Guild Wars 2

Cultural insensitivity is a huge minus for me with what I’ve experienced so far, though not at all surprising from the company that brought us Goren, the anagram Black stereotype and the banana hammer.

I found the Forged Hookhead a very offense attempt at humor, worse even than the Morello. No Forged Whitey or Forged kitten creatures were found, thankfully.

I was also put off a bit by the relation of watermelon and people of color.

The added human male face options that have broad noses all look angry or intellectually deficient and nothing like the abundance of people I see every day who have broad noses.

That being said, I was pleasantly surprised that the hair options for kinky hair have been broadened, with some rather nice styles.

I don’t expect any game to match my liberal politics. I do hope that the games I’ve paid for don’t actively foster hate.

Thanks for all the variety and nostalgia. Hydras felt a little weak on my mm necro, as I was able to solo 3 without being wrecked in seconds. The return of moving mobs was nice too.

Generally found map comparable to others in game, despite some obscure oubliettes. Bounties were fun, though replay value is limited in long view, like Silverwaste Legendaries. Was disappointed that dynamic events didn’t interrelate more.

Mac Client kept losing keyboard input capability, requiring restart to fix.

Would like to be able to abort hidden treasure targets without logging out. Identification mechanics were welcome changes.

Sous Chef MP was frustrating due to controls and time constraints (this game doesn’t use those mechanics well).

I’m going to leave my comments in sections as I play through each step of this episode, as I won’t be playing through the entirety in a single sitting.

Precocious Aurene
Where is the “play” in this part of the game?

I spent about 30 minutes getting through this story step, with a quick game update in the middle. Most of this time was spent watching the game “play” itself. In the final stage, I literally stopped attacking and moved my character away from the action to watch Aurene have no effect on a creature that uses (Unnatural Carapace) “Energy” in a way completely foreign to the franchise. This also meant I had to kill all my minions, as I play MM. I moved into position and pressed [-] 3 times to allow Aurene to defeat the foe. Part of my reward for this was a “large amount of experience” which increased my experience from 4,318,000 all the way to 4,318,000 because the mastery system has masterfully locked me out of gaining experience.

This story gives players no agency and uses all the worst elements of escort missions and cutscenes.

Anet’s “designers” need to watch Extra Credits (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q7ECX5FaX0), evaluate their game theory and try focusing on fun play. Play is the whole purpose of games.

migellito.7301:

Brown Fang Thump.9482:

As I mentioned in the https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Identities-of-Linked-Worlds [sic] Tying WvW activity to guilds and orders rather than server names makes the sizes and numbers of your groups much more manageable.

There are a couple possible problems I see after thinking about it a bit, though.

Thanks for the thoughtful assessment there Migellito.

The problems of players being assigned to multiple colors (teams) because they belong to multiple guilds should easily be solved by the fact that guild team assignment would be assigned by earned guild rank, with player team assignment being tied to currently represented guild. Guilds in WvW would act effectively like players in PvP.

The kind of system I would prefer most would include thorough ranking systems and leader boards to help make WvW more of a tournament-style competition than a nominally server pride based free-for-all.

To reiterate, the goal here is to balance WvW matches by aggregating small groups (guilds and individuals) into large teams with roughly similar populations and potentials for winning any given match. This is more granular than simply doubling the number of servers and thus it has a higher chance at actually delivering more balanced play.

As WvW stands now, guildies can find that they can’t play WvW together unless they belong to the same or linked servers. What I propose is to replace that server qualification with a guild qualification that says, "while player X is representing guild Y, player X has an aggregate rank of Z and can play with all guild Y players, regardless of server, in WvW matches that use glicko and other ranking systems to maintain balanced competition. Ideally, I’d base player and guild ranks on actual play data and include qualifier matches with competitive matches, as I verbosely described elsewhere on these forums (see link in previous post above).

As a PvX guild leader, I found that despite having 3 accounts, each on different servers, it was difficult to muster a 5 person party for WvW due to server constraints because I didn’t limit guild membership to a specific server. This artificially imposed limitation that ArenaNet subjects us to meant that my guildies could play PvP and PvE in parties or squads with no issues then suddenly find themselves split up if they attempted WvW. Under a system that ignores server choice, this would cease to be an issue, as all guild members would be able to play together, just as they do in PvE and PvP (which proves the capability is viable, by the way).

As for the idea that bank guilds would muddle the system, players don’t generally play representing bank guilds; but, if they did, the system I am proposing would treat their progress the same as any other data point that is already collected, calculating the appropriately earned rank for the guild and the player separately. As in PvP ranking systems, WvW ranks for inactive guilds and players would be recorded and relevant to active guilds and players accordingly. This would promote representation consistency amongst players who want the prestige of having a high rank. It also makes ranks more than obligatory benchmarks by tying them to earned progress.

