Showing Posts For Storms Fury.9307:
1 2
Thats just an excuse for greedy players and poor designers
Because you can’t lose Tiers in Amber, Emerald, or Sapphire that means that bad players will eventually make it to Ruby because they will just grind.
I’m halfway through Ruby so its frustrating when players on my team clearly don’t deserve to be there and drag your team down.
The only way they got there is by luck and enough grinding.
If you remove no tier loss from Amber, Emerald, and Sapphire they will never make it there unless they actually are skillful enough.
This will make players across all skill levels have less volatile matches and more likely to play other people in their relative skill range.
They could just add a new effect that prevents application of boons on a target for a short duration.
Have a few skills among the classes that strip one type of boon or all boons followed immediately by the effect that prevents boon application of 1 type or all types for say 2-3 seconds…
Guild Wars 1 had this figured out.
Everyone could Zerg a target and it would die super fast.
You could counter by applying Aegis or Guardian
Aegis & Guardian (GW1 Enchantments similar to GW2 Boons) blocked 50% of Attacks for the entire duration it was active, not just 1.
This countered Zerging.
Then to prevent Aegis/Guardian from being overpowered, there were other abilities to prematurely remove Enchantments.
There were also abilities that were unblockable to “circumvent” blocking mechanisms.
I suggest GW2 Aegis be changed to block either 50%, 75% or 100% of attacks for its entire duration instead of blocking only 1 attack.
In addition to make this fair there should be more abilities (which classes would need to be a design choice)
-Abilities that Remove all Boons on a Target
-Abilities that Remove Aegis from Enemies in a Radius
-Abilities that make your next X attacks Unblockable
-Abilities that make Allies in a Radius their next X attacks Unblockable
-Abilities that are Unblockable
This would increase skill required because simply calling a “T” target wouldn’t be good enough anymore
Defensively your team would need to manage abilities that counter Zerging, Targeted Aggression, and Attacks in General.
Offensively your team would need to manage abilities to Maximize Zerging, Targeted, Aggression, and Attacks in General.
Lastly yes there are other other non-Aegis methods of blocking but they simply are not enough.
When an allies block ability ends and they go from full HP to downed in 1-2 seconds in a group engagement I would say that is a little excessive.
The Key to being balanced is that these changes need to be properly implented on both Defense and Offense.
With the release of Druid I only think it appropriate that a new stat combo of items also be released containing Vitality, Toughness, and Healing Power.
Dishonor system needs to have a small amount of forgiveness.
If you randomly crash only one time you should not be penalized with dishonor.
Accidents happen sometimes, some that are out of our control.
For example the game client can crash. We shouldn’t be penalized for that.
For all you role players and lore junkies, tell me what you think about this lore:
The events of Guild Wars 1 take place a few hundred years ago, involving many peoples and races, some of which were our ancestors.
Our ancestors had contact with the Gods many of which sought the Strength and the Favor Of The Gods.
In our current time it feels contact with the Gods has greatly diminished and so must we pull together as a people to continue to move onward.
As a people we trudge onward, drawing on the Strength Of Our Ancestors, our last known link to these supposed Gods.
I look at how things can work before automatically assuming they cant and are impossible.
ArenaNet is the writer of the storyline…not you and not I so don’t speak for them. They can write the story any way they want.
If they decided they wanted write the storyline such that it would be compatible with an idea like this that is their decision and theirs alone.
Apparently I was still under the assumption that favor was still based on the status of Heroes Ascent. Honestly I am offended.
They should change it back as that degrades the “epicness” of gaining the favor of the gods.
In Guild Wars 1 players from America and Europe would struggle for the favor of the gods.
The suggestion would be that when the favor of the gods is won for America in GW1 that all American (US) servers in GW2 would gain slight bonuses in addition to the current WvW bonuses.
Likewise if in GW1 Europe attained favor of the gods, all European servers in GW2 would gain slight bonuses in addition to WvW bonuses.
As a Guild Wars 2 player I still would like to occasionally participate in Heroes Ascent in Guild Wars 1.
Unfortunately the game has such a severe lack of population that usually it is impossible to play a single match in Heroes Ascent because there is not 1 other opposing party to play against.
