Astralporing.1957

> @"yann.1946" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > Isn't one of the points of a chill run that you don't mind wiping? > > For some players, maybe. For others "chill" means not having to bother with all the organizational stuff, angry people etc. Someone wanting a chill run does not necessarily want to keep wiping, though. Wipes are usually chill mainly for people that have absolutely no problem with succeeding. > > > > Isn't part of not wanting angry people, not getting angry yourself incase things don't go as you want. No. The main point is not "no angry people". It's the "not having to bother with". At the point you get angry that plan already failed. > Otherwise this feels very hypocritical to me. Not really. See above. > But i have to agree, not minding wiping is probably the biggest help incase you want to raid. And that's why current raids will always appeal only to a small minority of players. Most players _do_ mind wiping. Even most _raiders_ do.

> @"yann.1946" said: > Isn't one of the points of a chill run that you don't mind wiping? For some players, maybe. For others "chill" means not having to bother with all the organizational stuff, angry people etc. Someone wanting a chill run does not necessarily want to keep wiping, though. Wipes are usually chill mainly for people that have absolutely no problem with succeeding.

> @"Sobx.1758" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Sobx.1758" said: > > > If you want a *chill, no req group of first timers* then by all means: create the squad in lfg and wait for the people with similar goals to join you. For some reason there are people that seem to think the weight of organizing their time should be on other players or anet. > > Ah, but that's exactly because for most people that want chill groups, once they end up having to organize it such a group _stops_ being chill. Thus, organizing a chill group with LFG becomes a contradiction. > > I fail to see how creating a group in lfg suddenly contradicts a "chill" playstyle preferences or no req raiding. There's a major difference betweenjust posting a "chill" group in LFG, and posting a group in LFG and ensuring the run will be a success. First can be chill - but only until the first wipe. Second is rarely chill, unless you are already heavily experienced in raiding - which the people you talk about definitely aren't. > From my point of view I'd say it's not a case of "contradicting" anything, but probably... laziness or even a bit of entitlement (YOU will organize my fun for me!). From your point of view, maybe. It's _not_ you having an issue here, though. What would be laziness if done by you, doesn't have to be the same when it happens to someone else.

> @"Moradorin.6217" said: > > @"Orpheus.7891" said: > > I've tried searching but the forum search function is absolutely terrible, is there any other way to figure out the guild I was in? > > edit: I've done a Discord Data request to see if I can get a list of past servers but that could take as long as 30 days so I'm hoping there is a better way > > gw2efficiency.com might let you see. If you put in an API key and use the time machine thing to look at your account at the date in question. It lets you see how your account was in the past and guild data is included in the data is shows. Im not 100% sure rolling the date back includes which guild but I expect it does. Note, though, that this would only work for someone that was already registered on efficiency then. The site can only do search in its own database, it cannot check GW2 past data, because there's no API for that.

> @"Sobx.1758" said: > If you want a *chill, no req group of first timers* then by all means: create the squad in lfg and wait for the people with similar goals to join you. For some reason there are people that seem to think the weight of organizing their time should be on other players or anet. Ah, but that's exactly because for most people that want chill groups, once they end up having to organize it such a group _stops_ being chill. Thus, organizing a chill group with LFG becomes a contradiction.

> @"Ashen.2907" said: > Except that the suggestion here is for ANet to decide what to put up for crowd funding. So the employee, in this case, would be asked to work on projects decided by their employer...just like pretty much every job in the world. And what would happen if the end result didn't satisfy you? I mean, look at the build templates. Now you can at least see how badly they're done and decide they're not worth the cost, but if you paid upfront, you would be denied that option.

One thing you need to remember about is that selling ads are meant to stay up for a long time. While all other LFGs are made for a specific run, and will disappear as soon as they get filled. This may make it seem like ads are overrepresented, even if _over the whole day_ they were to make up only a tiny minority of all listings.

> @"Crystal Paladin.3871" said: > > Rifle shots actually interrupts toxx from his current action... No, they don't. They don't interrupt neither his missile channel, his jump, nor his spin to win. In fact, the spin reflects projectiles, so Toxx isn't even getting damaged from rifles during it. I don't know where this misinformation comes from (although i wouldn't be surprised if it was a result of people with rifles simply not noticing people with hammers doing actual cc).