“The first step is admitting you have a problem” then “you determine your own level of involvement…. Like a space monkey.”

As I mentioned in the https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Identities-of-Linked-Worlds post, I think changing the number of worlds and trying to rally player support around server names is a fruitless pursuit at this point. I understand that increasing the number of worlds would simplify the path forward with the current system. I find no flaw in that. I simply feel that the best option at this point is to finish what you’ve started: abandon the failed server naming system and move on.

Tying WvW activity to guilds and orders rather than server names makes the sizes and numbers of your groups much more manageable. By making WvW essentially a set of megaservers, you’d remove server name relevance, as you have in every other part of the game. This would allow you to move focus to guilds, orders and individuals. The small populations of guilds and parties would allow them to be linked together in such a way as to to reduce the population variance between WvW teams.

This should have been obvious; but, perhaps I’ve missed something.

Perhaps having a separate WvW rank for guilds would be nice too.

Having a separate rank makes sense for players and it is easy to imagine that some guilds that have relatively low guild ranks might have high WvW ranks if such were tracked separately, with specific guild rewards and achievements tied to progress.

This is especially true when Server Names are not sensible anchors for rallying WvW players and others into playing the game mode more.

Solution 2 seems to be the best option you’ve provided because it simplifies the UI during play while still giving players credit for their achievements. Of course, it’s not perfect; but, it is serviceable. There’s little I’d change to make Solution 2 work, as server names are useless at this point.

The only place in the game where account bound world/server selection remains relevant is in WvW. The linking system has evaporated most of that relevance by breaking the potential for a single server winning any match and making server restricted voice communications incapable of addressing an entire team. Given these details, the obvious way forward is to drop all pretense and remove the façade of account server relevance. I’ve thought this was the answer since the linking system was introduced.

My solution would be to split WvW play into 2 tiers: Qualifier and Competitor. As a hierarchy has already been established with colors (blue first, green second, red last; I believe) each tier would also classify players by these colors, in combination with given WvW rank. All players would begin WvW play in Qualifier maps, representing only themselves as individuals (no servers, guilds or orders), which they can opt into playing in at any time after they have completed qualification.

Play in Qualifiers would provide the developers with real data on which to base an evaluation of individual play. Qualifier matches would run 3-5 minutes per period, for 5-15 periods. At the end of each match players would be automatically respawned into new sets of maps with more equally ranked players. The best Qualifier players would unlock the ability to opt into Competitor play, representing their guilds or orders (priory/whispers/vigil). This allows guilds to promote their WvW activities while also making personal story choices somewhat relevant for those who chose to not represent a guild. Competitor matches would run for 15 minutes each period, 8 periods per skirmish, 84 skirmishes per week.

Effectively, Qualifier can be thought of as unranked PvP, while Competitor would be ranked PvP. The Edge of the Mists would be used as the WvW lobby where players can play while queued up for Qualifier or Competitor play, if necessary.

Both Qualifier and Competitor would play identically, except for their timing. Guilds and individual players are recognized for their activities during play, for example: “Objective Captured! [Guild Name or Order Name] has captured [objective name].” In both play modes players are placed on Blue, Green, or Red teams based on their individual, quantified potential. The best players being Blue, the worst being Red. As in PvP, the number of map instances spawned will expand and contract according to the number of players available to play at any given moment. Parties entering WvW will be placed on maps according to the mean of their members’ quantified potential or glicko scores. Squads will not be able to enter play and can only be formed after the commander has entered a current match, with members limited to team members currently in play.

Although Qualifier players have no control over what teams or maps they play on, Competitor players can opt into a handicapping system that allows them to play as if they were any lower rank than their own. This allows guild members to play together on a relatively level playing field. Suggested handicaps include, but are not limited to, reduced movement speed, reduced attack/casting speed, increased recharge/cooldown, reduced health, reduced armor/defense, disabled elite skill.

Leaderboards would be redesigned to promote top individuals in Qualifier play and top guilds/orders in Competitor play. As guilds like to promote their WvW activities currently, including them in leaderboards is much more relevant to those players than any server name would be.

The idea here is to create a system that validates all the various claims about who plays best, while also fostering an agile competition that continually challenges players.

To facilitate all of this, player experience, rank points and reward track progress would be directly tied to the number of allied players near them when they complete events or other WvW objectives. Those in larger groups would accrue less reward per achievement, as the effort to complete any objective becomes easier with greater numbers. This would balance rewards for players who roam solo or in parties with players who only follow squads or zergs.

Ideally, Qualifier matches would be played on smaller versions of the typical maps to increase action, reduce travel times and optimize learning opportunities for new players. They should play a lot like PvP hot-join matches, endlessly chaining one match into the other while shuffling playings between teams and map instances as their ranks evolve.

