Guild Wars 2

RoyHarmon.5398:

John Smith.4610:

insanemaniac.2456:

John Smith.4610:

Actually 9 have sold in the last 24 hours.

omg specific market velocity info

i can feel the chains of your NDA loosening

I have two just in case the first one breaks :P

This was interesting when, at first glance, I read it as “DNA loosening.” And yes, of course you have two, since most eukaryotic DNA is double-stranded. But why all this concern over John Smith’s mitosis?

Well, why not?

When there’s two of me, one will leave to fix other games. Soon there will be no cartels in the gaming industry.
Alternatively, one could be evil and try to take over the world, just throwing that out as a possibility.

Nike.2631:

Wanze.8410:

Nike.2631:

To a Good Home

First of all, this is way too complicated to implement (2 stacks of each item).

Fortunately we have these things called computers to handle minor bookkeeping, and second the WHOLE POINT is that if you buy it this way you intend to use it, not sit on it .

Then i dont see who benefits from it. It wont ban flippers or speculators from the game, if that is your intent.

Its not, and it never was – it’s to create competitive pressure, to introduce a class of sellers whom you cannot simply buy-out to eliminate their offers.

And for any crafting material, it would still give me the possibility to craft something out of it to turn a profit.

That is also deliberate. It provides incentive to move items through the production cycle, buying cheaper to a good home materials to sell in a more refined state.

As transactions would still be anonymous, no relationship will be established between buyer and seller.

The sale itself is the relationship. It not to start up being pen pals .

If you care about your item not being bought by flippers/speculators, just post a sell listing and dont sell to the highest bidder. That way, most of the time, it wont be bought by a flipper/speculator.

There is a world of difference between “most of the time” and “never”. Further it adds an additional check against market manipulation.

Just because you seem to have moral issues with selling your stuff to someone who benefits from it by flipping, speculating, this is an awfully complicated system and i dont think it will be frequently used.

You and I have very different scales if you consider a pair of check boxes “awfully complicated” .

Most people that sell their loot to the highest bidder do so because they want a quick gold return, they wont sell it for even less while having to even do one more click to check the good home box.

To a Good Home is not intended to serve “most people”. It’s intended to provide options so the Trading Post can better serve more people than it does now. If you don’t approve of economic PvP, your options are relent or not participate at all. This provides at least a little bit of a middle ground.

There’s a lot to say about this idea. I like that you’re attempting to find a reasonable solution, but the one of the biggest problems is that nobody would do it. Secondly, (this has been said) if you want your item to not be flipped, actually sell it at what it’s worth. Don’t take less money for fast return, that’s how those markets are created. In the end, this is a very hard to explain, very hard to implement, very complicated solution to a “problem” that can be solved by just selling items at the correct price.

Many people are happy to take less money for instant return and that’s fine if that’s your preference, others are willing to wait, and someone will work in the middle to make the market more efficient. It’s a good system and it works very well, forcing people to not trade they way they want to wouldn’t be better, it would be much worse. (not that your suggestion is forcing people, this is just a general comment)

PS any flipper that’s attempting to make money on luxury items isn’t good at flipping. It’s a slow, dangerous, rarely-profitable way to attempt to make money (that’s why nobody does it).

Hey Tyrian,

Have you tried playing in Windowed mode to see if you still get this issue? Beyond this, I highly encourage you to submit a support ticket so we can work with you one on one. You should get a response fairly quickly.

Hello all!

Whilst it is acceptable to continue a discussion on this suggestion, it is not appropriate to bump the thread without discussion. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.

To those asking how far we would redesign – I can’t really comment on this specifically, but I can say that you should share your ideas because sometimes they inspire things to happen. Does that make sense?

I realize that many classes have high burst right now, but our intent is to limit power creep as much as possible. Just because the Ranger’s damage is more spread out, doesn’t mean it does less damage than the burst of other classes. Does that make sense?

For example: One class could, in the span of 30 seconds, do 15k damage in say 5-10 seconds, but then their burst skills go on cooldown so they have to wait out the rest of the time before they can try again. A sustained class should be able to do that same amount of damage in that same amount of time, but the damage is more spread out (hence sustained). This can be better in certain situations, and allows for the sustained class to fill a hole in a team comp.

