Whiteout.1975

For Me . . . The Good: - I like the art color/design via symbols. The Bad: - I think the Spec looks overall boring from the trailer (sorry). It just flings daggers around in different yet, similar ways. I would have liked to have seen more work done with illusions here. In my opinion, the Mesmer is not suppose to be about themselves as much as themselves with their illusions. Opposite of what I saw in the trailer. Honestly, having clones preform Dagger Storm - like animations would have been more interesting and more acrobatic animation styles would have been cool too. What I am getting from the video is a spec that is capable of AOE damage, but more so if either caught in the crossfire of their main target or near their main target. However, the falling dagger storm (whatever the skill is called) looks like it could be a ground target AoE.

Thanks for the input everyone! I made this post because I have not seen talks concerning how fast people can get up from the downstate. I am also curious about the amount of counterplay behind players getting up in a "Blink of an Eye" or 1 second. - This quote is taken from https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Invulnerability: "Invulnerability triggers from certain player profession skills and is also briefly applied to every player as they fall into downed state or recover with rally." - Also this quote taken from https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Resurrection: "Resurrection is an effect granted to both player characters and NPCs after reviving them that makes them invulnerable for a second." I find the situation interesting around players up so quickly within the time they are also invulnerable. I do not have too much say about Revival speed and whether that is balanced or not. I am more surprised that downed players can get up that quickly with seemingly no time-gate around the ability to get up from downstate. I just thought there would be more risk versus reward involved behind downstate as a whole. In such cases as the "Blink of an Eye," "1 [Second]," maybe even 2 - 3 second revives . . . There seems like there is little punishment/risk to be had for the downed. Whether a player revives through Rally or allies in one Second, they are still getting up in 1 Sec. (or whatever time close to that you believe to be true). In the end, I find such revive times questionable in WvW. Also, whether or not that is healthy or not for the overall player experience. Those are my thoughts at the moment. Perhaps these thoughts could be explored further in another post about downstate, but I thought I should still share them here since it relates to the topic. P.S. As far as personal experiences, I have been rallied so fast before that I had to question whether or not I even stopped moving in combat (has happened plenty of times over the years). Also, FYI, I do not vote right away on any polls I make because I do not want to influence the polls in any way or create an initial bias. However, I think I will cast my vote now because the overall answer seems pretty clear here.

Sure thing. Yea, making boons so that they are on an equal playing field, or at least mostly perceived that way, would make the element of choice more difficult indeed. So that idea would be good for that purpose. The only issue I can see right now is that we may very well end up where we started concerning current thoughts/feelings of the influence of boons. - For instance, in this case, whoever deals out boons more effectively than others, may have changed. However, the effectiveness of said boons has not, ultimately. Instead, boons have now become more effective around each class that excels at their respective boon(s) and how those boons may support other professions more effectively too. Honestly, this leads more to believe the issue is the amount of stacking of boons . . . AND/OR the effectiveness of some boons baseline. We can both agree that boons are currently not considered equal. - How I would approach this issue: First, bring down the stacks of effectiveness for boons in general (this can include stacks in duration). This change will limit the stacking/carrying potential of groups while also helping with the boon -> condition conversion. Then, I would look at seeing if the effectiveness of particular boons needs adjusting. For example, maybe Might need to give +15 Power/Condition for every "1" stack instead of the currently + 30. I do not know the exact answer, of course, any more than the Dev/Company that has not run their game through QA for testing. However, this general approach I have previously listed would be something I would like to see.

Please include a brief description of the revive scenario if able. Can list multiple scenarios if applicable to your chosen time. Can include a Rally scenario. Thanks!

I think if things are more exclusive to particular classes, "boons" in this case, one achieves diversity on paper . . . But in actuality there becomes a heavy influence something called "Pick Rate" in gaming. The things seen as most viable are chosen over the lesser by players. Also, if things are as one may say, "to good not to take!," then stacking of such quality of things can more easily occur. - In short, I do not believe believe particular classes having dominance over particular boons will not be a healthy change for combat because of higher influences on pick rate. Generally speaking, I believe skills that have a higher influence on number of targets should be less powerful than skills that are more focused on single or fewer targets. So skills that affect a higher amount, with boons, are less effective in application then that of concentrated/single target skills. Nice topic btw 👍 Edit: had to add an important word that got left out . . . lol

Did they honestly say that though? I take you/everyone here is referring to this post: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/arenanet-studio-update-july-2021/ In the "Alliance's When?" section, last paragraph, the "Guild Wars 2 Team" writes: - "Our communication regarding this feature over the last few years missed the mark. In the past, development priorities shifted away from WvW, and unfortunately both World Restructuring and our players suffered as a result. Our new leadership team views WvW as a cornerstone mode of Guild Wars 2, and it will be a focus of ours going forward." There is no mention of WvW "always" or "is" a cornerstone of the game here that suggests that WvW has been. They sound to me like they are admitting that WvW has not been a "cornerstone" concerning the "old" leadership and how the "new" leadership "will" view WvW that way. Whether or not "new" leadership "will" live up to their "new" standards is going to be for another story further down the road.

