I have another brilliant idea, put all thieves in jail and game becomes more funny for all other players
TLDR
- if this game had a smell it would be fetidas far as I’m concerned it’s all corpse carts and calls of ‘bring out your dead’ untill the next expansion hits.
====
@OP
stronghold is more PvP than conquest? smh
all of the mechanics and objectives in stronghold are PvE lol. a game mode based around summoning AI and kill AI is not a very good PvP mode.
conquest is a tactical game of map control. you use tactics and combat prowess to win, and all bar two maps have no AI. it’s much better for PvP than summon AI to kill gates so u can kill AI lol.still, I’d much rather have For Honor’s gamemodes. 2v2 is excellent in that game.
Actually there was only one pure pvp map,which was removed “hello courtyard” cause ppl dont like just PvP that much as they say….
.With this in mind,talking about conquest which you can win by sitting on nodes,or a dude with high mobility caping empty nodes as a true pvp compared to evil stronhold where you get points by channel spawning npc or destroying gates,is just ridiculous.If you want to say you like conquest more,just say it,no need to live in self-deception and talk about SHs being more pve than conquest maps …. .
courtyard, like stronhold and any other “brilliant” idea they have will turn in kitten cuz no build manager, a diferent game mode needs diferent builds, and ading gamemodes in the mix of playable without the skill of quick changing build to the one for the scenario turn them kitten
it was removed because it was OP especially on an Ele.
Oh and was OP on ele vs noob.
Yeh sure. Some pro teams used at least 2 and sometimes even 3 DDeles with cele ammy. But ofc it was only OP vs noob.
You know that is a completely different discussion when compering what something can do in pro league and in ranked ques or just 1v1?
The build was completely broken from hotjoin to pro league, your arguement is invalid.
If you memorized a simple rotation you couldn’t be killed.
if you memorized a simple rotation…. or a long one….
this sort of builds are PVP cancer, pvp have to be a game of action reaction, not doing rotations PVElike
all your math are viased, using a 1-10 scale for examples in the pvp scenario should mean10 as top 25 or 50 players and 1 as deep deep bronze ones, and gives a false perspective of abismal diference betwen players in a match
mmr scale is a thing betwen a theoric 0 and 2200-2300 or so and reported in forum xtreme uneven matches are of about 400 mmr diference, in a 1-10 proportional scaling 2 points
It shouldn’t just be 2 minutes. If a person DCs a certain length into the match, that should count as well. Just had a great match amidst top 250 NA people. At 240-219,7 minutes into the match, we had a DC. We called it out, and said thanks for the good game. Of course, they purposely rushed the lord 1:30 later to just be trolls and cost us rating.
In what universe can that even remotely be considered fun?
Firts error, calling you have a DC. if you not call it others not realize it imediatly and not adjust their tactics to take advantage of it . if the dc is caused from a short net problem player could return in time without game being lost already
So I’ve had the same two mesmers in my team today, they kept afking / idling in the games. I have reported them, blocked them, tried to queue dodge them and a few times, carried them. This game our ele aswell as both mesmers decided to afk instead of actually trying to win the game. This resulting in -17 rating for me which is ~3-4 wins worth of rating.
Can we please for the love of kittening jesus holy christ have 5 queing back. I feel like calling them all out with screenshots on the forums and maybe, just maybe the mods can take some kind of action.
if you want wait for a long long time until MM finds another full team in your skill range: yes.
if you only want 5 q to farm soloers as a full team: no
mixed q is kitten and was the first step to this pvp low population scenario
Hey guys, I’ve got a big annoying problem with the PVP queue.
Because someone didn’t accept prior to the map poll before a pvp match, I am stuck in the PVP queue for almost 15 minutes now. Even though it says, that the match will start soon and I am not able to leave the queue, nothing has happened yet. Relogging or switching the character doesn’t help either.
Has anyone else have the experienced the same? I’ve included a screenshot of the problem, maybe it will help to solve this problem.
Furthermore I would like to apologise for stupid grammar mistakes I might have made.
i got the same crapy mesage, but mine is after i had a short dc in preparation time, when i recovered the conection and reload whith same character to rejoin and try if it posible to give the win to team not for me cuz probably desertion penalty is up for me this msg poped up. if this is the way now manages dcs, please give some compensation to other team and not make lose to dced team the entire time of match in a hopeles 4 v 5
I would never queue for pvp without duo.
1) dealing with pug RNG is asinine.