I’m not saying this is a perfect system or that it’s even fully functional in the game, I’m just trying to explain why doing burst shouldn’t necessarily be better than doing sustained damage. It depends on the situation.

We also know that some classes right now are better at burst than others, and those are things that we look to address in balance patches so there isn’t a surplus of any one class.

Hi Folks,

Just a quick note to let you know i am SUPER busy today but will try to catch up from page 7 this evening or late this afternoon.

Chris

Folks, it is not appropriate to discuss Moderation and Moderation actions. If you wish to create a new thread, on-topic and polite, you are welcome to do so. We do not mind your feedback, both positive and negative. However, we do require that you are respectful to not only our staff, but to each other.

Hello all,

As this thread has now veered off the original intent, we will be closing it. If you wish to discuss AFK in LA, you can create a new thread. Be sure to keep it clean, do not discuss support decisions, and do not be rude or insulting to each other.

If you have concerns regarding in-game bans/kicks, please contact Support directly via the Support page to escalate your concerns.

Because you guys are unable to have a reasonable, polite and respectful conversation with Allie regarding this matter, this thread is now closed. If you would like to respectfully ask a question or discuss a topic, please do so in a new thread.

The Ranger isn’t expected to do burst damage. By sustained, we mean that the Ranger should excel at surviving (resilient) through burst while still doing enough damage over time to take the opponent down.

jewishjoyride.4693:

Allie Murdock.8152:

Hey everyone,

Before things get out of hand, I want to address the aspect idea so we can move on. First of all, it’s a great idea, but there are many current issues with the profession that need to be addressed first. Our priorities to make the pet a more viable option will likely remain higher than giving an option to “permastow” the pet.

We recognize there are a number of issues with the pet AI and general functionality, so that is something that will come first. Rangers are first and foremost a pet class, but they are also great skirmishers and some of the best sustained long range damage.

I don’t want you to think we’re going to ignore the idea or the feedback around the pet, but it could very well be the case that fixing some of the major nagging issues with the pet would make it a more desirable aspect of the Ranger.

That said, if you would like to consider discussing the aspect idea, I ask that you start a thread outside of the CDI to brainstorm.

Thanks so much for all the great, constructive feedback everyone! Let’s keep it coming!

If rangers truly are seen as the Pet class of GW2 then the devs need to be devoting time to handing more active control of the pet to the player. Currently if you look at other classes that are able to summon minions we really only have maybe one more level of control compared to them. This biggest difference between us and them is that our pets are mandatory.

Please please please give us more active control of our pets abilities in combat. Current f keys could be redesigned. You could also more closely link weapon skills to pet behaviour/ability (some weapons already have this a little bit). You could do a combination of these 2 ideas (that would be really exciting). Or who knows how else you could solve the problem?

As long as the pet is 90% tied to an ai though Rangers will be seriously kitten.

That is exactly my point. We want to make sure we’ve done everything we can to make the pet desirable before we consider any options for those that don’t want to play with the pet as much.

Omaris Mortuus Est.2738:

Oh nice one! We just moved server again, I have 3 full guild banks on that character!

So I’ve had to buy a second account, research 3 more guild banks on that one, and now I am stuck with a character who’s bags are full and I cant even send the items back or place them in my guild banks on that character!

Seriously Anet! I was leveling a new character on this new account as well! now I cant do kitten all on this account for another 27 days! Nice way to stop legitimate players playing!

Please consider the reasoning behind the restrictions: RMTs are a plague in any game. Having no restrictions means they make accounts and deliver gold immediately. This has a significant impact on all of us players, in that we’re subjected to more RMT advertising, more invasive e-mails offering to sell us gold, and we feel an impact on the game economy from the quick-and-easy means of gold distribution.

While we never want to inconvenience a genuine player, and are sorry if this has an impact that you do not desire, the counterbalance is that it has a positive for the game as a whole, and therefore for every player within the game.

I hope this explanation makes you better understand (and hopefully agree with) the new-account trade limits.

We are extremely specific about what is being released regarding PvP in John’s blog.

