Feedback talk:Developer updates/20100128

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is about feedback for the Thursday, 28th of January developer update.

Some Thoughts[edit]

moved from Feedback talk:Developer updates

"Teams should be making a choice between better spikes and better sustained damage. In cases where teams excel at both, something is wrong." Isnt that what a balanced team is? A team that can pressure and spike? I dont think the issue has anything to do with a team being able to spike and pressure, becuase thats balanced meta. I think the real issue here is that devs and GW elitist GvG and HA players are so wrapped up in themselves they cant see that the casual player needs simple and effective builds that allow them to compete. I am a casual player, I do not practice several hours a day on my GvG stratagies with my guildies. Like a large portion of casual players I want to be able to do a pick up match and be competative without all the massive prep time which for me, the casual player, is extremely lame and nerdy and too time consuming for my schedule that includes a social life. Generic PvX wiki spike builds that are easy to run and effective is the kind of things casual players need to be competative, and tho you will never admit that it eats you alive when you get pwned by a casual player running one of these builds, it does. That is why this happened. You are short sited, and are forcing out the casual player from the Guild Wars PvP community. This is unwise, becuase there are alot more casual guild wars players than nerds that live and breath balanced meta. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Cerulean Sky (talk).

People that put little effort in should be on equal footing with people who put in lots of time and effort? Hate to break it to you, but pro boxers don't get to put on brass knuckles on weeks that they don't feel like going to the gym. User Raine R.gif is for Raine, etc. 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about 107% sure I would get a comment to that affect. Thats fine if u want that attitude, but casual players simply are not going to spend hours and hours a day to be competative. Since casual players far and away out number hard core GvG elitist Anet would do well to consider who pays the bills and give their customers what they want. Its good business, plain and simple. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Cerulean Sky (talk).

The idea that casual players and serious players should compete on an equal level is just so far from anything resembling sensible.
As far as "good business" goes, you have to realize that the casual PvP community does just about nothing for anet. From a business standpoint, their target audience should be the PvEers who make up 110% of the population. User Raine R.gif is for Raine, etc. 11:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my point. PvEers are a majority of the games populace, those PvEers make up most of the casual PvPers I was refering to. And, yes, its good business to make the ppl that buy the majority of your games happy. All MMOs have PvE, whats sets GW apart is the great PvP mechanics that compliment the PvE side nicely. As a casual player if I am required to become hard core to be competative in PvP then GW loses its most attractive bonus feature when it comes to weighing which MMO to purchase. I am basically left with a PvE world, which all MMOs have. So why not buy some other MMO over GW2? Its marketing and good business practices at its most basic really, they dont even teach this in college cuz they just assume every1 that made it this far should already have enough common sense to realize thats obvious without it being taught. As far as the equal footing goes. We have equal footing, we can be competative. IF the elitists would stop running to the devs to get every simple and effective build nerfed. They do if for themselves, so they are less likely to be challenged by a casual team of players. Less competition = greater chance of success. Elitists do nothing but plead to the devs for intervention. As a casual player I ask nothing from the devs, except that they just stay out of my way and stop protecting the elitists perched at the top. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Cerulean Sky (talk).