2) the social experience makes pvp more enjoyable. Solo just feels like a grind.
ranked is for personal rank, any form of “team” q in ranked mask truly personal rank behind the “team”
I am willing to bet 200 USD. That if instead of a legendary PvE item, that the prize was a extremely good looking skin that had no stats to it. The whole League would’ve had a much healthier and more productive start. However after even long waited short list balanced patch. ANet catered more and more towards the PvEers as more and more of the PvPers lefted the game.
A idea for a posible next PVP backpack(maybe skin only) :
wings idea is great but make it a tricolor or quad chanel not dyable, main and big area, your current league rating color, and smaller areas with the pass leagues rating color
and make it relative easy to achieve with constant playing, “prestige” comes not from having it, comes from colors you show
.. make GW2 PvP Free to Play, including HoT and all incoming specializations in the future.
I believe this will create a bigger playerbase and as such, stimulate the matchmaking in a good way. (bigger pool = better matchmaking)
Vote here yes/no http://www.strawpoll.me/12584116
Just curious.
one of the issues of leagues was top players running alts and troling in lower ranks , and here comes you saying to make more easy the pvp acces to f2p acounts…. mmmh…
before that there will be a lot of thinks
- highten the minimum rank requirement to acces to ranked
- incentive in some way ppl staying in his main acount
- create a obligatory tutorial ,player vs boots,for new acounts and make it the only way to gain first ranks
….
I agree. I’d be completely willing to wait for better matches. ANET has the wrong idea prioritizing speed.
To a degree, but nobody wants 15+ min queues, and high level players could easily get stuck with much longer queues than that.
15 + minutes i think it was more fault of the mixed q concept(and the side limitations added after(prefer team vs team, wait for one or two pugs if are qing in trio quad, etc etc) than the fact of being top .
in a solo q escenario no one will q more than the duration of a match to wait potential in rank rivals that are now in a match
The match-making is always a hit or miss.
To help versus those issues, the rating system should be dynamic and individual. It should compare the odds you have to win and lose and give rating accordly.
Yesterday, I was with 1 decent thief and 3 no name versus 5 top 25. At least the lost at 350 should had give me some rating, I did manage to carry 200pts on that 350.
It’s why the system is stupid right now, we are not reward for our feat. Going 2v5 because of matchmaking and losing it 350+ should be rewarded like it was in season 1.
Adjust the rating dynamically and your MM issues would be less painful.
System in S1 was a great idea, having “hidden” point objectives for the team awarding doing the better you cant againts the odds, but they implemented with mixed q and players learn how xploit it putting low ranked alts in their teams faking the system, geting more points than truly deserved for an easy win.
S1 system could work in a truly solo q environement. players dont have any capability to fake the system, alts of top players would be rocketed to top in few games for their own but not carrying main acounts of friends, and MM issues will not be so painfull as said
Shouldn’t we buff sub-paar players instead, to try boost their performance? It just doesn’t seem fair to empower people who are already getting kill counts in a match.
you can give 1000 buffs to bad players, won’t stop them from being spawn camped since they neither have map awareness nor have dodge keybinded
Yes you are right. You don’t want to give bad players, more of a chance to end up in Legendary do you. Imagine bronze level fights being a common thing in Legendary. Now instead of having poor match quality from Silver down. Because you’ve buffed the bad players instead of the good players. You’ll see such match quality being common even in Legendary division. You saw what happened when you made the ESL type players angry right?
But as in actual Relevant PvP games on the market. With carry mechanics installed. Team A with 2/5/5/6/7 going against Team 10/6/3/3/3 would not be a near automatic win for team A as it is now. Because instead of two players nearly always being in a mismatch up on T-B against T-A and losing the long battle. T-B’s 10 could possible go on a rampage early game and go 7 and 0 get the increased stats above T-A players, and carry his GW2 team to the win. Like how it’s done in the relevant PvP games on the market.
People again complain about population being so low. However either they don’t realize, blatantly ignore the facts why the population crisis happened in the first place. Too many disenfranchised vets, and other players getting fed up. With the way that the league system was set up, with no carry mechanic to cover the match maker’s short comings like in other games.
To simply put it. player skill is not at all value in GW2, compared to the relevant PvP games on the market. So of course these disenfranchised players are going to go where their hard work and dedication is valued. Leaving kitten in the population that just keeps getting bigger and bigger, at a faster and faster rate as time goes on. Till the point here yall are. Not enoth PvPers interested in playing PvP in GW2, to the point no match maker system, nor marketing campaign can help yall. More so since ANet disenfranchised even more players by making them the subjects of RNG for 3 decent team mates for their personal ratings. Then still tried to forced them to wear a rating that was not befitting of their skill.
