Having played a bit in the new BL maps and having tried gliding in HoT I can see how gliding would not only be fun but useful in the new WvW borderlands. So how about this for an idea:
Introduce gliding.
Make gliders targetable (I think they are already).
Damage taken while gliding would reduce the glider duration bar.
In this way people who have HoT can glide around and make use of the new game mechanic (if you have HoT you will have already experienced the “oh kitten!” moment in Tyria or WvW where you jump off something and hit space to glide… having forgotten where you are).
People who don’t have HoT won’t be able to glide, BUT they will be able to enjoy shooting down people who are gliding and watching them plummet to a certain death is likely to a satisfying reward in itself… (“Think you’re better than me because you bought the expac? How’d you like that gravity then!”)
Perhaps it would even work out fairly balanced.
Before you complain about whole zergs flying into objectives think of the effect of a balista or arrow cart (or engi mortar, or meteor shower, or ranger barrage, or….) on the incoming gliders. Would you risk it?
How many objectives would you be able to get high enough above to make gliding in a viable strategy?
Would gliding players simply be easy kills for roamers?
One big problem I foresee is if AoE effects don’t act in 3D and coding this would be too difficult to implement. But if we could have it – it would be cool…
I take the point about there being less people on in your BL than normal because of new content elsewhere – but actually this is what it’s like non-prime and low tier anyway… so the feedback is useful even if it seems to confirm that the new maps are harder to play with a small population or as a roamer.
I can’t see Anet changing the maps (unless they bring the Alpine maps back sooner than anticipated)so what can they tweak to help us? Reduce the PvE style mobs perhaps? Or a long term speed boost like you can get in cities?
I’ve been worried for a while that Anet are more focused on the big fights between higher servers or mid tier prime time – there are more players on at these times – but I would actually miss the small fights and individual heroics that mean each player can make a big difference in the lower tiers. Anet – come play lower tier and non prime and see what the new map is like for players like us…
The new map sure feels more 3D and much larger when running around. I think the variation in height makes it harder to scout for opponents unless they are in a large group (not that I’ve found any large groups yet – just an impression).
I was glad they retained a similar pattern of camps, towers and keeps though, at least I can make some sense of it!
I’ve not fully explored the new map yet, nor do I fully understand the strategies, this will come with time. BUT some of the changes that I’ve already seen are going to affect those of us who play non-prime hours or in the lower tiers (or both!).
So I thought I’d ask for brief feedback – things you like as solo or small group or lower tier players, and things that have made your life harder (I know this may be hard to keep positive but please avoid ranting and we can hope Anet will listen harder…)
My first thought is that the normalised cost for Guild Catas, while logical, will hit us more than groups of 5 or more players. Is there any balance for this or do we now simply need more people to take anything other than a camp?
What else needs adding to the list?
Thought I’d post here because people might look here first.
If you got stuck after the new build and can’t enter the portal – says you need to go back into the jungle to learn glider mastery – then the solution is to map to the start wp in silverwastes and then run back to the protal. You’ll no longer be in the “story mode” and can get in.
This isn’t obvious when you’re facing the portal though – so thanks to the player who suggested it! Hope this helps others.
Sigh – that’s not what I posted.
I certainly wouldn’t want to tie a player to every location to keep it active! In the original post I thought I’d indicated this. It all depends on the time scale for the circle to decay to inactive. I would not be at all happy with the short time currently used for the Ruins, that would be silly and would tie up players. I simply used Ruins as the basis for the idea because people know how they work. Think Ruin mechanic with siege life-timing.
Take a look at the idea with a 15 minute decay timer, or 30 minutes, or an hour – much like siege has. You can scout around and pop into structures as you pass to refresh the circle – just as you would to refresh siege. I envisage the circle being capped from neutral to active in a couple of seconds and decaying to inactive over a period of time that would (on the old Alpine map) allow a player to run all the way from the North camp to the South camp for example (with time for a quick skirmish or two in between).
