Guild Wars 2

I’ve never liked Purity. If I could tell it to cleanse specific conditions, or even knowing when it was going to proc, I’d run with it. When it works it’s awesome but when it doesn’t it feels like such a waste. That’s my personal feelings towards it though; a lot of people like Purity.

I like the satisfaction of giving aoe retaliation when rangers use Barrage, so I’ll probably not change that :P

That said I’ll still run with what you’ve suggested, never know I might like the extra sustain

Appreciate the post!

Stronghold would have to be majority vote instead of rnd. Same que but a separated:
Majority vote: – Conquest -or- Stronghold-

I still think they should be completely separated ques…

… what if Stronghold never comes up as an option for people to vote? If 1 vote messes it up for Everyone then people will simply ragequit.

It needs to be separate ques…

Josh Davis.6015:

This is live at 12pm PST, not 1pm.

About 25 minutes from now.

style.6173:

The issue is that gw2 really need a balance team. Right now, there doesn’t appear to be one, or it just isn’t very productive.

Look at the last balance “cele builds are too strong” Anet: “ok cool lets nerf might”

If you think it is bad now, wait until they add a new class to the mix.

#hireabalanceteam

All your posts are mainly “nerf turret engis” and “game needs a balanced team”. Think you can do a better job without your actions having a negative effect for everyone else?

Celes can have a constant upkeep of 22-25 stacks of might. That out damages any Zerker build. Why wouldn’t Anet nerf might when the average class maintains (if that) 8 stacks of it?

Solstice.1097:

so you are saying we should play bad builds because it makes the game harder?

^

GrandmaFunk.3052:

ronpierce.2760:

Gw2 however doesnt follow that system. They just nerf whatever gets complained about the most

No, that’s really not how the balancing team works.

Take celestial builds as an example. People complained about them, but it was a much needed nerf. I don’t want to change the subject, so let’s not argue about whether or not it was a good nerf. The point is, top tier teams And Casuals wanted something to be done, for good reason.

We’ve all seen the “nerf turret engi” – “nerf rangers” – “nerf condi” threads… those were started _ by_ Casuals. Top tier teams would never make these type threads. You get a chain of casuals wanting the same thing… to kill these classes for the wrong reasons.
That is detrimental to PvP balancing.

I’m glad Anet can tell the difference while we’re here arguing about it.

Fnix.5608:

Why the kitten is it just 5vs5???
It should atleast be 8vs8 or 10 vs 10. Gawd, i was hoping for some Fort Aspenwood action again, but GW2 seems to continue to go way to small to get some serious action, planning ang strategy.

Because 8v8 and 10v10 would suck dude. Not to mention it’ll be more of a zerg fest. Best zerg wins. That doesn’t help the “casuals” who “don’t pvp well”.

I think /resign should be a full lost regardless of 4v5, 3v5, etc.

It should be enabled after the first 7m of play.

Exedore.6320:

Saiyan.1704:

Your drawn-out, pessimistic, opinionated essay doesn’t mean anything because you haven’t played the gamemode. You’re saying the game will fail; with no supportive evidence from anything. Not even an example of past implementations that Anet did to strengthen your argument.

No, using examples drawn from GW2 as well as from other MMORPGs which implemented similar mechanics doesn’t count I guess.

You’re saying the game will succeed without any supporting evidence (even though there has been quite a bit published or data-mined). Sorry, but I never liked kool-aid.

I’ve never said the game will succeed, on any thread. All I’ve expressed were optimism. You are blatantly saying the game will fail under false pretenses.

Exedore.6320:

I’m saying that stronghold will be the downfall of GW2 PvP for the following reasons.

I bet you’re one of those guys that sleeps with tin foil hats at night.

Your drawn-out, pessimistic, opinionated essay doesn’t mean anything because you haven’t played the gamemode. You’re saying the game will fail; with no supportive evidence from anything. Not even an example of past implementations that Anet did to strengthen your argument.
Not a fan.

Awesome vid! Do you use a similiar build in tpvp/spvp?Would love to duel you sometime whether that be in wvw or tpvp!

Edit
You should make a new thread and probably delete this one. Being this is a completely new video and build, people will be confused with the threads comments :p

brannigan.9831:

Burning guardian is worthless in pvp too.

Not sure if trolling or you suck at playing burn guard.