To quote from it, we say the following regarding this:

• “This post is to let you know that glory will no longer be awarded as of a maintenance build that is currently planned for March 18.”
  • Given that we have been calling the next phase of PvP the feature build, I’m surprised it wasn’t assumed that maintenance != feature here. Regardless, the next quote fully addresses that.
• “The glory vendor that was introduced in the December 10 build will remain until the new reward system is released in a later update "
• “Because these rewards are being removed in preparation for the next phase of the PvP reward updates”

In nearly every paragraph of this blog post, we discuss either what exactly is happening in this build, or mention that it is not a part of the next phase of rewards.

This is why I am confused as to where the misconception came from.

In this particular case, the feature build includes the next major step of PvP rewards. The maintenance build only includes the change to glory that will support the next phase.

Could someone point me to where we have said that the March 18th build is the feature build? I’m trying to understand where the idea is coming from and why it has gotten to this point. I was out for 3 months so maybe I missed something.

So there’s the issue. Again, even though you were able to play previously, there was never any guarantee that it would continue to work which is why these cards are not supported. Please understand that the minimum requirements are not a guideline. They’re the lowest system specifications in which the game will run.

I am truly sorry for any inconvenience this may cause but unfortunately there isn’t a way to force the client to install if it’s failing due to the hardware. If anything, try updating your GPU drivers as this MAY help but beyond this there isn’t anything else I could suggest for you.

Hey everyone,

Before things get out of hand, I want to address the aspect idea so we can move on. First of all, it’s a great idea, but there are many current issues with the profession that need to be addressed first. Our priorities to make the pet a more viable option will likely remain higher than giving an option to “permastow” the pet.

We recognize there are a number of issues with the pet AI and general functionality, so that is something that will come first. Rangers are first and foremost a pet class, but they are also great skirmishers and some of the best sustained long range damage.

I don’t want you to think we’re going to ignore the idea or the feedback around the pet, but it could very well be the case that fixing some of the major nagging issues with the pet would make it a more desirable aspect of the Ranger.

That said, if you would like to consider discussing the aspect idea, I ask that you start a thread outside of the CDI to brainstorm.

Thanks so much for all the great, constructive feedback everyone! Let’s keep it coming!

Hi Calicoe,

This sounds to me that either your system doesn’t meet the minimum requirements or that you may simply be missing video card drivers. What sort of hardware are you working with?

Hi there,

What sort of video card are you playing with?

From what I can tell already your processor does not meet the minimum requirements and your RAM is right at the bare minimum which can affect whether or not you can install the game. While some systems that do not meet the minimum requirements are able to handle Guild Wars 2, this depends entirely on your hardware and how below the minimum requirements you are.

Please understand that even though you were able to play previously, as your hardware does not meet the minimum requirements that does not mean you wouldn’t eventually encounter issues down the road.

Great ideas here, everyone. Keep ’em coming.

Player.8373: While it’s true that companies can pay for photos/adverts that show up in a user’s feed, the Instagram community as a whole hasn’t really embraced the idea. Instagram users have been used to a service that hasn’t had advertising since it started, so there’s a lot of resistance to it.

Thanks Christina for your lovely post. We shared it with the community at large on our social medias.

Yailith.4056:

Hey! This is amazing that you shared your story. I contacted you ingame because the Guild Wars 1 and 2 community do a charity fundraiser every April ingame for Multiple Sclerosis! We are hosting it on the 19th this year…but haven’t posted the final details yet. My mom has MS…and I totally understand people not understanding. I am a huge avocate and an ambassador for the MS Society in Canada. I hope that we can get in touch so you can see what this amazing community does for MS and helping to spread awareness Thanks soooo much for sharing your story! <3

Hi Yailith, it looks like you’ve already used the In-game Events subforum for a past event but we’d like to encourage you to do it again for this event. If you could also send us an email at community@arena.net with the details of the event, we’ll see if we can help promote it! Thanks for your work on organizing such a great event.

Hello all,

We’re closing this thread as it’s gone wildly off-topic and has turned more into fighting than actual feedback and discussion. If you wish to discuss and give feedback regarding AFK in Lion’s Arch, you can do so on this thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/livingworld/escape/AFKing-in-LA/

If you have issues or concerns regarding an in-game ban or kicking, you should contact Customer Support directly through the normal appeals process. http://en.support.guildwars2.com/

Hey there,

Does the install crash out on you or is the installed just stuck after about 10mb? There shouldn’t be any issues with your card, and the drivers are a couple of months old but that shouldn’t impact your installation.

