Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cejo

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

686 profile views
  1. A few minor quality of life things I noticed myself wanting: Ability to interact with inventory (eat food, rearrange items, etc) while in auto-run. Ability to look at map while in auto run. Hotkey to go directly to campaign map. Clicking the map hotkey from the map screen should close the map. Ability to change perspective/reticle placement? Local move-speed buff in the temple. Clearer/more distinct ownership flags on the map. Hard to distinguish without zooming in closely.
  2. I was able to train gathering proficiency before plentiful resources: hunger shards.
  3. Thanks to both. I DID manage to get it close, but if you're making a large structure the errors inevitably multiply. Though, I'm not sure I fully use your method, Kraahk...I will need to try. Seems like you might be able to limit/eliminate the offset/error. I tried many ways, but...I don't know if yours was one of them. Regardless, that shouldn't be necessary. It should snap what we want, and idk, maybe an alt-drag to disable snap? Something like that? I ended up with a tunnel on one side of basically a square that a umm...a guineacian (?) couldn't fit through. It needs to be plumb-level so we can make precise, but varied structures. (ie: we need to be able to flip/mirror our segments). I also felt that the camera was way off to start (it used to get stuck?) but has gotten slightly better. Regardless, it's still not perfect, and I hear you Omen. I feel like if you want full top down, you should be able to pan to that, and if you want full side mode (from any angle), you should be able to do that, too. There also shouldn't be a limit to how far forward/back you can walk. Though I think I've encountered that, too.
  4. Is there a way to flip/mirror (not just rotate) building segments? I didn't see anything listed on the placement menu. This would be super useful for the switch-back ramps. I was able to kind of replicate one of the ramps using stairs and corner pieces, but I can't quite get the alignment right.
  5. I like the idea behind that post Blair. I like what you guys are doing. But, let's not pretend ranger bugs come down to a long swap. We literally couldn't use melee skills. There was something VERY broken with ranger melee skills; they did literally nothing. So when you can't use melee skills, and bow-shots are like...entirely random given charge time, projectile speed, and server realities...it's not about the tray swap. My only way to play was to spam LMB on melee and eventually use my sustain (which, btw, was pretty beast - Ranger is actually the best boxer class). Pretty much sucks at anything else. Don't act like we've been saying "OMG it takes so long to swap!" We are testing ranger for you. It's broken. Hope that helps!
  6. Yeah, I mean, I'm all for daydreaming, while realizing that I'm not making this game. I like "what if" threads. But, my main beef (and sorry tangent to your thread Raizex) is that the ranger weapons basically suck. I mean, I kinda like the daggers, but only for the dash. And the insanely long cooldown kinda spoils even that. I think we're still at the point where we can suggest that regardless of animations, ranger gameplay needs some re-thinking. That's how I feel, anyway. EDIT: I also think most of the big changes could be made without major alterations to the animation. If we want to stick with bow + dagger/dagger, the key comes down to skill timing, and some impacts. I mean, obviously, the LMB charge is not very good. But I've found the rapid fire suspect, and even ricochet. Then there's archer stake...which is like an invitation to get killed, it's like putting a bulls-eye up. Rangers should be about movement. Not about putting up some lame ass wall. So I guess that would have to go. Honestly,. aside from suppression, I pretty much hate the bow right now.
  7. Well, let's see how a lego works by the numbers: Lego: (needs Shield, Helmet, Polearm) Polearm: Weapon Head: Great Axe - 4 metal bars - 36 ore Weapon Shaft: Long - Metal Bar - 9 ore Weapon Hilt: Great - 2 Weapon Grip/2 Pommel/2 Crossguard - 2 weapon grips - 2 plank or animal - 6 wood or ? animal? - 2 pommels - 2 metal bar - 18 ore - 2 crossguards - 2 metal bar - 18 ore Total: 81 ore/6 wood (87 total) Shield: Shield Covering - 2 metal bars - 18 ore Shield Base: small - 2 Planks - 6 wood Enarmes - 2 stitched leather - 6 hide Total: 18 ore/6 wood/6 hide (30 total) Leather Helmet - 4 ore/15 hide Total Resources: 136 Also, my math was wrong on the ranger (I was short by 18 ore). The dagger pair actually looks like this: Dagger pair: 2 weapon hilts - weapon grip/pommel/crossguard - 2 weapon grips - 2 plank or animal - 6 wood or ? animal? - 2 pommels - 2 metal bar - 18 ore - 2 crossguards - 2 metal bar - 18 ore two weapon blades: short - 4 metal bars - 36 ore Total: 72 Ore/6 wood (78 total) Total cost for ranger build goes up to 149. As you can see, the polearm costs only 9 metal more than the daggers. And the ranger still needs the bow, 2 pieces of armor and arrows. Overall, ranger build is more "expensive" than the Lego by 13 resources.
  8. In order for a ranger to unlock every skill, they need to either take a 4% move speed penalty (basic gloves and boots), or use 63 resources (on top of those spent on potions, failures, "lost-on-take" and crafting tools). It's not terribly hard, but it is a significant undertaking, and that's literally just to make the class playable.