Darnis.4056:

This game isn’t balanced for 1v1, it shouldn’t be made into a special game mode,
no thank you just because 80% of people in a thread want something doesn’t mean its good for the game.

Usually when there are multiple thread with 9 pages of people wanting something AND a Dev replies as to what they want, odds are the Devs will cater to it. cough courtyard cough

As for whether or not it’s more-or-less balanced, here are the 1v1 specs per class
Ranger: spirits, condi
Engi: Cele builds, condi
Thief: idk thief builds but there’s some really good ones.
Guard: Condi
Mesmers: Phanta, shatter
War: Cele builds
Necro: Minions

Obviously certain builds will counter others but these builds will win the majority of their 1v1 fights. It’s hard to say which one is OP… because they all perform well. The build that’s the most OP is the build that wins the majority of his fights… matchmaking will play a huge role in whether they win or lose a 1v1.

1v1 isn’t unbalanced, just misunderstood.

Johje Holan.4607:

I hope you’re right OP.

However regarding casual friendliness two things bother me.

1. In the news article you linked they mention dueling in several of the rolls. I hope its not just dueling builds and duelers and gankers running around. That would not be casual friendly.

2. I worry about stealth. A bunch of Thieves and Mesmers running around would not be casual friendly.

Acutally 3 things. 5v5 is not a casual friendly format. Hopefully the custom arenas will be easily accessible and well used. I’d prefer a separate bracket for 8-12v8-12 instead of custom arenas.

The thing is “casuals” never liked stealthies, engi turrets and >insert bad l2p threads<. Class specific QQs will never change. That’s in every MMO.

What bothers me is the 1v1’s at treb, 2v2’s at defense/offense and 1v1’s at supply depots. They say you don’t need to be good in pvp but there’s bound to be a roamer somewhere right?
Not sure how the map layout is so I’m quite curious

leman.7682:

I think one fundamental question that needs to be asked and answered is how ArenaNet is making sure that every profession has a wide spectrum of viable roles.

In Conquest it is apparent that some professions are simply not fit for certain roles. Is this somewhat applicable to Stronghold as well? How to make sure that every profession brings something to the table and is worth taking?

In the blog post, the authors give much space to the ‘roles’ topic, but it is hard not to imagine some professions like elementalist being superior to others just because of how relatively versatile they are by design. The question is quite personal for me, because I have been in a limbo for over a year hoping for some changes to necros that would make them more usable in competitive PvP, which never happened.

The rationale behind the question is past experiences with how Anet handled the balancing, with months or even years of some professions being unfit for PvP and/or PvE (some examples are the initial warrior in PvP, necro or ranger in PvE/PvP).

How is that different than Guardians, Engis, and Warriors being better bunkers than thief mesmer and rangers? In Conquest there are specific roles too, that some classes simply do better.
Stronghold will have the same I’m sure.

I’ve seen numerous guards use the 01661 traitline. If you’re referring to Force of Will trait. the 3k extra health i’s a noticeable addition. Other traits in comparison, is either on par with it, or under par.

Thanks for the inspiring story I enjoyed it

Custom Matchmaking could definitely use a face lift. Here are a few example rough draft layouts.

New Enlist option next to Spectate. Players have the option to Enlist in order to enter the map.

Enabled From Chat Commands: Owner Only
/MaxPlayersBlue #
/MaxPlayersRed #
Sets maximum players per team. Team size still no greater than 10 and not less than 1.

/EnlistRandom
/EnlistOrdered
Sets whether the map chooses an Enlisted player by random, or picks in numeric order.

/MapEntrybyDeath #
/MapEntrybyDc #
Enables Enlisted players to enter the map either by players dying, or if a player disconnects. “Number” signifies how many people enter the map under these conditions. The stomped player reverts back to Enlisted/Spectator mode.
Example:
/MapEntrybyDeath 2
_Player A stomps Player B. Two Enlisted players join Player A’s team.

/PointsPerKill #
Changes the amount of points earned per kill. Max cannot be higher than 500.

/SetTime 00:00 or equivalent
_Permanently sets the game time. Time never alters unless set.

Possible Game Modes
-Koth Greatly Improved
-2v2 Greatly Improved
-Zombies Probable Gamemodes
-Juggernaut Probable Game modes

Implementation
New UI Button for Enlist action.
Basic coding to set domains in Enlist that corresponds to players. The Spectator itself already exists; could just add a simple disable/enable entry for Enlist UI. Everything else seems like simple coding but I’m no programmer!

