Strider Pj.2193

They are problematic. That being said, many of the groups that I’ve been with will kill the local Oakheart prior to engaging the enemy to prevent its issue. Not always possible, but I’ve also lured people TO the Oakheart nearby to have a better chance to either escape the engagement, or maybe swing the encounter. The dredge turrets are only up if the Dredge are under a server’s control. This makes flipping it vital for small groups. Now, the dredge are actually not very good fighters. They go to the local camps and usually die to the NPCs there, whereas the frogs can empty a camp out fairly easily. Ogres... well, they aren’t much either and I am not sure what advantage they give TBH. Maybe instead of removing the turrets, add something for the other two factions that are area or map wide. (Or at least throughout the ‘third’ of the map they are involved with)

> @"mindcircus.1506" said: > > @"Eraden.8740" said: > > Thanks for your kind offer, mindcircus. I am taking a short 1-2 day brake at the moment as my health is still suffering from my earlier attempt at this battle. I hope to be back in the saddle again, soon, though. I'm on the Ehmry Bay server. > Take your time. Just shoot me an ingame message when you feel up to it. Also, if on in the 730-930 EST range, I could get a guildie or two to jump in with you and I if things don’t time right with @"mindcircus.1506"

> @"mindcircus.1506" said: > > @"Astyrah.4015" said: > > > @"Linken.6345" said: > > > > @"Astyrah.4015" said: > > > > > @"mindcircus.1506" said: > > > > > > @"titje.2745" said: > > > > > > would be nice, i am saving money for permanent hairstyle kit, and i am always out of transmute charges, make me mad that wvw and pvp get them by things they like and very often, and for pve we have to complete a whole map for only ONE 1 transmute charge, the time and reward is not balanced here (between game modes). i like pve but i hate completings maps, it takes hours. even completing city's takes too much time. gaming must be a relax thing near work but don't look like. > > > > > > > > > > Completing the Grove takes 8 minutes. > > > > > > > > if you mean farming the grove with a new character and deleting it, remaking it, rinse and repeat. > > > > > > > > it will take more than 8 minutes each time: you factor in character creation, a cutscene or two you can't skip in the tutorial mission, tutorial itself, teleporting/walking to the grove, with all loading screens compounded it's _probably closer_ to 15minutes more or less depending on how fast one is > > > > > > You can skip it, if you got a pass like the mistlock sanctuary one for example. > > > > oh i see, so some passes let you in from level 1 lol! that's good to know. some lounge passes like the lily of elon invite (the one i have) require a level 2 (to finish the tutorial) to use. > Fun fact: Using one tome of knowledge in the tutorial instance opens a waypoint outside it that you can use to wp outside the instance. I never knew that... That’s pretty cool.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"lokh.2695" said: > > > I understand that more is more and more is always better. So why stop at 10? Make it 15 or 20. Then after a while, when 20 are no longer enough, raise it to 40 or 100 or a fantastillon templates. > > > > > > Would more slots be better for the few who need them? Yes. Will any number be enough for that portion of the playerbase? Probably not. > > > > You’re right in that Anet has to set some form of a limit. > Actually. no, they don't have to. They could have used a method that would not have such a limitation (like, for example, for gear loadouts offer an option of using gear from inventory, or, in case of build templates, let them be stored clientside, gw1 way). > > All the limits in this system are merely a byproduct of Anet's desire to monetize it at the cost to its usefulness. Ok. Character limit

> @"lokh.2695" said: > I understand that more is more and more is always better. So why stop at 10? Make it 15 or 20. Then after a while, when 20 are no longer enough, raise it to 40 or 100 or a fantastillon templates. > > Would more slots be better for the few who need them? Yes. Will any number be enough for that portion of the playerbase? Probably not. You’re right in that Anet has to set some form of a limit. I think some (and I don’t know if OP is in this mix) are frustrated that ARC offered significantly more choice in build templates and was easier to utilize. Oh.. and it was free. That being said, It’s Anet’s game... > > I have bought additional build and gear slots for my favorite characters that I play in different game modes. But I'd advise people to go for character slots instead. For the price of one gear and one build template you get a new character with two gear and three build templates, as a bonus you get to play fashionwars again or maybe experience a branch of the story you haven't yet. Getting the gear might be a problem if you don't want to move gear around between characters, but tbh, if you play multiple builds/setups on a few classes, you are probably playing content that provdes you with asc gear and/or gold. That’s a great idea and point. I have two of most basic classes, which I have outfitted for different areas and it has worked for me. But looking at what some raid players do, (and to a lesser extent some WvW players) this becomes almost prohibitive.

