EagleDelta.4726

> @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" said:

> > @"Redmond.5019" said:

> > @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" Is there an easy way to setup your custom version through Lutris?

>

> Never used Lutris so no idea how it actually works. I did check the game's page though and apparently someone wrote an install script (click - show unpublished installers) which configures Wine in a similar way to my package. Seem to be a job well done too I must say :)

That was me, though I haven't messed with it in a while

@"ArmoredVehicle.2849" Are you ok with me re-hosting your tarballs in a Github releases page so that I can have my lutris installer just download your, unpack, and run the installer for super easy setup. If there's anything (I.E. the GW2 install binary) that needs to be removed, I can remove and repack the tarball

> @"Frax.4562" said:

> Winds of Disenchantment still needs a look at, it's a welcome change that it's only 5 targets now, but it's one of the most obnoxious skill in the game with the trait enchantment collapse especially when a group has a lot of spellbreakers. A tweak to it's duration or boon removal interval would be good, with enchantment collapse trait getting a higher than 1s icd.

I can see why this is annoying, but isn't this the very purpose of the spec? To prevent/strip boons?

> @"Zexanima.7851" said:

>

> What I want? New gameplay mechanics, profession changes (it doesn't have to be especs, but some kind of additions), unique masteries that are not just "keys" to chests/portals.

Software Dev here - you can't get brand new things every release. It would leave no time for anything else and would create the content and feature wastelands that most MMOs have today (WoW Garrisons, Class Halls, Ancient Weapons, etc). A ton of dev work is also _never, ever_ seen by the users/players themselves as it's things behind the scenes:

* Critical Bug fixes that they identify during development and fix before players have to run into them.

* Testing to try and find more bugs that they don't know about yet.

* Foundation for future content, features, mechanics.

* Non-functional changes (I.E. changes that don't actually change anything, but just clean up or simplify existing code)

* And much more..... in addition to the content itself (Instances, Achievement "Quests", Map content, etc).

What I see people wanting all the time:

1. New Raids

2. New + Longer Story/Map content

3. New unique Masteries

4. New Mechanics

5. New Fractals

6. Existing content to **not** be made obsolete by new content

7. Profession Changes/Elite Specs

8. Stabilization of Engine/move to DX12/Vulkan

Problem is that

* #4 conflicts with both #6 and #7

* #3 conflicts with #6

* #1 and #5 don't conflict but aren't necessarily in tandem with #2

* #8 is such a monumental task that it conflicts with them all.

Basically there are **8** things up there (no counting WvW and PvP)..... pick **3** of them and compare them with the other thousands to millions of active players.... how many of us share the same content priorities. (This is a common saying in Software Dev/Systems Admin: "You want faster, cheaper, and secure? You can only have 2")

Point is, they prioritize work based on the data they have about players combined with the direction they want to take the game. They have far more data about what players want/do than any of us ever will. Just because there's a vocal group online, doesn't mean the entire game is falling over.

As an aside, I'm not too keen on brand new mechanics anyway. Why would I _want_ to NOT play my profession just to mess with some shiny mechanic that will only be around for a 1-2 maps.

> @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" said:

> I've updated the packages to v1.9.2.

>

> Changelog:

> - Updated DXVK to 1.5.1 (D9VK is now part of DXVK)

> - Replaced the setup and launch scripts with improved ones thanks to the work of reddit user ‘caolanmactire’. (thank you).

>

> @liberodark: My apologies for not contacting you yet, will try to find some time next week hopefully.

I will take a look at any changes you made and work on updating the Lutris installers of necessary

> @"04D95143-7F7C-4289-8567-88D4F26CEEF9.2615" said:

> Ok the next update need swith D9VK to DXVK https://github.com/doitsujin/dxvk/commit/54ed8f0bb0f0859e05b7b406b7e95fa71900ba40

> Now D9VK and DXVK is same project !

> That help me for my works ^^

What coming here to say the same thing.

@"ArmoredVehicle.2849" - D9VK is no longer a standalone project. It has been merged into DXVK as of DXVK 1.5

> @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" said:

> > @"EagleDelta.4726" said:

> > @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" is there anyway to get the wine fork you build for this available as a tarball or on Github? I want to create a Lutris installer for your version and want to submit your build as a Lutris wine version

> >

> > NEVERMIND: Looks like most of the patches you use are included in the lutris-4.21 build of WINE.