Malchior.5042:

Nike.2631:

DevonCarver.5370:

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points?
…
Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

It’s almost there.

What I would do is continue to have one critical point – the Lord’s Room. That location solely determines the outcome of the attack. But then I would add two (possibly 3) substantial defenses to the lord’s room. First, a Legendary creature that helps in the defense of the room. The second, a bunch of fixed, player-operable high quality siege equipment.

For each of these defenses you add another control point elsewhere in the castle. Seizing them removes the matching defenses from the room.

The point will always be to cotrol the Lord’s room, and an assaulting realm can choose to go directly for the throat. But doing so means eating a bunch of siege in the face and having to deal with something on the scale of a Giant, or maybe a High Priest of the Mists with an annoying tendency to rez the Lord up to once a minute until the Priest is wiped off the field.

Or the assaulting group can go contest these points and remove the additional obstacles for as long as they hold them. Hold the Chapel and the Priest de-spawns. Hold the Armory and the Seige Weapons become inert.

With the Priest/Giant/What-have-you being an NPC, it will present a challenge even if no defenders are present. While the siege weapons specifically require the defending server be present to use them.

Nike’s got the right idea!

Having different defenses in the Lord Room (or perhaps throughout all of Stonemist) that can be disabled by controlling the Armory, or controlling the Barracks, etc…

These kinds of elements introduce choice and conflict into the battle, so commanders can adapt the battle plan dynamically to accomplish the final goal of capturing Stonemist.

Also…as a sort of balancing factor to these extra objectives…what if they costed supply to build/maintain within SM? Now, the castle is more vulnerable when it’s a 2000+ supply depository that can treb any adjacent tower.

There are a number of ways to approach the issue, but I definitely feel Nike’s design of linking defenses to a key objective (similar to EotM defenses) is a good start for mixing up the battles inside Stonemist (heck, perhaps inside any keep).

What if, instead of NPC defenders, you couldn’t put siege down in Stonemist, but there were specific defensive siege pieces in critical areas that the defending team could build? Would that serve the same purpose?

A short recap of the first few pages of discussion.

There have been a number of interesting proposals of ways to take some of the things from EotM into the other maps. Scaling creatures have some supporters, verticality without it being excessive is a something that has also seen support. There is definite push and pull between people that feel like any changes from EotM would be counterproductive and people who think there are some good parts.

Probably the most contentious issue has been the talk of getting rid of world’s and replacing the system with just the three colors. I think there is some merit to the idea, although I believe the worlds have a lot of value. I’d be curious to know if the folks who argue against and world pride feel that way because of being on underperforming worlds or not. I also wonder if there isn’t some work that could be done to restore that world pride without completely overhauling the WvW system. Someone mentioned alliances, which I think would work fairly well. If the less populous worlds were grouped together, does that seem like something that could reinvigorate them?

From my perspective, the discussion around changes to the matchup length are interesting. I originally proposed 8 hour matches, but someone else suggested a version that I think would be really interesting which is basically that the weekend is one matchup and the weekdays are another. I’d be curious to hear what people think about that.

I also wanted to continue discussion about changes to Stonemist that might make it a more engaging place to fight over. I think a move to multiple capture points could make it a more difficult place to capture and add some variety to the way the fight plays out.

There’s a number of different things that could be causing this issue – if you’re getting this while waiting for e-mail authentication, that’s an account based issue and you will need to submit a ticket.

For everyone else, I’d suggest checking to make sure all TCP ports necessary to play Guild Wars 2 are all open both inbound and outbound.

Also be sure that you do not have any security software or firewalls enabled that could be preventing you from logging in.

Lastly, I’d recommend adding the /clientport 80 command to the end of the target line of your shortcut to the client.

Hope this helps!

Interesting, I hadn’t considered using the 3 of 5 system there. Do you think that would really force groups to fight it out or would people just turtle up to prevent capture?

First, check and see if you have an application running called Relevant Knowledge on your system and disable or remove this.