If downed state is kept, regardless of the other changes: - health upon reviving (no matter how) should be 20-25% of your max health. - No more ‘50% of your health’ It almost makes more sense in some small groups to go down than it does to try to heal through damage while up. Once you drop below 25%, if you have a small group that is comped, and works together, it makes more sense to focus on continuing damage output, and saving the heals for someone else, letting yourself be downed and get brought back up.

I’ve also rediscovered my initial game experience by working on it with a friend with my own new toon, but it isn’t necessary. (A level 1 new toon that is). Soo many things I forgot about..,

> @"Bellbirds.1679" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Bellbirds.1679" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Bellbirds.1679" said: > > > > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > > > Ehm... What if they're trying to fix exploitable issues? Do they tell us there are 20 exploitable issues to encourage nefarious people to look for them, especially if they've previously revealed that the team is extremely small? > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, what if they've got a BIG team, and aren't fixing bugs to your expectations? What then? It seems silly to be transparent on this issue. > > > > > > > > > > To your first question: A bug like that will 1) have spread like wildfire already an 2)be fixed practically ASAP, not to mention server rollbacks can and have been done due to exploits, and even if they're unpleasant, they are a way to mitigate damage. > > > > > > > > I take it you do not play WvW. > > > > > > > > The desert BL was released more than 4 years ago. There are currently exploits available that have been available since it was released that have been reported multiple times. No fewer than two of which could be solved with a small invisible wall, or a tweak to a wall texture. > > > > > > > > Then, when you realize how many maps in PvE have been ‘fixed’ to prevent map breaking with invisible walls normally within 2-3 months of the map being released.., > > > > > > > > So.. before you say it will : > > > > > > > > > A bug like that will 1) have spread like wildfire already an 2)be fixed practically ASAP > > > > > > > > Realize that they wont be fixed that quickly. Or at all. > > > > > > I do play WvW and I was mostly thinking of PvE in this post. > > > > As most people who play GW2, you didn’t think about how it impacts WvW. You aren’t alone. > > > > The point was: they won’t release a list of exploits being worked on because they would have to include all areas, or the outrage from the areas they leave out would be even more palpable than it is now. > > > > And to include those exploits, means people would have a visible way to use them and continue to exploit those issues. > > I did think of WvW. In fact, this would benefit WvW greatly. There would be a lot less frustration if people in the WvW community knew that while the bug fix was taking a while, it has been acknowledged. Alliances was ‘acknowledged’. And what good has that done? Three years running with the last official update post being two years ago. And you wonder why people who play that mode primarily are... lets just say frustrated. > If you really want to keep massive exploits more under wraps, fine, just make those the exception. I really don't see how there could be any valid argument against more communication from the devs. This isn’t about communication from the devs. Look at the developer tracker. Just look at it. The posts from developers in official capacities in at least the last two months have been to post game update threads and bug fixes. That’s it. There are plenty of opportunities to ‘communicate’ with us. They have made an organizational decision to not communicate. > There will be outrage eitherway, especially from the sorts of players I most often see in WvW. So., you’d be OK with a public forum showing ALL of the exploits available in a (admittedly limited) competitive mode? Since the answer to that is yes, I guess I have heard enough.