Actually, most PvEers don't GvG or HA *at all ever*. Even if they did, there's this amazing thing called a LADDER! If a terrible guild wants to GvG, they can! When their rating equalizes, they will play against guilds of similar levels of terrible. Everyone wins! That "attractive bonus feature" still exists at shit-tier. But to suggest that anyone should be able to beat whoever they want to with minimal effort is, frankly, absurd.
There's a reason why skilless and effective builds shouldn't exist: they are skilless and effective. If a player wants to play at high levels, they should get good, not run to the newest bs gimmick. However, in the absence of that, anyone can still play GvG or HA - just at a level determined by their player skill, which is exactly how it should be, ideally.
People think fair = everyone is equal, but that's not and should never be the case. Ideally, fair = people are rewarded according to what they invest. If you think that's elitist, then. User Raine R.gif is for Raine, etc. 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats exactly the type of ideaology that has corrupted Anet and the elitist community. I mean just listen to yourself and I quote "skilless and effective builds shouldn't exist: they are skilless and effective". That nonsensical and baseless logic is tantamount to nerfing something for sake of nerfing it. That would be like me saying "How dare some1 come up with a clever build thats easy to run, blashphemy! PvP shouldnt be fun for the casual player! It should be hard and unrewarding!". When it all comes down to it everything you wrote was the same old reactionary euphemisms for what the elitists are really wanting to say, which is skilless and effective builds allow everyone to be competative instead of just the elitists and that shouldnt be allowed because then the elitists would not be elite anymore. The farce here is not me wanting equality, its that the elitists and their apologists run and hide behind devs every time casual players have a tool that puts them on an equal footing with them, and then explain it as "too effective" or even more laughable "skilless". I stated in my first post here, balanced is a team meta that can pressure and spike. That was Anets stated gripe against the most recent nerfs. Why does balanced meta go largely untouched? It is hard for casual players to run effectively, and therefor favored by the elitist. Hench it remains largely untouched. Balanced is not "the" meta by natural selection. It is a way of controlling competition by the elitists on their perch and keeping the casual player down, anything else that is easy is nerfed into oblivion. As I said before, devs, stop protecting the elitists. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Cerulean Sky (talk).

I certainly agree with Raine in that effort and skill should be rewarded; thus overpowered gimmicks that lead less skilled teams to win should not exist. That being said, I agree with Cerulean Sky in that ANet needed to pay more attention to the rewards given to casual players: the organized PvP in this game isn't dead for no reason, it is too unforgiving and offers too little for people trying to learn it. Not that I defend gimmick builds; I believe however the rewards should be better to encourage people to stay and build experience. In GvG, for example, it is very disheartening to not win any Champion points until 1,200+ rating. Or in Codex, not win anything until 5 wins (lose at 4 = leave with nothing). I don't understand why ANet didn't simply put lower rewards at lower ratings/win streaks, and increase them faster at higher rating/consecutive wins. People like to see numbers go up, even if titles don't showcase their skill as a player, it is nice to feel something is improving somewhere. "Improving as a player" without any solid rewards is too vague and discouraging. Anyway, to counter my own point, Fame in HA works the way I mention, yet HA doesn't see nearly enough play. Hopefully World PvP in GW2 should address most of these issues - lack of population mainly, which leaves the formats with a terrible 'dead' feeling.--User Sensei sensei-sig.pngSensei | talk 15:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
What makes me lol is that this guy seems to miss the fact that there's a distinction between good players and scrubs for a reason. A team that practices frequently and makes no mistakes should never lose to a team of scrubs who play twice a week. If they do, there is definitely something wrong. I haven't busted my ass for hours on prot monk to have my team's asses kicked by some shitters abusing something like bloodspike pre-nerf. Furthermore, there would still be elitists if the game were broken - it'd just be who can abuse broken game mechanics faster or more effectively. A scrub is a scrub is a scrub, and the only way to play with the big boys and girls is to actually do some work instead of bitching that casuals can't get into champ range. Puppeteer 04:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Buy my point is going competely unchecked. That is the devs are actually going out of their way to protect the elitists by nerfing easy and effective builds that casual players use to compete. If the elitists are so "L33t" why do they need dev intervention and protection from casual players? As a casual player I CAN compete with elitiests but only if the devs stop trying to keep them on their perch. Let the elitists figure how to survive and evolve on their own instead of keeping the casual player down.

But that's the thing - as a casual player you shouldn't be able to compete with people who put in hours of work a day. The game is designed so that people get better over time. The devs are protecting the ideal that hard work is supposed to pay off, and that the game is supposed to be balanced (not "herp derp let's use this build we'll win against anything"). What you don't seem to understand is that there should be at least some element of skill present in GvG instead of abuse of "easy and effective builds". PvP is srs bsns where to compete with the elites you need to actually do as much work as them. If you just (for example) end up roflstomping a rank 50 guild with bloodspike on Burning Isle with a team of casuals, it's completely disregarding the spirit of any competitive sport - practice pays off. Your level of competition is meant to be directly proportional to the amount of work you put in, so if you're a casual player, tough. Suck it up and put more work in with your guild. Puppeteer 23:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting comments here so far. Here's a point I have made in live conversations with players on both sides of this issue. If a "scrub" comes along who has found an easy way to counter some so-called "elite's" supposedly skillfully crafted team build, then I submit that changing the rules (aka:nerf) is no solution. If you spent hours perfecting skill-sets, timing, co-ordination, etcetera, and a "scrub" figures out how to beat you using supposedly inferior skill-sets, it is incumbent upon these "elites" to find a way within the current rules to beat it. If it is unbeatable, whether it takes no skill to use or not, doesnt the clever "scrub" become the "elite"? After all, he used what was available to him and beat you. Easily. With "no skill".