Now yes if you are good and got the short end of the stick. You could and should make it to your rightful league after playing x Matches. However comparing to relevant games that have the carry mechanics in them. Such players will make it there much much much faster, and suitable, then players here in GW2. Then you have the trolls who know they got carried early on into the higher divisions. Now talking down on the players who got the short end of the stick and have to climb thru hell without a carry system/mechanic. Thus either carrying more players with them, or getting dragged down by other players.
My solutions
A.) Allow players to queue up as a 5 stack.
B.) Put a buff for when a player is going on a rampage. The better they are doing in the match, the more powerful they become{power stat wise}. Thus allowing them to truly carry matches, and get out of lower non competitive divisions at a productive rate. Also this will also pull those that are current being carried by others down. Because the much better player would be able to feast off of them to gain power, and snowball the match. Till the point the lower skilled and the high skilled players both end up in a division they should be in, at a much more productive rate of time.
C.) Just do away with 5v5 and start introducing 2v2s or 3v3s, since all that system can handle is 2 players queuing out with each other. Thus allowing all players to be able to have control once more. And not be disenfranchised.
D.) Just get rid of the ranked leagues altogether. Move the ranked gold and rewards to Unranked. And allow for players to get those rewards 24/7/365. True you’ll have no flashy league system. But lets be honest. This league system was a utter failure on so many levels. To lose so many players over added content, is a pretty sad bulletin for a developer’s resume.
ranked is for personal rank any form of duo, trio, quad, full team mask your skillrank behind the “team”
the failure was first mixing qs and went realize that is the problem, keeping duos alive
other think is that as said not all classes cant have the same impact in games and a “good” players running A class cant have the same impact(carry) than running B class, but puting snowball mechanics in game will worse the quality of games
Maybe they are trying to bring us back to GW1. Haha. God i miss this game.
I’ve been playing GW1 PvE in preparation for PvP. That game is what? A decade old? Yet, it still has a scene in PvE and PvP. That’s pretty kittening good.
I think the devs should take a close look at what was done right. Perhaps allow us core multiclassing?
In GW1 there are literally dozens of builds for each class and at least 2 or 3 that are optimal for any given game mode.
Some nights, there ( subjectively ) are more players visible in GW1 than GW2.
lol… core multiclasing will be good for build diversity but will be bad too bad for class balance and mostly imposible in this game without a trait redesign and redistribution to make more like GW1 class basic mechanics all in one trait line(not ellegible for multiclass)
visible mmrs positives outweigh the negatives? can you prove that or can we assume it to be the conjecture it is?
Can you prove the opposite? What is the purpose of such a question? The best I can do would be to lay everything out and provide personal experience and opinions.
So far from what I’ve read:
Pros
- Players can provide better feedback about the matchmaking system.
Cons
- Showing player ratings at the end of a match would encourage players to blame others every time they lose.
That was actually a pretty short list. Did I miss anything? So for the pros, people against it say that extra information won’t help at all. I disagree with this since myself and others actually used this exact information last season to highlight a problem that prompted anet to fix it.
For the cons, I state that in my personal experience, players already blame eachother every time they lose. Hardly ever am I in a match where we lost and everyone was like, “Well guys, we did our best, it was a great match.” Even in matches where we lose by less than 100 points, there is always those players telling everyone else on the team that they suck. If we have visible mmrs, they will still be just as toxic, just in a different manner.
if mmr have to be seen it have to be at the begining, in this manner team knows who is the theoric weakest link and who needs more to be +1ed im an 1v1 regardless of their class and rival class, and not doing in this manner is “team” fault, not less mmr one fault
No, if you show everyone’s ratings at the start of the match, you create an entirely new problem. People start complaining right off the bat and would possibly afk more if they deem the match-up to be bad.
toxic ones will be in any system, but random pug teams dont have idea of who is their strong one and their weak one, and if we are in matcht to push for victory and will try it those information is of big value(teams know it and use in their favour x player is a good duelist and can handle the duel, we dont have to run to asist and uncover other base, y player is more weak assist as soon is possible etc etc, if we are only for doing “our” part and hope the other do their and game be a perfect rock papper scisor(x class ever beat y class) this information is not relevant.
and of course not everyones only teammates, info on rivals at the end and in aproximate way (sub-divisions are suficient mmr tight for giving and idea of it)
visible mmrs positives outweigh the negatives? can you prove that or can we assume it to be the conjecture it is?
Can you prove the opposite? What is the purpose of such a question? The best I can do would be to lay everything out and provide personal experience and opinions.