> @"Bellbirds.1679" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Bellbirds.1679" said: > > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > Ehm... What if they're trying to fix exploitable issues? Do they tell us there are 20 exploitable issues to encourage nefarious people to look for them, especially if they've previously revealed that the team is extremely small? > > > > > > > > On the other hand, what if they've got a BIG team, and aren't fixing bugs to your expectations? What then? It seems silly to be transparent on this issue. > > > > > > To your first question: A bug like that will 1) have spread like wildfire already an 2)be fixed practically ASAP, not to mention server rollbacks can and have been done due to exploits, and even if they're unpleasant, they are a way to mitigate damage. > > > > I take it you do not play WvW. > > > > The desert BL was released more than 4 years ago. There are currently exploits available that have been available since it was released that have been reported multiple times. No fewer than two of which could be solved with a small invisible wall, or a tweak to a wall texture. > > > > Then, when you realize how many maps in PvE have been ‘fixed’ to prevent map breaking with invisible walls normally within 2-3 months of the map being released.., > > > > So.. before you say it will : > > > > > A bug like that will 1) have spread like wildfire already an 2)be fixed practically ASAP > > > > Realize that they wont be fixed that quickly. Or at all. > > I do play WvW and I was mostly thinking of PvE in this post. As most people who play GW2, you didn’t think about how it impacts WvW. You aren’t alone. The point was: they won’t release a list of exploits being worked on because they would have to include all areas, or the outrage from the areas they leave out would be even more palpable than it is now. And to include those exploits, means people would have a visible way to use them and continue to exploit those issues.

I think by monetizing it (as you noted above), something like that might be done. Though despite being requested to make it bigger, really since it was introduced, nothing has changed.

> @"pointaction.4639" said: > Well ANET you need to look at WvW and spend a little time on each server in WvW and does not need to be very long just long enough to see how and what is going on in WvW and the coverage for each time zones. SEA, EU, Oceanic and NA for better understanding on relink pairings for future server relinks. > > Maybe it is time to open more tiers based off server coverage and server populations to help with a little balance. > > There is on NA based on https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World > 10 Full Servers > 4 Very High Servers > 6 High Servers > 4 Medium Servers > > Some of the full servers have massive coverage in all time zones. So these one should not have servers linked to them at all. > > Some of the full servers great coverage but in all time zones. So these can be paired with High Servers or Medium Servers to keep little of balance. > > Some of the Very High Servers great coverage but in all time zones. So these can be paired with High Servers or Medium Servers to keep little of balance. > > Devona's Rest 1 — Medium > Isle of Janthir — Medium > Kaineng — Medium > Sorrow's Furnace — Medium > Borlis Pass — High > Ehmry Bay 2 — High > Eredon Terrace — High > Gate of Madness — High > Northern Shiverpeaks — High > Stormbluff Isle — High > Anvil Rock — Very High > Sanctum of Rall 4 — Very High > Tarnished Coast — Very High > Yak's Bend — Very High > Blackgate — Full > Crystal Desert — Full > Darkhaven — Full > Dragonbrand — Full > Ferguson's Crossing 3 — Full > Fort Aspenwood — Full > Henge of Denravi — Full > Jade Quarry — Full > Maguuma — Full > Sea of Sorrows — Full > > It will never be perfect but if the pairings and matchups are better picked would be nice. You do realize that as soon as the links are picked, people jump to servers paired with another server right? I am sure if we actually could see the metrics, (and they won’t ever show us btw) it would show that the linkings make sense when they release them. Shortly after release though, the bandwagonning commences, thus effectively destroying why servers were linked the way they were.

> @"Bellbirds.1679" said: > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > Ehm... What if they're trying to fix exploitable issues? Do they tell us there are 20 exploitable issues to encourage nefarious people to look for them, especially if they've previously revealed that the team is extremely small? > > > > On the other hand, what if they've got a BIG team, and aren't fixing bugs to your expectations? What then? It seems silly to be transparent on this issue. > > To your first question: A bug like that will 1) have spread like wildfire already an 2)be fixed practically ASAP, not to mention server rollbacks can and have been done due to exploits, and even if they're unpleasant, they are a way to mitigate damage. I take it you do not play WvW. The desert BL was released more than 4 years ago. There are currently exploits available that have been available since it was released that have been reported multiple times. No fewer than two of which could be solved with a small invisible wall, or a tweak to a wall texture. Then, when you realize how many maps in PvE have been ‘fixed’ to prevent map breaking with invisible walls normally within 2-3 months of the map being released.., So.. before you say it will : > A bug like that will 1) have spread like wildfire already an 2)be fixed practically ASAP Realize that they wont be fixed that quickly. Or at all.