>

> The wine build in my package is a straight off Wine + Staging patches applied, my own stuff are the various scripts and the pre-configured prefix, hope that clears it up :)

That's what I figured. I will be updating the installers I have with your arcdps and radial script(s) for post installation runs, but other than that, it's mostly the same just with the play.sh replaced by the traditional execing wine + game exe since Lutris can handle the env vars.

@"ArmoredVehicle.2849" is there anyway to get the wine fork you build for this available as a tarball or on Github? I want to create a Lutris installer for your version and want to submit your build as a Lutris wine version

NEVERMIND: Looks like most of the patches you use are included in the lutris-4.21 build of WINE.

> @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" said:

> > @"EagleDelta.4726" said:

> > > @"EagleDelta.4726" said:

> > > @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" Anyone note the issue where the game will crash if you try and modify dynamic HUD settings while logged into a Character? It works fine when on the character select, but crashes if changes are made after selecting a character

> >

> > So looks like with the latest build the crashing when changing dynamic HUD settings has stopped.

>

> When you say the latest build, are you referring to a game update or the Linux package update I've recently released? :)

Yes ;)

> @"EagleDelta.4726" said:

> @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" Anyone note the issue where the game will crash if you try and modify dynamic HUD settings while logged into a Character? It works fine when on the character select, but crashes if changes are made after selecting a character

So looks like with the latest build the crashing when changing dynamic HUD settings has stopped.

@"ArmoredVehicle.2849" Anyone note the issue where the game will crash if you try and modify dynamic HUD settings while logged into a Character? It works fine when on the character select, but crashes if changes are made after selecting a character

I'm seeing a lot of crashes as well.

Anyone have issues with the "Copy Template" button with the new build templates? Been trying to copy the chat code out and it never actually copies it. Have not tried with another GW2 install method yet (i.e. Lutris)

It seems like ANet may be overstepping their bounds by telling users what their legitimate games hardware can/can't do, but that's just me

What does this mean for gaming keyboards and mice that can have "macros" built into them? Are there some features of gaming peripherals that isn't allowed?

Anyone recently upgraded to Ubuntu/Pop!_OS 19.10 and started seeing issues with the game being jittery? Debug shows no drop in FPS, but the game stutters a lot

Anyone figure out how to get TaCO working in WINE/D9VK yet?

> @"loseridoit.2756" said:

> > @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" said:

> > > @"Shouryu.4169" said:

> > > hi, any of you guys installed linux on nvidia mx150 ? i've just installed gw2 via the friendly installer (https://github.com/liberodark/GW2-Wine), but the frame rate is really unstable 5 to 60 fps.

> > > my pc specs : i7 8th gen, nvidia mx150, 16gb ram, 512ssd

> > > is the installer https://github.com/liberodark/GW2-Wine based on vulkan version ?

> >

> > Hi, yes the installer version is on par with the zipped vulkan (d9vk) version. I'm not very experienced with Nvidia on laptops, haven't tested the game on it either. Are you sure it's making use of the Nvidia GPU?

> >

>

> nvidia only added vulkan PRIME offloading support last month.

>

> https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/1060977/announcements-and-news/-linux-solaris-and-freebsd-driver-435-17-beta-release-/

>

> Yes, Nvidia support is so bad that you could only start using vulkan on almost all Nvidia laptops last month.

Definitely not true. I've been using vulkan on Nvidia laptops since SteamPlay/Proton came out. Granted I have a system76 laptop and run Pop!_OS which has its own Optimus solution (which is open source BTW)

> @"Ashantara.8731" said:

> > @"Stephane Lo Presti.7258" said:

> > What you call here "left-side" and "right-side" is what we called in yesterday's blog post, respectively, Build Storage and Build Template Tabs. Build Storage spaces are shared on your account, while Build Template Tabs are specific to the character you're using.

