, diversity at the cost of balance is definitely not worth it as these should be games of skill, not who plays the most broken builds.
One could argue competiton of skill could come from who runs the most broken builds the best… but then we’re back to the “problem” of lack of diversity.
Diversity is nice, but it should never take priority over balance in a competitive game.
When diversity is low, it’s hard to achieve Perfect Imbalance. If a small group of “balanced” options is always best, the game gets stale quickly. You need a large enough pool of options such that none is always the best.
Adding stat diversity is often confused with adding a considerable permutations to the balance space. This is a bad way to analyze it. Instead, you need to look at stats as a multidimensional tradespace. Because the total amount of stats is fixed, the extremes are known, and are pretty much what we have now. If an extreme is not overly powerful at any one aspect, then something between the extremes is unlikely to be as well. You can also consider perfect balance (celestial) as another test point in the trade space.
The only negative impact which an increase on stat diversity would have on balance is that it creates many more viable builds. This isn’t necessarily a bad problem to have. Some might be overpowered, but how is that any worse than the current state with a few exceptionally strong builds and less build diversity?
A good example of the shortcomings of the current system is with offensive power builds. In order for a power damage build to work, it needs a lot of power, since this gives the biggest return per point, a decent amount of precision (crit chance) and some ferocity (crit damage). That’s what berserker has. However, few builds have a lot of escapes (e.g. thief) or heavy damage reduction. This makes them fall victim to berserker builds which have ample survivability from the profession skills. So most professions would also want some survivability. The best increase per point at low armor levels would be Toughness. On a light armor profession, a few hundred points can get you 15% damage reduction.
The other amulet choices provide excessive amounts of survivability, often in a poor balance, and lack damage. Soldier, Valkyrie, Knight, Barbarian, Cavalier. With no precision or no ferocity and lower power, the build just doesn’t have the damage to pressure a target.
Using runes is not a good solution either. Runes provide +175 to the primary stat, which usually isn’t enough. Additionally, the effects on runes are valuable to many builds, so they lose that benefit. And lastly, using a non-power rune significantly decreases damage output, especially for builds which don’t go into their power trait line.
A experiment which could “easily” be done in the interim is to add a 50% Berserker 50% Soldier amulet. In theory, that would enable more offensive builds which are currently too weak against thieves.
Normally from a casual point of view I would tend to agree with you. At that level keeping the game itself fun, varied and interesting is important. However from a competitive point of view, diversity at the cost of balance is definitely not worth it as these should be games of skill, not who plays the most broken builds.
One could argue competiton of skill could come from who runs the most broken builds the best… but then we’re back to the “problem” of lack of diversity.
Diversity is nice, but it should never take priority over balance in a competitive game.
I think if anet wants to have a points-based leaderboard, they need to eschew from MMR- based matchmaking like they have now.
Instead have grades/ranks/whatever at certain point intervals, and allow the player to select a range of grades that they are willing to play with/face. The lowest of the upper limit being your own rank. And if there are not enough players that match your criteria, you will be told so, so you can either change your criteria or something.
Players should also be rewarded for win streaks and punished for losses.
I’m just throwing this idea out there, wondering what people think.
What I am proposing is adding a solo queue MMR and Leaderboard score that only kicks in when a player queues solo into ranked. Duo or more would just use the regular MMR and leaderboard score. Have a seperate leaderboard for this soloqueue as well. The mixed queue will remain the same as it has been, because lets face it, therr aren’t enough players.
Unless you play full Dire condi cheese builds. Necro, Engi, Elementalist, P/D Thief, Warrior. I’m pretty sure any of these classes with that build can 1vX pretty easy. (Warrior would be better with Rabid, Condi Warrior wins a lot from applying condis on Crit)
Dire cheese builds can stalemate against a lot of builds, but they have no killing power what so ever. You literally need to let yourself die to them.
Then the answer is yes. IMO D/P is currently at the bottom of the barrel in terms of straight up 1v1 combat. With very few to no favorable matchups against meta builds.
(edited by Reikou.7068)
So what you’re saying is that you want to get carried by a build.