Warrior’s 10s fury and might buffs syncs well for a guardian. Med guards could trait for more damage instead of the extra medi fury procs.

kdaddy.5431:

As i will continue to argue my point…

You’re the only one so knock yourself out. Other than others who are disappointed in the fact that “it could have be handled differently”, in the end, it just doesn’t matter.

Lordrosicky.5813:

GhOst.4019:

Rank means nothing………………Skill means everything. If someone quit because rank 80 was easier to get to, they probably were hiding their horrible skill behind their high rank they had to grind.

I don’t remember people quitting GW2 all together because lvl 80 was to easy to get to in PvE compared to other MMO’s. People were happy. I don’t remember people quitting the game after tomes were introduced allowing players to get insta 80 on new characters…….

Makes no sense…

Also, if they quit, I am pretty sure you won’t hear from them because they aren’t here….they quit.

Saying rank means nothing is ridiculous.

The point is, for me grinding rank meant nothing. For you maybe it meant nothing. For a ton of people in this thread apparently it meant nothing.

But so what???

To SOME people it did matter. And they removed the feature (in effect). What is the point in that? What harm was it doing to anyone to have a ranking system which didn’t just auto put everyone at rank 80?

That is the point. Why remove something like the rank system that some people played because of? It makes no logical sense. None at all. Their reason was that it took too long to rank up. Well who cares. Let the people who want to go for it rank up. If your not bothered then no problem.

It would be like removing dungeons because the devs/alot of people dont care about them. But SOME people do care about them.

Terrible comparison.
1) There are 100x more pve players.
2) The majority of which do dungeons on a daily. Anet would never remove such huge content from the game.

The pvp rank patch changes affects a small percentage of the PvP community. The change affected <1% GW2 player base as a whole!
Here’s an example. If the GW2 population was 500, only 1 person left, if that.

A lot of people were using PvP ranks as a skill comparison. The Rank could be confusing for many players. I’m sure Anet had their own reasons for changing it.

silvermember.8941:

If their only purpose was to grind rank they were going to quit sooner or later, so I am not really seeing the point you are attempting to make here. You are supposedly a smart guy, you should know that.

What you call terrible ideas might simply just be a difference in opinion. You assume your goals and arenanet’s goals are similar and that is not true. Also I really don’t understand the point of your last paragraph or are you just ranting?

^ That. The last paragraph is his rant about the expansion… His opinion of which I’m sure most of us disagrees with.

Never heard of anyone quitting because of no more “PvP Rank 80” grind… Rank means absolutely nothing. However, removing rewards, and titles is a completely different story.
If a patch removed these titles, and I was a few games away to get Legendary Champion, I’d be furiated!

Furiated: A word used in place of “infuriated” when one feels too angry to spell “infuriated” correctly.

Random Weird Guy.3528:

timmyf.1490:

Random Weird Guy.3528:

Turret engis when played by low MMR players will be matched against other low MMR players. As we have established, the low MMR players are the ones most likely to encounter severe issues with this build. This allows low MMR players to shoot up the leaderboard with this build.

So, I agree with you that leaderboards should be an indicator of skill, not grind, but I have to point out that this statement is silly.

Suppose a player has an MMR of 1200 and plays turret engy. If he starts winning, say, 80% of his games, his MMR will increase. Now he’s playing against MMR 1400 players, for example, and will find less success.

The build itself is unrelated to the player’s success on the leaderboards. As has been pointed out, a sub-50% win rate means that this player is either a) not particularly good or b) consistently matched against harder competition but manages to score a decent number of points.

The problem with the leaderboard is the non-zero-sum point system.

Think about gambling: every casino game has something in common. On average, the house wins. You might win a game or two here or there, but on average, every dollar that is spent produces something 98 cents of winnings. (Or substantially less, depending on games.)

This means that the more people play, the more they (slightly) lose money.

Leaderboards are the reverse: the average “winnings” is slightly positive, meaning that the more games which are played, the higher the scores of players on the leaderboards.

This could be solved entirely by ensuring that every score distribution is zero-sum, meaning the total of all points awarded is zero. Above average players would have positive points. Below average players would have negative points.

