M8 the only issue is. 1rst. : .Eu Wars is controlled by Gold Sellers Mafia . 2nd : coz of 1rst.. not many people finde places on war just because they don't do hard way. 3rd: Those War Companies have 2- 3 accounts. ....so war is not for usually player . If you don't believe me check Steam achievements about wars . Eu vs NA.
You missed a lot of stuff on EU meta. EU using 2 groups on back gates for so long now and its 3 groups on B gate. Also backline swap is not the thing anymore.
@Mecrow Thank you for the video. Can you confirm that most competitive companies in both regions still runs medium bruisers (except specific players)? I know the only different is point bruiser which are still medium but they run 350 constitution.
Personally a huge fan of FL/BB. I can actually see them taking that second support slot in the quads. Will probably be even better next season. Still doubt FL/VG is competitive, and it's going to be even less so next season with the IG artifact and gem changes. I'm watching the VODs and not seeing impact, and I am shocked people are still trying to make them a thing. The original impetus for switching doesn't even exist anymore; VG/IGs were dropping IG for FL because the Vortex purged Frostbite, but they restored Frostbite to its OP former self. Now, a skilled player probably can juggle two primaries, but it's going to be like VG/BB a few seasons back. Hard to learn and hyper-specialized. People mad coping on this one if they think otherwise.
I have come to fundamentally hate this concept of meta rostering, especially since I play point tank. One of the primary factors for a successful war company is personnel, and people try to make their people fit into a roster instead of gradually building up the roster around their players. Then they wonder why their army is getting its ass kicked. I mean, back to the point tank bit: Most companies social slot their tank and have nobody actually doing earnest reviews of their play. In many cases, it's because nobody knows how; I have run into so many people basing their tanking style off of your obsolete videos from 6 months ago. As if the meta has not drastically changed in that time.
So really if you want to starve the beast, choose the A or C point that's got the better backstops (Differs between fort setups), and just do a 50v50. Otherwise, you're feeding them tokens, they'll burn their haste and not have that, and you'll have a full set of haste/cleanse for the 50v50. They die they have to buy another haste; you die you have one available that first go around. Defenders are at a stupid disadvantage now because of all the freedom and cleanse pots no matter what. The only hope is you hold them outside the fort for as long as possible, if not the entire 30 minutes. If you cannot hold the 50v50 at one point for 10+ minutes, then you're likely to lose the fort too. Giving up 2 points right off the bat for the most defensible point means you're more prepared. At least until they just learn to send 2 people to A&B and do a 48v50 without burning that haste pot. Trying to defend 2 points is allowing the attacker to set the stage for the battle, holding one means you're more in control instead of responding, especially if you get put back on your heals right off the start. I mean for nearly 2 years everyone chose B as the fall back point which was always dumb because you get a 270+ degree of attack where holding A or C could mean a much narrower field of approach. People finally adjusting to that at least :) Honestly, they could just do away with current wars and decide it with territory pushes and it would be immensely more fun. For example, 30 minutes you fight over the towers the fort is just generating resources/inactive. At the 30-minute mark if the defenders are ahead of the two attacking factions, they get a buff, and the defending company is teleported into the fort to defend it. If they don't defend the territory, they get no buff and are teleported. Of the two attacking factions the winning company is teleported to the war instance to attack the fort no more outside battle. Course this requires companies to have "War rosters" for the influence push and those pushes could be as big as 200v200v200 in an instanced zone with limits around the towers and that towers have to be held in a way that requires splitting armies to each tower instead of zerg mechanics. IE if you have 2/3 you're gaining points and the 1/3 faction is losing points. 1/1/1 is nobody gaining or losing except for pvp kills. Then reward the owning faction with daily gold earned split with a bonus to the warring individuals, luck/gathering/special bonuses across faction owned territories. I know the tryhards would hate it, but it makes the pvp more accessible to a massive number of players. Only caveat is each faction needs a safe home territory that's always theirs. Cutlass for the piss faction, everfall for the jelly faction, and weavers fen for the puke faction ;) or AGS can plod along with this elitist version of PVP that favors the tryhards and watch player numbers continue to dwindle as usual. WoW and GuildWars2 have meaningful engaging pvp content accessible to everyone even without match making that does not drive player bases away. Figure it out AGS.
Would love a deep dive on defense, and a primer on how the roles interact (bruisers and mages for example)
M8 the only issue is.
1rst. : .Eu Wars is controlled by Gold Sellers Mafia .
2nd : coz of 1rst.. not many people finde places on war just because they don't do hard way.
3rd: Those War Companies have 2- 3 accounts.
....so war is not for usually player .
If you don't believe me check Steam achievements about wars . Eu vs NA.
You missed a lot of stuff on EU meta. EU using 2 groups on back gates for so long now and its 3 groups on B gate. Also backline swap is not the thing anymore.
Love it can we get a in-depth video of defending fort and attacking .. for the new er companies
I could but I think that’s just not commonly an issue atm. I haven’t seen a war in recent memory where someone got to fort and didn’t win.
