Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

typographie

Member Since 26 Feb 2012
Online Last Active Today, 12:31 AM

#2332853 ArenaNet to "address [...] the dominance of Berserker/DPS"

Posted AdmiralSnackbar916 on 20 July 2014 - 04:18 PM

I’m going to recommend a large number of changes which I hope will bring back build diversity to PVE. There are a number of different approaches to the problem, some involving more radical changes to gameplay than others.  Some of these suggestions concern purely the king status of the berserker meta, others concern the tactics employed in dungeons.

Build Diversity and Gear

Crafting different types of ascended gear is clearly a lengthy and time consuming process, which is partially ameliorated by the fact that the gear is account bound. Legendary weapons automatically allow for switching of nomenclature, I propose that in the future, ascended gear and weapons have removable inscriptions. Such that the armor can be preserved as inscriptions are moved from one armor set to the next. In this way, A player only needs to craft the ascended armor set once, and if they want to create a new build from say, Berserkers to Carrion or Knights gear, they *only* have to create the ascended insignias, and the old Insignias are not actually lost. I’m not sure how infusions would be handled, however.

I only bring this up because the berserker Meta has one advantage; the fact that it means multiple ascended armor sets do not need to be crafted with different stats. If the Berserker meta became obsolete, it would create the problem of extremely expensive gear chances associated with extremely convenient trait changes.

Trash Running:

As evidenced by Arah, disincentives for trash running have not worked. Given the legitimate state of stealth in GW2 there is nothing inherently wrong with deciding to stealth past mobs to the boss, or kiting mobs altogether. My suggestion will hopefully satisfy trash runners as well as those who think trash running is a reflection of bad game design.

It’s very simple, reduce the token completion bonus for the dungeons and disperse it amongst the bosses and side events. If you don’t want Roshan getting roasted all the time in COF p1 or people skipping Kholer and the Troll, have some ‘event completion’ chest with some tokens and perhaps a champ bag or other valuable loot [Event completion chest rewards are already a game feature in the new living story]. Elites themselves could also have better drop chances so that the booty in dungeons is no longer concentrated at the back end. [I am excluding respawning enemies from this]

The fact that people have started to kill kholer again for the loot is evidence this approach will probably work. Normally you get 20 tokens for a completed dungeon, 40 from a bonus chest. You could remove the bonus chest, keep the 20 for completion, and disperse the 40 tokens amongst the champions and elites.  There are many possible working combinations.

Anet is probably going to want to slightly increase the token drops from dungeons anyway if it ends up removing the zerker Meta in such a way that makes speed clears of the kind that currently exist unfeasible, so if this approach ends up increasing the total number of tokens from a dungeon run, that all works out fine.

Mind you I am not opposed to speed clears, and I do not want the end of the Zerker meta to correspond to a return to 30 minute or 1 hour dungeon completion times. However, if it should come to that, players should be justly compensated.

While we’re on the Topic of Dungeon Rewards:

If you want to encourage players to to run all dungeon paths rather than simply the ones which can be speed-cleared, it might be useful to get a gague on the average amount of time it takes players to complete said paths, and adjust the  completion rewards accordingly.

So if the average completion time of p1 is half that of p3, then the gold rewards at least should reflect that difference.

AI: [With particular emphasis on the AI in dungeons and fractals rather than open world content]

This change is probably the most speculative, the most radical, and the least likely to be implemented.It would also be the most effective in my estimation.

The number one difference between PVP and PVE that makes one allow for build diversity and the other none is the relative intelligence of the target being attacked.  Players have less durability than enemies in PVE but are never the less far more resistant to berserker builds and berserker tactics because they are capable of performing relatively fast attacks as well as counters, and most players familiar with the professions of GW2 know that different tactics are involved against fighting different professions, even when they are all wearing berserkers gear.

Enemies in PVE have the intelligence of a Domesticated turkey and ‘reaction time’ is almost meaningless to them as they react virtually identically to all enemies in all situations, the only exceptions being whether a player is in melee or range.