And if you’re new on the map and someone has let things slide it’s no problem. You can still refresh the circles (your team still owns the objective) and you’ll get xp for it, and make a difference to your server score.
I accept it’s my fault for not making this clear in my original post. The replies seem to have assumed I meant the same timer used in the current Ruins – I thought that the comment “timer needs to be carefully decided” and the question at the end would indicate that I thought a different longer timer would be necessary. Mea culpa.
However now that’s out the way, is the idea itself worth pursuing – after all it has minimal impact on the game play as we know it yet should (to my mind) address one of the most vocally proclaimed concerns in recent WvW – that of servers claiming large scores when there are very few people on.
In my opinion if you’re refreshing siege you can refresh the circle. If your WvW group doesn’t refresh siege then you lose it. Why shouldn’t the score gained from a location cease too?
Hmm… I think you missed the point. Oh well nvm, it’s your opinion and your reply. I don’t usually reply to posts like this but feel I need to in this case because your concerns may well be genuine but I’m not certain that they are caused by the concept I put forward.
My idea doesn’t favour stacked servers any more so than the current system. Numbers have always made a difference and arguably should do (or are you saying ET vs Blackgate should be a fair match?). However it does address the issue of a large number of claimed objectives affecting the score without a number of people to support this happening.
As for trying to map-limit with alt acounts, this would be possible but if this would happen you can bet it will be happening now anyway. And you’d have to play the alt account or it would be kicked for inactivity. Don’t see this as an issue tbh.
Logging in alts to sit on circles with a macro to hit a skill every 5 minutes to ensure it doesn’t disconnect would be against terms and conditions and would be reported as botting – account ban. It would also be fairly easy for Anet to detect. I’m not convinced that players would be this stupid, and again it’s nothing you can’t do at present, eg bot with an AC aimed at a gate on auto fire (not seen anyone try this though – it would be a bit obvious!).
I do play sPvP, and and enjoy that too. Ironically my WvW experience has made me a better PvP player. Please note however that there is no suggestion that YOU should be the person standing in the circle, or roaming to keep things active… in fact, if you don’t then this idea would have no impact on you at all, but it might just balance the scores from your matches and that was the point of suggesting it.
I’m suggesting using an existing WvW mechanic to try to bring a balance to the game that many players believe doesn’t exist at the moment. What I’ve suggested doesn’t affect GvG play, roamers or zergs. There are dedicated players in WvW who make a point of defending their borderlands, and yes, sometimes this involves sitting in a tower for hours – that’s their choice – and as a commander and experienced WvW player I’m very grateful for it too. Perhaps you’ve not met any, but they do exist and they would happily take some extra xp and loot for what they do anyway.
Just an idea to put out there that might help resolve some of the issues being discussed so heatedly. I wanted something that would give purpose to blobs and roamers, that could suit prime and non-prime players, and would allow us to play WvW more or less as we wish to. The idea is based on keeping WvW pretty much as it is, after all despite our posts and gripes as a community it’s been fairly ok for three years or we’d have quit playing here.
The Idea:
Change the circles in WvW objectives to make them like the circles in Ruins. When a player has “claimed” an objective the objective counts towards the score and the players get WvW xp for the cap. When the player leaves, the circle starts to decay (like a Ruins does – timer needs to be carefully decided here though). Once the circle is back to unclaimed, the team that captured the objective still holds it, but it is considered inactive and no longer counts towards match score.
For Defenders:
This would mean that there would be some clear merit towards defending a location. With WvW xp for being in the claiming circle at completion (like with PvP caps and Ruins) Defenders can keep the objective active and get some XP reward (and ultimately loot) for maintaining the camp/tower/keep as a point scoring position.
For Roamers:
Roamers particularly on a lower tier or non-prime game would be able to run around and “top up” objectives to keep them active. This would be similar to taking the objectives or checking on upgrades, which is one of the things roamers do anyway.