>

> Okay, so creating a build does not automatically result in a build template being stored in the build template storage? (insert sigh of relief) That's fantastic to hear. =)

You can also copy the chat code out to a text file and use that as a backup for all your builds, while you store the most used builds in the in-game storage or build tabs

> @"Neutra.6857" said:

> > @"aspirine.6852" said:

> > 24 is way more than zero.

>

> Many people used arc, which had significantly more then 0. And with this addition, arc templates are being discontinued.

Arc was a DirectX hack that stored the builds outside of the game and did some hacky things to change said builds. For many people (like me), I'd find my weapon setup in arc completely disappear on a regular basis.

What ANet is pushing out is integrated directly into the game, which makes for a better experience for general users, but being that it is integrated into the game, it also has to use the game's internal "APIs" to communicate and store data. That means they are limited by the spaghetti code and database schema within the game whereas Arc was not. Before you argue that ANet should've just implemented what Arc did, keep in mind it was a hack that was accessing things that normally shouldn't be accessed. It wasn't a good idea and I had my fair share of issues where Arc broke my game and I had to remove Arc, or the templates simply didn't completely save (or stay saved). Just because something _can_ be done (or was done), doesn't mean it **_should be done_**

> @"Ashantara.8731" said:

> This I totally disagree with. The expansions were always better than episodic releases quality-wise. Why? Check my signature.

Existing data from hundreds of companies and open source communities would disagree with you. Granted those are focused on a combination of Developer happiness, Customer satisfaction, code stability, tester/user feedback, and more. It's **not just focused on customer wants**.

It's focused on preventing Developer burnout as much as it is focused on presenting a customer with what they want. Additionally, as developers, we want our code/features out as soon as they are ready to go so we can get feedback and fix/adjust things based on feedback. Traditional development and release models (such as Expansions) make this near impossible. Have you ever wondered why after a long dev cycle and lead up that few things are usually updated after a "Big Release" of a game, game expansion, or software release happens? Largely because many of those features were ready much earlier, but were held back for the "Big Release" and by the time the release goes live, they have largely moved the team onto the next thing giving them little to no time to do anything but some major bug fixes.

> @"ZDragon.3046" said:

> Second off, a quick google search quickly says that the use of tools like build templets are "At your own risk" use kind of tools meaning for any reason what so ever anet could decide to ban you. In fact it is against the TOS to use tools like this to a certain extent just not the extent "YET" that they feel they need to take action against it. The same goes for ArcDPS. If something ever says "USE AT YOUR OWN RISK or YOU ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY or DO NOT CONTACT ANET FOR HELP THIS 3RD PARTY TOOL" it generally means ITS AGAINST THE RULES to some extent.

@"Chris Cleary.8017" himself popped into the Reddit thread when the Build Templates released to talk about how he worked with delta to create something that was acceptable to ANet. It was still a "Use at your own risk" plugin, but it **was** OK'd by ANet with the caveat that it would have to be removed if they ever made their own version of the feature.

I _do_ agree with most of what else you said, though you don't need to be so combative in your responses.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Ashantara.8731" said:

> > Not if you want to get more free content in the future. There won't be an expansion anytime soon, so they need to make money.

> Then maybe, just maybe, they should _make the expansion_ already, instead of trying to sell us its features piecemeal. But of course they realized that chopping up that expac in pieces and selling each feature for more than a whole expansion pricetag would net them more money. On paper, anyway, because doing that, unlike expac, will not keep players in the game.

Coming from a tech background working as both a Systems Engineer and now a Software/Backend Developer, I don't want them to go back to Expansions if they can avoid it. Expansion style work/releases are simply not really viable for the longterm health of a project anymore.... unless it's an established product already deep into that model (which GW2 has never really been in). It requires a lot of extra work from devs (who don't get paid extra for that work.... we are usually exempt salary which means no overtime in exchange for a steady paycheck), increased stress, increased risk on release day, decreased quality of work due to increased stress, rushed work, etc.

If you want a full breakdown of different release cadences, take a look about 1/2 way down this page: http://disciplinedagiledelivery.com/choose-release-cadence/

Note that the release cadence that Expansion fall into (Annual releases and "More than annual" releases) have is significantly higher risk associated with deployment as so many moving parts are touch at once and/or several changes introduced at once. Not to mention that the "Higher risk" ends up usually being a self-fulfilling problem caused by the less frequent releases.

