DaFishBob.6518

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said: > How is it luck when there isn’t any RNG? I think the idea is that the timing is so tight, one little spike of lag will mean the difference between gold and silver.

It's a temporary vendor, but you can still get the infusion by trading in the marks you have now for defense seals at the defense seal merchant.

I'm sure the argument over this skin being for Jackal over Warclaw would take a significant turn if it gained a new animation based on the Jackal's howl and go "MOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"

Because sometimes I have no idea what I want to do next and an achievement I haven't finished yet gives me an idea.

This actually reminds me of a time I watched a salmon kill a shark in Crystal Oasis.

> @"The Fear.3865" said: > I hate suggestions limiting what we have now, so huge no. What is limiting about adding another option to reduce unwanted effects on the screen?

> @"Westenev.5289" said: > Not buying the expac specifically because someones backpack is a little shiny is a bit of a nuclear response, isn't it? Well if that backpack on a bunch of someones causes a CPU to go nuclear, I think it'd be rational to drop the game in which case buying the expac wouldn't make much sense.

> @"Infusion.7149" said: > It's really only flashy backpacks. It probably has to do with the method of backpack implementation, as the Umbra-sourced CPU culling doesn't seem to cull them properly or drop their quality even if the main character model is turned to basic. > > If you turn animation to low most infusion effects do not show. I don't think that infusion effects are a problem if they are culled properly , although people stacking 6+ different skin effects is excessive sometimes. Specifically in instances with fewer than 25 players (such as fractals, raids, strikes, DRMs, dungeons, PVP), they should not be disabled unless they outright cause a huge frame drop. > > Edit: refer to https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Cosmetic_aura > A person in full legendaries* with any form of cosmetic infusion such as Moto's Bauble , Deldrimor Stoneskin , Liquid Aurilium would be over 6 different effects. > (Vision + Aurora + Coalescence + Conflux + Transcendence + legendary weapon) Hmm, seems you're right that most infusion effects do get hidden when everything is turned low. The only effect I could really see is the outline effect from some of the reverberating infusions. Still wish I could shut off my own though.

> @"Moradorin.6217" said: > That said, Im not sure what the best solution is or how feasible it would be for Anet to impliment changes that would make us all happy with the visuals so Im not in support of an ultimatum over it. The game has more important issues. Im reasonably happy with my ability to **use the Nvidia overlay to tone down highlights and adjust the overall look. I still get the same issues, but it has helped in that the game used to make to close my eyes and turn away due to literal pain from the blinding glare of certain things. Its not quite as bad now for me.** This deserves a helpful.

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > I'm not sure threatening (or attempting to threaten) ArenaNet is the best approach to a desired outcome. Maybe not but I don't see the current approach getting us closer to getting this kind of feature so I feel like that just leaves escalating communications or dropping out of the game.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > For the purposes of your poll question ‘No’ and ‘Don’t Care’ are the same answer. > > If you ‘don’t care’ you won’t give an ultimatum. I suppose you're right about the 'No' and 'Don't Care' options, I kind of figured that most polls have that option like 'potato' that just doesn't matter so I should include one too. > @"Sylvyn.4750" said: > Is this a game engine issue or a computer hardware issue? I was going to quip something like "get a better graphics card" so the CPU isn't throttling performance at 1080p, but then I realized the state of supply/demand we are in affecting CPU and GPU availability.... A lot of people are claiming it's a game engine issue, overusing the CPU and leaving the GPU largely unused in comparison. I could see this being the case but for now I see disabling cosmetic effects as an easy solution for when people don't have the hardware to handle them.

> @"Danikat.8537" said: > I think it's pointless to ask for a fraction of the minority of players who visit the forum to agree to boycott only the proportion of flashy effects which are sold in the gem store. That's not going to have any impact, **especially since a lot of those who vote yes are going to be the ones who don't buy those things anyway.** That's the point, if players who vote yes already do not buy flashy effect skins, the only remaining pressure after already purchasing previous expansions is the upcoming expansion. In addition, doing so silently helps no one, neither the players nor Anet, it has to be communicated clearly. Duly noted though about the effectiveness. > @"Tyncale.1629" said: > I hope you didn't expect a lot of yes votes from this poll. I get visions of a kid holding his breath because he didn't get an ice cream from mum. I had no expectations, that's exactly why I started a poll instead of going alone with a statement.

> @"maddoctor.2738" said: > You know the worst part about polls like this one? If they actually do something about visual effects in the expansion, it would look like (at least to some) that Anet caved in forum demands and "ultimatums" which will open the can of worms. Forums will get flooded with "let's do an ultimatum over xyz, we won't buy the next expansion/gems until xyz is fixed, it worked for cosmetics effects". Fortunately, it doesn't look like many people voted yes I'm afraid that ship has already sailed as the commonly told story of HoT is that players on the forum demanded harder content.

Is the word ultimatum too strong? I just thought it was a good word to describe the statement, that there's a group of players saying that "we want this otherwise we will do that."

> @"Infusion.7149" said: > > @"DaFishBob.6518" said: > > All right, well the reason I'm asking if we want an **ultimatum** is due to an often repeated reason that Anet has no financial incentive to allow us to disable cosmetic effects, that they want to make sure everyone see the effects to try and encourage cosmetics sales. I want to see if a sizeable group of players wants to send a message about how upsetting this issue is. So far with 7 no votes to my 1 yes, I guess not. > > An ultimatum is ridiculous. They need to work on visual culling of backpieces (mainly flashy gemstore ones on people not in near field of view), but turning off of legendary trinkets' effects is a highly requested feature even by people that own them. **It's a QoL hotfix that could be implemented even in the absence of an expansion.** That is what I'm hoping for yet for some reason they have yet to make this change. As a result, I want to know if more people would like to escalate the request. I'm thinking of not buying the expansion because my CPU may get fried if we keep having these cosmetics pushed on us with no way to reduce their impact. I'm wondering how many people that want this feature think the same and instead of simply hoping the same messages result in something, we make a visible statement together which will have a better chance of reaching someone.