So far from what I’ve read:
Pros
- Players can provide better feedback about the matchmaking system.
Cons
- Showing player ratings at the end of a match would encourage players to blame others every time they lose.
That was actually a pretty short list. Did I miss anything? So for the pros, people against it say that extra information won’t help at all. I disagree with this since myself and others actually used this exact information last season to highlight a problem that prompted anet to fix it.
For the cons, I state that in my personal experience, players already blame eachother every time they lose. Hardly ever am I in a match where we lost and everyone was like, “Well guys, we did our best, it was a great match.” Even in matches where we lose by less than 100 points, there is always those players telling everyone else on the team that they suck. If we have visible mmrs, they will still be just as toxic, just in a different manner.
if mmr have to be seen it have to be at the begining, in this manner team knows who is the theoric weakest link and who needs more to be +1ed im an 1v1 regardless of their class and rival class, and not doing in this manner is “team” fault, not less mmr one fault
Why does this seem to happen only with thieves? Why not mesmer, necromancer, elementalist, engineer, ranger, or even revenant? Does every stubborn person have a thief alt “cuz stelth is cool”?
cuz thief have a very specific role and 1 is enough to fullfill it, two thief comp can work but it needs a very especific setup to work and much cordination: or all team playing mobility game or the other 3 being heavy bunkers to hold one point and letting the 2 thief messing around with the other 2 points and fast +1 to equilibrate 5vs3 on holded point if the rivals tries to bruteforce it by zerking
Wait, they voted no for profession mmr? kitten PvP community, your destroying yourself.
No, he’s just using an escapegoat…..
Players voted “No” to locking classes at the start of the game and that’s it.
We can still have better matchmaking, we can still have Profession MMR if Anet wants to give it to us.
without profesion locking in q class mmr only is viable for statistics, not for q(you q with the class whith your lowest mmr and rerolls to main…. xploit)
^^ Elaborate pls? (megilandil)
duos are placed by matchmaker in the math mean of their mmr.
if you silver 2(aprox 1200 mmr) plays whit a bronze 2 (aprox 800mmr) you will be placed in a team with players of aprox 1000 mmr and against a team of aprox 1000 mmr
I just expected a -9, or a -15 for a one time loss. Not -45. That was like my day’s progress (only played 4-5 matches that day). It just feels a bit wrong that you’re not allowed to queue with your friends depending on the division that they’re in, because if you lose, you’ll be pulled down massively.
more wrong feels being in a match of ,in this case, bronze div and finding a player of higher ranks with “theoric” far high skills that intended on bronze players
I just want someone to explain this. I play 3 games, win all 3 in soloq, then I duoq, play exactly the same as I normally would, a relatively perfect game for my own personal standards… and we lose by a small margin due to a language barrier but we can’t help that.
What I don’t understand: Why did I lose 45 points in one game, for a close loss? I’m Silver Tier 1, my duoq partner was Bronze Tier 2 for that loss. So I’ve lost my day’s progress because of one match, with class stacking and a language barrier. It just seems a bit unfair ngl.
if they dont changed it this season you played your match against high bronze(you are placed in the mathematical mean of the duo), match you are suposed to win clearly and you lose it, this is the punishment for smmurfing and losing, all works as intended, fine
Your logic appears to be that you want mmr to be winner take all, where match winners and losers are adjusted based on expected outcome and whether they happened to win or lose. Correct me if I’m wrong but from what I could understand your entire premise rests solely on liking winner take all as a system.
My suggestion is that instead of winner take all we reward competitive play by adjusting rating gain by the finer grain of distinction between a 500-1 victory and a 500-499 victory. Players would still gain and lose relative to the expected outcome (mmr disparity between teams) but not solely based on that. Obviously, I disagree that winner take all produces accurate or fun results.
its not my logic, its sistem(glicko, ELO) logic
mmr is not a reward, is a skill calculation based on who wins or loses and more important against who
the system can be adjusted more to “fine grain” but your proposal not make it, adjusting the system to fine grain is S1 system (calculating a expected outcome from match and rewarding or penalizing in function of that). your system could “reward” the expected winer for losing but no the expected loser for a wide margin for shortening it cuz you are basing it in static results not in expected ones(an extremely unbalanced match can have a expected result of a blowout of 500-50 and the correct fine grain adjustement is “rewarding” the loser for geting more than 50 points and “penalizing” the winer for allowing it, the loser have win in some way achieving a better result than expected and winer had lose in some way getting a worse result than expected )
Again, is not about if game is close or not, s1 what have the correct aproach, but unfortunately got xploited by teams via smmurfing acounts, sets a point objective for loser team and a limit to the points that enemy can achieve for winner team, and you are “rewarded” to get that or surpass it, you are “rewarded” for doing that the system expects or better that their calculations, not for a static point threshold
Just because something was not implemented right does not inherrently mean the idea was wrong. What is the logical flaw in arguing that a 499-500 match should not see the same change to MMR of the participants as a 10-500 match?