Your theory requires that rating be directly proportional to leaderboard points, which it certainly isn’t. Take this examples:

You play a match where you have a 10% chance of winning. You lose 500-300. Under the current ladder system, you will actually gain 1 point on the leaderboard. You will not however gain any MMR from this. I’m not 100% about GW2’s Glicko2 system, but you will either lose MMR or simply remain the same.

Now if you lose a match where you have 55% chance of winning and the outcome is 500-400, you do not gain/lose any leaderboard points. You will however lose MMR under any rating system.

If you take these examples into account, the turret engi in question is constantly having his MMR lowered back to the correct MMR, but these losses do not always result in a drop in leaderboard points.

Comes down to “participation”; playing more than some one else always guarantees you more rank points.
Either have a cap of 100 games a month (some one from other threads have suggested) or developed a system that reflects all casual players who play normal hours.

Ouroboros.5076:

They have no direct counter 1v1. The counter to turret engies is teamplay.

Maybe the “good” turret Engis. Even then the “good” ones know how to rotate and save their turrets.

Zerk Guards usually counter the average turret engis with their GS aoe damage. Even condi/hybrid guards have a 90% win rate against them 1v1. The good turret engi’s are the ones you should ignore… There’s so many bad turret engis out there that Guards usually hold their own against them.

Isn’t the leaderboards still a grind system? It doesn’t matter who’s on top. The engi is an average player who out-grinded everyone else.

We all are. There’s been countless threads, pages of people not liking the que restriction.

^

That and ESL announcers are going to kitten bricks. They would only tell you half of what’s going on in the game… Not to mention that watching more than 10 people on a map isn’t exactly entertaining

Black Box.9312:

Saiyan.1704:

Black Box.9312:

Belarorn.9062:

It also fits with the guardian mentality. Get into the Fight quick but stay to the end.

I really despise this argument, to be honest. Just like how guardian is supposed to get into a fight and stay there, warriors were supposed to be susceptible to conditions. Rangers were supposed to be dependent on their pets for damage.

Last I checked, those other two cases were no longer true. So why do we still have to apply this argument here if it’s no longer applicable there?

Because if we had peels just like the warrior then you’ve just change the already good bunk guard meta. That and I don’t want to play like a warrior… ever. I’m perfectly fine with my easy teleport-in but not-so-much-out skills.

Well warrior mobility in its current state is another issue entirely. I’m fine with having to stay in a fight as a guardian, but if that’s what it’s going to be then we need to have the utilities that can keep the enemy in the fight with us even if they’re moving, which we are currently lacking.

I’m just sick of this whole “guardian is supposed to be a close range fighter that doesn’t get to run away, but guardian also doesn’t get to stop other people from running away”. That’s a load of garbage, and something has to give.

It could be difficult adding something that doesn’t break the guardian. I’m curious if a “Activating Sigils cripples surrounding foes” trait would suffice. The cripple would have to be at least 5 seconds at a 300 radius.

I wouldn’t use it because I have no issues reaching my target but maybe other guardians would… just theory crafting :/ I like to think Anet reads posts like these.

Geiir.7603:

Power.2957:

Alrighty, this screenshot should clear some things up. See attached image.

Not a valid reason if I dare say so. Why do you have to be in the Mists to accept? Can’t we just accept from WvW and just get ported right to the arena instead of through the mists first?

Because they’re thinking about the majority of players. The majority are in fact, PvE casuals or WvW players. I don’t know if Anet has data to support the notion that players skip que check because of pve cinematics, OR because the new UI blocks everything, making it a bad experience for PvE and WvW users… which they’ll hear about more than PvP players. Guess they think Hotm was the best remedy…

They need to give us the ability to join custom matchmaking. There’s no reason not to.

This isn’t a question, just a rant about certain game mechanics you think should change.

You’re entitled to your opinion. I for one disagree with what you said entirely. Especially respawn times shortening… that would worsen the pvp experience completely.

xFireize.6318:

I don’t mind Anet caving in to reduce shield skill cooldowns, since everyone including guardians who know how to use shield is enjoying the buff. However, I would be upset if Anet replace protection with block / aegis. That’s just dumb..

Maybe remove the #4 protection duration reduction from PvP? I think it’ll help PvPers.

Not Protection, just the #4 damage it gives.

Technically there’s 5 main positions that are all situational when it comes to rotating. Here are the positions, more or less.

-Offense lane.
_The “pushing” lane geared towards pushing your NPCs to the gate.