First, The AI needs access to a wider variety of skills, and above all, to use skills more frequently, rather than simply relying on slow moving attacks that deal massive damage [dodging should be reserved as a counter for special moves which are particularly dangerous, as is the case in PVP] This would to some extent increase the effectiveness of confusion [more on that later]

Second, it needs to have some sense of reacting to player tactics. If players are stacked in a corner, the AI should know better than to run straight at them. Have the AI run around the corner and range them, preferably with AOE skills, if the AI detects multiple enemies all clustered together but out of said AI's line of sight. If the enemy runs at you with melee, a challenging AI boss should retaliate with knock-backs, immobilizes, or a deadly close range attack. In other words, it will respond logically.

The most effective damage strategy against any boss should be no different than the most effective damage strategy against any player; hit them from all directions using a combination of melee, ranged, condition and direct damage, so they have no means of countering.

Mobs should try to avoid being clustered themselves, if pulled by a foe, the ones that are not melee based should try to run away. And as far as low damage auto attacks go, I see nothing against allowing enemies to attack while moving just as players can.
A more intelligent AI makes dungeons more difficult, other things being equal, but we can compensate for the difficulty by reducing the health of those more intelligent enemies. This means both that current meta tactics will be harder to employ against enemies, and also that high DPS persay is not needed to defeat enemies quickly.

On the matter of conditions, enemies that attack [nearly] as fast as players makes confusion a more powerful condition, and enemies that run and kite more often will make the torment condition more effective.

GW1 placed a very high value on interrupting skills to prevent them from countering yours. With that in mind, suppose that bosses could heal themselves in combat, but doing so had a relatively long channeling time [say, 2-3 seconds], and whilst the channel was active, all defiant stacks were removed. Again, these are all ways of making enemies harder to kill, but less inherently durable.


Husks

I suspect husks are already part of Anet’s plan to fix the current meta. I do think more husk like enemies should be involved. If we think about it, in an SPVP Scenario, whether berserkers gear or rampagers gear deals more overall damage per second on a target should depend largely on the weapons and abilities of the attacker and the relative condition/direct damage resistance of the defender. One should not be categorically superior to the other. PVE should largely be the same. Note when I say Husk I mean any enemy with very high toughness relative to vitality.

However, I do not believe that Husks are a sufficient solution to the current meta, and they are not a necessary condition either. For one thing, it is a bit of a crutch to parties requiring the inclusion of one condition damage dealer just so they can speed clear a path that involves a couple of husks. I would rather see condition damage in PVE improved overall.

Condition Damage:

Let me iterate that condition damage in PVP does not need any improvements at the moment, everything I say here is strictly for PVE.

Overall, PVE condition damage could use a buff, though implementing less tanky but more intelligent AI would make that less necessary. How much of a buff it needs I am not certain. in PVP condition damage kills enemies often as quickly as direct damage because the target being attacked is using the proper counters.

One thing that would possibly help [though I’m not sure if this already occurs] is that all damage multipliers apply to condition as well as direct damage. For example, I’m not sure if something like “Deal X% extra damage if/against ABC ” [say from slayer potions or from certain traits] also increases condition damage, but clearly it should. Anet Tooltips should use direct damage in place of damage in the future if they mean to only have something benefit direct damage.

As I said above if enemies were more mobile and attacked more often, confusion and torment would be made more useful for damage purpose, if we think about a condition like confusion in PVE, sometimes enemies will not make a single attack between when the confusion condition is applied and when the condition wears off. If nothing else about the enemies [the enemy health and attack speed] was changed, you could probably double the confusion duration and triple the confusion damage and it would still not be that overwhelming. I would say the same about torment.

You could have different levels of damage from confusion depending on the enemy. Suppose you are dealing with an enhanced AI NPC, then confusion damage can be the same as in PVP. Against a champion, you might have double duration and double damage, against a world boss, double duration and triple damage, etc.

Another thing that could in some cases, potentially increase the benefit of conditions is to allow conditions to remain on a boss when they are going through intermediate phases of invulnerability. [With the only exception being the final invulnerability phase, if you don’t actually want the players to be able to kill the boss normally] So if you were fighting the flame legion tribune in P3, when he goes to stomp, he will still take condition damage.