  9. Actually, here are the numbers (hopefully without too many math errors; adding is hard): One Handed Book: Book Binding - 2 plank/1 stitched leather - 6 wood/3 hide Bound Chapters - 3 chapters - 3 metal bar/3 stitched leather - 27 ore/9 hide Book Clasp - 1 Metal Bar - 9 ore Total: 36 ore/12 hide/6 wood (54 total) Recurve Bow: 2 bow stave limbs - 6 planks - 18 wood Bow String - 1 stitched leather - 3 hide Bow Riser - plank/bow sight/bow rest/bow grip - 3 wood - bow sight - 1 metal bar - 9 ore - Bow rest - 1 metal bar - 9 ore - bow grip - 2 stitched leather - 6 hide Total: 21 wood/18 ore/9 hide (48 total) Dagger pair: 2 weapon hilts - weapon grip/pommel/crossguard - 2 weapon grips - 2 plank or animal - 6 wood or ? animal? - 2 pommels - 2 metal bar - 18 ore - 2 crossguards - 2 metal bar - 18 ore 2 weapon blades: short - 4 metal bars - 36 ore Total: 72 Ore/6 wood (78 total) Leather Boots - 4 Ore /15 Hide (19 total) Leather Gloves - 4 Ore /15 Hide (19 total) Arrows: 10 arrowheads - 3 ore 10 arrow shafts - 3 wood Total resources for ranger: 149 Total resources for confessor: 54 This assumes non-basic weapons/armor, and a mininum gear set to unlock all skills. Basic armor is basically a no-go due to reduced movement speed, so 30 hide/8 ore is a minimum on the ranger. Even if you went with basic weapons you're looking at 63 total resources just to unlock ranger skills without penalty: Basic Bow: 12 wood Basic Arrows: 1 wood Basic Daggers: 6 wood/6 stone But that still gives you crappy weapons. A confessor "unlocks" their skills for 54, and they do it with a non-basic weapon. With a basic book, the confessor is fully playable with a mere 12 wood. That's not even addressing the fact that the ranger bow is largely inferior in the first place.
  10. I'd remove the bow entirely, and let them play as axe/dagger and dagger/axe. Each "stance" would have ranged and melee incorporated, but with different emphases, but it would require only one weapon set and at any rate couldn't be worse than the bow.
  11. If anything, I'm more against forcing rangers to use bows than worrying about the melee weapon types. Rangers are those who range. They get around, roam, patrol, whatever...they have mobility. It doesn't mean they attack from range. And I mean, just based on how bad the bow is right now, I'd be totally cool with a situation where the ranger had something like axe/dagger, and switched between stances without actually changing weapons. I personally don't go into the woods without an axe and a knife, but I can't recall the last time I brought my bow and arrows. I mean, I do think rangers should be completely versatile, so they need some range. But that doesn't necessarily mean bow and arrow, imo. Such a lame trope. Bow also means we have to build more weapons (melee set plus bow), as well as ammo, which is pretty different from the confessor, for example. Why not a stance where axe is melee and dagger is thrown, and another stance where axe is thrown and dagger is melee? Would be a pretty major overhaul, but I mean, ranger right now is pretty bad. Just some thoughts that I'm relatively certain no one will agree with.
  12. Overall, it has some fun parts: is it's highly active, and relies very heavily on movement and timing. But it's completely imbalanced, and rewards certain really boring play-styles, which is not fun. There is a massive availability of very potent AOE in the game, but there is a limit to the number of people any given AOE attack can hit (it's usually 5, or at least it was). So that means if you stack 10 people in the same space that your enemy stacks 5 people, only half of your team takes the damage. It's a ridiculous system (intended to counter server load/lag from what I understand), and aside from encouraging zegs, it directly leads to "balling up," or stacking. The game design not only actively favors zergs, it also encourages this "balling" tactic. This "balling" tactic further reinforced two things: emphasis on ranged skills, and further emphasis on aoe. Ranged because you can stay on your stack and still dish out damage, and especially ranged AoE because those skills require less aiming, so you concentrate on sticking with the stack while still more than likely hitting the same target as someone else on your team. This is one really huge failure of the game, and one reason I like the idea of less AoE. ArenaNet's solution to the technical problems caused by massive AoE in huge battles (huge as in 60v60v60) was half-assed, and it would be better if there was just less AoE in the game. But on top of that, the skills themselves were "balanced" to work in 5v5 PvP modes, PvE modes, and then open world PvP as an afterthought. Same skills in all three modes, and generally speaking, the devs seemed to favor 5v5 and PvE balance, so that skills were often simply not balanced for large-scale battles. This is one reason I'm in favor of having only one game mode. Addressing the OP, this is my main aversion towards instanced GvG or the like. ANet tried something similar, and balancing was apparently beyond their capabilities. Class-wise, anyone can do anything to one degree or another, and sustain is pretty high across the board on most reasonably good builds. Actually, every character has at least one heal skill, by design. Time to kill is fairly short under ideal circumstances; if you catch someone out, alone without support, no stun-breaks (there are a lot of these too), and no immunities active, you can spike them down on a scale of seconds. Damage levels are usually pretty high proportional to health bars. But active defense like evades, stun-breaks, temporary CC immunity skills, sustain, blocks, and active mitigation is so prevalent that in reality, even a marginally good fight