Aside from that, you could also try the following:

1. Locate the file “GW2.exe” and right-click it, selecting “Create Shortcut.”
2. Rename this shortcut to “Guild Wars 2 Port Test.”
3. Right-click on this shortcut and select “Properties.”
4. Edit the “Target” line to include /clientport 80 at the end. Note: Please make sure /clientport 80 is outside of the quotes.
— Correctly Formatted Example: “C:\Games\Guild Wars 2\GW2.exe” /clientport 80
— Incorrectly Formatted Example: “C:\Games\Guild Wars 2\GW2.exe /clientport 80”
5. Once completed, click “Ok” to save your changes. If you get an error trying to save, your target line may not have the correct format. Please try Step 4 again.
6. Double click “Guild Wars 2 Port Test” and try connecting again.

This should change the way that Guild Wars 2 connects on your network. In short, this will force all inbound and outbound data to use port 80. Since port 80 is a very common port, it usually has the least amount of issues with transmission data.

I wanted to pivot to something that Luna mentioned early in the thread, the idea of a more complex fight for Stonemist.

Would it make Stonemist feel too difficult to capture if the assaulting team had to capture and hold 3 capture points? Here are some of the problems I see with it.

1) It would encourage everyone defending to just blob up on one point and hold out as a group.
2) It could be so difficult to actually accomplish that it becomes nearly impossible to flip Stonemist.

However, I think it would be an improvement to the current rush the middle of the room scenario.

Do any of you think this version of Stonemist would be an improvement or does it not really make any positive changes in your mind?

spoj.9672:

But on to the point of explorable modes not being heavily story driven. Why does the new aetherpath in Twilight Arbor still have unskippable cutscenes and needlessly long dialogues? This is a major reason a lot of players avoid the path.

This is a perfect example of why heavily driving a lot of lore and story into something that is intended to be a group re-playable experience isn’t a great idea, and something typically we try and avoid. Thus the challenge here, to get across these cool stories, without the cost of the pacing of the fractal experience!

Romo.3709:

How about Story Mode fractals, where you could pick a fractal you want to experience. Then upon arriving to said fractal we could experience the story behind thus level hence learning more about the history and idea behind the design of each and every fractal. To make it actually rewarding we could have a achievement system in place for each level, so everyone would play it at least once. And maybe a reward at the end (30s should be sufficient as it would be much shorter than a regular dungeon story mode) and some experience. It would also help new players get a hang of fractals a bit more understanding the layout and mechanics behind every level.

We could do something like this, but when ends up happening is the work involved ends up being a lot of additional work to basically build something people play one or two times and then are done with it. In that time, we could have probably half built another real fractal, which I think probably would be better for the game over-all. Maybe the real question would be → How do we try and get across better lore and stories with the current fractal system?

The maintenance build is not the same thing as the feature build.

Hope that clears things up.

Moon.7310:

Using fractals to tell story:

Proposal Overview
Fractals should be used to tell as more about the lore/history of Tyria.

Goal of Proposal
Increase the amount of lore used for the fractals and creating new fractals which story and background informations. This is such a good oppertunity to tell us about things that happende before GW2, things that could happen in the future, things of an alternate version of Tyria.

So an interesting challenge we always face when trying to make any type of dungeon content more lore heavy, is they are by their very nature highly repeatable content. Historically our design philosophy around group content that falls into that category is to try and provide enough context for the experience to make sense, but not heavily attempt to tell deep story in these instances.

While the core concept of using fractals to continue to show great moments in the history of Tyria is indeed totally in line with our own thinking as well, the struggle we always face is how much of that story we can really put there. Once you play it once or twice, you really just want to actually play the content and not wait around for all the story moments, scenes, cinematics, etc. This can lead to a problem we used to run into in Gw1 where some people in the party really wanted to see the story, and others had played it before and wanted them to hurry the heck up.

Our work around for this for Thaumanova for example was to provide a story version of it that was around during the living world release with far deeper exposition, and the current fractal version today that tries to focus on the game play. Similarly, story dungeons are really intended to be played a handful of times to get the story, and explorable mode dungeons are very story light since they are intended to be re-playable based on the core content.

What kind of fun ideas can you come up with to help allow us to get more story into the fractal experiences, without the cost of slowing down the core re-playability of the game play that is at the heart of the fractal content?

So an open question to add to the brainstorm, when considering leagues rewards is always going to be an important component to driving participation. There is some great ideas in this thread on rewards already, but it’s worth delving deeper into what type of rewards will motivate different types of players in the league structure. Top tier players might be motivated only by $$$ for example, while lower tier players may be driven primarily to earn levels/gold. (These are just random examples)

With that in mind, what rewards would you like to see for a pvp league structure based on player categories who would be motivated by those rewards at different tiers?