Condition Stacks:

These are worth talking about, with the exception of vulnerability, I think all condition caps should be removed. Anet says it is working on this issue, though it said so one year ago.

The logic to removing them is obvious. Why on earth do elites, let alone champions, bosses, and  world bosses, have condition caps for things like bleeding when one good player can easily stack 25 bleeding [and still do a third the damage of a berserker] on a single target? What evils is are being prevented by doing this? None that I can see.

I also believe that conditions like burning and poison should have special mechanics for stacking in intensity when the duration exceeds some markers, particularly against world bosses where it’s virtually impossible not to have full burning uptime. For example, suppose that the burning condition with a duration greater than X [say, 10 seconds] seconds caused a new special condition called “Intense Burning” which doubled the condition damage from burning. Likewise, burning duration in excess of 2X [say, 20 seconds] gave the boss two stacks of intense burning, which tripled the burning duration. This could continue up to a stack cap of say 4

As I mentioned before, Certain champions could also have channeled condition cleansing skills/heals which temporarily [1-2 seconds] removed defiant on them, making timed CC useful for more than just pulling enemies into corners in order to perform FGS rushes.

Boons and Healing Power:

I’ve provided a few ways Anet can improve the effectiveness of conditions in PVE, now to cover the lackluster status of healing power.  

Healing power has a conundrum, how to make healing power effective without creating a necessity for dedicated healers / creating a situation where people can heal their way out of damage.

We obviously don’t want healing power increasing the effectiveness of burst heals by very large factors. Doubling a burst heal of 4000 would allow many classes to heal their way out of damage. Passive regeneration on the other hand *can* viably be something that is highly sensitive to healing power without breaking the game. However there may be a way to increase healing power’s effectiveness.


Consider that fact that the current Meta is generally reliant upon being able to permanently maintain other boons, 25 might, fury, protection [fractals]. Consider that a buffer in GW2 is as effective wearing Berserkers gear as they are wearing any other kind of gear [Givers gear provides at maximum an 11% boon duration boost , which is incurred at an enormous cost and could easily be substituted with boon duration consumables] Instead of having healing power greatly increase the effectiveness of only one boon, why not have it increase the effectiveness of [virtually] all boons? [Solely for PVE, as the current situation with boons in PVP would not require this ]

Stability and Aegis are the only boons I can’t fit into this schema.

Regeneration – Maintain as is
Might – At level 80, each stack of might increases power/condition damage by 35. Suppose instead at a healing power of 0, each stack of might increase power/condition damage by 15, 25 at 700, 35 at 1400, and 50 at 2200. [I’m not proposing those numbers per say but as an example]
Protection – Reduces all damage taken by 33%. Suppose instead protection raised one’s toughness by a certain number of points. That amount would vary depending upon one’s healing power.  
Retaliation – Currently retaliation damage is dependent upon the power of the source. All you have to do here is replace that with healing power.
Fury – Increase critical chance by a base of 20%, you could instead have it increase a player’s precision, how much precision will depend upon healing power.
Vigor – Double endurance regeneration , again simply make the percentage variable with healing power.
Swiftness – Movement speed variable with healing power, up to some cap.

If I had my druthers, I would also do to boon duration what Anet did to Critical Chance; replace it with an attribute similar to ferocity. You could then institute traits or runes which converted a percentage of one’s healing power.

As is the case for a condition like burning, when two players apply the same boon you can either have the effectiveness based upon an average or sum of the two [depending on whether we are dealing with intensity stacking boons like might, or duration stacking boons like protection] or based purely upon the boon effectiveness of the player with the strongest healing power.

Alternative for Boons and Healing Power:

Instead of having the effectiveness of all boons determined by healing power, and then having boon duration as a side stat. You could eliminate boon duration and healing power entirely, and replace them with two new attributes. The first attribute will focus on the four defensive boons; Regen, Protection, Vigor, Stability. The second will focus on the offensive boons, Swiftness, Might, Fury, Retaliation. We'll call the first attribute Altruism and the Second Zeal.