lasts a good deal longer, and really good matches can last much longer. I've had some duels last over 10 minutes, though that was kind of rare for me. Active defense is a big part of the game, and GW2 fights often include relatively high levels of evades, mobility, interrupts, blinds, blocks, and probably some I'm forgetting. The equivalent of "stamina" is a very important resource, as it allows for more dodges. There is no mana (though there are a couple of other class-specific resources in some cases), but skills are all limited by cooldowns. Most are fairly short (the equivalent of CF's ranger 1 melee would not be anywhere near 45s), but the highest-impact skills (like elites) have CDs sometimes in excess of 1m. Landing a big skill-shot (they do exist in the game) can be a fight-changer, and likewise timing a dodge/block/interrupt or whatever against a big skill can do the same. Fights rely heavily on good movement/mobility, and managing cooldowns on your active defense and escapes. I guess this is particularly true when you're outnumbered. I guess zergs don't worry as much about this stuff. I'm not arguing that this design is good; it has some terrible parts that spoil it overall, and overpower the truly enjoyable aspects (highly active and fluid, tight, movement-oriented combat - it "feels" good). I agree that GW2 provides a lot of examples of what not to do. I'm just saying that despite having almost everything stacked in favor of zergs, they were beatable even in GW2. In other words you don't NEED friendly fire to beat a zerg. This is a true statement. FF would shift odds more in favor of the outnumbered squad. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that I think that might not be a good thing. The thrill for me is when it is quite hard to do. In an open-world pvp game, there has to be some kind of end-game for the person who doesn't really care about the scoreboard, or the in-game rewards like better loot, and who might in fact care less about how many fights they win, but rather more about HOW they win them. When a team gets pretty good, they can fight against other good players (which is awesome fun), but sometimes it's also fun to try your hand at a little 5v30+. They should lose most of the time, so if they do win it should be pretty epic. I'm not as passionate about it as the pro-FF side seems to be, for sure. I think I'd really enjoy FF "on" in a good 5v5 or 10v10, for example. I think there would still be challenges out there for a good team to find, and even with FF, zergs won't be completely gimped (and they certainly won't disappear). If anything it might just change their nature. Anyway, that's more than enough from me; just sharing the perspective of a recovering zerg-busting addict. If you really want an idea of GW2 game-play, here's a couple videos. Please excuse the video quality, and the player. (This was done without comms). https://youtu.be/gpnShbi9aME?list=PLzWKhydiiL05UDzwRhsIGAB_elXU0B-21 https://youtu.be/e6Mf5_e30PI?list=PLzWKhydiiL07Eu_hviwlAZQg9KMKNn5XL
  13. I agree the GW2 PvP isn't very good. My point is that despite everything being setup to favor zergs, it was still possible to bust them up without FF. Yes, I do think it would have been easier with FF, but I don't necessarily think that's a good thing. I have seen some good arguments put forth for FF, but this isn't really one of them. And I have played games other than GW2. I'm not entirely lacking in reference points.
  14. A - 13% E - 53% K - 60% S - 73% I think some of the choices were a little pigeon-holed. I figure in reality I'm a little higher on Explorer than this shows, because I like "theory-crafting," trying new builds that aren't "meta," and stuff like that, but don't really care to find Easter-eggs or hidden areas, etc. Low Achievement is no surprise though.
  15. Friendly fire is not necessary in order for a smaller team to stand against zergs. GW2 has some very zerg-friendly rules, but despite that there are and always have been people who play in small groups and consistently win against larger numbers. Would FF have helped? Probably in the long run, yeah. But adding FF wouldn't end zergs, it would just make it easier to bust them up. I'm not sure that's a good thing. I've always found zerg-busting to be one of the most enjoyable aspects of open-world pvp, but it's largely because of the challenge it presents. Basically, if zerg-busting were easy, then it probably wouldn't feel as rewarding. It should be earned through superior kiting, baiting, mutual support, management of team cooldowns (chaining cc, timing big spikes, not over-healing etc) and accurate "reading" of the fight. It should push the limits of the players' skills as individuals and as a team. There shouldn't be efforts taken to "statistically" re-balance in favor of the out-numbered players. Let's not cheapen the experience of a good zerg bust. As for IFF, I'm not convinced this innately helps a zerg in the first place. Readily identifying whether that large group coming over that hill is hostile or not will allow the smaller group to position/react appropriately. Often, it's a split second difference between a successful kite or a cc-chain death, and the small group usually has the finer margin of error. Also mentioned in this thread were siege engines w/ massive AoE. From my experience, all this really accomplishes is an arms race (siege leads to counter-siege), which means that it in fact favors zergs. They're likely to have resources to be able to withstand the siege engines; a small group can be stopped cold by a single person with a siege engine in a good position, while a zerg can absorb the damage and/or simply overwhelm the position. It's also not interesting game-play at all.
  • Create New...