Feedback talk:User/Ilr/Archived Suggestions/Maneuverability!
Suppression[edit]
Avitus is sad --Boro 
06:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be forgetting that GW is a team game. GW1 already has a wide variety of snares and counter-snares, and your team is supposed to counter incoming snares. One thing I appreciate about GW PvP is that numbers matter. I've seen too many FPS games where a sufficiently skilled opponent is all but invulnerable to those of a lesser skill level, simply because the game heavily favours accuracy and dodge mechanics. GW1 does reward timing, but it also rewards builds, numbers, and tactics in knowing when and how to use those to your advantage.
Also, don't forget that the more the game is built around reaction time, the less forgiving it is of (1) lag and (2) age. Excluding everyone over 30 or with ping times greater than 200 ms from effective PvP doesn't strike me as an inclusive strategy. Nom 07:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say Snares shouldn't exist... I just said that artificial snares applied by the game's "rules" instead by other players, should not ever be used to "balance" the Accuracy/Dodging issues you raised. --ilr
07:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nitpicking...That primal rage analogy very vague--96.245.86.39 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- So was the debate if you recall because it involved the inexplicable and constant "victories" of RAWR with a skill that DOUBLED the damage one receives and required extra monks & a cancel-stance just to run it. Are you saying it wasn't exciting enough? If so then refer to the footnote I proposed at the end that suggested some actual physics and geometry when doubling the damage for "speedsters" and evaders. --ilr 01:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- So was the debate if you recall because it involved the inexplicable and constant "victories" of RAWR with a skill that DOUBLED the damage one receives and required extra monks & a cancel-stance just to run it. Are you saying it wasn't exciting enough? If so then refer to the footnote I proposed at the end that suggested some actual physics and geometry when doubling the damage for "speedsters" and evaders. --ilr
- Nitpicking...That primal rage analogy very vague--96.245.86.39 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I partially agree with this. But if they add increased maneuverability, they'd have to increase spell range or it'll get a bit too hectic and fast. Overextending is a problem amongst low skill players, but I can imagine it being a very large problem in even high skilled players if maneuverabiltiy were drastically increased. Edit: because of this it could end up having the opposite effect, as frequent overextensions would merit putting an emergency defensive skill on ANY class, making the gameplay even more stale.Greep 10:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