> > @"EagleDelta.4726" said:

> > Compare to GW1 all you want, but the ongoing development of that game was short-lived when compared to GW2. With GW1 I had 3 $50 purchases to make and 1 $40 purchase to make for everything. With GW2, I've paid $60, $50, and $30 to get the base content and expansions. I've paid nothing for LW content. So already they make less on the physical copies of GW2 than GW1, especially when you factor in the fact that costs to make this stuff increased, not decreased, over time.

> Cool. Now compare both gemshops, and you will see how GW2 gets way more money even without expacs than GW1 ever did.

You mean the skins that people will eventually stop buying because they already have them? Or the "upgrades" that people already have because they bought all they needed? They have to make money and sometimes that means looking forward and covering for when people don't need the initial products anymore.

Additionally, as I mentioned, you're ignoring some factors here:

1. Cost to make and maintain GW2 is higher than GW1 ever was (or will be)

2. We don't have anyway of know how much GW1's shop has made vs GW2's. I'm sure that you're right and it has made more money, but you don't know what the actual margins are.

3. Revenue != Profit. Just because GW2 gets a decent amount of revenue from the Gem Store (Which I think is what we see in the quarterly reports), that doesn't translate into profit. A company's goal is profit. I.E. the amount of money actually brought in after all the employees are paid, their benefits are paid, infrastructure costs are paid, rent is paid, etc. We don't know those details....

> @"Haywire.3495" said:

> Sure, Anet has to make money, and it's their game to monetize how they choose. That doesn't make it any less disgraceful that they took what should have been the ultimate convenience feature, and made it a clunky mess so they could push more aggressive monetization on it. That doesn't make it any less disappointing that it took them years of development work to move backwards from existing implementations. That doesn't make it any less of an insult to the playerbase that they hamstrung a feature we've begged for for years so they could sell it back to us piecemeal.

> Yes, it's their prerogative to monetize QoL features, but this was clearly designed as a cash grab first and foremost, and QoL improvement a distant second. And when they choose to do that with a feature like this, it sheds a very unflattering light on their priorities as a developer.

I remember recalling that they specifically stated the gem store would be cosmetics and convenience. That's been a thing since the beginning. Just because someone spent their free time making a .DLL file that gave pseudo build templates for free doesn't mean you should expect that from a bunch of devs who need to get paid.

> @"C Cspace Cowboy.5903" said:

> > @"EagleDelta.4726" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > > > > @"maultasche.4082" said:

> > > > > So we crafted legendary armor to be restricted to 2 stat combinations now? Raiders had perfect build templates for the past years thanks to arcdps. Now we get a downgrade provided from Anet. I don't see the advantage of this.

> > > >

> > > > Then don't purchase them carry on using Arc templates

> > > There won't be Arc templates. They will be shut down as soon as ingame templates appear - that was the deal between delta and GW2 devs.

> > >

> > > > @"shadow.6174" said:

> > > > For those complaining about additional ones being charged or too few slots... that's why we hardly get nice stuff, whenever something is made, there are always some whining :tongue: Impossible to please everyone.

> > > Nah, the reason why we nardly get nice stuff is that, like in this case, whenever Anet decides to do something nice, they always add something to make us sorry we ever asked for it.

> >

> > Because you want everything for free and continually ignore what it costs to actually make this stuff.

>

> Every content update PvE has gotten since PoF has been free. Everything.

>

> WvW hasn't had a content update in years. Most of the players use build templates. Monetized, and ban the free version.

>

> Yea...

>

>

You completely ignored the points I made in there, nice.

1. We knew when Arc templates came out that if ANet ever decided to make their own templating system, that ArcTemplates would end.

2. ANet has to make money.... they don't make money, they can't pay bills or employees, and both GW1 and GW2 die completely.

3. You can't make money on the same things all the time. Any business that has tried to make money simply on the same exact product forever has failed. There's a reason Windows has changed so much over the years, why Google sells phones and chromebooks now, and why the Gem Store cycles through their skins/mounts/gliders and add things like this to it. People won't buy the same things forever. Without diversification, there is no cash flow, without cash flow there is no business.