> @"kharmin.7683" said: > > China has their own GW2 servers. I'm not sure that Anet is offering Cantha to that demographic. Considering that Divinity's Reach Canthan Quarter was pulled from core partially because of China, i'm quite sure that this expac is mainly meant for western market, not for eastern one.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Wuffy.9732" said: > > > all anet needs to do is rebuild the graphics library and port/load everything with Dx12. > > Needs to do towards what goal? Remember, according to what we've heard from Anet before, the main bottleneck is _outside_ render thread. > > > > That depends on the situation, as DX12py proves that such a change can have a very positive impact on performance. I don't think that 5 fps more on low end and ~10 fps more on high end (in places where it even helps, because it doesn't help everywhere) can be called a very positive impact. Those improvements are too small to notice with naked eye, you can only see them by using some fps meter and seeing actual numbers. Sure, it is better than without it, but i wouldn't call it a major improvement. Now, doing something about the main thread or server-client communication _would_ help a lot.

> @"Veprovina.4876" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > I have 5 years old hardware and overall _am_ running it at 30+ fps at max details. Easily. > > > > 4 years old for me but otherwise, same. > > > > > > > > Just out of curiousitly, you satisfied with that? > Wouldn't it be better if you could run 60+ FPS easily? > > BTW, i'm not making a point or anything, just curious if people are "fine" with such FPS or what. By saying i am running the game at 30+ fps at max details _easily_ i meant that i generally have no problem with graphics whatsoever.

> @"Wuffy.9732" said: > all anet needs to do is rebuild the graphics library and port/load everything with Dx12. Needs to do towards what goal? Remember, according to what we've heard from Anet before, the main bottleneck is _outside_ render thread.

> @"melandru.3876" said: > rifle 3 is a cc, 5 times riffle 3 is toxx cc'd but then again pve people do not have the habbit of using everything, let alone cc Rifle 3 is a melee skill. Good luck getting people with rifles to fight in a melee range, when they take rifles specifically to avoid that. And again, if you are in melee already, hammer is better.

> @"Veprovina.4876" said: > I mean, "properly" for an 8 year old game means, having 4-5 year old hardware and running it 30+ FPS. I have 5 years old hardware and overall _am_ running it at 30+ fps at max details. Easily. > Which guild wars doesn't manage to do on any settings You sure about that? Because that strongly contradicts my personal experiences with this game. Not saying GW2 is well-optimized (because it definitely isn't), but still let's please not overreact and overrepresent the situation, okay?

> @"melandru.3876" said: > once mid is secured ditch hammer and take the rifle And then toxx clears a large part of the map because noone's cc-ing him. Also, ballistas work indeed better against Toxx, but they have lower range and no aoe, so they are way, way worse against trash waves. Not to mention barriers are useless, better to create snowmen that stop trash and let them get easily wiped by catas And weapons are next to useless against trash when compared to the effect of siege. Properly placed siege will kill trash spawns before they can even move. And, again, hammers are the only reasonable weapon against Toxx, as you can practically stunlock him and kill him very fast. Rifles on the otehr hand usually end up killing people trying to stun Toxx with hammers, because Toxx reflects half of those shots. So, basically, don't run rifle. Use the hammer. Rifle is extremely inefficient there.

Been talked about many times over already. i.e.: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/120453/game-in-portugues https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/118630/please-translate-the-game-into-portuguese-brazil https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/117732/translation-into-portuguese https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/112742/translation-to-pt-br-traducao-em-pt-br There's been at least as many similar threads about russian, and a few about chinese as well. And i am sure i have probably missed some more languages that weren't mentioned as often as those.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > > @"DeanBB.4268" said: > > It would be nice, but I'd hate for it to happen at the expense of a content drought. > > Those that will make the changes to the engine are not the same people creating skins, sounds, music, voice acting, ui artists, skill balance, writers or any kind of programming work. True, but they still be doing that for the same _money_. I don't think they have enough devs with required experience to do such a rework now (the ones they have probably are already doing what they can, but the rate of imporvements is slow)- like you said, an assets dev is not going to help there. So, they would need to hire them. Then they'd need to train them (because this is a proprietary engine, so the new hires would not know it) All this would take money. Money that would need to be taken from somewhere.

> @"yann.1946" said: > You're missing a small detail though. Maybe squads who ask for only one get filled way faster, so they don't appear for the same time as others. That was the case during dungeons era, where people complained about speedrun/elitist LFGs dominating the content, not realizing that casual LFGs just tended to disappear very fastm and were really easy to overlook. Not saying this is definitely the case here, but that's still a good example why anecdotal evidence is not worth all that much.

> @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Eramonster.2718" said: > > > By removing it; Yes, will make it easier but it will also removed a learning experience to players. > > What learing experience? Of jumping onto tree branches? What would that even be useful for? > > > > > Experienced players might find it unnecessary since they've already perfected/memorized it but new players will not and might find difficulties later on when situation occurs. > > No, it is a completely unnecessary experience for anyone. The things it might teach you are not useful at all outside of this one specific encounter. > > > > So: > - adapting to a situation or challenge via say taking movement speed skills, > - using terrain advantageously, > - slotting condition removal and stun breaks, > - memorizing terrain and traps, > - paying attention to enemy behavior and attacks, > - using things like portal if available to assist > > are overall useless skills. You are way overgeneralizing here. For the most part, the only thing someone is going to learn there is the exact path they should run through. Nothing more. WHich, obviously, is of no use outside this specific instance.