For Attackers:
No difference. There are no changes that would affect your attack or capture as the objectives themselves are the same and the circles give xp on cap anyway.
For Servers:
Now this is where the change would make a difference. For bigger populations you can leave a defender or two in each objective – which seems to happen anyway. Provided the maps and game play is relatively balanced an attacking force has a chance of taking the camp/tower/keep anyway.
For lower tier matches and non-prime times however we would not only have to capture the objectives but keep them active to gain the score. This idea would end the situation where a small group can cap a dead borderlands and leave to cap another yet still gain points from the empty map. With Active Claiming Circles, to retain the score from a borderlands you would need to leave a small number of players to run between objectives keeping them active. A small defending force has a chance to stop these people so even if they can’t reclaim the objectives they can at least stop them counting towards the score and so can influence the match outcome.
Overall, I feel this idea has the possibility of bringing balance to the issue of a few players having a disproportionate effect on match score without affecting the game play too much or penalising people because of when they can find time to play.
What do you think and what length timer is required for this to work properly?
“Best day would be Wednesday noon (around 1pm) in my opinion. This will remove a lot of coverage/night capping issues that many servers have…” Err… I have to play WvW non-prime time due to my work hours and my geographic location. I’m not sure how putting reset in the middle of the week changes either of these?
To be honest, any reset time will work, all that will change is whether the BIG PUSH comes in two consecutive days or is split into two parts.
I really don’t want to see reset more than once a week – not all players can play every day, so you’ll probably get some match ups being decided on the results from a game that had low population at odd hours (which is a common complaint on other threads), and then the next one on results from a much bigger player base. At least a weekly reset evens this out.
In another thread, John Copening implied that Anet would like time to fix any bugs when the new BL maps are launched. His suggestion of moving reset doesn’t meet much favour so how about this instead:
Keep Friday reset.
Launch the new maps when planned with everything running as it would be.
Disable glicko for the first week (until the first reset with the new maps).
Then after first reset game on…
Advantage for Anet – you get more time to fix bugs, and can focus on the HoT PvE maps first (which I suspect will have more players and you’re going to do this anyway).
Advantage for players – we get time to learn the new maps before our scores start affect our matches. This is particularly useful for people who didn’t get to beta test the new maps.
Disadvantage for players – we get a week where scores don’t count (I’d happily trade this for a decent bug fixed map imho).
Disadvantage for Anet – the WvW community would expect you to deliver bug fixes for the more serious problems within this week. There shouldn’t be any catastrophic bugs following beta testing – anything that made WvW unplayable we’d need fixing earlier, but most issues could be dealt with after the first couple of days, and we’d expect you to have a decent go at doing so.
I think this is a better solution than shifting Reset or having developers spread thinly between game modes. Perhaps if enough people agree it may even come to pass!
Thank you Kaiser for your thoughts.
I understand your points. I would expect that if a large non-prime presence is so influential then the servers that benefit from this will rise through the tiers until they reach a server or tier that can cope. In this way the current system should be self balancing – and it is – albeit very slowly. I’ve been on the receiving end of this when IoJ dropped from T3 to T8 because some of our guilds moved on. For those of us who stuck with our server it has taken a painfully long time for us to reach a level where we were matched more evenly.
My original post however was not about this, nor whether this is right or wrong. My point was, and still is, that the many prime time players have a louder voice than the fewer non-prime players: simply because there are more of them.
I have no issue with when people play. Perhaps you might read my final thoughts again in the original post, as well as the examples I mentioned. For those of us who play non-prime time, and also for players in low tiers, a group of 10 can be a sizeable zerg, and groups of 2 or 3 are much more likely. I’ve seen heroic actions from players of all experiences, and from small guild groups, that show both a dedication to their server and a willingness to risk all for the team that will be on later.