My point here is only this... Are all of the teams in PvP using the same basic builds and climbing the ladder only due to their team's expertise in using it effectively? If so then I suggest that the arenas they play in be limited to those skill-sets exclusively. I expect this idea to be hugely unpopular. Feel free to spit on my post if you like...(just remember to wipe the screen before your spittle reaches the electronics). Filofax1us 01:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point. You're describing viable counters and the process of metagame shifting, though. Broken builds are those builds that basically have very few weaknesses and can easily overwhelm anything brought to bear against it, usually through abuse of game mechanics (like the whole life-stealing on respawn bug in bloodspike, or smiteway's insane AI hex removals). Yeah, it's the community's responsibility to find a way to beat a build (which was vaguely successful in the whole ranged spike thing with Paragons), but really, things get ridiculous when a real gimmick hits top 20. It's not always possible to simply "find a counter" - every game I recall playing and obsing against bloodspike, no matter what the build, was essentially a cookie-cutter match on Burning where most of one team went past Sentinels while leaving the monks behind to hopefully hold back the tide of life stealing from the other team (essentially a "race to the Lord" scenario). One build shouldn't dominate both dedicated 8v8 and split builds with no change in tactics.
I do agree that yes, the vast majority of PvP appears to be "flavour of the month" until the inevitable nerf (or, god forbid, a rare occurrence known as a buff), which seems to be the only real stimulus for most of the PvP community to change ideas past "let's experiment with builds a bit, then unveil our real counters in the AT".
tl;dr gimmick builds should have counters - if the counter is simply "RUSH THEIR LORD SINCE WE CAN'T TAKE THEM 8V8 OR SPLIT", even at high levels, then it's probably a bit too powerful. Puppeteer 05:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


PvP isn't supposed to be forgiving. It's a competition. Teams with strong players and lots of experience are going to beat teams that only play once a week. That's how stuff like that works. You can't expect casual competitors to stand a chance against people that know what their doing. That's what PvP is about; If you don't like that, then don't PvP
Any gimmick that let casual players win will be even more effective in the hands of players that know how to run it in its entirety. The problem is that they play the game a lot more than you and they get bored of that very quickly. It's not that they have to adapt to someone who outsmarted them, it's that game balance is suddenly crappy and everyone is running the same overpowered build just recently discovered. If on the off chance it does happen to be as effective in the hands of the casual player as the op seems to want, what the game essentially becomes is a glorified coin toss. If skill doesn't determine the winner, what's the point of playing a competitive game? Elu 01:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Except that you're forced into the same pool of players. In any sports, there's a place for people to learn, and when they advance, they go to the next 'tier' facing people of their level. They can still win prizes, and become the number 1, but within their own class. In Guild Wars, when you PvP, you get thrown into the deep end immediatly, having a big chance to encounter people way out of your league. It is neither fun nor good experience to get soundly thrashed while you haven't even figured out 'what just happened?' Should the elite beat any newbie? But it would go a long way for both the fun and the quantity of players if they were split up effectively. Wouldn't you, as an elite, rather face a challenge than a farm? 145.94.74.23 06:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Paragon Fix[edit]