I could blather on longer; but, this is enough of a novel.

Good luck with whatever you come up with.

As another option, similar to the character model outfit suggestion, would be outfits that change the look of one toon on an account into another toon on that account. Thus, my mesmer could look exactly like my necro at the click of a button.

With All Hallow’s Eve nearing, I’d think this is a timely suggestion:

Outfits that change the character model rather than the armour models.

For example, a Tengu outfit would make any character look like a Tengu by changing nothing but the body of the model, leaving all armor and weapon skins visible as they were before the outfit was applied. This particular outfit might work best with Charr characters, since Charr and Tengu share the same rig (if I remember correctly).

A less exciting version of this would allow only racial changes within the playable races: Sylvari could look like Norn, Asura or Charr without rerolling or using a tonic. This dull version could be used to test the market.

Other suggested outfits of this type: Skeleton, Skritt, Dredge, Dwarf, Kodan, Risen.

Such an outfit set might cull some of the fervor over not having certain races as playable without incurring the asset development costs of creating new zones/lore/models for fully playable versions of the featured creatures. Plus, it’d just be fun and fun rocks.

Croke.9124:

tacticalevilnoodlefox.5694:

Underdark.3726:

Last night I finished the Jumping puzzle which is not a jumping puzzle but a gliding puzzle. Had a good time doing it but no because was a fun puzzle but because I was doing it with some guildies. The puzzle is not “fun” cos you don’t know where your next step should be. Gliding blindly around rocks hoping to find a spot to land is not fun. The old puzzles are much better. The one in Mistlock Observatory is much more fun even if it’s (too) easy and small.
I really love jumping puzzles, especially the hard ones but this one is just meh.

Can I also add onto this that there were several parts of the JP that were frustrating, not because they were hard but because it felt like a stroke of luck that you would “catch” on the rock or slab that you had to land on and stick.

They were either slightly too high or slightly to close to the wall and I felt more like I was randomly flailing around and hoping I didn’t fall rather then making a calculated jump to get to a hard place.

The end result was rather then having fun with a challenging puzzle and feeling like I accomplished something I just felt relieved that it was over with and I wouldn’t have to do it again.

I felt the same way about this. Funnily enough, while completing it – someone in the same instance mockingly regarded it as “Glide & Slide”.

These are the reasons why I deplore jumping puzzles in this game: the collision boxes on the geometry used fight against the controls and there’s no intuitive way to know that what you see is what you get. Either the collision geometry needs to be improved to real platformer quality or GW2 needs to stop pretending that it’s good at doing what’s done well in actual platformers.

Andrige.5609:

It felt off to me, and for that I prefer Bloodstone Fen to Ember Bay.

Your comments are well formed and expressed. I agree with all the points you made, Andrige.

Overall, I found the new content engaging. I like that the current LS under promises and over delivers, with improved storytelling and real attempts to address replay-ability in the game.

What concerns me most about LS3 is that Ember Bay design not only failed to follow logically from GW1, it had no relation to the rest of the game. [WoodenPotatoes sums up similar concerns in one of his recent videos.] Inclusion of karka, SAB, skritt, palm trees and Maguuma creatures was just – weird. I’m worried that future content may take this tact and follow Southsun into the realm of “different for different’s sake” clutter that ignores the game as a whole.

I’m guessing I’m a minority in my views; but, I’m also in the minority of players who actually spent years playing GW1.

And—still, no hydra.

Generally, I’ve found the first part of Living Story Season 3 to be quite fun, as I’ve said on my guild Twitter feed and in reply to the GW2 Twitter feed. There’s plenty of lore and fan service to keep players interested and the Bloodstone Fen map is full of explorable activity to keep folks busy for a while. The quality of life changes in the user interface were quite nice, all around. I’ve yet to play the fractals content; but, that’s because fractals haven’t been my bag since they were introduced. (The new, shorter duration variations are an improvement; but, the changes thus far haven’t been enough to keep my interest). The new PvP map is easy to navigate and fun to play on, though the secondary mechanic is a waste of time really (though I understand secondary mechanics are a favorite of the designers).

The revelations brought by the end of the story thus far are very promising and give me a good feeling about what’s coming.

Also, who doesn’t like the random fun of jumping into a rift to a shiny, thriving event.

All that said, of course, there are some real issues. I generally expect every patch to be covered with patches before it’s stable. That’s just the nature of the beast and I don’t mind as long as things aren’t completely broken at release. So, the connectivity issues didn’t bother me much. I was pleased by the quick response on twitter and in the game.