> @"Eramonster.2718" said: > By removing it; Yes, will make it easier but it will also removed a learning experience to players. What learing experience? Of jumping onto tree branches? What would that even be useful for? > Experienced players might find it unnecessary since they've already perfected/memorized it but new players will not and might find difficulties later on when situation occurs. No, it is a completely unnecessary experience for anyone. The things it might teach you are not useful at all outside of this one specific encounter.

> @"Murdock.6547" said: > So first of all, it's very interesting to just blatantly call the devs incompetent. My grounds for saying this is that reaper was at one point the *only* elite specialization necromancer had. And while I do think it was odd that the best version of reaper was the condi variant, it was completely fine to allow the reaper tree to benefit both power and condi. Much like other trees for professions will heavily enable a certain playstyle, but still have decent traits for other styles. The problem at the time was that necromancer had absolutely no % damage modifiers. Reaper still got gutted for several years. And it's still only barely decent (barely above banner warrior, and below any other sensible dps spec). When they decided that reaper should be a power dps class (and thus nerfed condi), they should have _allowed_ him to become power dps class. It shouldn't have taken years of changes, of (+1% to axe damage) improvements, etc in order for this spec to _still_ be underwhelming in what devs said should be its primary role. > And then shortly after the condi playstyle was nerfed, they add some % damage + traits. Like i said, it wasn't "shortly after". It took years. Which is all the more laughable when you consider that the condi reaper variant _also_ was only decent, it wasn't anything great. Notice also, that the condi did not really migrate to scourge. Scourge condi dps is _also_ worse than reaper condi once was. And by a lot (it's currently benchmarket at 29k. which puts it dead last of all specs that are even benchmarked). Why? Because, according to devs, Scourge is a _support spec_, and thus does not need good dps. Necromancer, balance wise, is in a really bad spot, and has always been. > Your mindset of "It's Anet's fault" is really troublesome because it sounds like you're frustrated. Possibly burned out. Maybe take a short break? It did wonders for me. If you think that me taking a short break would help make Anet better balance decisions, i'm willing to take one right now. I'm just not sure it would really work that way.

Responding just to clarify something to the new necro poster (even though the part i am responding to is 2 years old, and _that_ poster is unlikely to read it at this point > @"Orpheal.8263" said: > Runes follow exactly the same tier system, as like all other equipment, so its just logical, that also upgrades should have in their final form ascended quality versions No. Runes and Sigils do not follow the same tier system as all other equipment. Gear is divided in Basic, Fine, Masterwork, Rare, Exotic, Ascended and Legendary (with legendary not offering any stat advantage over previous tier). There's also a Junk tier at the very bottom, but there's no gear i know of at this tier (it's only for junk, after all). Sigils and Runes however are divided into Minor, Major, Superior, and now also Legendary (again, with Legendary not being a stat upgrade). As we all can see, it follows a completely different path of progression than the gear, so there's no reason why we should be looking at gear progression and extrapolate things for runes/sigils from it.

That still is very unreliable method. Not only it is based on anecdotal data (no one in reality is going to sit refreshing lfg 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to see what is really happening), but it also completely ignores statics. And we lack the data to say how LFG compares to statics in participation. Although i agree - there aren't likely many players that run shiverpeaks only. Although there are probably other reasons for that, than just the difficulty.

There's no data whatsoever about it. Efficiency is already way too unreliable (with too many of its accounts going inactive at different moments of GW2 history) when it comes just to tracking single kills. It's completely useless in checking frequency of kills, or in knowing how current the data is. Meaning, you can't really differentiate between someone that made one kill and someone that made 50 kills, or between someone who made their last kill yesterday, and someone who made it a year ago and is no longer playing. Nor can you really know if achievements (kills) in different categories are made by the same people, or completely different ones. And efficiency is our _only_ statistical source. So, basically, there's no way to answer that question without it turning into a game of wildly inaccurate guesses.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > You say the death of Raids was planned from the start and I want to believe otherwise. Oh, i don't believe they _planned_ the death of raids. It's just i don't believe they _ever_ were intending (or _able_) to give to raids enough resources needed for them to survive. Why is, as always, barring any inside info, a matter of discussion. Although i (again) don't think they were intentionally starving raids - they probably honestly thought that the amount they dedicated should be enough. We both know it wasn't. The difference between us is that you seem to think there was an _option_ of getting more resources (or just retaining original ones), while i think that this was never on the table.