the logic is that mmr is a implementation of glicko that is a variation of ELO and the mmr variations should be based on “strength” of rival(you win against a high mmr rival great mmr “reward” , you win against a equal skilled rival normal mmr reward, you win a less skilled rival low mmr reward, you lose agains a less skilled rival big mmr penalization …) no in achieving a static objective even if you are expected to do better, other thing is in case your team is the weakest rival implementing a consolation prize for surpasing their expected match outcome losing for more than X,“you are paired against a superior team you are suposed to lose for more than x points but you performed well and lose by minus than x points(you have wined the match in some abstract way), you get a personal victory against the odds and your mmr variation should be compensated in some way”
Again, is not about if game is close or not, s1 what have the correct aproach, but unfortunately got xploited by teams via smmurfing acounts, sets a point objective for loser team and a limit to the points that enemy can achieve for winner team, and you are “rewarded” to get that or surpass it, you are “rewarded” for doing that the system expects or better that their calculations, not for a static point threshold
Here is an example of what I’m proposing.
Say under the current system a match results in an average MMR win-lose of +15/-15. The people on the team with higher MMR lose more per volatility or gain less per volatility—but the balance is overall roughly even.
Now lets look at what I proposed which is an MMR adjustment bonus for close and not so close matches. The bonus works by rewarding people who win by a lot or decreasing the loss of the people who lost by a small amount.
+15/-15 then is adjusted as follows:
+5 MMR for win >450 points
+3 MMR for win >350 points
+1 MMR for win >250 points
0 MMR adjust for win/loss 100-250 points
-1 MMR for win < 100 points
-3 MMR for win < 50 points
-5 MMR for win < 25 pointsReversed order for a loss perspective.
Matchup scenario 1: 504-434 (70 points: MMR adjust +/- 1)
Winners +14, Losers -14
Match up scenario 2: 500-325 (175 points: MMR adjust +/- 0)
Winners 15, Losers -15
Matchup scenario 3: 500-125 (375 points: MMR adjust +/- 3)
Winners 18, Losers -18
Matchup scenario 4: 500-225 (275 points: MMR adjust +/- 1)
Winners 16, Losers -16
Matchup scenario 5: 500-0 (500 points: MMR adjust +/- 5)
Winners 20, Losers -20
I repeat for that is not clear for someone:
mmr is not a reward, its a skill measurement, losing a close one means to the system you have lose to a equal skilled team and you should loss mmr, losing a blowout match instead means you lose a game that are preset to be losed and you deserve a minor mmr loss. this thread is againts the system logic.
fighting to the end a losed match have to be rewarded, but not in mmr basis, giving the extra pips is a good move, but also they have to give some more reward route points to reward it not only during seasons
It shouldn’t give you extra MMR for winning by a lot, but it should definitely not lower your MMR by as much if you lose by only a few points opposed to losing by several hundred.
if mm works fine yes, but mm has proved that fails to create even matches extra punishing the “preset looser” will hurt more the system.
asuming a perfect mm in perfect conditions(all matches 50/50 or near win loss odds) it will be ok that looser gets a “reward” for geting 450+ points a normal loss if 350+ and an extra punish if 350- but the system is not perfect and the conditions are less perfect
this goes againts the logic of the sistem
blowout matches are caused to system fault to create even matches and rewarding extra points to a “preset” winner and extra punishing the “preset” looser will destroy the entire mmr rank
the logic system is that in S1 extra rewarding “preset” looser to win or to get close, and punishing preset winer for leting the rival to get closer, but S1 proves that system fails to determine it, and those fails can be exploited(specialy if it is any sort of “team” involved(duo,trio,quad or full team)
I will never get tired of repeating this: this game needs players vs bots mode. Surely bots are easy to win against but it is great way to learn very basics of pvp. LoL has bots mode, OW has bots mode – those are first games i spammed to learn the game and classes and i think this is what gw2 needs.
That sounds like fun.