I don’t want the voices of these dedicated players to be lost in the noise of prime time. I have a worry that so many posts here, and comments by Anet themselves, refer to epic battles between huge blobs. That new developments will be geared to the vocal many with no thought of balance for non-prime or lower tier players. This is what lies behind my open invitation for any Anet player to join me, or any of the lower tier servers, and experience WvW the way we do. I hold hope against the doubt that I will see this challenge met.
We see a different side to WvW compared with the top tiers or the prime times. If we don’t get the chance to tell our stories how will Anet understand just how different this game can be for us? How will they find the balance that can make this game mode work for all of us prime and non-prime players alike?
If I’ve read the OP properly – this could be fixed by bringing in the saved build menu we had in GW1 where you could build a set up, save it, and swap to it at any (out of combat) time. I’d like that, but not the limitations that PvP builds have atm.
1. It will discourage new players – they’ll be easy targets (no fun if you’re constantly stomped on) and gain little reward (unless you can hide in a zerg and tag things – that’s what EotM seems to rely on).
2. It will encourage spawn camping – after all that’s where the players come from so get them while they are fresh.
3. Eventually someone will point out to those who are still learning how to play (new players or new classes) that each time they die it is helping the other side – so they can best help their own server by staying away and never coming here again!
OK, I’m being cynical. So just how much would you bet that these things won’t happen if WvW becomes PPK based…?
The best place for PPK is for GvG ranking, not in general WvW. Give GvG the love it deserves: a proper set of arenas and a proper ranking system, it’s as valid as any other game mode.
It’s fairly clear to me that Anet at least reads what is posted here, and sometimes uses the ideas. In a way this worries me because I fear there is a bias in way WvW is portrayed. I have yet to see an ANET labelled player in T7 or T8, and I doubt I will unless they play “off peak” as I do. So I want to share with you what WvW means to me, and to give an open invite to ANET for anyone to come and join me for a couple of hours: walk a mile in my shoes and see the world you’ve given me.
Anet themselves talk about WvW as a place of “epic battles” and describe the large scale play that I assume is the sort of experience people get in T1 or T2 (never been that high – I’m on IoJ). I can see the fun in this, and respect the idea that many people enjoy it, however this is most definitely not the WvW I know.
There are plenty of reasons why people play WvW away from “prime” time including shift work, different time zones, personal choice. To suggest that the contribution these people bring to the game is somehow less important or less useful simply because they play at this time is just plain wrong.
World vs World off peak is a place of courage and tenacity. It is often a place of long hours, of hard graft, and of hope. I’ve seen so many small but important encounters that you would miss in a zerg. For me the real heroes are people like:
The Kaineng recruit who stayed under fire to res his mentor.
The Eradon Terrace defender who stayed to defend his keep against our attacking party – despite being out numbered 4 to 1.
The Devona’s Rest mesmer desperately trying to find somewhere safe to hide in Hills so he could port his team back in when we left.
The Gate of Madness elementalist who led us on a merry but mortal chase so his team could sneak in past our defending party.
These are the forgotten stories, where one person makes the difference, where bravery and a bit of luck can win the day for your side. These are our epic battles – off peak and often less than 5 people.
It makes me angry when people try to label those of us who play off peak as “just karma training” or “shouldn’t be allowed to affect the score”. This belittles the fact that we are here and trying to do the same as “prime time” players – but without the same level of support. WvW is a 24/7 matchup, and that 24 hours includes players like the heroes above. There is no reward for spending hours running around your home Borderlands upgrading things – in fact those of us who do have to pay for it – but we make the time to do it anyway so the next team can come on to a decent base.
So my few final thoughts:
Everyone on WvW is equally important and their contribution to the game should be respected (except maybe the trolls!).
Anet – I’m serious – spend some time off peak, and some time in the lower tiers. If you already do this then tell us and make sure we have some way to continue playing. Hint: bigger more challenging maps with more PvE mobs and minimum numbers to achieve things is not the answer we need! For higher tiers – yes, for lower tiers or off peak – you come and play it and show us how it should be done. (I’ll happily follow an ANET roamer while he/she shows me how two players can be effective in the new maps ….)