This would provide incentive for Guild Wars 2 players to play Heroes Ascent in Guild Wars 1 which in turn would directly benefit their respective servers.
@Spec OP
No you are wrong. The concept is entirely a proportion of mathematics by nature.
-Consider a Boss fight with an average group of players with average gear who do an average job of mitigating damage through buffs and avoidance.
In a traditional Guild Wars 2 approach:
-Each player is contributing 80% of their efforts towards DPS (Damage Per Second)
-Each player is contributing 20% of their efforts towards HPS (Healing Per Second)
-Player 1 = 80% DPS / 20% HPS
-Player 2 = 80% DPS / 20% HPS
-Player 3 = 80% DPS / 20% HPS
-Player 4 = 80% DPS / 20% HPS
-Player 5 = 80% DPS / 20% HPS
The issue is nothing more complicated than mathematical proportions that easily can be reallocated:
-Player 1 = 90% DPS / 10% HPS
-Player 2 = 90% DPS / 10% HPS
-Player 3 = 90% DPS / 10% HPS
-Player 4 = 90% DPS / 10% HPS
-Player 5 = 40% DPS / 60% HPS
The issue is simply ensuring that dungeons can be reasonably healed by groups of 5 DPS who off heal (80% DPS 20% HPS for example)
The other issue is simply ensuring that healing can not be abused by enforcing a minimal requirement of DPS through enrage timers that already coincide with what players are ALREADY capable of.
My arguments work down to the specifics of mathematics. Until you can provide counter proof down to that same level your talking in fluff.
So yes, you and the other sister arguments are invalid.
Classes do not work the same. To begin with , some classes are not meant to be hit , some are meant to mitigate damage , not simple heal it all , and some are meant to heal the damage they take.
Granted each class got the power to do those things , but each class is more focused on something while being able to do the other options.
Anyway , we are all able to complete the dungeons atm , so i wonder what exactly is the point of this thread.
You want to make dungeons harder for some reason? Then no , i already dont agree with you.
1.) The damages of a dungeon must be balanced such that 5 DPS classes who off-heal (not dedicated healing) can heal JUST enough to reasonably complete the dungeon assuming they properly execute the encounters.
Quoting myself the last part states “assuming they properly execute the encounters.” This addresses all the items in the first portion of your post.
No I am not suggesting dungeons harder at all.
-Currently dungeons are completed with 5 DPSers who each contribute somewhat to healing.
-We allow for the OPTION for players to act as a dedicated healers if they want.
-Groups then have a CHOICE. “Do we want to play Guild Wars 2 style or do we want to play the traditional style?”
-Then to ensure healing can not be abused to make dungeons too easy, you put in enrage timers built around what groups are ALREADY capable of doing.
-If average 5 DPS groups out there now can defeat a boss in about 2 minutes you might put an enrage timer that kicks in at say 3 minutes.
-The average 5 DPS groups wont notice a difference because they already meet that requirement while conversely if we allow for the possibility of dedicated healing we ensure that it is not abused.
1.) The damages of a dungeon must be balanced such that 5 DPS classes who off-heal (not dedicated healing) can heal JUST enough to reasonably complete the dungeon assuming they properly execute the encounters.
-This ensures that while a dedicated healer is optional, it is NOT required.
Both your replies are invalid as you clearly ignored this specific condition I laid out.
“Groups will be stuck waiting for healers”
Not true, if every class is equally viable as DPS and/or Healing that means any combination of the members of the group can satisfy the need.
“Classes will end up being forced to heal all the time”
Not true, if every class is equally viable as DPS and/or Healing then everything equally cancels out.
“If every class is capable of dedicated healing for good amounts then dungeons will either be too easy or the developers will make them so hard that we will be forced back into the Holy Trinity model”
Not true, the answer lies in the balance of mathematics through 2 concepts:
1.) The damages of a dungeon must be balanced such that 5 DPS classes who off-heal (not dedicated healing) can heal JUST enough to reasonably complete the dungeon assuming they properly execute the encounters.
-This ensures that while a dedicated healer is optional, it is NOT required.