> @"Astyrah.4015" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > It’s funny. People want a three D game with 2 D combat.... > > lol ikr? personally underwater combat is fine for me. > > though if there'd be any revamping to do, i'd have a look at some of the underwater skills for some classes... in my opinion some classes clunky to use underwater while others are really fun to play (like for example: speargun on thief and ranger for me are alright but i just couldn't with engineer) New skills or a more thorough revamp would be great, and I’d really enjoy that. I will say, it was kind of painful before they upped the underwater skill damage. That being said, I think too many people dislike it so much, we are unlikely to see a significant increase in the percentage of the new maps (total not necessarily one map) that are water. Understandably I am sure the developers would see it as essentially wasted effort, or effort better spent elsewhere.

> @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > > > > Second, I've seen the same character do this at multiple chests within moments. Do you disagree that this is something the devs should look into? > > > > Report them and move on. Anet can only look into this when it is reported. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think I'm doing here? Also, it's extremely difficult to report someone that blinks in, opens the chest and blinks out. You know this, so I don't understand your comment. > > > > Noting it here won’t ‘report’ them. It is highly unlikely the moderators here are actually with the dev team. By in game reporting they have the ability to check game logs with their time stamps. > > > > If you have video, do not post it here, but send it via the exploits email that is available for it. I am not saying it will work, but posting here has a far less chance of helping. > > I don't have video. Why would I have video. I see lots of bots on Siren's landing that blink in, open the chest and blink out. I don't have the reflexes to tag the player so I thought I'd mention it here. All I get are people that have no idea what the situation is giving me horrible advice. I asked ‘if’, you don’t have it. Ok. I can’t help if you think that my advice of sending a report in on channels that are actually seen more than here is bad advice. Again, reporting here in this forum is highly unlikely to help. Please reference the following thread: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/121390/an-update-on-game-security-and-player-reporting-in-guild-wars-2#latest

It’s funny. People want a three D game with 2 D combat....

> @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > > Second, I've seen the same character do this at multiple chests within moments. Do you disagree that this is something the devs should look into? > > Report them and move on. Anet can only look into this when it is reported. > > > > What do you think I'm doing here? Also, it's extremely difficult to report someone that blinks in, opens the chest and blinks out. You know this, so I don't understand your comment. Noting it here won’t ‘report’ them. It is highly unlikely the moderators here are actually with the dev team. By in game reporting they have the ability to check game logs with their time stamps. If you have video, do not post it here, but send it via the exploits email that is available for it. I am not saying it will work, but posting here has a far less chance of helping.

Hmmm. I guess it’s pretty clear what you want people to answer. I think the phrase ‘biased poll’ would be an understatement. As to the question, I won’t vote on a public poll, but less boons, including less AOE CCs would be great. You can’t have one without the other.

> @"Zok.4956" said: > > @"Gudradain.3892" said: > > > @"Zok.4956" said: > > > > @"Gudradain.3892" said: > > > > You need more worlds and smaller worlds to create an healthy and interesting competitive scene. > > > > > > The mode is WvWvW and three servers fighting against each other or together will always be more or less unfair. Which is fun sometimes. But for a healthy competitive scene you need fair fights. > > > > > > You can have GvG and 1v1 in WvW but these are only segments of the game mode. > > > > > > > No. I'm quite sure you just need more competitors to create healthy competition. Given enough competitors, it doesn't matter what the competition is because you will be able to match opponents of similar levels together. > > No, that is definitely not enough. It is enough. What you describe is ‘fair competition’ (to you) > > You need rules for fair fights for a healthy competition. There are rules, they just aren’t the ones you want. > > Three servers fighting against each others at the same time can often be fun, but it is not fair. Never was. That is the reason, why in team sport (i.e. soccer) usually only two groups fight against each others in a match/game. And to be fair there must not be any population imbalances. Thats why in team sport (i.e. soccer) there is a fixed and equal amount of players on both sides and removing one or more players from one side is used as a penalty (because it is usually a big disadvantage). This isn’t ‘team sports’. It’s realm v realm v realm. Always was designed to be. It you want ‘even’ matches sPvP exists for you. And there has been talk of more of a 10v10 mode in sPvP. WvW will NEVER meet your definition of ‘fair’. It’s a 24 hour mode and unless you don’t care who actually plays with you, it will never be ‘fair’ in the way you describe. Alliances would be closer than what we have now. > > In New World, for example, this is solved in a way that there are only two groups fighting each other at the same time and before a battle begins the groups collect/invite players until the groups are full (50 players per group), so the fights/battles will always be 50v50. It sounds as if you might be happier playing that game when (or if) it comes out. > Alliances in GW2 are not a solution for this. To have fair fights in WvW the mode has to be changed so much that it would be more or less a new game mode. It was never intended to be a ‘solution’ as in a ‘50v50’ mode. That was NEVER an intention of WvW.