For all those people complaining about “night capping” I don’t see anyone complaining about their own off peak players giving their own server an unfair advantage… maybe, just maybe, we’re appreciated after all. So next time you log in, and find your home BL upgraded and the right colour, just remember the forgotten few who made this possible.
Finally, Anet – if only 10% of players post their views in these forums, prime time and queued servers would always be more vocal. Aim to find a balance that lets us ALL play when and how we can.
I agree about the exploit possibilities.
I’m much less certain about the idea that a guild will only invite players to join if they are trustworthy. This may be the case in WvW guilds but anyone who plays in PvE will know that guild recruitment messages are not infrequent and often not selective. How do you tell in PvE whether a player is trustworthy?! In my experience people ask if they can join the guild, someone explains any rules and lets them in (possibly with reduced privileges initially).
There is still the possibility of 2 players trying to claim opposing objectives for the same guild – a direct consequence of megaserver recruitment clashing with a server based world instance. Both players have a right to claim for their guild and if ownership keeps swapping it will likely reset the timer for any upgrades (and so be useless). I know you can talk it through like adults and maybe even agree a solution – but the players are on opposing teams and in a big guild you probably won’t see eye to eye with everyone anyway, so I don’t think it’s a proper resolution.
I’ll try to keep this brief: this is about the megaserver player base that many guilds recruit from and the impact on WvW play. I’m not interested in discussing the merits of the new claim system – there’s another thread for this. Also in the spirit of full disclosure I do play PvE occasionally (please finish reading before you light the flames) and it’s this dual involvement (PvX and WvW) that makes this issue clearer to me – in fact I’m surprised I couldn’t find an existing thread on it when I looked.
I know there are dedicated guilds that are WvW only. There are also many guilds with players involved in both PvX and WvW. The new guild claim bonuses will require some PvE content unless the relevant Guild Hall upgrades required for WvW claims can be achieved through the communal hall in LA. I thin it’s likely we’ll see more guilds with this dual PvX and WvW role. Not sure how this will pan out, we’ll have to wait and see.
Most PvX guilds recruit on megaserver instances (ie anywhere that is not WvW BL or EB. I’m counting EotM as megaserver because of the variety of servers involved and the way they mix up). By definition megaserver players can be from any server so for example the main guild I run with has players from many different servers. I’ve already come across guild mates on WvW on “the other side”. You can both have a laugh afterwards if you treat it right…
So what happens with guild claiming when the new WvW upgrades come in? If a guild can only claim one objective per map then Red team member claims a camp, Blue guildie then claims a tower… both doing the right thing for their server… but the guild can only have 1 claim active… You can see where this is going, and I think it will become more frequent.
ANET have suggested that guilds will be more important in WvW – which is the only true server based instancing left in GW2 – yet many of the guilds that will be able to create the new upgrades are PvX and therefore recruit from a megaserver player base. This seems a bit like the left hand not talking to the right hand, but maybe there is something planned that I don’t know about.
How do you see this working out? I’d love to see an ANET response as well as community thoughts on this…
DiscoJacen – I must admit I was in a keep that hadn’t been flipped yet so I take your point. But I do think we can come up with strategies other than complaining about how everyone is going to leave WvW because of this. Perhaps use Omegas instead of canons?
But don’t knock the idea this soon. Try it.
And we’ll have to agree to disagree – it’s not BS – you CAN stop the golems. I was in an Alpha and managed to survive duel with two other Alphas – in part because the people I was with didn’t give up and fought on despite not being in golems themselves. Well done guys.
We’ve known this was coming for a while, and although Alpha blueprints spiked a bit they came back down. You can buy them with badges anyway. Our BL has just been pretty trashed by one of our opponents – they realised it was golem week before us (nice spot guys!).
BUT!