@Mecrow
Thank you for the video. Can you confirm that most competitive companies in both regions still runs medium bruisers (except specific players)?
I know the only different is point bruiser which are still medium but they run 350 constitution.
Yes they are basically all med but some people have tried heavy as an experiment
Anyone know if the dot cleanse on the Stalwart Fire Storm heartrune removes plagued crits?
It should remove pest dot but not plagued crits
Do you think Heavy BB/Flail would be a viable thing or is BB/IG just straight up better?
Personally a huge fan of FL/BB. I can actually see them taking that second support slot in the quads. Will probably be even better next season.
Still doubt FL/VG is competitive, and it's going to be even less so next season with the IG artifact and gem changes. I'm watching the VODs and not seeing impact, and I am shocked people are still trying to make them a thing. The original impetus for switching doesn't even exist anymore; VG/IGs were dropping IG for FL because the Vortex purged Frostbite, but they restored Frostbite to its OP former self. Now, a skilled player probably can juggle two primaries, but it's going to be like VG/BB a few seasons back. Hard to learn and hyper-specialized. People mad coping on this one if they think otherwise.
@@bellgrand 100% agree, still trying to convince my company to let me play flail/bb haha. cheers mate
I am curious, why doesn’t NA believe in musket?
Well we ran 2 today. Idr the other’s stats but one had top deaths in our army. Lives worse but does a little more dmg I guess.
could u do a video on shirking VS attune? i think shirking doesn't have an internal cd anymore
Shirking is better on paper (by a lot) and attune feels better is practice is my consensus
This video is already great but if we had some footage and shotcakler PoV şt would be too notch
Shotcaller PoVs are cursed typically ngl
I have come to fundamentally hate this concept of meta rostering, especially since I play point tank. One of the primary factors for a successful war company is personnel, and people try to make their people fit into a roster instead of gradually building up the roster around their players. Then they wonder why their army is getting its ass kicked.
I mean, back to the point tank bit: Most companies social slot their tank and have nobody actually doing earnest reviews of their play. In many cases, it's because nobody knows how; I have run into so many people basing their tanking style off of your obsolete videos from 6 months ago. As if the meta has not drastically changed in that time.
Yep and that’s why some companies aren’t successful
interesting, I would like to *see* EU meta vs NA meta
So really if you want to starve the beast, choose the A or C point that's got the better backstops (Differs between fort setups), and just do a 50v50. Otherwise, you're feeding them tokens, they'll burn their haste and not have that, and you'll have a full set of haste/cleanse for the 50v50. They die they have to buy another haste; you die you have one available that first go around. Defenders are at a stupid disadvantage now because of all the freedom and cleanse pots no matter what. The only hope is you hold them outside the fort for as long as possible, if not the entire 30 minutes. If you cannot hold the 50v50 at one point for 10+ minutes, then you're likely to lose the fort too. Giving up 2 points right off the bat for the most defensible point means you're more prepared. At least until they just learn to send 2 people to A&B and do a 48v50 without burning that haste pot. Trying to defend 2 points is allowing the attacker to set the stage for the battle, holding one means you're more in control instead of responding, especially if you get put back on your heals right off the start. I mean for nearly 2 years everyone chose B as the fall back point which was always dumb because you get a 270+ degree of attack where holding A or C could mean a much narrower field of approach. People finally adjusting to that at least :)
Honestly, they could just do away with current wars and decide it with territory pushes and it would be immensely more fun. For example, 30 minutes you fight over the towers the fort is just generating resources/inactive. At the 30-minute mark if the defenders are ahead of the two attacking factions, they get a buff, and the defending company is teleported into the fort to defend it. If they don't defend the territory, they get no buff and are teleported. Of the two attacking factions the winning company is teleported to the war instance to attack the fort no more outside battle. Course this requires companies to have "War rosters" for the influence push and those pushes could be as big as 200v200v200 in an instanced zone with limits around the towers and that towers have to be held in a way that requires splitting armies to each tower instead of zerg mechanics. IE if you have 2/3 you're gaining points and the 1/3 faction is losing points. 1/1/1 is nobody gaining or losing except for pvp kills. Then reward the owning faction with daily gold earned split with a bonus to the warring individuals, luck/gathering/special bonuses across faction owned territories.
I know the tryhards would hate it, but it makes the pvp more accessible to a massive number of players. Only caveat is each faction needs a safe home territory that's always theirs. Cutlass for the piss faction, everfall for the jelly faction, and weavers fen for the puke faction ;) or AGS can plod along with this elitist version of PVP that favors the tryhards and watch player numbers continue to dwindle as usual. WoW and GuildWars2 have meaningful engaging pvp content accessible to everyone even without match making that does not drive player bases away. Figure it out AGS.
Even though wow and gw2 have dogwater pvp. Tab target spam your hotbar and bunny hop everywhere. Combat is boring is those games bro
Get video dude
First