I’ll give myself as an example: I consider myself competitive casual. I will never join a top PvP team to compete in tournaments to be the best in the world, I will however play in any solo play league or rated solo play if the rewards are compelling enough. I generally play hot join and custom arenas as my core game mode type.

For me, unique skins for my character that I can only earn from participating in a league structure would be the biggest motivating factor. This would allow me to show off to others that I was there, and also feel like I earned something unique and exciting for my time spent. Similarly, any rewards that help speed my progress towards building a legendary would provide a large amount of motivation for me. And gems would always be nice, can I always seem to be finding more on the gem store I want to buy than my wife will be ok wit

Lots of great ideas. Thank you all for some excellent proposals so far.

Thanks a ton merkator for the summary post, you did a fantastic job summarizing this thread!

Alissah, no experience is necessary to participate in the discussion. You have some great ideas and we love hearing from less experienced players. Often something that sounds crazy offers a fresh new twist on an old idea.

To everyone else, thanks again for a great thread. What you are posting is becoming part of our discussions and conversations in the studio. The CDI is still open so please continue with your very constructive posts.

Thanks!
John

Saiparadox.9726:

Posting for a friend:

Last night at 7:35PM EST, I received an e-mail saying that I received a refund for the game. I did not submit for a refund at all so I’m not sure how this happened.

I have created a support ticket (#386845) but since it is the weekend, I doubt I will be getting a reply any time soon and would like to resolve this issue ASAP. I know it has not been 3 days since the support ticket has been created but I see that the charge for the game has gone through completely.

This doesn’t make any sense. If I was issued a refund, why has the charge gone through today (it was still pending yesterday). Also, I’ve read that if a refund is issued (which it has been. Supposedly at least) that my account will be deleted. This is an issue because my account is linked to my Guild Wars account.

I agree, that does seem odd!

Thanks for providing the ticket number — I’ll investigate!

Beatsbury.1827:

I’ve got a letter today from “ArenaNet” with following text

“Guild Wars 2 Account Will Be Shut Down Inform

We are sorry to inform you that your login account [redacted] will be shut down or partially limited within 72 hours due to currency transactions or abnormal login. If you want to remove restrictions, please click the following link to validate:
https://******** ****** */login?##
Please keep in mind that Guild Wars 2 is a global game with hundreds of thousands of players. This means that standards of behavior must be upheld. For your convenience, you can obtain more information about our rules at the address listed below.

/*/

Guild Wars 2 Account Support Team"

That “validation link” leads to site quite similar in appearance to GW2 site but with strange address on .tk domain. It asks you to enter your serial key, character name and e-mail to complete the “validation”.
Just wanted to warn ya. Cheers.

P.S: I strongly suggest you to not follow the link above!

I get this one all the time. On my work account. I makes me laugh out loud, oh yes it does.

But please, folks, delete this and keep up on the “A Note About Phishing” thread for samples of these things.

Thanks!

As stated above, we built in a period of time where the name is “reserved” for your account. Please create a new character within 24 hours, and don’t wait to the last minute. (You could consider a “placeholder” character for the name, if you desire.)

Thanks to those of you who are attempting the troubleshooting suggestions posted earlier in this thread and a special thanks to those of you who are mentioning that you’ve tried the steps right in your tickets. Our agents knowing that you tried the steps — and of course whether they worked or not — helps a bunch!

As you know, there is a game issue that is affecting a number of the folks posting in this thread and the team definitely is working on that. We don’t want to burden you by suggesting troubleshooting unless you want to try them. But I know from previous issues that sometimes, other things arise at the same time as a bug or game glitch. This means that a few of you will be helped by using the troubleshooting steps, so feel free to give ‘em a try if you wish. As the saying goes, "Can’t hurt, may help!"

If you find you are able to get your rewards, we’d greatly appreciate your updating your ticket to let us know.

Thank you so much for your patience and we’ll be back with more info later!

