Guild Wars 2

Those having motion-sickness or low-FPS issues with the new FoV … are they mitigated at all by simply zooming in a notch or two ? i.e. you do have the option to effectively go back to the old FoV.

“There was an update a little while back that limited oricalcum farming via server and overflow swapping.”

I’ve never seen overflow on Gunnar’s Hold for Malchor’s Leap or Cursed Shore, yet I’ve been seeing problems with the Orichalcum respawns there. Nor did I server-hop at all. Was this possibly incorrectly triggering through either Lion’s Arch Overflow (i.e. code only checks if you’ve been in any overflow recently), or my going through Chantry of Secrets to get to Straits of Devastation ?

Athanasius.3875:

CS ENE of Harbinger Torch PoI mined 12:07, not present 17:24
CS NE of Harbinger Torch PoI mined 12:07, not present 17:24

Still no joy at 18:08 (times are BST, i.e. UTC + 1)

Subhuman.3958:

I cut this image out of gw2 spidy. I think it explains this situation very well. This rise in price can only be accounted for by lack of supply.

Interestingly Mithril Ore prices are also on a rise. Either because people aren’t bothering to mine Ori atm, so don’t come across Mithril either… or possibly more likely those that know you can do 250x Mithril Ore + other mats => 10-50 Ori Ore are buying it up in order to do that.

2/5 Nodes up in CS. Timings, to nearest minute for all:

ML E of Valley of Lyss WP mined 11:38 and again 16:58
ML NE of Union WP mined 11:50, not present 17:06 to 17:14
ML SSE of Blighted Arch WP mined 11:51, not present 17:15
ML WSW of King’s Passage mined 11:56, not present 17:19
ML WNW of Light’s WP mined 11:54, not present 17:18

CS W of Winterknell Labyrinth mined 12:04, not present 17:22
CS ENE of Harbinger Torch PoI mined 12:07, not present 17:24
CS NE of Harbinger Torch PoI mined 12:07, not present 17:24
CS The Wreck of the Saehrimnir (longish distance) mined 12:13 and 17:27
CS The Wreck of the Saehrimnir (longish distance) mined 12:14 and 17:27

(yes, two lots of nodes very close to each other in CS for Gunnar’s Hold currently).

I’ll check again a little later to see if it’s simply my respawns taking a bit more time.

I thought my luck was in today, all 5 nodes in ML and CS up initially. But about 5.5 hours later only one up in ML, checking CS is next.

I’d just been doing my usual hunt for Ori nodes post-server-reset.

I found two in Cursed Shore near to Harbinger’s Torch PoI, one a short distance NE of it, the other a near-equally short distance ENE of it.

I mined the ENE one.

The NE one also disappeared. I can now see both ‘mined out’ models.

I definitely only mined the one (as due to a change/screwiness with Ori node respawns since Tuesday’s patch I decided today I would very specifically grid-search the maps and note the time I mined/chopped/gathered things to see if they were up again X hours later).

Zax.6170:

Hopefully there will be a traditional ladder ranking system, otherwise there would be very little point to playing WvW.

There is, relative scores in one match cause the Worlds’ Ratings to change and what they are after that is what determines who plays who. It’s apparently a “a modified glicko system”.

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/uodjr/im_a_guild_wars_2_developer_ama_about_the_next/c4x5qsk?context=3

It would seem there are two main concerns about this.

1) Too many people ‘idling’ in the backlines. So make the rewards drop off (maybe completely) if there are too many escorters.

2) Botters following them. Depending on how they’re doing this you may be able to fox them by subtly changing the routes/timing/speed.

In both cases it’s “people exploiting this one thing rather than actually playing the game as intended”.

Protecting supply in WvW is VITAL, not rewarding those taking the time to do it is just plain wrong.

Now I’m in Straits of Devastation on 206.127.146.46 and there’s either no lag, or very little… so some internal problem ANet’s end I think.

In both Gunnar’s Hold (Green) and now Gandara (Red) borderlands I’ve been experiencing huge lag the last 30 minutes or so. Sometimes ~5s delay on things, but twice much longer delays.

Comodo Personal Firewall points to my connect to 206.127.159.249 being the main one (most data transferred).

A traceroute to that shows no packetloss as far as it can go:

Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
1. 82.69.184.126 0.0% 339 0.5 3.0 0.5 166.9 15.7
2. 62.3.84.23 0.0% 338 7.4 9.2 7.0 127.0 10.9
3. 62.3.84.229 0.0% 338 7.8 10.2 7.2 97.9 9.8
4. 62.3.80.41 0.0% 338 7.4 10.8 6.9 103.2 11.8
5. 77.67.66.225 0.0% 338 7.6 9.6 7.2 111.1 9.8
6. 89.149.181.238 0.0% 338 24.4 30.3 24.2 160.2 19.6
7. 77.67.71.122 0.0% 338 24.8 27.5 24.4 182.0 14.7
8. 206.127.157.94 0.0% 338 24.7 30.2 24.4 147.8 20.4
9. 206.127.157.102 0.0% 338 23.1 26.4 22.5 119.1 12.5
10. ???