Altruism increases the duration and/or effectiveness of the associated defensive boons, and zeal increases the duration and/or effectiveness of the associated offensive boons. So with these new attributes, our item nomenclature could be as follows:

Cleric -- Power, Toughness, Altruism
Givers -- Toughness, Zeal, Altruism
Zealots -- Power, Precision, Zeal

Admittedly, this above approach would make the conversion to PVP for players very confusing. I regard that as the number one weakness.

Poison, Weakness, Blind:

Another reason the Berserker meta can prevail in various scenarios is that organized parties combine the effects of protection, blind, and weakness, as well as CC. I have already discussed protection, under the proposed system above, a team of full berserkers with no investment in healing power might only be able to reduce the damage they take from foes by 10% rather than 33%.

Weakness is another effect whose effectiveness is independent of any attribute. Suppose instead that the weakness condition reduced the effected player’s / NPCs power by a given amount, determined by one’s condition damage. if you wanted your applied weakness to cut the enemy's outgoing damage in half, you need a player with enough condition damage to reduce the outgoing power of enemies sufficiently.

The poison condition can similarly reduce healing power, [or Altruism if you take my alternative suggestion] etc. The reduction will depend upon the player’s condition damage. This is important because imagine you have a boss that has permanent protection and regeneration. Now, a heavy condition build may end up only doing 25% the damage of a full berzerker build [ignoring what I have said about might], but the poison condition weakens the bosses healing power to such a degree that the, say, a 35-40% damage reduction becomes 10% or even 0%. Suddenly, a condition build is capable of raising his party's DPS by as much as a single individual applying 25 stacks of vulnerability independently.

Blind is a rather strange PVE trait in that it ranges from being extraordinarily effective to absolutely useless depending on the enemy being attacked. Instead of reducing the effectiveness of blind by 10% against bosses, make it so that blind reduces the precision and/or critical damage bonus of bosses, and is not exhausted upon using an attack.

Thus a boss that is hit with weakness and blind by a condition build will have his damage massively debuffed,but that boss can attempt to cleanse conditions which removes their defiant stacks and thus leaves them vulnerable to CC.

Vulnerability:

You could carry this logic a bit further and, for PVE only, make it so that the vulnerability condition reduces toughness by x amount per stack, dependent upon... you guessed it, condition damage.

What the New Meta would Look Like:

If everything were implemented properly, an ideal meta would involve four roles, which players could assume in any given combination. Those roles are DPS [Power Precision Ferocity] Buffers [Altruism / Zeal] Debuffers [Condition Damage] and CC [Independent of Stats]

Condition based builds would not necessarily need to have their damage or effectiveness increased [Though confusion / torment might still need to be] because the debuffs they provide which both reduce outgoing enemy damage and potentially increase party damage.

Buffers would no longer be superfluous as full berserker parties could not enhance their effective power to a theoretical maximum without any investment in the corresponding traits. Healing power or whatever replaces it would no longer be rendered useless without creating a problem of people healing their way' out of damage. A party could have a dedicated buffer or have everyone partially invest in buffing traits, no dedicated "healer" is "required" per say.


Tanking:

I'm not really a fan of classes being designed for merely receiving damage, and in theory, builds which forgo the use of toughness and vitality in favor of offensive traits shows risk taking and to some extent, skill.

Now if all the changes I suggest were implemented, I imagine players would be more open to investing in toughness and vitality to some extent just as they do in PVP.

Of course bunker builds do exist for PVP and to a lesser extent WvW, and if we wanted our new meta to include allowance for *pure* bunker builds, the only way I can see that happening is to include dungeon specific mechanics which require bunkering.

If there are any instances where one player needs to stand on a small point and hold it whilst the party is off doing something else, [However, holding the point reduces the time it takes for the party to do what it is they need to do] then bunkering may become more viable. However it *needs* to be bunkering rather than simply kiting.

