Guild Wars 2

1. Let me play with my guild when I want to play with them and where.
2. Let me see the bad guys.

Two simple issues. I know they’re terribly arcane and difficult to address, that no other game has ever attempted such a thing, and that WvW was never intended to be such a popular endgame.

1. What does that even mean? Skip queues? No, that’s not fair and will overload the server.
2. What does this mean? Culling is constantly being fixed, and you’re never going to see the enemies location on your map. That’d ruin the game.

Also, use this forum next time: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/suggestions

Skipping queues is unfair? Why? If only there’d been games in the past that had massive combat and didn’t have instances or queues. Gosh. Maybe some day in the future we could have a game like that.

Oh Culling is constantly being fixed. That’s good. If only they had some foresight that there would be X amount of people in one particular location and know the extent of their engine. It’s not like they had this be a primary form of the end game, or even had some way of estimating how many people they’d allow to play in a given zone at a time.

Oh wait.

Transfer servers to a lower tier. No queues. Small enough zergs that culling doesn’t have massive effects.

Darek.1836:

Transfer servers to a lower tier. No queues. Small enough zergs that culling doesn’t have massive effects.

ughh culling still has massive effects on the small servers…

thought it was 10 last night turned into 30.. we were already mid faceroll so we couldnt pull off either

1. Get off T1?
2. Same as 1. Also stop zerging.

Not acceptable answers to change my play behavior to suit failings in the game and to be playing the game as it is intended to be played.

You don’t ask people playing Pac-Man, ‘Hey, don’t turn left. If you turn left you’ll break the game. Be sure to always turn right.’

Thanks!

QisforQadim.9052:

Not acceptable answers to change my play behavior to suit failings in the game and to be playing the game as it is intended to be played.

You don’t ask people playing Pac-Man, ‘Hey, don’t turn left. If you turn left you’ll break the game. Be sure to always turn right.’

Thanks!

No… but you don’t go onto the Pac-man forums complaining because you’re not allowed to jump over walls. If the game design doesn’t allow for something, it’s likely because you aren’t playing as it is intended… whether you like that or not.

Oh so culling is intended, I see! Having to somehow game a buggy queue mechanic is intended. I see. It’s like a mini-game! Guess the number of targets and Let’s Try and Have Fun. My high score is 15 becoming 50. My best wait time is 5 minutes while someone who queued before me was at 60. What’s yours?

It’s more like he’s at a full arcade and can’t get to the game, but absolutely refuses to go to the empty arcade down the street because you Cant tell him how to play.

Strange though that I already put all my quarters in this machine!

QisforQadim.9052:

Oh so culling is intended, I see! Having to somehow game a buggy queue mechanic is intended. I see. It’s like a mini-game! Guess the number of targets and Let’s Try and Have Fun. My high score is 15 becoming 50. My best wait time is 5 minutes while someone who queued before me was at 60. What’s yours?

Let me see… Did they design and implement culling into their core systems? Yes. It wasn’t an accident. So, um, I’m pretty sure that qualifies as intended.

You’re right that gaming the queue mechanic isn’t intended. The fix, however, isn’t what you stated you wanted. The fix is to ensure that it can’t be gamed.

You can argue all you want whether in practice those things make for a better game (I don’t believe they do), but it’s kind of odd to me that you would argue that systems which were deliberately engineered in a specific fashion are intended.

Actually you bought a life time pass that works at both places

Culling is definitely a problem.

If you are complaining about queues, I sure hope you aren’t one of the bandwagon jumpers that went to a top 5 server. Other than reset night, queues aren’t a big problem anywhere else.

Quit whining about culling. They are working on it.

Also skipping queues to play with your friends is a terrible idea.

I should definitely pick up and leave my comrades who have been playing a variety of games at this arcade for over a decade, leave this community that has spanned a number from Turbo to Sugar Rush just because this game over there is open. Well sorry, I don’t want to play Burgertime! I’m here to play Sugar Rush darn it!

And exactly they designed and implemented it at some point in a meeting saying, ‘Well we could have lots more pretty if we had culling. But won’t that cause problems in large scale stuff? Yeah? Screw im!’

Also if you want to make an argument of pretty vs. quantity then Planetside 2 would like a word with you.

rahuri.7048:

1. What does that even mean? Skip queues? No, that’s not fair and will overload the server.

Like it’s so unrealistic to expect the game to actually have the capability to handle the number of players who want to play it.

2. What does this mean? Culling is constantly being fixed, and you’re never going to see the enemies location on your map. That’d ruin the game.

Culling has NEVER been fixed at all, and by some accounts is worse than ever. And if you couldn’t figure out that he wasn’t talking about seeing enemies on the map you have some sort of comprehension disorder.

Also, use this forum next time: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/suggestions

He clearly was not making a suggestion … he was airing a gripe. See #2 above.

Gilgamesh.2561:

The OP is Captain Kirk of the USS Enterprise. Culling is the borg, and server queues are Khan. The OP likes neither, but can’t get away from the borg or Khan because they are persistent. However they only exist in the most populated star systems. If Kirk just traveled to a lesser-populated star system, his crew and him could roleplay LOTR on the holodeck without interruption. However, the OP feels The Q Continuum should just get off their throne and instantly erase the borg and Khan, even though we know this will never happen.