<Cobalt scene group ends. Rytlock + Crew progress over to the Crimson probe location>

Scene 01 – Crimson
Rytlock: All right, Twistgear, what can you tell me about this device?
Junia Twistgear: It looks to be nearly identical to the others we’ve investigated, Tribune.
Rytlock: What does it mean, that there are more of them turning up here?
Junia Twistgear: Hard to be certain yet, sir.
Rytlock: (growl) Yes, well, get to it.

<Scene break while Twistgear once again orders her workers to investigate the device. After a bit, Rytlock speaks>

Scene 02 – Crimson
Rytlock: Would you guess this device is Scarlet’s handiwork?
Junia Twistgear: I…wouldn’t want to guess one way or the other before we’re finished here, Tribune.
Rytlock: (growl) Scorch it, I’m just asking you to confirm the obvious, Twistgear.
Junia Twistgear: Yes, sir. It does seem similar to the machinery Scarlet Briar’s been using to launch invasions all over Tyria.
Junia Twistgear: On the other hand, if this device is hers, it seems to have another purpose.

<Scene break again – one of the workers decides again that it’d be a great idea to touch one of the devices>

Scene 03 – Crimson
Rytlock: Twistgear, can you please remind your people to quit touching this thing?
Junia Twistgear: Yes, sir. Of course.
Junia Twistgear: You lot heard the tribune! Let’s examine the device at a respectable distance.

<Another break before Twistgear goes around to gather up her workers and then report to Rytlock>

Scene 04 – Crimson
Rytlock: All right. You’ve been at this awhile now. What have you learned here?
Junia Twistgear: Sir, the more of these devices I see in action, the more sure I am that they are a kind of probe, designed to locate…something.
Rytlock: (growl) What sort of something is that insane sylvari probing for?
Junia Twistgear: Whatever she’s after is big, sir. And magical.
Rytlock: I’m not sure I like where this is leading. Let’s go look at the other new probes she’s set up around the area.

< The whole crew once again moves on, but this time to the Amber probe location>

Scene 01 – Amber
Rytlock: Here we are—yet another of these new devices.
Rytlock: Have a look and tell me as soon as you have any ideas.
Junia Twistgear: Of course, Tribune. We’re on it.

<Scene break while Twistgear orders her workers to disperse and investigate the probe and the area. Unfortunately another worker decides to get a little too close to the probe.>

Scene 02 – Amber
Junia Twistgear: Tribune, it looks as if all of these devices can defend themselves.
Rytlock: It does at that. Back your people away from it and learn at a safe distance.

<Another break while Twistgear also walks around and investigates before returning to Rytlock>

Scene 03 – Amber
Rytlock: So, you agree by now that these were built by Scarlet?
Junia Twistgear: That’s right, sir. The devices have all her signature touches.
Junia Twistgear: We could learn a lot from these probes if we could get close enough to take one apart.
Rytlock: (growl) You almost sound as if you admire her handiwork, Twistgear.
Junia Twistgear: Scarlet Briar may be insane, but her designs are high quality.
Rytlock: Your candor is refreshing, even if I don’t like the implications of your findings much.

<One final break while the crew does some further investigations. Then Twistgear gathers them all up and reports one last time to Rytlock>

Scene 04 – Amber
Rytlock: Report, Twistgear. Let’s hear what you’ve learned.
Junia Twistgear: These are magical probes of some kind, Tribune. I’m sure of it.
Junia Twistgear: There are three new probes in this area, which tells me that Scarlet may have found something important here.
Junia Twistgear: I believe she’s triangulating, trying to zero in on the location of something magical. Something huge.
Rytlock: Whatever that something is, I have a feeling we don’t want her to find it. Tell your people we’re moving out again.

Depending on the status of the main Great Jungle Wurm events and their pre-events, these scenes would continue to cycle through each of the locations (after a slight break) until the status of those events barred them from spawning again. They showed up after completion (success or failure!) of the main wurm event and upon failure of the escort events. Always looping through.
I hope that helped!

-Sarah

insanemaniac.2456:

John Smith.4610:

Actually 9 have sold in the last 24 hours.

omg specific market velocity info

i can feel the chains of your NDA loosening

I have two just in case the first one breaks :P

Xaylin.1860:

[WvW/PvP] Increase build diversity by adding sources of active condition removal.

Proposal Goal
Rangers lack active condition removal and also got few options when it comes to condition removal in general. This results in low build diversity because many Rangers perceive Empathic Bond as mandatory. Alternative trait/utility/skill options could open up new builds and emphasize active gameplay.