Do this doesn’t appear to be my end (first IP above is my DSL router).

Oh and ++ to Draygo’s post just above. This is why my OP was proposing variable tick rate based on populations, not purely on some time schedule. You do it dynamically so it fits any set of three worlds, not just what you think will happen.

I do realise now that giving points boosts to lower population Worlds is actually better, as it does more to level the playing field. Slower tick rates overnight might slow down the 24/7 World’s score, but would also slow down the others’ if they’ve managed to hold on to anything against all the odds.

Anore.6213:

I think variable tick times based on server population is a good idea. I prefer the idea of awarding points for kills. Like having a counter and giving a point for every 800 or so kills. That would also slant points toward times of increased population. I also think increasing the strength of keep and tower guards would help a bit.

If you reward based purely on number of kills then zergs will just headbutt other zergs all day long and not even bother with keep-taking as such. This would at least need to be “points per X kills within certain range of a keep held by one side of the kill”, so you can at least pretend to be battling over the keep you’re zerging outside of. Some way to only award the kills points if there’s real evidence of keep battling would be better. That’s easy if the attacking side takes the keep, they get the extra points then… but not so easy in the defence case, as you can simply get them for zerg-battling rather than defending a genuine attack (hmmm, make it trigger only if gates/walls take a certain amount of damage?).

So very much agreed. The game has to know the current populations in order to manage the enter/queueing to the zones, so why can’t we also see it (yes, I know, the client and zone you’re in just requests entry, and gets told yes or no, it doesn’t necessarily know the numbers… so new code needs putting in to export the current populations out of the WvW zones).

So, we all know that some worlds manage 24/7 coverage, at least as compared to their opponents, gaining an overnight advantage.

I would suggest that tick rate is based on the current average population (this might need some weighting depending on the exact populations in each map and who holds how many forts/keeps/supply camps).

The basic idea is that if one world is dominating because they simple outnumber everyone else then they will do so with a reduced tick rate so they don’t gain as much score advantage as currently. The alternate idea is to have the score per Keep/Tower/etc vary based on average WvW population, but that’s likely more confusing.

Keep in mind that such a dominating 24/7 World would still start the ‘day’ hours with the advantage of owning most/all of the map, with keeps etc. all upgraded.

That’s how it’s meant to work, yes.

Going by the initial (way back around BWE2) official statement of 500 players per WvW map (so 2000 over all of it), it was also stated this meant 166 players per World per Map (yes this means the cap is actually 498 per Map, no-one gets to use the 2/3rd of a player that’s spare).

Note they did reduce the caps in a later BWE and then said they increased them again, but I’ve seen no official statement about what the current numbers actually are.

Given how important this change is could you explicitly state the date/time/timezone when the first 1 week matches will start… and sticky this thread. Heck, a link to it in the main News would be good too.

I only heard about it because of chatter in /team in WvW tonight. This topic isn’t even in the first page on the WvW forum!

lukemon.9782:

Anyone who has taken up weaponsmithing AND armorsmithing will tell you how painful and monotonous it is to find the required fine materials. Right now crafting is a complete waste of time and I was really disappointed with it.

This is likely true of any 2 crafting disciplines that both use Fine Crafting Materials.

I started with Leatherworker and Weaponsmith (I play a Thief), but dropped Weaponsmith around skill 60 when it became clear that the two would be competing too much for Fine Crafting Materials. So I levelled Jeweler instead of WS and now have that up around 385 and LW at 400.

Unless I’m mistaken Jeweler and Chef are the only two that don’t require Fine Crafting Materials, so taking one of those along with a FCM-using discipline is the way to go (at least until you hit 400 in the FCM-using one, make everything you could need and so can switch to a 3rd discipline).

Rabs.6072:

2) If you are a tailor or leatherworker, always ALWAYS break down drops for cloth/leather unless you need to wear it.

Careful, now the Trading Post is always up you’ll want to check prices for mats on there first. Once you’re seeing 40+ copper as the vendor price of an item it can easily be better to sell it and then buy minimum-priced mats from the TP instead.

Even Heartseeker has this issue if a mob dies from an unexpected big hit/crit and you HS again so it leaps at a new target, or just the direction you’re facing.

This proved twice lethal when I was trying to get a Skill Point up on wooden platforms in a Dredge area.

It would be OK if not for the “new target”/“no target” behaviour of both abilities, but as it is, especially with ability queues, something needs to change, i.e. stop such leaps/whirls short at the edge of drops.

What I do is search for the sender name in contacts (which adds them…) then Report > Scamming from there, then Block them.