Your ‘gankers’ term was ‘pick team’.

> @"rrusse.7058" said: > @"kamikharzeeh.8016" Fair enough. I won't pretend to know exactly how long bugs have been sitting in PvP. That is admittedly a bad one and its not good that Arenanet let it sit for that long. > > It doesn't seem right for folks to treat this as a balance patch when it simply isn't that. I would love to have one, but we know why there have not been any major changes, and acting like we don't know or undertand why is ignorance. It’s not that they are treating this as a balance patch. It’s that there hasn’t BEEN a balance patch in pretty much 6 months. The OP was a significant level of sarcasm.

> @"Zok.4956" said: > > server-links were a band-aid for population imbalance. but they did not really solve the population imbalance problem (because of massive bandwagoning after each server relinks) and they have created new problems (links and massive bandwagoning after server relinks destroy the remaining server communities). Agreed. It needs to be changed. They are unwilling to limit transfers more than they have, and ‘unlinking’ would be even more detrimental to the mode. > > For this reason, I do not trust Anet blindly to solve the problem of population imbalance with alliances before Anet shows us all the details of how it works and I can see it with my own eyes. I guess I would agree on ‘trusting’ Anet. I am also a realist: they haven’t let us ‘see’ anything game wise prior to its release, )unless you include the DBL ‘test’ where they actually asked for suggestions then did not incorporate and of the suggestions. They released it as is..) so I wouldn’t expect we are going to get ‘more details’ than the Three posts on it from Anet that are visible along with the answers to the most common responses. For me, given I spend most of my WvW time running alone, or with small groups, I am perfectly OK with Alliances as it has been explained. It’s far from perfect. But it is worth swapping to it to see where it takes us.

> @"Zok.4956" said: > > @"subversiontwo.7501" said: > > **An alliance, the proposed entity in the system, is just a guild.** It is a way to stick 5 guilds into one piece or to divide your guild into 5 pieces, however you choose to see it. The Alliance on a World is just like a Guild on a Server today. There is no major significant difference. Alliances can't kick players off Worlds anymore than Guilds can kick players off a Server. That is just nonsense. Whether its authority or power is just semantics. > > Guild leaders (and their officers) can kick players from a guild. And because Alliances are like a Guild of Guilds, Alliance leaders (and their officers) can kick/remove guilds from their alliance. > > And because there will be limits (i.e. players per allliance, per server, etc), the guilds that are now regularly bandwagoning to create the biggest and overstacked linked-servers will make sure, that in their alliance only likeminded guilds exist, to have a bigger advantage against other servers/alliances. Why is that a problem? Working with guilds to improve yourself and work WITHIN the confines of the rules to be successful is a bad thing? > > And all players, that are not in those alliances/guilds, will be placed randomly on other servers, that can not compete with the organized-big-alliance servers. Why would you want to be a part of an alliance where your views don’t align with them? And there is nothing stopping you from putting your guild in another alliance. > > So yes, players can't be kicked from a server. But they (and their guilds) can be kicked from Alliances. And probably will be assigned to other servers after the next relinking/reshuffling. Yes, that is why it exists which allow people to align (alliance) with people that view the game in a similar fashion. Why is that bad? > > A lot of details about the alliance system are not communicated yet and we can not be sure if and how it will be implemented in the end. But there is a high risk that it could kill the game mode finally, instead of revitalizing it. Or, like we currently are, allow it to slowly die without any change. Currently, a guild can’t really recruit. If they are on a host world, the link players can’t stay with them unless they bandwagon multiple times. (Incidentally that is why I don’t think we are going to see alliances) it continues to create imbalance in matchups despite links. Just look at the fact that BG has a full link server now. And they aren’t alone in that. CD was medium pop when the link took place.