You CAN kill golems with canons and arrow carts. Yes it’s a bit harder. Yes the golems move faster and do more damage, but it IS possible to stop them.
Sure we’ll see a different play style for a week – and that’s a long time – but I’ve stayed with my server on a drop from T3 to T8 and I’m not going to stop playing WvW just because ANET tried something different for a week out of the years I’ve played (from original beta).
I don’t want this to be the new WvW, but I’m willing to adapt for a short time because next week is a new day (as it were).
If you REALLY don’t like it, take a 1 week holiday (I know you don’t want to but at least you won’t be taking part in something you don’t like). If you’re feeling adventurous, hop in a golem and try it…. you might even enjoy yourself! I was also sceptical at first, but it can be fun and golem duels are something new to learn!
Stealth has taken on a new importance in WvW.
Thieves have always been a pain with stealth, and a well played thief hiding in a Keep or Tower is a serious threat because they are capable of killing the Lord and capping.
Mesmers now seem to be able to perma-stealth AND portal in up to 20 friends if you don’t locate them. This is a more serious threat than thieves because:
1) it takes less skill to play a perma-stealth portal Mesmer (you don’t have to kill the lord yourself, you just need to open a portal)
2) a couple of defenders stand a decent chance of stopping even a well played thief if they protect the Lord and don’t give up too soon. The same 2 stalwart defenders stand much less chance against a zerg that portals in.
There are “solutions”. Sic ‘Em and Lock On can reveal stealthed players (6 seconds in 40 and 6 seconds in 25 respectively). Stealth Traps also cause revealed, but are single shot 10 supply things and crucially each player can only set ONE. That’s like limiting it to 1 AC per player or 1 Ram per player! To use these effectively you need a dedicated sweep team that most of the lower tier servers can’t field.
So here’s a balancing thought – why not introduce a new siege item – an anti stealth turret.
Anti Stealth Turret – costs 40 supply (or 30 with 40 for superior?)
Range: 1500 (1200 if plain version is available?)
Range should show as a white circle on the ground for allies, red for enemies like turret range or Necro wells.
Pulses every second for a 5 second reveal (non stacking). Needs to be a frequent enough pulse that you can’t just run through it in stealth, and not so long reveal that you can’t hope to stealth again if you do get caught and run away.
Similar health to AC.
Counts towards siege limit.
I think this would allow decent anti stealth cover to be developed while giving a chance for a hiding Thief or Mesmer to destroy turrets, or find the gaps in coverage to hide.
What do you think?
This thread makes for hard reading, but then sometimes the truth is hard. I will start by saying I’m on IoJ and we’re matched with DR and ET this week. DR have given us a good fight all week and it’s been touch and go. ET just don’t have the same coverage – and I can understand the difficult feelings that creates.
As IoJ dropped down the tables we could always say “maybe next tier we’ll stabilise and make a comeback”. For the server at the bottom there is no “next tier” down – so how do you keep people interested?! That’s what this post is really about I think.
During this week I have faced and fought several ET players. I have to say that I’m much more impressed with the Ranger or Warrior who will go in against a small group (that’s 2 or 3 in case you’re reading this from a top server, or working for ANET who seem to think a small group is 15 – full zerg size for us!). I have seen dedicated ET players defending their BL or pushing into ours. It takes a lot more courage and skill to do this than to run in a big zerg where numbers are on your side.
I don’t know what the solution is. Transfer to a WvW server isn’kitten– we’re all WvW servers and many of us have friends and team mates we don’t wish to leave. We also have pride in our own server identity – or we’d have transferred already.
I’m not sure how merging the bottom servers would work out – you’d take away our identity and still end up with a “bottom megaserver” and the same problem.