Well that would result in farming ranks…
And?
yes a viable mode of learning, “farming bot mode” until rank 10 meantime you learn some basic strategies to beat the bots, going to unranked from 10 to X(bigger than the actual cap(yes the minimum cap have to be raised to difficult smurf alts)) were you polish your learnings versus humans and after to ranked
and people that only is in pvp for dailies can get in boot mode, leting unranked for practicing an for relaxed pvp, custom arenas for prearanged duels or guild/team events and ranked for competitive
Lets be honest here, from what I’ve seen Thief doesn’t need any skill in 1v1 or 2v1 whatsoever… The point where most Thieves fail especially in low divisions, is rotation and decisionmaking. I’ve seen Thieves with the worst rotations or randomly pushing team fights, winning 1v1’s against truly better players. In the end it comes down to rotations, which most Thieves fail on, which is why their teams flame them for losing….
2 things are obvious from this response.
1: You don’t play a thief.
2: You’re at a relatively low division.No thief should be winning a 1v1 at equal skill level. There’s absolutely zero excuse for you to lose to a thief if your skill levels are equal…with the exception of utter trash tier.
that towerman said is true , skill rank not only is tied to player skill on 1v1 or wining a fight its also tied to “PVP skill” (map awareness, know where to be in a precise moment etc etc) mid and low tiers(and some in mid-high) are full of tief with a superior mechanical skill(for their rank) but 0 “PVP skill” usualy they are WvW players only seeking for duels
Dear Anet. WHATS THE HELL IS GOING ON????
Just answer me pls how its working? Why i get match against party of 2 top15 have only 1650 points? Why i get in my enemies guys that have 200+ points?? why i lose 10 points fort this game? Why me Anet?
P.S. Xomi – XOMIACHKA. Vaans is for Vaans
the image shows you are 176 rank and they are 11 and 12. matchmaker works fine in this case cuz they are only 150 posible rivals in the midle , probably few(or none) in the moment of match. problem is when they, top 25, get paried whith people out of rank. in this case problem is the enormous mmr spread between n1 and n250
people on top 250 may fight people on top 250
To answer the OP’s question simply: Two reasons.
1. In order to kill an enemy, a Power build has to keep hitting skills and keep in contact (to the extent that you will be in range of the enemy’s skills). A Condition build can load its enemy with condis and then leave — stealth up, disengage, kite. The enemy dies without you having to be there.
a condi build need aprox to “burn” the same number of skills to load the apropiate amount of condis, that can be blocked or evaded equal of power skills, the diference is that if power land all their skills oponent is dead, condis landing equal his skills have to wait until it dies from condis and condis can be cleared in this time and/or player get killed… no condis is not more pasive
2. In order to deal damage a Power build must invest in Power, Precision, and Ferocity. A Condition build needs only Condition Damage. Pre-HoT, this was necessary, as a Condi build killed you so slowly that it needed to be tanky in order to live long enough to win. With the HoT changes, it’s another advantage for Condi builds.
no, actually the advantage is for power builds they can get traits that gives tankines and forfeit all the old damage multiplicator traits(warrior is the preminent example) condis need to invest in triggering condi traits that are normaly crit dependant (they have to invest some on Prec)
So, in addition to the psychological aspect you bring up (it is annoying), that’s the perception in a nutshell: A Condition build requires less effort and investment than a Power build.
I’d say a lot of the current problems have to do with the manner in which ANet decided to push for the viability of Condition builds in PvE and PvP. I think there is a better way to have done it, but we can save our opinions for another thread.
no condis dont need less effort its only a perception bias, it only seem cuz power kills you in the moment condis only puts a marker above your head saying " you will be dead in 5….4…3…2….1…0" and you have this time to clear it and negate all the efort aplying condis
but yes, there are a problem now whith actual condi system: classes can aply so many diferent condis covering the real important ones and much of these condi bombs are in a more shorter cd than the condi clears making easy get killed by condis if you dont have a condi clear bot near, and if you have one that makes totally inviable the condi build
what if thief lost its extreme mobility? would it be taken at all in teams?
this is blasphemy….
they want their extreme mobility, their stealth, their evades….. the life of a necro, the healing of an ele, the blocks of a guardian and backstabing in aoeNo thief ever said that…..
We did hope that with HoT thieves would get a chance for different role (e.g. support, but they gave it to rangers that went from dps to healer/point holder), obviously if you fill other role you would lose the roaming one. It can be easily done by restricting utilities and traits….
elites come without giveawais, giving thief a elite that covers other role dont mean that they lose movility or stealth, they can have less of them from trait selection but they dont lose it, and you give the perfect example of it is druid, not losing pets mechanics gives dps acces to a suport/bunker class, and giving thief a elite whith capability for big team fights retaining major part of their mobility, evades, disengaging capabilitys and stealth acces will be so broken.