moved from Feedback talk:Developer updates

Paragons REALLY need to be remade. their skills take up so much adrenaline it totally counters their awesome ability to gain adrenaline fast, wich is slowly being nerfed as demonstrated by the nerf to soldiers fury. focused anger is next i would immagine. is it not concerning that the only build people make paragons for in PvE is Imbagon? an over powered defencive support build that relies on PvE only skills combined with the paragons ability to gain adrenaline really fast? I run it too, it is very boring, it is the least fun i have ever had playing this game, and i have no choice with that para, i already spent a fortune on the skills, armor, weapons, all dedicated to hall of monuments. I am basicly excluded from all forms of PVP because any skill one paragon can put to good use, another class can do it better. Spears are the most commonly used martial weapon in the game, warriors use it for adrenaline gain, rangers have that pet build, but the class they were made for cant even use them up to par with the classes that use them. Stunning spear deals conditional daze, it costs 10 adrenaline on top of that. Cruel spear deals conditional deep wound, it also costs 8 adrenaline to use. I heard 8 team paragon spike is insane, but i challenge you to find 7 other paragons in the same area. Maby if you join the rare guild that is active and does a specific feild of game type often and has avalable members ready for you to join or invite, then 8 paragon teams would be something to wory about for the people you use it against.70.68.14.196 06:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Soldier's Fury had no drawback and was maintainable. It was like a far better Primal Rage (because you don't need the movement buff if you're using spears, herp derp). Now there's actually a reason not to take it (though it's still probably the best elite available for Paragons). Puppeteer 08:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree though. Paragon is my main class in PVE, and I've Paragon experience as far as HA/GvG is concerned. I picked them mainly because they seemed to be the under-dog profession. So I gave them a shot. Going on 3 years now. I have played them inside and out. I agree. They are a support class like Ritualists, so it seems. Their motivation skills are fail, with bad recharge, and they hardly heal at all. To get a desired heal effect, you need to spam most of the motivation skills on your bar. It's ridiculous. Spear mastery is fine. However, Command needs to be touched up on. I absolutely hate the nerf ANet did to Incoming. Now Incoming is just an elite form of Fallback, with the same duration, and recharge. Ridiculous. Anthem of Guidance couldn't possibly add some type of damage, for spikes or PVE paraway spikes? I don't know why they nerfed Stand Your Ground/Soldier's Fury synergy in HA and GvG. You don't see them nerfing Ritualists in PVP realms. Ritualists at times can heal and prot better than a monk can. It's ridiculous. I play Rits in PVP all the time. I think they mainly have to stop nerfing the Paragon, they're picking apart his good parts, and leaving you with not many choices, especially in PVP. It's sad when you go into AB/JQ/FA places, and all you're good for is the Incoming/Fallback combo. That's sad. I hope to see a drastic, POSITIVE improvement to the paragons, BEFORE the GW2 release. Maybe I can get even better enjoyment out of my Paragon before then......

ardangoeswiki 01:10, 8 September 2010

Rangers vs Warriors[edit]

According to Anet in this update (and how the game is designed): If Rangers are not supposed to be as tough as Warriors then why the hell did you give Rangers a plethora of skills that prevent getting hit??? That is a paradox if I ever heard one. They got rupts that affect anything including swinging a weapon. Wow. They also have crippling skills, aoe blind with a lengthy duration (Throw Dirt, that's right...I said it) shit load of blocking stances, physical armor like other attack classes (plus, I said plus, elemental armor that cuts damage in half). Wow. Other attack classes don't get that armor boost yet a Ranger can kill you before you can get in range to touch him (certain bows hit outside of normal range). I've seen it way too many times. A ranger preps his poison/bleeding/burning, cripples a Warrior then activates stances that provide speed and blocking, wash, rinse and repeat. Warrior doesn't stand a chance. If the Warrior has a chance to get in range to hit, the Ranger just blocks the attacks. For a class that is not supposed to be as tough as them, they sure do kick their asses a lot.