So suppose in Arah P3, you know you have the three pillars you need to stand on to bring out the wraithlord. Suppose instead when the wraith lord spawns, players who remain standing on one of pillars apply a debuff which increases the party's damage to the Wraithlord by a given amount, and another pillar which reduces the wraithlord's damage. As I said, it needs to be bunkering rather than kiting. Currently a Berserker type build is more than adequate for the current Arah p3 requirement because, as it is elsewhere, attacks are slow and easily to avoid.


TLDR:

1. Dispersed rewards incentivize completing the entire dungeon, without requiring that speed clears be impossible or impractical.
2. More intelligent, proactive AI make pure berserker melee stacking tactics more risky and less viable, and also increase the effectiveness of confusion and agony.
3. Condition cap removal prevents multiple condition damage classes from being superfluous. Allow for multiple stacks of burning and poison on champions and world bosses.
4. Conditions play a greater role in debuffing when possible [ vulmnerability, weakness, poison] and increase their damage otherwise [confusion]
5. Increase the effectiveness of healing power by connecting it to other boons
6. Make the use of protection/weakness less viable to compensate for lack of defense in a pure berserker team by connecting weakness and protection strength to healing power and condition damage, respectively.
7. Allow for removable insignias for ascended weapons and armor to facilitate increased pve build diversity.


Note that #4 is less necessary as the other points are implemented simultaneously.


#2333369 ArenaNet to "address [...] the dominance of Berserker/DPS"

Posted Nikephoros on Yesterday, 02:31 PM

A lot of suggestions but it all comes back to things I said months and months ago: some people want to play "support" roles which essentially means they want to sit safely in the back spamming heals/buffs/debuffs without having to melee, without really having to learn the encounters and without really having to care.  These are the staff necros who join pugs and sit at 1200 range on staff spamming their skills on cool down, or the guardian who doesn't use wall of reflect against bosses with projectiles because he is a "shout buffer" or somesuch nonsense.

I'm not putting these people down.  They want a simpler, less active combat system that allows space for a "midliner/backliner."  That's fine, plenty of games have this and this has been the path to success for the more casual (from a time/effort perspective) player since MMOs began.  It is perfectly fine to be this player.  It's perfectly fine to play that game.  But that isn't this game.  I have to express my irritation at folks who want to radically alter the basic nature of the game (fast paced active combat) to facilitate their playstyle.  If you prefer a game more like Checkers, there is no reason to torture yourself by forcing yourself to play Chess, much less to petition the Chess ruling body to change the rules to make it more like Checkers.  Simply put, rather than changing the game as it is and as it was developed (which is a game I and many others enjoy thank you very much) to accomodate YOU is selfish, and not only that, it is inefficient.  It's simply easier for YOU to move on and find a game that already caters to your needs rather than the effort required to re-make this one.  Not only that, you avoid the issue I am describing whereby your desires damage the experience for people who enjoy the status quo.

The other issue that comes up in threads like this is that issues with condition builds are conflated with the above nonsense.  Condition damage suffers from a major problem and it isn't the cap: there is no "berserker" equivilant for condition damage in pve.  Rampagers gear is PRECISION/power/condition damage.  It's as glass as Berserker but significantly less dps.  Simply making it POWER/precision/condition or CONDITION/power/precision and you now have a gear set worthy of the glass cannon moniker and you also make conditional damage viable in instanced pve, for at least one party member.  This is simply put a gear balance issue revolving around the Rampager's set, and can be easily fixed.  It doesn't really have anything to do with the other issues.


#2333024 Guild Wars 2 restarting my computer

Posted Quaker on 22 July 2014 - 02:00 PM

This may be a problem with the game client itself. Try running GW2 with the -repair or -image command.


#2332901 Is anyone else sick of Sylvari?

Posted Phineas Poe on 21 July 2014 - 07:15 AM

View PostI post stuff, on 20 July 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

I dunno about GW2 lore as a whole but so far I enjoy the new living story. It also let us have that amazing, though easy fight with Zhaitan.

The dialogue between members of Destiny's Child/Edge 2.0 is a little too sappy for my taste and is something I hope subsides over time, but overall it is remarkable how much better the second season of the Living Story is compared to season one and the Personal Story. The Aerin fight was a lot of fun, and the Modrem Thrasher fight was quite a breath of fresh air pushing you to run heal/control skills over raw DPS.