The only way to make that a class can fullfill a diferent role without more powercreep is redesigning core ones as elite specs, moving the main mechanics to their new “elite core line” and losing them when you take other elite
what if thief lost its extreme mobility? would it be taken at all in teams?
this is blasphemy….
they want their extreme mobility, their stealth, their evades….. the life of a necro, the healing of an ele, the blocks of a guardian and backstabing in aoe
Since Heavy Metal Ranger has been confirmed I think it’s time we discussed dual shield Guardian. I want to be able to sit in my safe space and never take damage.
That’s fine with me, since the Heavy Metal Ranger will have unblockable attacks clearly.
if everyone and her mother have unblockable atacks and blocks not block next steep is give everyone and her mother unevadable atacks and make evades dont evade…
LOL can you imagine the QQ from thieves if they make some attacks unevadeable?
you can imagine guards with their main defense(blocks) being traspasable for everyone and her mother? why one defense mechanics is rended so useless and other equally spamable for some classes is unpassable?
If unblockable attacks were reduced, Dragonhunter blocks would also be reduced. You are exaggerating quite a bit there on the presence of unblockable attacks in the current meta builds vs the amount of blocks Dragonhunters have available.
To put it into perspective, I have a single block on my Engineer yet it is very rare that I get hit with an unblockable attack. And I mean extremely rare.
If you’re referring to my comment about Heavy Metal Ranger getting unblockable attacks, then I think you missed the point of this whole thread. It’s just a joke, there is no dual longbow wielding ranger with unblockable attacks in the works. You’re kinda killing the mood of the thread really.
All that said………Anet did pretty much confirm this was happening so please don’t dissapoint me during the next expansion or I will raise hell about false promises! ;-P
i know this threat is a joke, and i know also that some “truth” can only be said as a joke, maybe guards have to many blocks, exactly as thief and others have many evades
and for being in the mod of thread i vote for the next elite guard: legendary defender with dual shield….
I recently just came back to GW2, and OH MY GOD.
The pvp is HORRIBLE.
I think it would be best if Arenanet decides to do some HEAVY CHANGES!
-Competitive should only have 1 per class!!
—- Longer queue times? well thats the whole point, if everybody in GW2 plays Trap guardian and Healing magical rangers then kewl, I am OUT.
Queue times SHOULD NEVER MATTER! why should the competitive be kitten? just because of queue times? and 1 thing too.. IT DISCOURAGES PVP FARMERS!! cuz they will dislike that idea of heavy queue times.
-Competitive should only allow single class!
—-If they queue with that character, they SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SWAP! to keep 1 class ! there should NOT be 2 guards or 2 anything.. it should only be 1 class per game!! that way it’ll make things more fun and more better..
You dont play OVERWATCH competitive and have 5 reinharts or 5 dvas right? NOBODY WANTS THAT! same goes with these horrible meta builds that’s plaguing PVP..
Hey I just came back in Guildwars2 so assume that I am a noob. yes I am a noob. no argue about it.
But this is just my opinion.. because I want to play some fun competitve, not some circus competitive.
Out.
recently it was a pool for class locking… and begin to work in no stack and class mmr …but they voted no.
sad story
Since Heavy Metal Ranger has been confirmed I think it’s time we discussed dual shield Guardian. I want to be able to sit in my safe space and never take damage.
That’s fine with me, since the Heavy Metal Ranger will have unblockable attacks clearly.
if everyone and her mother have unblockable atacks and blocks not block next steep is give everyone and her mother unevadable atacks and make evades dont evade…
LOL can you imagine the QQ from thieves if they make some attacks unevadeable?
you can imagine guards with their main defense(blocks) being traspasable for everyone and her mother? why one defense mechanics is rended so useless and other equally spamable for some classes is unpassable?
almost half of the population of mid low rank thieves dont know their role in match(and people blame on this thieves). I have seen a lot of times the thief using shortbow 5 to be the firts to arrive on midfight and be instakilled by the first random aoe (and in this moment i know the game is almost lost because we are 4 and a dummy golem), and after returning and returnig to midfight.
i have seen a lot of times having a thief in team and far being secure all the match with no man, and i have seen having two thieves in team and enemy having far secured and giving us problems having a dc on their team cuz they can zerk thanks to thieves not going to decap their kitteng home and being camping ours
Since Heavy Metal Ranger has been confirmed I think it’s time we discussed dual shield Guardian. I want to be able to sit in my safe space and never take damage.