Bring Back Cutscene Controls
The new format for dialog in the game is really cool the first time through. Unfortunately, the new design includes what I assume is an intentional lack of player control. Somehow, the designers who thought, correctly, that it would be cool to make dialog more of an in-the-moment experience skipped the decades of design that resulted in cutscenes evolving from static/passive data dumps to informative options that players can advance through at their own paces. It’s really cool to watch Rytlock say “Don’t you think you’d have more fun crying about that alone in a corner somewhere?” the first time you play through the content. For those of us with multiple characters (I’ve 30+ over 3 accounts) it gets really tedious to not be able to skip it when you know it’s coming. Sure, you could say these aren’t cutscenes; but, they serve the same function and should thus function in the same way.

Are You A Grower Or A Shower
The introduction of a map that has a world footprint about 1/4 that of any core explorable map is disappointing at first glance. Sure, there’s plenty to keep folks busy for a week or so; but, at first blush it looks skimpy. Mind, I’m quite happy with getting a map like this every week for 8-14 weeks, though I doubt that’s what’s in store for us. Some players will complain about the size of this grower before they have a chance to really get in there and let it do its magic.

You Break It You Buy It
The broken guild bounties and WvW dolyaks point to some sloppy coding somewhere in the pipeline that managed to keep the new content working while garbling old systems. I’d hope someone fell on a sword or two for this. Not being able to interact with Trilla was a bummer that was only heightened by watching her walk through the terrain geometry before randomly disappearing. The fact that such things made it past Quality Control before release is—disconcerting.

Bean Counters In Segregation
It’s great that Bloodstone Fenn tracks were added to PvP and WvW. It baffles me that PvP and WvW reward track progressions don’t aggregate when the same track is selected in both areas. I applaud the track system. I just wish it was implemented more intelligently. I’d really love a button that populates both tracks with the same reward as a toggle option then allows aggregated progress to be shown in a single, simple interface.

Ease Off The Breaks
Though I found most of the movement mechanics in Bloodstone to be a real kick in the pants, in a good way, there was one bit that threw me off. In the final story sequence there’s a skill that is kind of taught to you involving exploiting bloodstone power to foil a bloodstone amped opponent. The idea is cool. The problem is, you need to move to make the effect work well and, here’s the bummer, gaining the power slows your ability to move. I can see how this might make for some almost strategic play in a party; but, as a solo player in the content it was just frustrating to know what I needed to do and feel hampered in my attempt by this seemingly arbitrary limitation. Bloodstone powers don’t slow any of the foes, therefore it makes no sense for them to slow players.

Front loading this episode with lore as foreplay before we get to the dirty-good map exploration action is a good idea here. I’m not sure the pattern would hold up in a sequence of episodes. It’s really a question of rhythm. I’m looking forward to a different rhythm in the next episode.

Although I realize I may be in a minority here, I’d like to see WvW designed more in a strategic, capture-points-centric manner. Many WvW players play “for the fights” in a way that attempts to turn every map into a huge PvP deathmatch. What I find is that these players are the most vocal about not getting scores for killing, despite the fact that the game mode was never designed to depend on killing as the primary scoring mechanism (that’s what sPvP is for). Personally, I think most of these players aren’t good enough at fighting to excel in sPvP and use WvW as a way to feel better about playing PvP the way they do; but, as long as we’re all having fun, that’s the real point.

WvW should be a strategic wargame, not an excuse to exploit the ability to zerg-up and feel like you’re contributing whether you are or not.

Also, though it wouldn’t be intuitive for PvE or PvP players, I’d like all WvW rewards to be directly associated with the relative amount of effort each individual player has expended in each encounter. This means that if you do 500 damage on a random player while you’re in a massive zerg that is steamrolling through soloists and small parties, you get what you’ve earned (a minuscule reward for minimal effort), while if you’re a soloist who takes down a 3 player party you also get what you earned (large reward for overcoming greater odds). This could be based on the metadata that’s already regularly collected to support the game or the same metrics that scale NPCs.

WvW doesn’t need to be a huge PvP arena because sPvP is designed for PvP. WvW, like PvE, needs to maintain its uniqueness. Part of that uniqueness is making the way WvW plays more Warhammer tabletop and less Unreal Tournament.

Thank you Mo.

It’s good to see you in the trenches working to helps us all get our heads around what you’re doing and where the game is going. I really do appreciate the direction you’ve been taking things since Colin’s departure and hope that ArenaNet can continue in this approach in future.

With the anniversary of the game coming up you know expectations will be raised. Here’s to hoping ArenaNet nails it this time.

Thanks for bringing this up Mo.

My short answer is yes.

Issues of sex and gender aside, for the simple purpose of maintaining design consistency I would steer clear of creating armor for female asura or charr that have any human-style breast indicators. Granted, appealing to adolescent boys (and the occasional young lesbian) is a great way to keep the attention of a specific audience. ArenaNet should aspire to more than that.