WHOA GOOD SIR if anything the culling is Khan

In the industry there is a saying of the Best User Experience.

I highly doubt that for ArenaNet the Best User Experience is for a person who wishes to WvW with his guild in the 3 hours a night he has at max…

For the first hour to be spent waiting, and for the other two to be spent playing the metagame of ‘How Many Bad Guys Are There Really?’

To argue otherwise is to be an apologist.

QisforQadim.9052:

In the industry there is a saying of the Best User Experience.

I highly doubt that for ArenaNet the Best User Experience is for a person who wishes to WvW with his guild in the 3 hours a night he has at max…

For the first hour to be spent waiting, and for the other two to be spent playing the metagame of ‘How Many Bad Guys Are There Really?’

To argue otherwise is to be an apologist.

In the industry, there are also the concepts of project funding, design trade-offs, core system limitations, back-log prioritization., and iterative development., cost/benefit analysis. Because of these things, very few pieces of software have the “Best User Experience.” Instead, they have to dance along the edge of “Good Enough User Experience.” Clearly culling and queues are one area where they have lost.

If you choose to believe them (I do), they are making the investment in changing the compromise they originally made on culling. So far it seems like they are satisfied that queuing is currently a “Good Enough User Experience.” I’m not currently in a position to judge them on that, because I’m not balancing both the business and architectural realities.

As an end point user, I don’t care about what they’re doing. I don’t care what steps they’re going to take. I care about the now.

There’s that bit in Goodfellas.

‘I can’t make my payment, my grandma died.’ Eff you, pay me.
‘My wife lost her job, we need more time.’ Eff you, pay me.
’We’re working on getting culling working. We have this neat new patch!’ Eff you. Pay me.

It’s easy for you to say as a user, ‘Fine, go play something else.’ But Arenanet doesn’t quite have that luxury. Though mebbe you don’t since there’s something shillish about you.

QisforQadim.9052:

As an end point user, I don’t care about what they’re doing. I don’t care what steps they’re going to take. I care about the now.

There’s that bit in Goodfellas.

‘I can’t make my payment, my grandma died.’ Eff you, pay me.
‘My wife lost her job, we need more time.’ Eff you, pay me.
’We’re working on getting culling working. We have this neat new patch!’ Eff you. Pay me.

It’s easy for you to say as a user, ‘Fine, go play something else.’ But Arenanet doesn’t quite have that luxury. Though mebbe you don’t since there’s something shillish about you.

Yeah, forgive me for wanting reasonable discourse instead of “Eff you. Pay me.” You’re right, I must be in somebody’s pay if I think that there is a different perspective than theirs, that they could consider. </sarcasm>

I’m sorry, what was that? I couldn’t hear you over your blind defense of a clear error in design somehow maintaining some pretense of reasonable discourse.

QisforQadim.9052:

I’m sorry, what was that? I couldn’t hear you over your blind defense of a clear error in design somehow maintaining some pretense of reasonable discourse.

Let me try this again, just to give you one last shot:

#1, I believe that culling is bad and queueing is causing problem and are things that truly need to be corrected.
#2, I believe that any end user who argues a design trade off is committing the worst sort of back seat driving, given that they know only a small portion of the story.

Not sure if you’re objecting to my belief in #1 or #2.

QisforQadim.9052:

1. Let me play with my guild when I want to play with them and where.
2. Let me see the bad guys.

1. Let me run with more than 5 guild members effectively without putting up the commander “blue zerg magnet”
2. Let me see the bad guys.

GW2 has horrible grouping support for multiple groups running together. The commander and squad system is designed for leading zergs. Running with 3rd party VoIP is the only solution until they add more support for multiple groups running together in WvW. (that aren’t expected to lead the entire zone).

Oh I’m so pleased you’re giving me one last shot. It is the highlight of my day.

On #1 we’re agreed.

On #2 we disagree where the onus is placed.

Not all users are as ignorant of the design process as you’d like to imagine. In any case, these two particular issues are not the type of ones that a developer can state, ‘We didn’t know, we had no idea, we’re dealing with this as quickly as possible.’

These are design issues that they would have had immense heads up about. These are design issues that there would have been a series of meetings and a decision was made to run with it as it is, take these handicaps, and try to deal with them as best possible post launch. The best way to look at it is they’re thinking, ’We’ll be more familiar with the engine by then.’ Which has its own flaws. Then there’s the other side of the spectrum where they’ll be saying, ’They’ll have to eat it and we’ll have our money by then before they grow too tired of it and move on.’

If you think it is otherwise, you’re deluding yourself.

Edit: Ahmrill we run with eight and the second group is the support group, they place a target on the driver to maintain situational awareness. But yah, ventrilo is required.

QisforQadim.9052:

. These are design issues that there would have been a series of meetings and a decision was made to run with it as it is, take these handicaps, and try to deal with them as best possible post launch. The best way to look at it is they’re thinking, ’We’ll be more familiar with the engine by then.’ Which has its own flaws. Then there’s the other side of the spectrum where they’ll be saying, ’They’ll have to eat it and we’ll have our money by then before they grow too tired of it and move on.’