> @"Firebeard.1746" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Firebeard.1746" said: > > > I was shocked when i figured out the IB saga was closing in April, then someone told me that EoD is coming soon after that. i asked for sources and they couldn't give any. So I'm curious if anyone here can fill me in on release timelines as my google searches haven't turned anything up. Are there any hints in streams I missed? > > > > ‘Soon’ is a relative term. We haven’t really gotten anything definitive, there is an announcement that development is ongoing, that it will come out ‘after’ IBS, and a trailer. Nothing else has really been said. How soon that actually is.... well that’s anyone’s guess, > > > > Speculation is end of summer beginning of fall. But it’s just that.. speculation. > > I Should have clarified, the person talked in definitives: May or June. I was being ambiguous because I don't believe it XD. I mean it'd be cool, don't get me wrong.... It would be cool. I wasn’t trying to be snarky actually. ? I guess my answer was more to others reading, and wasn’t a shot at you at all.

> @"Firebeard.1746" said: > I was shocked when i figured out the IB saga was closing in April, then someone told me that EoD is coming soon after that. i asked for sources and they couldn't give any. So I'm curious if anyone here can fill me in on release timelines as my google searches haven't turned anything up. Are there any hints in streams I missed? ‘Soon’ is a relative term. We haven’t really gotten anything definitive, there is an announcement that development is ongoing, that it will come out ‘after’ IBS, and a trailer. Nothing else has really been said. How soon that actually is.... well that’s anyone’s guess, Speculation is end of summer beginning of fall. But it’s just that.. speculation.

> @"ElijahFitzroy.5762" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"ElijahFitzroy.5762" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"ElijahFitzroy.5762" said: > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > @"medivh.4725" said: > > > > > > > Yes Anet, > > > > > > > Ascended backpacks really expensive to craft (nearly 100 gold a piece), really hard to make as well. 200 S4 currency and 5000 unbound magic. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which one costs 100 gold? Almost all of the season 3 and 4 ones are just their currency. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could appreciate a simple recipe to reselect stats, so we fret and stress less. And that nothing goes into waste. > > > > > > > > > > > > The bloodstone ones cost a capacitor to change and reselect. Reckon it to what you want looks wise I guess. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think they are meaning the crafting ones like the burough of mulandru, wings of lyssa and shadow of grenth. > > > > > > > > Yeah, but I mean, if you want to stay change, it’s cheaper in the long run to do Warbringer.... > > > > > > True but that’s only if you are on a server that does WvW on your time frame. If you are on a lower tiered server it takes a whole lot longer unfortunately. > > > > It really doesn’t.., flipping camps, sentries, killing yaks, and taking shrines is a very easy way to keep participation up while not needing people to help. > > > > Towers are doable, yet hard. I’ve seen solo’s cap keeps but yeah, you can’t plan for it. > > > > To me, Warbringer is easier in many ways than Warclaw. > > You can certainly do it in the long run. I myself am on a low tier server and do my WvW dailies but have yet to get the warbringer while I can get the blood stone backpack a lot quicker and with doing daily ascended crafting (it is expensive) you can certainly manage it. > > I’ll have to take your word for it for making the warbringer though because that is one back pack that I have yet to make. Absolutely agree on the bloodstone ones. That makes the most sense with the bloodstone reset process. But other than the materials (all can be gotten via PvE) it’s fairly easy. I think it requires a GoB which can also be completed as a reward track while doing the skirmIsh reward tracks for pips and tickets.