The original designs for asura and charr females didn’t make any strides toward accenting unrealistic human breasts and we get plenty of that from sylvari, norn and human characters. Any designs that don’t follow the established norm are not only unacceptable; but, from a pure design perspective, unprofessional. New artists and designers who work on game assets should be astute enough to follow the standards set forth in the game or they should be relieved of contributions to the live game before they make grievous errors that may hurt the product.

Besides, we all know that typical fantasy breastplates for females would do nothing in battle except give opponents a great way to break a sternum. Surely your local Iron Legion cubs could tell you that our mighty warrior women need better armor than that.

Chinchilla.1785:

Basically in analogy: right now the foundation wont allow more then 4 buildings to be made on top of, furthermore constructions takes quite a bit of time to renovate/change said buildings.

I totally appreciate that as an accepted position.

Still, the fact that it takes a lot of hard work to make things better is never a good reason to not make things better. Giving women the right to vote wasn’t an easy thing to do in America; but, it was the right thing to do. Good companies, game developers included, should be agile enough to do the hard work necessary to do what’s right for their business. The alternative is to devolve into irrelevance, due to laziness and detachment.

Personally, as a Necro roamer, I find my play didn’t change much at all on Desert, compared to Alpine. It just took longer to travel about during each timed play period. So, my problem is still that the maps aren’t balanced. Team games require balance to work well. This should be obvious to a decent game designer. Computer games often obscure balance in order to compensate for programming/AI issues. It’s the designer’s job to maintain balance despite the limitations of computer technology. This is because, in the long run, beating an inferior opponent into submission or getting beat by an superior opponent stops feeling fun and becomes a chore.

Wouldn’t you agree with that?

Having 2 teams on a different map than the third is obviously imbalanced, especially considering the playable area differences between the maps. This is rather ridiculous as an option. Thus, I’ve voted for rotation of all teams to the same map: “No”.

That being said, I’d think that a better way of fitting both maps into play would be to increase the total number of maps available in WvW (not including Edge of the Mists or Sanctum) from 4 to 7. This would give each team both an alpine and a desert map to defend. Obviously, this would split the population somewhat, due to Alpine preference; but, it would also reduce queuing on large servers. I’m kind of amazed that this isn’t offered as an option.

If PvP players were asked to accept having 1/3 of all players in a match move slower, I’m sure they would have a bit of a fit. This is effectively what this WvW poll is asking WvW players to accept. I don’t think they’ll happily accept that.

I’m looking forward to seeing each of these polls when they come online. I’ll answer them when they come out, naturally, once I receive my in-game notice that they exist.

Thanks a bunch for providing this informational tidbit to let us know what’s up your sleeves and what to expect. I’m liking this new direction with the WvW communicating clearly, promptly and proactively. Keep it up.

It’s unfortunate that once again something that effects the entire community of players is addressed solely to the population who frequent the forums. This poll, useful as it may be, was introduced on a Sunday (US, Pacific Time) with no notice appearing about its existence until 20 hours later on the twitter feed.

It’s a shame that a company that can put adds for their products in the game “can’t” [won’t] put real information about changing those products in the game.

Sure, folks like me will retweet and do other social media links; but, it’s an indirect, inelegant solution to a simple problem of direct communication.

[Edit to append appreciation.]
I was pleased to find the HUD notification in WvW and receive the in-game mail about the recent poll the day after I made the post above. This is definitely a step in the right direction that I hope will be followed with future efforts to improve the game.

Way to go Anet.

What I’d like most in WvW are rewards scaled to opposition faced. For example, if a solo player engages 3 enemies and wins, that player’s loot should be greater than that of one of the 3 enemies if they win.

I think a single player who can capturer a map objective such as a camp or tower should be rewarded more than a player who is simply following a zerg of 30+ players who can’t help but win against undefended objectives. This kind of reward system would encourage players to approach the territory capture aspect of the game with more strategy without completely ruining the zerg experience for those who enjoy that sort of thing.

As an aside, I love that this type of feedback is being used to improve the game. Of course, I think the poll should be in the game (as they were during beta), where the maximum number of players can vote. There is a large population of players who don’t watch the forums; but, are interested in helping improve the game.

As a commander you become the target of folks who have differing opinions. Don’t take it personally.

When I get abusive chatter while commanding I simply block the offender and, if they are in my part/squad, kick them. I also make it clear to everyone, via chat, that I’m in the game to have some fun. So, if they have some other agenda or don’t like what I’m doing they are free to go do whatever is fun for them.

The game’s big enough for all of us to do what we enjoy.

Don’t feed the trolls or waste your time getting caught up in others’ drama.

Have fun out there!

As I’ve said elsewhere, I’ve had this issue on both my Mac and PC since the Spring Patch went live. My Mac doesn’t run or update the game and give me no feedback at all. My PC pops up a handy error message that says it can’t authenticate the GW2 executable. That error message also says to report the issue to Anet support if it persists; so, I did that.