Considering season one started with fixing signposts and ended with the Scarlet fight ... the starting point of season two bodes very well for this game's future.


#2332844 Is anyone else sick of Sylvari?

Posted Skoigoth on 20 July 2014 - 03:13 PM

To anyone who thinks that GW2´s story is disconnected from GW1 lore or even butchers it, I recommend watching the latest lore/speculation video WoodenPotatoes put out (link below). While I am not fully in line with him, I think some of his thoughts on the story are quite interesting and exciting and I really hope the LS will indeed progress in this direction.

https://www.youtube....h?v=6sxgwsq_G3g


#2332835 Uprgrade Video Card? R9 270x-280 vs GTX 660-750 Ti

Posted Quaker on 20 July 2014 - 01:23 PM

I used to work in a place that had "IT guys", so I have to ask - did you blow the dust out of your computer and/or video card? :D

Just teasing - many of the IT guys I've known had no clue about hardware. ;)

But seriously folks, this is one of those Ford vs Chevy things. Everyone has a story about how some nVidia/AMD card failed and/or how they've not had any problems with their AMD/nVidia. You have to keep in mind that AMD or nVidia is only part of the equation - they don't actually make the cards, just the GPUs* - so failures can be the fault of the actually card maker.
*technically speaking nVidia and AMD don't actually even 'make' the GPU chips - they only design the chips and contract to get them made in another company's fab.


#2332574 Is anyone else sick of Sylvari?

Posted Skoigoth on 17 July 2014 - 07:11 PM

Posted Image

...

As a side note, I like where the living story is going right now and Sylvari are just as interesting as any of the other races I think. To me it makes sense that they are trying to connect the events that unfolded in LS1 to the events of the PS and not just totally discarded the whole Scarlet story arc.
Also, it is not like other races are not involved in the story at all (Zephyrites/Humans? Centaurs? Asura? mmh?).


#2332568 Is anyone else sick of Sylvari?

Posted MCBiohazard on 17 July 2014 - 06:25 PM

It's not like GW1 didn't use popular fantasy tropes and concepts either. Bringing that up blows holes in your argument that introducing anything else into the mix is verboten because there's no precedent. GW1 had dwarves, snakemen, centaurs, elementals, dragons, evil cults/gods, and an evil vizier lich (how much more cliché can you get with that one?). GW2 has a dwarf, snakemen, centaurs, elementals, dragons, evil cults/gods and an evil lich dragon (just as cliché but who's counting?) Gripe all you want about the bits that you want to see not being represented but if you want to say that GW2 put all this new stuff in as a cash money grab, be prepared to admit that your own pot is black because GW1 wasn't any different. Or maybe try to admit that both games drew inspiration from common sources for reasons other than corporate greed and appeal to the lowest common denominator. How about that one?


#2332553 Is anyone else sick of Sylvari?

Posted Senatic on 17 July 2014 - 05:14 PM

View PostKonzacelt, on 17 July 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

[random nonsensical argument here]

You can try to spin it whatever way you want, all of this started in a Guild Wars 1 expansion and Guild Wars 2 is a continuation on that story. That is a fact. The rest is just you arguing semantics, and poorly at that. Whether you  don't feel like Eotn was part of what you would personally define as "gw1 lore" is pretty irrelevant. Technically it is as it was released within the franchise of Guild Wars 1 and has as much right to call itself GW1 lore as any other added content to the game.

And I wouldn't call accepting all parts of the Guild Wars 1 story equally being willfully ignorant. Sure there is a split in the narrative, there is no argument about that. That doesn't mean one part of the story is less part of the history of Guild Wars 1 then the other.

Selectively choosing what you think is "Guild Wars 1 proper" and what isn't just because one part of the lore is connected to GW2 and another isn't is a bit of a self serving mind set to have. Seems like you're just choosing what fits your personal opinion. You are not the director of this game after all, EoTN was introduced as cannon and treating it as if it's not part of the overall Guild Wars 1 lore would just be arrogant on our parts. Who are you to tell people what parts of the Guild Wars 1 franchise is "proper" story and what isn't?