Maybe that's how Anet wants things but that contradicts their statement because they nerfed quite a few Warrior skills that block projectiles. No doubt someone will respond with how they can beat Rangers with their Warrior. Hell, I can tell you the time I won the jackpot but that doesn't mean the lottery is in my favor. Just use some common sense: a ranger prevents a melee from hitting him while the ranger wails on him without consequence then rupts anything that would heal...ain't balanced. Here is a suggestion to get you started: All Ranger stances that provide blocking end when he uses an attack skill (I said attack skill...not attack). This gives the ranger options to still attack or use something like poison signet to still put pressure on the warrior or use mending touch; at the same time, it gives a warrior a chance to put pressure on him to deal damage. It is funny when I am a Ranger and do this but so fkn annoying when I am melee. I just run in circles around the warrior and kill him without him getting close to me. Ring. Ring. I'm sorry but the warrior you are trying to reach is not available... 65.191.139.40 23:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you only play AB and FA/JQ, right? User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 23:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
In GW 99% of people who PvP only play AB/FA/JQ. That's why most people hate the never ending nerfs of builds which aren't a problem in those formats. 58.110.136.248 15:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Not just warriors; sins and dervs are also in the same boat, if not worse. It's extremely easy to shut down any melee unless you have an awesome backline. The fact that they have to risk the front lines only to be countered/neutralized while rarely being able to fight back is extremely disheartening. And yet this is pretty much the case in any low end PvP, where again unless melee have an awesome backline, they are shit out of luck. In those arenas I don't even consider warriors, sins or dervs a threat. For the role that's supposed to be the most intimidating and do the most damage, that's just sad. I really think they should look at this since as said before high end is pretty much dead already...205.206.140.29 03:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Ofcourse a ranger vs a warrior a ranger will be better, it's meant to be that way. Ranger's sacrfice damage for utility, splittability etc "the team toolbox" as Yue so rightly put it. You have to remember, frontline (warrior, dervish, sin etc) are easily shutdown, but it is balanced by the fact that when not shutdown they do a lot more damage than any other class. If the game was balanced around AB/CM/RA then well, it would be a dire game :/ (not that it already is). --Frosty User Frosty Frostcharge sig.jpg 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please give Paragons something![edit]

I'm Not sure if this the right place to bring up this issue or not but its been far to long since paragons have had anything nice. All I'm saying is they could use a Big buff in all areas! When they first came out in October 27, 2006 Paragons where great there was nothing wrong with them, and since then they have been slowly reduced to a "Cute little mini pet that toss a tooth pick! Are they not suppose to be like guardian angels? I mean Shouts are all they really have to make a difference, I mean sure it helps others here and there but what about the paragons them selfs. Also in the description for the paragons it states " Through insight, they help others resist Hexes and Conditions! ... well Conditions yes very much so but Hexes.... Not at all.... NO wait theres one just one. That takes 8 adrenaline to use PLUS its only useful if your using a spell (How about them apples!?) Theres a time for a change and that time needs to be now! Or the next up date would be nice. (Sorry I forgot to log in before so this is why im re=posting.)Souless--Cornfry32 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Paragon has an inherent balance problem at the heart of the profession which is the cause of what you describe here. If shouts weren't uninterruptible AND unremovable, they wouldn't have to be so mediocore to begin with. Having said that, I find Command rather well designed at the moment. It's go some unique and useful things (damage boosts, condition spreads, speed boosts) but it is Motivation that should get an overhaul. An armor 106 character is simply too well defended to be allowed the role of the healer, and as such, its skills are weak. A simple -1 armor for each point of motivation might do a lot of good in that respect. As for that hex removal skill, it would be a lot better if it affected everyone rather than just casters. 145.94.74.23 06:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree. Motivation needs to be tweaked, big-time. I also agree on Hexbreaker Aria. They need more support buffs. See my post above. More Paragon rants. I think Command could use a little tweaking though. Rangers can block all day, run fast, shoot arrows, and make their pets do as much damage as they do. Rits can fling channel magic as if it were an Ele's Air Magic, causing just as much, if not more damage than they. Can throw weapon spells that can't be removed, heal like a monk, and pop the undead like a necromancer. Not to mention the Communing Spirits Damage Control which can put Paragons to shame alot of the time (especially in PVP). Let's not forget all the shine that Mesmers got now. Where they can suck a monk's energy down to 0 in just a few seconds thanks to Mind Wrack/E-Surge combination. All these professions get OP buffs, and get their time to shine, not the Paragon. It's ridiculous. All paragons are good for are chucking a spear with a -20 Armour IAS skill, shouting Incoming/Fallback. It's out of control. They're limited. Motivation needs to be reviewed....some of the leadership, and some command. That's my personal opinion. As a paragon player.

ardangoeswiki 01:19 8, September 2010