Now that my support ticket is issued I’m of the “get out and enjoy the pollen” mindset.

Good luck y’all.

I’ve experienced this problem on my Mac, with no error messages or other information. On my PC, I a similar issue; but, it comes with an error message about “Unable to verify the Guild Wars 2 Executable.”

I’ve issued a support ticket for it and I think others with this issue should too, as the PC error message suggests.

I’ve been playing since beta and have never had such an issue before.

Good luck to ya.

Even though I haven’t been able to play the Spring patch yet on either my Mac or PC (due to “Unable to verify the Guild Wars 2 executable” error, messaged on PC only) I find the text covering the patch very reassuring.

So far, I’m very happy with the direction Mo is taking the game.

Until I’m able to launch the game again, I’m patiently waiting to enjoy less waiting have fun in GW2.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

‘more PvE’, which seems to go against the forum’s current agenda of ‘less PvE.’

I think what the original post is addressing isn’t more or less PvE on the maps; but, rather, AI that works for the PvE that already exists. Surely you understood that.

As a necro who solos camps in WvW quite regularly, I don’t pay much attention to which NPCs are in the ring because I’m gonna kill them all anyway for the potential loot. What would be fun and interesting is if the NPC AI allowed them to be more proactive and reactive in their duties. Guards that actually guarded their posts would be a nice start for that; but, I’m guessing those centaurs will keep standing in their fields for at least 3 more years. :P

This shouldn’t be confused with wanting more of anything in particular. I just want what exists to work in a fun and challenging way. I’m sure other WvW players can agree with that, whether they like PvE or not.

Personally, I’d prefer the “aggro rings” around the NPC be widened, with the addition of a patrol path set rather than simply repositioning them. Pathing would add some nice variety to approaches.

I really applaud that this tough decision has been made public. As I’ve said many times on these forums, I’d rather have new, playable content than skins any time.

Though it’s cynical, I still feel that folks who believed all the hype leading up to HoT either hadn’t played the game since launch, had never played GW1 or simply were oblivious to how the game had been progressing before HoT. I’d love to say I believed the expansion would deliver a wealth of new, playable content; but, I can’t truthfully say that.

I can say that I hope Mo & Co. deliver more fun than we’ve seen in the past 6-12 months, as Mo appears to be interested in doing. The amount of grind and “waiting to start having fun” that’s been introduced into the game of late has me casting about for other things to do with my time.

What I find most interesting about all this is how a company with over 300 employees can become more productive by reassigning 6 employees. I think that’s a form of Mesmer magic, perhaps Ethereal Burden: “Target player progresses 50% slower. End effect—6 Anet employees gain energy.” (May have the skill description off a bit since the last time I used it).

Dyze.1580:

One [map] that wholy embraces the pitfalls and jump pads part. Where we have multiple vertical levels of fighting..

This is a brilliant idea actually. There was a map in Unreal (back in the stone age) that was made up of small areas at various elevations with a ton of jump pads and deadfalls, Skyline I think it was called. That map was a lot of fun to play as a deathmatch arena. Like many Unreal maps it had something like a Skyhammer mechanic except their canon could only be used if a player stumbled upon the randomly placed pickup that spawned at timed intervals. For balance, the canon could only be shot once by the player who found the pickup, then the timer would reset and the spawn for the pickup would be randomized again. Players could survive the canon blast by picking up armor pieces strewn across the map. To mitigate the abundance of deadfalls, low gravity was used to slow down airborne players as they jumped from platform to platform. All of this culminated in engaging deathmatch play that is impossible in Skyhammer because of the capture points nature of conquest and the small size of the map. Actually, come to think of it, several Unreal maps used these mechanics successfully; but, none of them were territory game. They were all deathmatch arenas. Understanding how these mechanics work against territory play is what made Unreal designers great at building PvP experiences.

jessiestiles.9437:

Most people don’t know how to use the treb.

Of course, fixing the trebs and other siege practice elements in the PvP lobby would go a long way toward helping players get a better feel for using siege in the actual PvP matches. Maybe we’ll get lucky and this obvious fail on Anet’s part will be fixed sometime this year.

Hugh Norfolk.2798:

Kyhlo’s treb

The trebs in Kyhlo are balanced because each team has equal access to using and destroying the trebs. They aren’t swing or snowball mechanics because of this balance. True, a well used treb can turn the tide of a match and in that sense “swing” the outcome; but, as both teams have an equal opportunity to use trebs balance is always maintained. This balance is assured by the repair bundles on the map. This is in stark contrast to the imbalance of the Skyhammer, which gives unequalled power to any team that controls it, especially if that team defends the oubliette of control well.