Perhaps the solution lies in making active WvW play more rewarding in game – if WvW gave more gold than dungeon farming we’d see a lot more players. Until this happens I think we’ll always see the (perhaps sensible?!) majority of players on our servers attracted by the shinies offered in PvE farming.
lol – only 4? like you I also have several characters, the lowest is lvl 35 and I have now got 8 of these scrolls and no use for them. I can’t even sell them! Now if they could give a plain upgrade of 20 levels then that’d be fine. I’d even take a one or two level increase per scroll on higher characters!
What was the point of them anyway? Are Anet saying that levels 1-19 are so boring (in their opinion) there needs to be a way to skip them?!
I’m a European player homed on a NA server so I can play with friends from USA, EU, Oceania. This means that (when I’m not working) I usually get to play at off peak hours. I’m a member of one of the largest guilds on the Server, and we’re international so we’re active all the time. It’s players who make choices like this who allow a 24hr WvW presence and use the off peak times to keep the world running overnight. We’re the night shift if you like. So why are we being discriminated against?
I know that GW2 needs to challenge lvl 80 characters who’ve been everywhere and done everything but some of the more recent changes need a better balance. Take Tequatl – the subject of several threads here. I’ve done Teq in the past with 3 other players. It took time, but was really too easy for a world boss, and meant there was no point doing Jormag which took much longer and gave the same sort of loot. The changes to Tequatl now mean that I’ve never seen it go down. Not once. There’s very few people bother now (see other posts for evidence). Why?
Look at the solutions given:
“Guest to another server” – so are Anet saying that only some servers will do Teq? and why should off peak on another NA server be any better than off peak on my home one?
“Try at a different time” – I play when I can. Anyway the standard advice for guesting to a high population server is… try off peak times. Same problem.
What happened to the original GW2 ethos about wanting the new game to be one where any class could solo the world? OK I’m not expecting to solo a world boss! But why does Teq need 80+ players? What about the off peak times when there aren’t 80 available?
How about some sort of off peak scaling for world events? I thought that events scaled anyway but trying Teq since the update, and the Fire Elemental among others, shows that actually quite a large zerg is needed for any chance of success, so something has changed here, and not necessarily for the better for everyone…
I’ve made a choice to balance the load on an off peak server and keep the World ticking over; isn’t this part of the GW2 community spirit? Part of the permanently active world GW2 is promoted as? So why do I feel like the new updates are a disadvantage for people in my situation?
My choices (being realistic): play on – with only some of the game content suitable at the times I can play; quit – and abandon what I believe to be the best MMORPG; or post here and hope that someone at Anet takes note and thinks about the off peak players for a change…
Sorry if this sounds like a rant – but where else can issues like this be raised? And I can’t believe I’m the only player in this situation!
/sits back and waits for help…
I think that’s the whole point of asking for a revamp of dungeons.
As a beginner to dungeons I can safely say it’s the most frustrating experience I’ve had in GW2. I’ve looked at online advice and like most online stuff it sometimes works and other times is useless. The groups I’ve played with have been very supportive despite my lack of experience, but I don’t seem to be dying much more often than the more experienced players. Chat suggests they can find it as frustrating as I do.
I also find it very frustrating that I’m making a net loss on dungeons at the moment. It costs more to have my armour repaired than I get in coin/loot. The items I pick up are a relevant level but usually not useable by my character, and I can’t sell them on Trading Post for enough to cover the difference. Add to this the fact that Dungeons are part of the Monthly Achievement ladder, so if I want to get that I MUST do them… and I’m left with a bit of a sour feeling about the issue.
I understand the experienced players who want a challenge. Dungeons shouldn’t be easy but if they’re no fun for the rest of us then what’s the point of making it part of an achievement ladder? Why not make them appeal to a wider range of GW2 players, or are they for an exclusive few?
For those who want to flame me for admitting that I find them hard – ok, you find it easy – I respect the time and skill to achieve that. Now instead of flaming me, how about showing me (and other like me) how to survive!
I’d definitely favour a Standard mode that gave beginners a chance, and a Hardcore mode that scaled the opponents according to the Dungeon Master progress of the players.