Proposal Functionality

• Add condition removal in form of traits. For example:
  Moment of Purity (New)
  Grandmaster Trait in Skirmishing
  Remove 2 conditions on critical hits. 10s internal cooldown.

• Add active condition removal on existing utilities. For example:
  Lightning Reflexes
  Survival Skill
  Now also removes Chill/Cripple/Immobilize.

• Add active condition removal in form of new utilities. For example:
  Cleansing Cyclone (New)
  Survival Skill
  Remove 2 conditions and whirl through the air.
  Damage/Blind nearby enemies with stirred up sand.

• Add active condition removal on existing weapon skills. For example:
  Bonfire
  Torch #5
  Cleanse 2 conditions on skill activation.

Associated Risks

• Too strong condition removal utilities/traits/skills could become mandatory and limit build diversity
• Too easy access to excessive condition removal could make bunker builds on Rangers too strong

I agree that the ranger profession lacks active condition removal which limits build diversity. It is definitely something we are looking to improve upon in the not too distant future. =)

Shadowsong.4820:

Permastowing a pet really shouldn’t be the “solution” to clunky pet mechanics. The people who would prefer this over having the pet mechanics improved/reworked just shouldn’t play rangers, I guess.

That idea would actually be in lieu of a permastow. It would give Rangers a little more utility while not losing site of the concept of a Ranger.

Either way though, I don’t want this whole CDI to be about stowing the pets. There have been a lot of great ideas outside of this one that will help pets to be a more viable option. Perhaps just fixing some of the issues with the AI could be enough for people to feel better about the lack of permastow.

mtpelion.4562:

Wilderness experts should be masters of poisons. Therefore, Rangers should have the most potent poisons available.

Great point here and I agree. I would be awesome to see a way to increase poison potency for the Ranger and it’s something we’ve been talking about internally as well. We’ll keep looking into it and see if there’s something that can happen here.

Gotejjeken.1267:

The only reason I personally would complain about this is that it takes dev time to implement, when that time could be spent fixing the ‘gimmick’ of the class and keeping the theme alive.

Anyway, that’s my two cents and I’m bowing out for now to let others contribute!

For sure! Thanks for the feedback!

ilr.9675:

thefantasticg.3984:

Allie Murdock.8152:

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!

Some? No. Many many people. Just have a gander at how many threads have been created in the subforum about replacing them with something. If perma-stowing during combat = aura buff I am so hard for it that if I was anymore I would explode with infinite unicorn rainbows from every orifice.

Yes, but as someone with actual Graphics/particle creation experience, I just cringe at the “Resource-Creep” attached to it. Yes there absolutely needs to be UI indicators associated with it. Yes I get that they have 40-80 artists on-hand to help. But….. the real timesink there is just usability testing & graphics driver nuances. It’s a technical mess TBH unless it just re-used assets that are already “polished”

I don’t think it’d be a huge issue, given that we already have a few skills that do something like it (Warrior’s elite Rampage comes to mind). Granted, those tend to be less “permanent”. Either way, it’s something to consider.

xXxOrcaxXx.9328:

Gotejjeken.1267:

IMO, the discussion on pets is becoming overcomplicated. Why not just redistribute the power, fix the F2 timing, and keep them as-is? The pet is not the problem if you swap it, its the pet hitting things that is a problem.

Also I am not super happy with the idea of stow buffs and even less happy with a perma stow. The pet is part of me as a Ranger, it is one of the core things of the class.

You may not be happy about permastowing. I would be absolutely. Furthermore, if you could stow your pet, you could still use it like you are used to. And people like me, who don’t want to rely on the pet can stow it. Simple as that.

As Orca pointed out, some people aren’t as fond of the pets. The idea of the buff would be to appease everyone. Also, what if stowing the pet and having an aspect gave the Ranger some kind of aura that communicated to others they are in that “aspect”? Would it still feel like the pet was a part of you if them being stowed affected your physical appearance?

If not, I don’t think the aspect idea would be a necessity for players. There are definitely things that need to be done to fix Ranger pets in general, and it’s something we are well aware of. If we fixed those things, but maybe also added in the aspect idea, I think we’d be in a spot where everyone would be pleased, no?

Just musing!