Fair competition relies on balance.

If the trebuchets in Kylo were indestructible they would become less balanced and their power would become more essential to winning matches. This seems counter intuitive; but, destructibility gives teams that prefer to not use the treb a fair chance against foes who use the treb exceptionally well. Given the herd mentality of many players, an indestructible treb would become a required chore that a player of every team would have to take up (like running supply in Stronghold). Players bickering over who’s on the treb is silly enough as it is (though casual enough to still be fun).

Kylo works very well, whether you use the trebs or not. On the whole, the map is very well designed. What makes Kylo work is that none of the mechanics involved serve to give a single team or individual an unequalled advantage at any point in the game. Positioning, use of the trebs, combat style all remain options for players to exercise rather than requirements for victory. We need more balanced maps like this in PvP whether they have secondary mechanics or not.

Having secondary mechanics on any map should remain a secondary or tertiary aspect of designing fun arenas for conquest play. This is especially true to foster new players. For every new mechanic you introduce in a single map serving you risk confusing a new player whose assumption is that the next map will play like the first one they played. If every map in the game requires players to learn new mechanics, a lot players will leave out of frustration before they learn every map properly. KISS.

Although many players complained about the water in Capricorn, the real problem with the map (which I enjoyed playing on) was that the 2 outer capture points had such differing lines of sight and access routes that they were out of balance. The canons on that map only helped to imbalance play. Skyhammer falls into this sort of imbalance because of it’s secondary mechanics, not because of asymmetry of the layout. Kylo, avoids all of these problems by making sure that the map is symmetrical, as are all the capabilities of players on the map (trebs).

Again, what I’d love to see most isn’t more secondary mechanics added to the game; but, rather, just a healthy roster of maps that use the current mechanics and assets, with some nice veneers. Diversity in the scale and aesthetics of maps is all I really need. For example, since Kylo works, give us another map with 2 trebs that has the fight path in an “S” shape rather than the Kylo diagonal line, maybe with a jungle aesthetic to celebrate HoT. Riffs like that would be refreshing. Of course, having the ability to queue up specifically for the mechanics we like to play would be ideal (requires 3+ maps for each mechanic I’d think).

Team Fortress 2 has a very healthy roster of maps for each of it’s game types. Your PvP designers should be trying to hit that bar (set in “forever ago”). If they can’t, do what Valve/id/Epic Games did (forever ago) and get your coders working on a modding engine so that the community can create their own PvP maps.

I use the Mac client. The treasury has always taken a long time for me to load; but, it never fails to load. The time varies. It’s never as immediate as the window brought up for merchants. I’d guess the sorting of the items is not optimized and takes longer to access than the unchanging text data of the merchant.

[edit] I did have an odd experience once, reported via /bug, in which I managed to scroll the contents of the treasury window partially out of view, diagonally. I could not scroll them back. It appeared to be something about how I was moving the mouse as the window was loading. I’ve never been able to repeat this occurrence.

Use the metrics of map votes to decipher which maps players enjoy.

My play experience has been that Skyhammer gets few votes in general and results in a mass player exodus when it does get chosen by the randomizer. Your metrics surely show a more complete picture.

Any map that sends players fleeing to the exits should be removed from the rotation and replaced with something else.

Something this map suffers more from than other maps is it’s susceptibility to spawn camping. The spawn exits for a team are so close together that the opposition can surround spawn and destroy the possibility for competition.

Mitigating spawn camping should be a basic priority for all PvP map designs.

The primary issues with the Skyhammer map center around balance. Unlike most pvp arenas, this map focuses on breaking balance with delays and powerful attacks, with no way of mitigating the effects of these balance breaking mechanics. Many players enjoy these mechanics because they have learned how to exploit them for great reward.

Imbalance by Delay
The deadfalls created by the glass floors and the cliffs near them create respawn delays that would not occur on any other PvP map. These delays can give a team an advantage that is insurmountable. The only way to fix these delays is to remove them. The trolling effect of the “golf” game makes for an entertaining moment the first time it occurs; but, just gets in the way of fair, balanced competition.

Imbalance by Power
Although the cannon seems like a great alternative to standard play, it allows a single player to deal amounts of damage that they could not deal otherwise as an area of effect. It would seem that this might give a losing team a chance to recover; but, in truth, a losing team that does not control the cannon wastes time and loses fights struggling to gain control of the canon. As the cannon can only be mitigated by a good dodge roll, there is no equally powerful defense from it.

Once the cannon and deadfalls are removed, the map becomes a standard PvP arena with some nifty verticality. That’s fine.

All PvP arenas should be designed to pit equally balanced teams against each other in fair competition. I’d rather have 30 maps that simply use current assets to provide different looks than 5 maps that each have unique mechanics that break game balance.

