Quote:
|
I find rangers annoying to kill and assassins is fun to play as - even with the lack of defense. As I said in my previous post, each professions' bar has its pros and cons. As they are meant to.
|
True, and that's a good thing, but the problem is that the pros and cons are so straightforward, individual play hardly matters anymore. Simply put again: You've taken a format, and succesfully made it a 10-way Rock-Paper-Scissorts. And this might work for the average PvE'er (once again no offence intended), but for the average PvP'er (Hence thread title) this is unacceptable.
Quote:
|
"The solution is so obvious" - yet you never say it. Or do you mean the shuffling? Unfortunately, due to the districts, that cannot be done and the district aspect of outposts is too tied into the game to remove - as far as I'm aware, at least.
|
Ok, could be true. What about shuffling the teams when they are formed. Obviously teams from different districts can oppose eachother (If 4 people enter from Polish, and 4 from Russian, they will both be assigned in their respective teams with members from their district), this means there is a pool of 8 names created somewhere. Right now, syncing abuses the fact that the game puts all 4 players from the same district (or region) in the same team.
Why not make it so the game randomly puts the 8 member in either team.
So even when syncers succesfully sync all 4/5 members into the same battle, the chance of them being on the same side will be 12.5% (If I'm not mistaken)/6.75%. (Percentages calculated from the top of my head assuming the first guy can be on any team, the second has 50% to be in the first, so do the next players, resulting in a chance drop by 50% each time a new member needs to be in their team)
That's 12.5% (4 players)/6.75% (5 players) chance opposed to the 100% chance which still exists today in RA; People from the same region still get teamed up together. That, in my eyes, would seem a pretty decent fix to the syncing problem.
Quote:
|
Which requires you to think and also focus on capping rather than just having one big arse brawl in a ball while 1 person from 1 team realizes "hey, everyone's here, I'll go solo cap and not have any issues!" like the past few years.
|
You can argue all you want about this, but you can't argue the fact that a monkey could do this. Guild Wars gets reduced to nothing more than Rock-Paper-Scissors where you always win as long as you know who wins against who.
The fact that it's either this or that is the intire point I'm complaining about. The fact that the bars are so straightforward and one dimensional, no form of input is needed whatsoever. The game plays itself for you.
Whereas ideally, every profession would be able to beat every profession in certain conditions, and a good player would beat a bad player. Giving every bar versatility and utility (which is what I'm preaching for) does just that.
Quote:
|
I wouldn't doubt that you hate CB just because you used to sync. Same with the others who're complaining.
|
No reason to be throwing insults and namecalling around. Yes, I used to sync, but not because I wanted to win but because I wanted to play together with my friends. I've played more matches (way more) non-synced than I did synced. Also, one of the first statements in my OP is that I think it's a good thing syncing got fixed.
However, something leads me to believe the Teste Krewe had alot to do with the sync fix, aswell as (obviously) the skill bars. To me, you're just trying to defend poorly made descissions by a majority of PvE'ers to a PvP format. Yeah yeah, we can bitch all day about wether or not CB is PvP or not. There's no NPC's, you're facing other players, there's no PvE skills and you enter from GToB. In my eyes, and by the general definition, it's concidered PvP.
Quote:
|
I've played a good number of CB matches and in fact won every match. Never had the same team - a few times I fought the people who were on my previous team. I was playing the so called "sucky" assassin. Yet... I did so well? Wait, what? That is the complete opposite of the arguments of your and the OP!
|
I never said you couldn't get consecutives or win matches. Or atleast not in a non-dramatising way. If the gods of fortune are smiling upon you, you can obviously get 10 consecutives. You can also win the lottery if you're lucky, that doesn't mean someone should try to get his income from winning the lottery.
The system is flawed from the ground up for reasons mentioned before. When you finally, legitimately, get a decent team you almost feel bad for wining because you know you'll loose them the next round.
The better players carry the worse players,
every match. There's no point educating, calling team chat tactics or in general communicating with your team because:
A) Consecutives don't matter, so it doesn't matter if you win every match or not.
B) It takes too long and gets too tiring to re-explain tactics every match.
All this update has done is turn CB more into a buttonbashformat. This might amuse people like you yourself, and many others, but anyone with the least sense of competivity and game balance will feel something is off, and it simply doesn't work.
Anet has once again done what they do best, and that's dumbing the game down so the masses can farm them. Instead they should be focusing educating the masses so they finally learn how become efficient in GW and find synergies and ultimately truly learn how to play GW.
"Why?" you ask? I don't know, because I like to believe a game can be more than rolling your head over the keyboard. I like to believe there is such a thing as intelligent gaming where skill and brainpower matters. Let PvE'ers have their PvE (I concider myself 50% PvE'er too), but please give us PvP'ers the PvP we deserve aswell.