-Defense lane
Defense against the enemy team’s minions.

-Supplies Runner
Gatherer of supplies for your team.

-Treb Gunner
Used for Offense and Defense. Overall support for your team and minions

-Main Roamer
Technically, anyone can roam or rotate else where at any time. Once everyone has their positions, this person may be roaming to attack treb, supplies, or simply help defend or attack

I definitely want to roam, killing treb or the supplier person. I wouldn’t mind taking defense or offense lane but I’d have to respec for that probably.

Rym.1469:

It seems very basic and kind of unoriginal for me. I wish they were a little bit more creative when it comes to systems like those.

I mean, why spend supplies on Archers in the early game when some staff ele will get rid of all NPCs in a matter of seconds? And they can’t harass players.
Get treb, bombard mid, spend supplies on massing bomb carriers and treb repairs. Once gate is down, mass archers, leave the treb, lure the AI out of the base into the range of archers, go ham.

Because the enemy team will spend in Heroes, doing mass aoe offensive damage and 1 hitting rats while you spent all your supplies on Rats and Treb repairs.
Suddenly you’re defenseless and susceptible to attacks.

Pretty sure Archers can attack Rats. Rats only attack Gates while Guards (Archers best at killing Guards) will 1 shot Rats. Better hope your horde of Rats are able to reach the gate.

GhOst.4019:

The start will be a zerg fest. 1 pile of supplies, both teams start with nothing & you can’t do anything without supplies. 5v5 on sups. You wipe & you will be so far behind it won’t be funny. Sure thieves might be able to snag some and run off during the fight, but my guess is massive AOE fest on sups at start. Might mellow out after that though for some small skirmishes.

According to the site, a zerg fest isn’t exactly accurate.http://www.pcgamer.com/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns-stronghold/
You’ll have an Offense lane, sending troops and a Defense lane, killing enemy troops.

As well as NPC guards, each team has a trebuchet that can fling boulders across the map. Teams can use the trebuchet to control key points across the map – locking down the supply camp, or harassing an offensive push.

Are you 100% sure about there only being 1 supply depot? Idk if it’s going to be a territory that’s always contested, idk how that’s going to work along with other elements.

This is what intrigues me
Through testing, the team has already seen such roles naturally emerge. High DPS builds can attempt to clear the offensive lane of enemy players and NPCs, evasive builds lend themselves to ferrying supply, and support builds can use buffs to speed up and protect doorbreakers. Even manning the trebuchet has its own considerations, as the player can be harassed by a roaming opponent looking to destabilise the team’s ability to control the map.

-High Dps, zerks or cele self sustaining builds
-Team support for troops, I suspect aoe swiftness and protection is sought for.
-Ranger, ele and thief are best at running supplies.
-Some one manning Treb.
Not sure if teams would actually send 2 people to take out Treb early game, so they’ll waste supplies rebuilding it.

EDITED
You’re right it does say Central Depot on the article.

Solstice.1097:

Saiyan.1704:

All the negative comments I’m reading are ridiculous… we seriously don’t know anything until beta is here.

On paper it actually sounds fun and non zergy like courtyard.
You’ll probably have a two Runners who’s job is to kill foes and tackle other enemy players, while your other team gather supplies. May need to switch out rotations if players get downed ahead, respawns may need to gather supplies until another rotation is needed.

If it’s anything like that, and it’s not too much of a zerg fest, I’m all in.

What I’d like to see is Level ups, getting pieces of equipment after X amounts of Gold. Equipment could be soldiers, zerks, clerics, etc. That would be an interesting Moba idea :p

i dont think individual power creep is a good idea… would make the matches too long imo. gathering supply and/or hiring heros will be the extent of the power creep I hope. that’s the main thing about DOTA I don’t like is that matches can easily last an hour.

Yet millions of people play moba type games.
Whether it takes 15m or 45m, time is going to be irrelevant if people love the gamemode.

All the negative comments I’m reading are ridiculous… we seriously don’t know anything until beta is here.

On paper it actually sounds fun and non zergy like courtyard.
You’ll probably have a two Runners who’s job is to kill foes and tackle other enemy players, while your other team gather supplies. May need to switch out rotations if players get downed ahead, respawns may need to gather supplies until another rotation is needed.

If it’s anything like that, and it’s not too much of a zerg fest, I’m all in.