In which case, my advice is to play another “effortless” class.
you should try fighting a condi necro as a condi engi then
Or fight a CC warrior with a condi necro.
Good luck with your effortless 1v1s.
(edited by Reikou.7068)
If you want to be able to 1vX people, get good at the game. No build on any class will allow you to win 1vX based on the merits of the build alone. And if you are good enough, any build will be able to 1vX opponents assuming enough of a skill gap between opponents.
For “viable builds” just check metabattle.
(edited by Reikou.7068)
You go into wvw and walk around as far away from any allied players as possible doing whatever pve content comes your way. Try to stay alive.
Play whatever build/spec you want to play as long as it works for you and allows you to achieve what you want to achieve.
When I say heavy DPS, I mean something more like 6/6/2/0/0. Thieves have a lot of survivability and escapability utility skills with stealth and shadowstep. So I’m curious as to why I don’t see more thieves simply ramping up the backstab damage and using stealth and mobility as their defense?
It’s worth noting that I’m a newish player without much experience so maybe there is an obvious reason that I simply don’t know about.
because its a one trick pony.
I use withdraw with 2/6/0/0/6. Is panic strike better for group PVP than critical strikes as well?
Definitely.
I’ve found if you run panic strike though, you lose the damage necessary to kill things like celestial engis or warriors, or even some eles 1v1 though.
As for which trait spread performs better in a group, it’ll depend on what your group needs. 26006 will hit harder and finish targets faster, especially when your target is below 50%, but 60206 gives you more utility with immob, weakness, and possibly improvisation. I also think 60206 is a bit more forgiving because you can use shadow’s embrace to clear condi’s, and you can use withdraw instead of hide in shadows for your heal.
Eh. I’d say a 4 scond UNDODGEABLE immob at 50% is far better than 20% extra damage, especially in a group situation. 1v1 you can argue either way, but in a group situation that immobilize will help get the kill far more than 20% extra damage from a single thief will.
(edited by Reikou.7068)
Yes. You need to significantly outskill your opponents though. If you’re talking about equal skill though, then no. I’d wager, depending on level of skill you’re talking about, even the matchup between shatter mes vs D/P thief turns to the mesmer’s favor.
IMO 26006 D/P is at, or very near the bottom of terms of relative power of builds atm, especially for 1v1s.
60206 Panix Strike with withdraw is slightly better, but still not great.
(edited by Reikou.7068)
I forgot to say, you can also try Invigorating Precision to keep up with their sustain. However, I’m not sure you’d have enough damage to kill them.
Shortbow a lot. Only use your daggers for opening and for the kill. The rest of the fight should be shortbow. If it looks like they’re some super tanky variant, and you can’t outdamage their regeneration, just turn around and walk away.
You can find out if a mesmer is PU if he/she goes into stealth and comes out with Aegis, Regeneration and Protection.
1. Make it so that events scale in WvW. If you come to a keep with 10 people, it’ll take 10 minutes to get through the wall, 15 mins to get through the second wall, and a good 15 min of fighting to kill the boss.
If you come to a keep with 20+ people, it might take 5 mins to get through the first wall, 10 to get through the second, but 30 mins to kill the boss. etc.
2. Remove shared loot and EXP. Only a certain number of players are able to receive loot and exp from completing things in WvW based on how “difficult” completing the event was. Sentries, up to one player will receive rewards. Camps, up to 5 players will receive rewards. Towers up to 10. Keeps up to 15.
Implementing either of the above would easily kill zerging in WvW, and implementing the second in PvE would easily kill it in PvE.
I’m currently in the planning stages of gearing up my Guardian for WvW roaming and am wonderng if there are any particularily popular or strong gearing schemes out there for the meditation guardian build?
I’m planning to run either 21614 or 01616 traits and traveler runes if it makes any difference.
My initial idea is mostly berserker gear with some valkyrie for a condi cancer buffer without losing power or ferocity. Any suggestions would be welcome though.
Eh.
Shadow’s Rejuvenation should be removed
Shadow’s Embrace should be master or grandmaster
Cloaked in Shadow should be master
Last Refuge should be removed.
Just remove shadow’s rejuvenation and prismatic understanding traits.
Easy fix.
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.