If you think it is otherwise, you’re deluding yourself.

I don’t know that I’m deluding myself. I’m choosing to interpret their choices based on how I’ve had to make similar choices on similar issues. On culling, in particular, I could see the conversation between the feature designer and the system designer go the following:

Feature Engineer: “But if we do this, there won’t be able to be more than 100 people within x distance without it causing some of them to disappear.”
Systems Engineer: “Sure, but this is core to how we’re going to manage bandwidth. Besides which, why would you ever have 100 people within x distance? Aren’t we talking about 20 man teams?”

Or something similar. That’s how I’ve seen a lot of size cap related design issues get into released software. And then it takes a significant effort to make the core changes…

Actually, now that I’m thinking about it, I’m working through a similar issue right now, in my own bit of software.

It’s definitely not an issue of bandwidth, the positional/action data is intensely small considering.

I believe you’re willing to give them more benefit of the doubt. While I don’t think I am considering that based on their design they must have done their research on prior large scale combat games. This was not a decision made out of benign ignorance.

Bottom line, however. Is it performing as it should?

Nope.

Why?

Knowing decision made in the design process.

As an end point user it’s okay to not be alright with them having made that decision.

QisforQadim.9052:

I believe you’re willing to give them more benefit of the doubt.

As a rule, yes. I’ve made enough decisions that turned out to be utterly moronic in hindsight.

As an end point user it’s okay to not be alright with them having made that decision.

Agreed. Although I think there is a certain amount of reasonable that a person can be when expressing your feeling about said issue.

I mean, honestly, if you think they’re completely incompetent, run from the game. It’s not going to get any better. If you think they’re competent enough to listen to you, then try to interact with some respect. (And maybe this doesn’t apply to you as much as to other forum posts.)

Anyway….

Well the choices are two basically.

Either they didn’t do their research and made the decision, which says ill things of them on the one hand.

Or they did do their research and made the decision willfully. That says all sorts of other ill things on the other.

It’s basically incompetence or malice.

Neither of which are good.

QisforQadim.9052:

Well the choices are two basically.

Either they didn’t do their research and made the decision, which says ill things of them on the one hand.

Or they did do their research and made the decision willfully. That says all sorts of other ill things on the other.

It’s basically incompetence or malice.

Neither of which are good.

This is where I fundamentally agree. Software designs are full of limitations that are neither incompetent or malicious, they are trade-offs for a perceived greater good. They can be wrong and they can be regretted, but that still doesn’t make them either incompetent or malicious.

Can leave it there I think. I do think they had some foresight into this issue, it’s why I’m much less forgiving.

QisforQadim.9052:

Edit: Ahmrill we run with eight and the second group is the support group, they place a target on the driver to maintain situational awareness. But yah, ventrilo is required.

We do the same… but it’s so much nicer with a in-game visual system. Marking waypoints for all groups to see, dedicated channel for linking, checking supply on guild members. It would be nice to use the commander system functions without the blue pin drawing everyone to it like moths. Basically a “private” function to the C&S system. We like doing our own thing as a havoc force, not running as a zerg.

Culling, Que bugs and the lack of a decent private grouping system for our multiple guild groups are my biggest peeves atm.

[/quote]

I mean, honestly, if you think they’re completely incompetent, run from the game. It’s not going to get any better. If you think they’re competent enough to listen to you, then try to interact with some respect. (And maybe this doesn’t apply to you as much as to other forum posts.)

Anyway….
[/quote]

YEAH QISFORQADIM! I am with this guy! My GW2: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!!!

QisforQadim.9052:

Oh so culling is intended, I see! Having to somehow game a buggy queue mechanic is intended. I see. It’s like a mini-game! Guess the number of targets and Let’s Try and Have Fun. My high score is 15 becoming 50. My best wait time is 5 minutes while someone who queued before me was at 60. What’s yours?

Yes culling is intended…

Culling is a system designed to prioritize what gets loaded on your screen, howw much gets loaded on your screen, and how far away it can be on your screen and still visible.

It was designed to help slower connections handle the cluster kitten that can be WvW.

Culling as it is now may not be entirely intentional, but if culling was never implemented most connections would not be able to handle WvW.

Ques are necessary when there is x+n people trying to occupy a space that only fits x amount of people.

If one guild has 25 members in the map and another guild has 24 members on the same map (the map having a max capacity if 50) if both guilds have a player that is trying to get in, with your statement #1 who gets in?

Are the people who have been waiting to get in for 30+ minutes supposed to wait longer because someone elses’ guild mates decide to que at the last minute just as a free space becomes available?

When everyone pays the same rate for the box, cutsies are out of the question.

You missed the entire point.

Culling shouldn’t exist for what they’re wanting to do.

A queue should not exist for overland server-wide wvw.

DaoC, Lineage 2, Shadowbane, Planetside, Planetside 2.

Most of those games are old old old. All of them did not have culling, nor did they have a queue to get to participate in the large scale pvp.

Add some games to yer resume before opening yer yapper.