What I’d like to see is Level ups, getting pieces of equipment after X amounts of Gold. Equipment could be soldiers, zerks, clerics, etc. That would be an interesting Moba idea :p

Zietlogik.6208:

“We definitely believe people are going to love Stronghold,” says Corpening, “and we want to see what the reaction is to it. We definitely see this being the future of PvP for Guild Wars 2.”

Original Article: http://www.pcgamer.com/guild-wars-2-heart-of-thorns-stronghold/

Where have I seen something similar before…

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/introducing-the-new-skyhammer-pvp-map/

“I think players are really going to respond well to Skyhammer.”

“Pretty much as soon as we threw this in for testing, our internal playtesters said, ‘This has to go on Live.’”

I know I am being overly negative here, and it is too early to make a proper judgement.

But claiming that this will be the next big thing, while in the same article claiming you can be a non-PvP player is kinda strange. It works, but is kinda strange.

Is this some super-casual moba-esque “you don’t have to fight people if you don’t want to” type of hand-holding gamemode? why would it be in sPvP? why not have it as its own separate thing? maybe in a same light as Kegbrawl…

The thing is, at the time the Majority players Did like Skyhammer. After weeks of negative comments, that was a low percentage of the pvp community, did the devs finally move it away from Ranked.

I see a lot of people liking a gamemode like Stronghold. Whether that’s only PvE players and WvW players… that fan base is 200x bigger than the current PvP community.

So ya they’re probably right, again.

Black Box.9312:

Belarorn.9062:

It also fits with the guardian mentality. Get into the Fight quick but stay to the end.

I really despise this argument, to be honest. Just like how guardian is supposed to get into a fight and stay there, warriors were supposed to be susceptible to conditions. Rangers were supposed to be dependent on their pets for damage.

Last I checked, those other two cases were no longer true. So why do we still have to apply this argument here if it’s no longer applicable there?

Because if we had peels just like the warrior then you’ve just change the already good bunk guard meta. That and I don’t want to play like a warrior… ever. I’m perfectly fine with my easy teleport-in but not-so-much-out skills.

Vizardlorde.8243:

No they already kittened up MI for pve thanks to a “pvp buff” that didnt even fix the problem that we wanted fixed. JI works perfect with my crappy 3 button mouse i dont want to buy a 14 button mouse to use half of my abilities due to groundtargetting in real time being a pain in the kitten .

You’d hate playing hammy warrior then
Yes I agree.

For PvE burning is niche.
People aren’t kiting you so there’s no reason to not go Zerkers. You could go full glass with high burn and raw damage but you’ll have a tougher time in dungeons for sure; likely to get 1 shotted on world bosses and such.

In short nobody really goes full condi in pve unless maybe if you’re roaming and doing non dungeon stuff. That said use what ever build you desire!

Carrion with Geomacy sigils are popular. You could even go Rabid + Torment sigils for more aoe condi damage.
Torment is buffed in pve

I highly recommend Purging Flames and Judge’s Intervention for utilities. I don’t recommend going anywhere near Permeating Wrath… you don’t need high procs of burning with PF and JI equipped.

6/2/6/0/0 medi, higher sustain build or 6/6/2/0/0 for higher damage. That’s where I would start for a PvE burning build.

CMF.5461:

At least the devs are tracking that it is suboptimal as they have tried to buff it recently with shorter cooldowns, but that is still not enough.

I think their reduced cd on shield was just a placebo effect, same for the other classes complaining about their traits and skills, they got a cd reduction as well. I think Anet likes where shield is currently…

I’d be perfectly fine with #4 doing 0 damage, but offering an Aoe Aegis instead… even if it’s short radius..

It’s beyond me as to why our Shield does not offer a single block….

messiah.1908:

here is my version for support guard with burning dmg

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?fVAQNAW5flsApfntCxZI8DRBGBldFC/4tB7AMgFcDA-TpgMgA7lBA2fAA

The build has 7k less health, does less self-heals even with staff, and overall less damage. If you’re going that far in support you might as well run a Bunk meta build since it’ll perform 2x better than what you’re aiming for.

Staff is only really useful if you have Altruistic Healing. You might as well use Permeating Wrath with GS than Indomitable Courage. In fact, I’ve even used GS + Permeating Wrath on a Clerics Bunk build, it wasn’t half bad.

Team Oriented Build added

The build’s rotation is a change of pace, from strict home/far 1v1 – to team support small skirmish roles instead..