2.) To enforce the difficulty of a dungeon implement enrage timers that enforce a reasonable balance between DPS and healing such that running 5 dedicated healers who off-dps will hit the enrage timer and not work thereby enforcing the difficulty of the dungeon.
This is my short attention span thread, the longer more explicit version is here:
Apparently the thread I made earlier is a “sister” thread to this.
I’ll post the URL for your viewing:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/suggestions/Additional-Weapon-Skills/first#post802129
Issue #3) In concern to PvE there are two types to address. Structured PvE such as dungeons and Unstructured PvE such as events.
Concerning Structured PvE such as dungeons:
-“If there are dedicated healers, dungeons will become too easy.”
Logically then usually a designer might make the dungeon harder, then the argument changes to:
-“Now the dungeon is so hard we HAVE to have a dedicated healer and now were back to the problems of Guild Wars 1 where we were always waiting on monks or ritualists just to do anything.”
This problem is solved by the combination and balance of 2 important factors:
-The effectiveness of all 5 players off healing (not dedicated healing) needs to be just enough to weather all encounters of the dungeon under the assumption that all the fights are being properly executed.
-Enrage Timers. World Of Warcraft and Diablo III demonstrate that enrage timers are an effective and reasonable way to balance the trade off between DPS and Healing thereby ensuring that 5 man super healing teams that do little damage do not undermine the intended difficulty of the dungeon.
Under these constraints a team of 5 DPS off healers is mutually viable with a team who decides to do 4 dedicated DPS and 1 dedicated healer.
Concerning Unstructured PvE such as Events:
Unstructured PvE such as Events is a different issue because the amount of players changes from a constant to a variable and secondly because players can not account for the builds of other players and when they come and go.
What this means is that for Unstructured PvE enrage timers are automatically not a good idea. So what should we do instead?
The first rule of thumb to remember is that events should be moderately challenging at most due to that fact that there are often times when one player wanders into an event and ends up completing it by themselves because no one else “happened” to show up. So lets remember to put some emphasis, but not too much on ensuring the difficulty of events for that reason.
We should partially follow the Diablo II & Diablo III model of what happens when players join/leave a game and apply it to when players enter/exit an event in progress.
In Diablo II & III when a player joins your game, the monsters gain more HP and just a little bit more damage. HP is not the issue so ignore that part, our focus is on the balance of damage versus healing.
Allowing the possibility for dedicated healers allows for there to be the potential for overall more healing, therefore damage needs to scale a bit to offset this.
The issue of events then simply becomes a mathematical issue of “in an event, how much more damage should a monster do for every additional player present? How much is too much? How much is not enough?”
Issue #4) First let me point out that other games out there prove that there is nothing wrong with having a dedicated healer in any form of PvP.
So as to maintain true to my premise I will remain specific.
The biggest concern when you introduce dedicated healing of any kind in concern to PvP is to ensure that the mechanics do not allow for an “all they do is heal” build.
There are 2 general factors that a game designer should always shoot for to ensure this does not occur.
-First that mathematically the theoretical damage output of any damage oriented class (in this case all of them) is always greater than the theoretical healing output of any healing oriented class (if my suggestion were accepted, all of them).
-Secondly, with the mathematics in favor of the DPS, you then add additional anti-healer mechanics such that of harassment and shutdown to further ensure that “all they do is heal” builds are not viable.
Then the issue simply becomes a balance of damage, healing, and anti-healer mechanics.
The only concern left to address about PvP would be again relevant to the prior statements and a good example is capture points.
We simply would want to ensure that DPS output is superior enough to healing output and that while combined with anti-healer mechanics ensures that “all they do is heal” builds can not cause stalemates in which they hold 2 points, never die, and win because of it.
The answer is simply to ensure DPS has enough of a mathematical advantage over healing and that anti-healer mechanics is sufficient enough such that an “all they do is heal” build will not work.
Conclusion:
It is absolutely possible to have a balanced PvE and PvP game with the potential for dedicated healing without requiring it or obligating a class into a role.
Please be constructive if you choose to reply by targeting specific issues, not speaking in generalizations as it is the targeting of specific issues that is necessary to solve problems.
(edited by Storms Fury.9307)
ArenaNet wanted to try to learn from the pains of Guild Wars 1. They wanted to avoid 2 basic downfalls:
-Groups waiting in limbo because they are dependent upon a healing class.
