Still need to familiarize with as many classes as possible. Each class is unique in many respects even though many abilities sort of bleed with the customization. However, any serious PvP crew is not going to allow someone to play a "similar" build with their prof of choice when the desired is proven better. However as I said, not all PvP teams are like that. But the ones who top ladders absolutely are. If there is a spot for a ranger, you better know how to play a ranger. Player skill will determine if you are invited again, etc...
That's exactly what you want to hope for. You want a palette of choice. But as I said, most PvP groups adopt meta and run their own shit. It just takes a lot of work to organize your own unique builds. A lot of them keep changing, your tactics move, you even drop spots, or drop the build altogether, etc... So 3-4 builds from a single group is not going to happen. At best you run with 1-2 sort of unique team builds and whore out to some meta. So you have to hope that the meta either evolves, is expansive, or extremely flexible. And I will say that the more customization you give, such as the added trait lines, the more likely you are to have stricter meta. It is much easier to specify "themes" instead of builds like I did with my stun-lock/ele builds. I have so many more in my head and that is only with what I currently see.
Awful in its current state for PvP. Very good and logical for WvW/PvE.
I don't believe they are. IMO ANET created the downed state for PvE/WvW. It just makes sense. Sure, they heard feedback in the beta of the perpetual downed state but otherwise there are no issues. It had enough time invested in it for a unique skill bar, animation set, and a few different gameplay dynamics. So during this, ANET was organizing their PvP system. So now what? ANET has talented members and surely saw the issues we are describing. Yet in the end, nothing was altered.
That was GW1 PvP in a nutshell. Team success was personal success.
No need. There are plenty of opportunities already to institute teamwork and communication. Maybe if downed state makes sense as is but it doesn't. So it should be overhauled just like refund system 2.0. When is it ever right to punish players for succeeding or wanting to experiment with the game they bought? The answer is never and that's why work should be done.
Also, don't take me quoting you to mean that I'm trying to pick apart your posts. I'm simply using them to bring up some points. We sort of did this song and dance before though.
That's resurrection and perfectly viable without all the downed state strings.
Which relies on a kill now being tied to amassing an army capable of pushing the advantage. Makes no sense.
If regarding the current topic, for all the wrong reasons. Plenty of merit elsewhere though.
Yea, I know. I'm just referring to the preceding post which was awfully "timely."
Downed state and resurrection aren't that much different. The behaviors can be equivalent if the timers are matched. One just might have a squirming animation. But putting that aside, I can certainly see all the possible dynamics of this system. I wrote plenty on them in previous posts. But that doesn't change the idea that the system itself makes no sense whatsoever. It's ill-placed and should stay in the modes it was designed for.
GW1 had PvP only skills and ANET has not ruled them out for GW2. That isn't very cohesive right? And the nature of PvP is never cohesive with PvE. They might as well be different games most of the time. It's an obviously out of place mechanic. And isn't difficult to design a custom downed state which actually makes sense for PvP. So I fail to see how it can be " satisfactory.". It needs serious work.
Yes, I've mentioned this before and it is very valid. I was countered with the idea of "strategizing" around the risk/reward. However, I kept repeating that any high level PvP team is not even going to bother playing that game. They will pre-calculate and execute nullifying the implementation.
While his comparison is a bit off-kilter, it does bring up the point of GW2 relating to the FPS style. In an FPS when you take down an opponent, many games have revive systems or something similar to downed state. However, when have you ever heard of being required to run up next to an enemy to finish them off? You'd get murdered instantly. Now, GW2 is different since you can tank DPS and maybe pull it off. That is part of the weird "strategy" that is being theorized. However, does that really change how silly its behavior is? Would an FPS make sense to have run up close 5 second knife kills? Would it be more legitimate if you could take on 100 bullets similar to how you can endure in GW2?
But we know that if you keep putting them back into it, they get closer and closer to not getting up.
nevr!