Full med tier but only 1 med utility?
Contemplation of Purity synergizes well with “Save Yourselves”, as well as it being the best way to fully condi cleanse yourself and stun break. The 4k heal from two medi’s may seem small but it’s very noticeable. If you aren’t worried about conditions, i’d go Smite Condition for a 4k heal + cleanses in 32s.

I don’t recommend Judges Intervention. It’s not as wanting after leaving Amplified Wrath.

Build listed in second post. Heavy criticism welcomed.

Exactly what Mr. Muffin said. Focus #5 isn’t a waste if you stomp the opponent. I’ve used Focus #5 numerous times for exactly that. Including grabbing Stillness on Temple of Silent Storm.

You should get used to using #5 as a utility, it can really save you and your team. Other than that, cleaving is the next best thing.

Morwath.9817:

Saiyan.1704:

Random Weird Guy.3528:

Saiyan.1704:

“Played more often”

Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.

A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.

I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.

Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.

How is that different than say, making a cap of 3 ranked games a day? Games after the first 3 will not count towards your rank or win percentage.

People will still play for the sheer competitiveness, dailies (rank should give better daily rewards imo) etc. Que times won’t be much different.

Because not everyone has time to play in middle of the week while can play many games during weekends and so on…

Gotcha. Sorry was slow there :P

The biggest issue with either is 1) It’s more susceptible to douplicate ranked teams. 2) Fate can be unkind to some people’s matchmaking but that’s the luck of the draw.

There was a situation with one player where he would earn +2 points at 400 or +3 at 500 because his MMR was ridiculously low. He was top rank on the leaderboards. I doubt that’s an issue now after all the changes.

Either ways I think it’s better than the “grind” system we currently have. It’s at least worth a test ride.

Random Weird Guy.3528:

Saiyan.1704:

“Played more often”

Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.

A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.

I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.

Make the leaderboard only count the last 100 games.
Problem solved.

How is that different than say, making a cap of 3 ranked games a day? Games after the first 3 will not count towards your rank or win percentage.

People will still play for the sheer competitiveness, dailies (rank should give better daily rewards imo) etc. Que times won’t be much different.

There is no expiration to some one doing critical damage to a person.
Not sure if a health reset nullifies that.

If that person dies on the other side of the map, even if 5 minutes gone by since you last did damage to him, you will get the kill or the rally up. Some one could easily have died across the map, rallying the ranger.

Also if a person you do critical damage to suddenly drops the game, you will instant rally. Any of these could have contributed to some one “suddenly rally” when it was otherwise impossible.

Other reasons for those who don’t know…
-Warrior Elite’s banner can instant rally team
-A Stealthed Thief
-A Guardian’s sigil

“Played more often”

Players out-participating others is the reason why the entire leaderboard is screwed up. Not because of win %.

A person winning 7/10 games can very well be ranked lower than a person who won 5/10 games.
The chart below is the reason why.

I agree with Anet on implementing this system… just not the grinding leaderboard that they have. It needs a cap of some sort so players can’t easily out-participate other players.

Shiyo.3578:

No one said it, it’s just unfun to fight against pets that do a lot of damage to squishy builds.

Squishy classes think everything is OP…

SoLeciTO.3490:

yes, it is a joke than a single player can kill alone.

even with a thief that is glass.

The lord at lest with same hp should hit 50% more.

Honestly, the Gates could have a bigger buff in health. Every WvW gate requires a horde of people to knock down. It even takes a battering ram to do so! The health on these gates should be 3x or 5x more than it currently is… so it can have a requirement of 2-3 people knocking it down in 7-10s instead of 1 person.
That’ll give plenty of time for others to either defend and/or start capping nodes. Either ways, it’s a greater risk for people to do so.

Just my 2 copper.

A quit feature can be added in Ranked but definitely not in hotjoin or practice pvp.

Before the game even starts, you have people quitting or trolling… simply because they don’t like their team composition or they lose mid at the start and think that’s the only way to win a match… so they stop playing altogether.

It’ll add higher tocixity to the game for obvious reasons. Think about it, players will be kittening about others not hitting the quit button when mid is lost, or they’re behind by 50 points… suddenly there’s absolutely no hope right? =/

Again, quit function should only be added in Ranked pvp… but only after a set amount of time. Preferably enabled at half time like, 7m in.