That’s fine with me, since the Heavy Metal Ranger will have unblockable attacks clearly.
if everyone and her mother have unblockable atacks and blocks not block next steep is give everyone and her mother unevadable atacks and make evades dont evade…
+fiveteen letters
this is a good joke but being serious:
devs have thinked about if they fix the atack proc of rangers pets as they did the balance on rangers go kitten, numbers until now are taken around the bugged pets and now they get an increase on dmg output by pets hitting right
they have thinked on doing pets stats dependant on amulets, or the ranger dmg get more dependant on stats multiplicator cuz their flat base is the pet, and a bunker druid hiting like a train with the pet and their atack dont seem right
What would change hard reset? More or less people will stay in their previous divisions if they didn’t improved much.
they will change qualitty of matches , very volatile matches caused by all players, “legendaries” and “deep bronze” ones being paried in the same position the first days/ weeks, a very bad idea that will cause a loot of frustration cuz win/lost will be totally random only depending on number of bronzes/leg in your team vs number of bronze/leg in oposite one
Sigil of Penetration: A blocked attack grants 3 unblockable strikes (9s CD)
great… more unblockables… why not unevadable atacks?, block spam have so much counterplay with too much unblockables, but evade spam have 0 counterplay unless very acurate timing( only for real pros who knows by instinct the vulnerable frames in evade and the casting time of their skills… and have near 0 ping…. )
no, celestial is cancer, having power + condi presure at the same time that healing power toughness etc etc is to strong for some clases like eles
ironically, celestial is the only good stat combination for an ele in pvp… everything else sucks or is a band aid.
celestial makes op the ele cuz they have “4 weapon sets”(atunements) with a diferent role in every weapon they can use, ele need a rework on weapon sets making them more oriented to a purpouse and not being ever a jack of all trades, a set dps oriented(either in water) a set oriented to condis and a set oriented to bunkering like everyother class
other classes(except engi with kits9 cant xploit celestial at the same level cuz their weapon sets are more role oriented
(edited by megilandil.7506)
no, celestial is cancer, having power + condi presure at the same time that healing power toughness etc etc is to strong for some clases like eles
Ranked is for getting a personal rank, 5-man teams hides your true personal rank behind team skill, there is a need of some team game mode, but its not the actual ranked ,no ofseason or in season
resume of proposed changes: i hate DHs
The funny part is how similar is the situation of dh to d/d ele of few years ago. Sure there was no HoT and other professions had less sustain than now and there were really just a couple of builds capable of killing d/d eles.
Still in soloq it was hard to use a single d/d ele at high levels also, great when stacked but that was about it….still the level of hate towards the class was mindblowing, insaneIt was like the community was hoping ele players would die a horrible death in RL…you could touch the hate, feel it with your hands
Somehow the community wised up after HoT…or maybe is some overly attachments to some specs but anyway I don’t sense that level of hatred and I wonder why:
A) The number of players using dh/war as main or alt …it’s simply staggering
B) Suddenly stacking becomes the main culprit of all problems instead than the class itself…unless it’s elementalist in which case, it’s the class which is the problem
Which option would be?
Ele (and engi) have a “big problem” they are the most versatile classes via atunements,4 true weapon sets, (and kits,more weapon sets) and they can be easily overpowered or nerfed to trash( i think that balance team had nightmares every time they have to touch eles and engis), and it was easily demostrated by they being the kings of celestial meta(all the stats to take profit of their incredible flexibility) where they can be bunker, power dps and aply condi presure all in one
Because class swapping would be locked, it would force players to try and come up with more than just one build to suit different situations, allowing for build options to open up. It would encourage people to run more than just one build. Instead of swapping classes completely, players could run a different build to better suit the team’s needs instead.
No what would happen is players would look for the most self-sufficient build with the last amount of clear counters, and just always queue on that.
Locked class removes niche use builds because they are too comp sensitive. For example necro particularly condi necro would go extinct because it’s way to comp sensitive to work under a locked queue.
first- niche or high specialized or comp sensitive builds they will be not the primary choice queuing in solo q
second- class locking have to come with the build managing system or will be a big fail, you can adapt to team comp and enemy comp changing builds.
third-locking classes should come whith a change of mentality of playerbase, generic metabuilds are not obligatory and in some cases are bad choices a theoretically subpar build(in opinion of metacreators) can do better job in certain comp situations.
think can be a good idea, but needs something else: build managing tool
that + build managing tool can solve the only one build for class problem, cuz people have to get creative to adapt to the matchup and the teoricrafters will resurrect seconndary role builds for classes now parked by the “ideal team” composition thing