-Classes being obligated into a healing role.
From a generalized perspective ArenaNet had a good idea “lets just make everyone a dps class each of which can off heal.”
“That way, groups are not twiddling their thumbs waiting on healers and certain classes don’t get stereotyped into healer roles when sometimes they might want to dps.”
The biggest misconception is that its an “either or” issue where you only can have it one way or the other, but not both.
This is a misconception.
I will state my premise and then proceed to address the very specific issues with very specific answers to prove that indeed this is a misconception.
My Premise:
It is absolutely feasible to allow for the possibility of dedicated healers:
1.) Without particular classes being obligated into healing roles.
2.) Without groups stuck waiting for healers
3.) Without diluting PvE, primarily such as dungeons
4.) Without diluting PvP
Issue #1) Every class needs to be equally viable as DPS and also equally viable as support to ensure that no class gets stereotyped as a healer class.
Issue #2) Upon addressing Issue #1 where all classes are created equal everyone in the group is a potential dedicated healer or support healer. No one class will find themselves always being obligated to heal the group.
The only left over inconvenience and deterrent I observe then is the overhead required to change your build before entering a dungeon or event. Traveling to town (which costs gold), and spending 2 gold on a Grandmaster book.
Heart of the Mists has the “Refund Traits” option which if were available prior to entering a dungeon or event would solve this problem.
-Continued on next Post-
First understand how the system currently works.
1.) You choose a weapon ->
2.) You gain skills that are exclusive to that weapon only
For item #1 (choose a weapon) you have an element of choice.
For item #2 (gain skills exclusive to that weapon choice) you do NOT have an element of choice.
You should be able to pick for example a greatsword, and then have choices for skills that are exclusive to the greatsword.
Currently you only have the choice of choosing a weapon but not the exclusive skills for the weapon.
An important note to the designers to consider that I must stress is about selling points. To properly make a point it is important to consider successful competitor products as well as prior products of your own.
As a former player and critic of Guild Wars 1 and World Of Warcraft I would state that Guild Wars 1 had the superior selling point in terms of skill choice.
World of Warcraft has many skills like Guild Wars 1 did, however many of them are atrociously imbalanced and another good handful of them are diluted unto the fact of how useful or necessary they are.
The design brilliance behind the skills of Guild Wars 1 in my opinion still outshines every other MMO out there.
This is because the designers strongly achieved 3 basic goals in concern to skills:
1.) Give a multitude of choice. Truly there was a multitude of skills.
2.) Ensure every skill has a viable purpose. Every skill was usually viable in both PvE and PvP. Between the volume of skills and ensuring the viability of each I literally could spend hours upon hours theorycrafting builds.
3.) Ensure every skill is balanced. On this point I personally believe Guild Wars 1 absolutely destroys World Of Warcraft. I have never seen a game with so many skill choices of which out of hundreds and hundreds of skills the amount of skills that would appear imbalanced could probably be counted on one hand.
In concern to Guild Wars 2 and specifically to Weapon Skills:
Elements #2 and #3 are satisfied in my opinion while element #1 is minimally satisfied.
-You have the choice to choose different weapons -> This starts to satisfy element #1 but alone is not enough.
-Once you choose your weapon your stuck with those skills and there is zero room for customization.
In terms of skill choice I think the one place Guild Wars 2 is currently lacking is with weapon skills. I believe if the designers add more choice in this area the game will become exponentially more interesting just as Guild Wars 1 was with how many potential builds you could come up with.
(edited by Storms Fury.9307)
Empowering Might has an internal cooldown of 1 second.
Does Sigil of Strength have an internal cooldown?
Can Empowering Might and Sigil of Strength proc within the same second as in:
Empowering might triggers and goes on 1 second internal cooldown…
Does this mean that for that 1 second Sigil of Strength is also on “cooldown?”
Then finally if Empowering Might and Sigil of Strength do not share an internal cooldown, they both could in theory proc at the same time meaning AH could in theory proc twice in the same instant between the 2.
P.S. I know already that Empowering affects you and allies while Sigil Of Strength only affects you.
1 2