#2332424 Is anyone else sick of Sylvari?

Posted Senatic on 16 July 2014 - 08:20 PM

Sylvari as a whole are somehow linked to the elder dragons, if you thought the story would be about anything else going into this game you were naive. The Sylvari are gonna be a large part of the overall plot for quite some time, if not all the way through. Get down with it or quit the game tbh. It's not gonna change no matter what we think about it, the story has been set and started already.


#2332235 Is anyone else sick of Sylvari?

Posted I post stuff on 15 July 2014 - 10:43 PM

Nope.

I actually like how the insane sylvari pandemic is referenced in many dialogues this season. The world now thinks that salad is evil, it's up to Trahearne to prove otherwise.

trollface.jpg


#2331074 Witcher 3: Wild hunt

Posted Krazzar on 07 July 2014 - 02:27 PM

View PostLemming, on 03 July 2014 - 10:25 PM, said:

If you guys want real deals, region-free Steam gift preorders from Eastern Europe are as low as $16.
I wouldn't trust it after Steam revoked pre-order keys that were legitimate for Sniper Elite 3.


#2331650 ArenaNet to "address [...] the dominance of Berserker/DPS"

Posted Nikephoros on 11 July 2014 - 04:00 PM

View PostFeathermoore, on 11 July 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

the invulnerability in the dodge are what prevents gear choices from being truly meaningful. Changing the gear stat system to be like TSW's or revamping the AI and removing the dodge invulnerability would fix it.

The former isn't going to happen even if it were desirable.  The latter isn't desirable even if it were possible.  For each skill clicker who wants to wear tanky gear for the heck of it, there is a person who understands that dodging effectively is a measure of skill and experience.  You're talking about solutions to a problem that not everyone universally agrees to be a problem, in fact, the concept that you can wear glassier gear the better you get at the game is a selling point.


#2330786 What can I do that's fun?

Posted Epixors on 04 July 2014 - 10:17 PM

View Postilr, on 04 July 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

+1 to mumbl / teamspeak  & friends making tedious / impossible content a lot more fun.  Even if they have to Carry you through most of it.  Some of them might actually feel MORE accomplished if they have to carry a non-zerker.

  Or you could do what I do and run Valkyrie + Precision Food & Perma Fury  while letting people just assume you're running Zerker.  They're practically the same thing when you consider that only dieing in 2 hits instead of one makes up for your teeny tiny DPS shortfall.-- IOW: Most zerkers like to pretend like they NEVER get downed. They tell you it ALL the time in forums, mapchat, teamchat right before they kick you for being a dirty Soldier/Knight pleb. BUUUUT....  I've run plenty of Speedruns (b/c I had old-fart privilege status from doing tons of speedfarms in Gw1) with those same people who said exactly those misleading egotistical statements in the Zerker-Forum, err, Dungeon Forum.  The dirty secret was that they'd all go down atleast 2-4x when luck wasn't on their side or they weren't using Exploits. And the reason they always stealthed past Silver mob cluster ****s was because they couldn't stand and fight in that much chaos anyways without being downed even more than they were against the single big bosses with those nice slow predictable attack intervals.  So basically the the whole Zerker thing is 100% based on Theory-Crafting only and anytime you see YouTube videos of it going Perfectly without a hitch, it's either because of really careful editing, or them doing take after take to get it perfect just like Hollywood does.  Either way it's 100% fantasy.

Anytime it works perfectly > than 90% of the time, is because they were doing content that wasn't "hard" to begin with

Or you could dodge.


#2330840 The Gates of Maguuma

Posted davadude on 05 July 2014 - 09:15 AM

View PostGilles VI, on 05 July 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

In which video did he talk about this?

He drops a few hints, here, and in another video on his page.  However, the one eighth claim comes from work done by the community on Reddit.  Some people are noticing complete parts of the map out of boundaries that is almost eight times as big as the map we currently have.