Actually, Diku didn’t understand what the OP was actually asking for. Diku’s suggestion is for max range ONLY. The OP is asking for the ability to find the range manually, then set it to auto fire AT THAT RANGE.. so, if it’s 57%, each shot would be at 57% I understood this suggestion the same as you @Strider Pj.2193. Also, I remember there are some treb locations where even if one were to build a treb further back (or forward . . . Depends) . . . The treb shot would then miss the target area, even if one would attempt to adjust the treb shot charge time accordingly.

I wonder how mad his dad was at him for putting tape on the wall again.

A song to stroke your PPT to:

@"Haseno.6417"

Yes, the system sorts itself (with occasional assistance from Anet), with consideration to points that are earned concerning WvW activity. So, to clarify, I am not stating to "take away the sorting factor," let's wash our hands and be done with it. How things are sorted/points earned depends on the fulfilled criteria (rules) that award those points and allows such sorting to happen. I am questioning the current scoring criteria because what ultimately seems to matter, practically 99% of the time, is whoever can afford to spare the most server activity during the week . . . Wins. And yes, I stopped caring about "winning" because of how "winning" is currently achieved. However, I would love to attempt to win under more respectable circumstances.

First, thanks for your opinion from your perspective. So, from what I am understanding here, instead of the Scoring System simply welcoming coordination, it goes even further and actually "favors" it instead . . . Alright. So, numbers have no significant value when it comes to coordination . . . Even if one side can spare a roughly equal amount of coordination and still have higher numbers. Next, during off-hours, particular servers generally win "the coordination battle" despite there not being enough opposition to coordinate against. Yeah, personally, I don't think attaching the word "coordination" to how something is obtained suddenly adds significance or respect to how that thing is obtained . . . In this case score points. For example, I just poured myself a glass of water, without a doubt that took some "coordination." I could have even poured it for someone else while communicating with them, but the average person is not going to care about that or find value in that action. Unfortunately, having more numbers resulting in overall higher server activity throughout the week and being rewarded for it, even if under the guise of "coordination," still does not add value or significance to "coordination" for me.

I was not aware that I was ignoring a point when I told you . . . "Yes." Then added a "thank you" for the input, but alright. I won't go as far as to say you "ignored" this response, but perhaps you missed it. Personally, my issue is just generally rewarding easy points because another team cannot compete with the higher activity rate of another team in WvW . . . Usually, because that team has more numbers to expand out to uphold this kind of activity rate . . . Appears to be at least a questionable practice in my eyes. This is, again, why I made this post to raise questions over the authenticity and correctness of the Scoring System. It is also, because of situations that you attempt to convey here @kamikharzeeh.8016 that makes, as you state, " . . . it matters absolutely not if u win or lose ppt, since the offhours count " that help feed into my intial purpose of questioning of the Scoring System. So, again, I am not ignoring what you said and I already thank you for it. However, this response is just me and I asked for opinions . . . So, I rather not keep this about me.

So, you are telling me, at that specific moment, during what is perhaps one of the most coordinated, highest motivational, WvW nights out of all other consecutive match days to be had left . . . This was your experience? Well, I must say congratulations to that other server, and congratulations to you for stumbling upon the needle in the haystack. Maybe more resets are the answer then. Yes, I think more resets are the answer. Links are too long, matchups are too long, and skirmishes are too long. This naturally favors servers that can "persevere", which doesn't neccessarily mean higher numbers but higher dedication. Often, these are the same players because bandwagoning only happens amoung the most dedicated of the player base; almost anyone else doesn't even care. Something like a dozen dedicated players can win a matchup by PK'ing and PPT'ing 24/7 to the point where its detrimental to their mental, emotional and physical health, even if the other side occasionally has a huge blob that wipes the entire map out. But this isn't the only form of dedication. Servers that only wake up at night to have massive coverage during the entire dead zones of the other servers, are also dedicated. They don't even need massive numbers, usually 15-20 players is all you need to accomplish it. In individual fights, numbers always have the advantage. But they have very little effect on the overall outcome. Someone needs turn the salt dispenser upside down and shake it sometimes. I would limit links to ~2 weeks, matchups to 23 hours and skirmishes to 25mins for a little while and see what happens. (You intentionally need the times to be a little off so that it rotates over time and doesn't just favor a specific set of timezones.)Honestly, I am not sure if more resets are the exact answer. I could see people possibly becoming burnt with feeling a need to return from/dedicate nearly 23 hours of their time. I do agree in thinking that allowing 24/7 matchups in such a way that easily rewards people's night capping, as I dream about a better WvW, is pretty dull, easy, and uninspiring. Of course, I am not saying the game should revolve around me or anyone who is sleeping in particular. I am just saying people are too easily rewarded against servers without enough able bodies. Still, thanks for helping the conversation.

Yes./6 characters too short. P.S. Thank you for the additional input too outside this quote.