You don’t need to lose the map. You just need to lose all the complicating mechanics you’ve saddled it with.

[edit] I play with a 2560×1440 monitor, zoomed all the way out and have never had any camera issues on this map. I’m guessing the issues arise more when there’s less display real estate.

Mike O Brien.4613:

We’re all reading it and referring to it in team discussions.

It’s been great having these “Top 5” lists active in the forums and engaging player interests, even better to see active participation from developers. Of course, I still think some of these issues should be addressed in game, directly to the playerbase, rather than on the forums. If you can advertise the ESL leagues in the game you can advertise your attempts to get player feedback about specific, pressing game issues there too.

Keep up the good work.

1. Use existing assets to create more maps for each game type. Having so few maps to choose from, especially when modding is not an option, kills variety. If your designers can’t manage to bang out 4 or more PvP arenas a year that simply deliver interesting looking alternatives to players, perhaps you should consider replacing them with some shooter map designers who can get this done. If the target is having good maps for e-sports, iterating on 5 maps won’t serve you as well as letting the community show you which maps they like most from a broader selection of options.

2. Give the brawlers what they’ve been asking for: a set of deathmatch and dueling arenas, with their own queues. This will keep them happy and reduce the grief they cause for those of us who actually enjoy capture points play. As it is, deathmatch players and capture points players are forced to play together on the same maps whether they like to or not. Forcing this issue just makes for toxic exchanges between players who wouldn’t play together if they didn’t feel they had to. What’s fun about that?

3. Either fix the NPCs in Stronghold play or replace them with mechanics that empower players to do what the NPCs fail to do well. The heroes tend to be fine; but, the archers are useless. For a better reference on how to do this, play a few matches in Fort Aspenwood then iterate from there. Although MOBA games may be extremely popular and profitable, I’d rather leave that to them and have better functioning Conquest play than suffer a poorly implemented MOBA in a game that has no other MOBA references.

4. Stop pretending that obfuscating DPS information ruins play and give players an effective, efficient way of knowing the reality of their DPS. I found the Master of Damage in GW1 extremely useful for developing my own builds. The sparring dummies in the sPvP lobby don’t provide nearly that much information; yet, the meta is still based on maximum DPS guesstimated by the few players who have done the math and distributed by the internet. For players like me, who don’t follow the meta like mindless zombies, it’s frustrating to design a build that can counter the meta build without proper information. Your current system disempowers build diversity by making following the meta to the letter the easiest way to reach competence in play.

5. Give us a simple interface that copies our PvE or WvW build to our PvP build. This should appear in the Hero panel, as well as in the PvP build window. I’d suggest 2 check boxes under the “Adapt build from” heading titled “PvE Build” and “WvW Build”. This would save those of use who play more than one part of the game some time and make it easier for players just entering PvP to get into it. These options should be toggle switches that preserve an underlying PvP build, whether it be the default or a custom, player designed build. This would also give PvP enthusiasts a quick way to swap through up to 3 builds without having to click through traits or check for amulets/runes/sigils. If your team can’t provide us with a robust way of saving our own builds, the least they can do is take advantage of the build information that is currently held on the servers to help us get to the fun quicker and easier.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

As a necro roamer who focuses more on scoring points for the server while collecting loot for myself by capturing camps, I know my priorities are far from the meta or the norm. Still, I’d like to voice my interests below:

1. Redesign WvW around strategic play rather than simply providing a capture points arena to play in. By this, I mean, limit scoring solely to territory control and capture and give every inch of the map relevance toward that goal. Wide open expanses to fight in are fine and fun and all; but, if the fighting there contributes nothing to the score, any time spent there is wasted. This should result in clearly visible (on the map and compass) fronts, like those displayed on the Factions map in GW1, with scoring being directly representative of the each servers’ successes or failings. Obviously, I think even the open spaces in the map should be claimable, to give them relevance to scoring.

2. If you can’t find a way to program dynamic AI for the NPCs that allows them to rove the map and control points in a way that actually challenges players you should remove them altogether. I don’t think that having NPCs on the maps makes the maps “too much like PVE”. I simply don’t think that a Veteran Warg standing in a field, waiting for me to kill it is very challenging or interesting (though I do kill it often for the loot). I really feel that if you’re going to have Skritt or Centaurs on the map they ought to be able to take over any map that is left completely unattended, with their forces growing as they advance a strategic front. To this end, the AI should be able to play itself, with humans being the randomizing factors in a computer vs computer game, rather than the other way around.

3. Create a queue for the WvW experience that limits the number of competitors, balanced by estimated skill level, as you might in PvP. After all, the WvW maps are just really big versions of the typical Conquest maps you have: their balancing system should be at least as good to assure fair and fun competition. Of course, I still think WvW should be more than a simple Conquest map set, see #1 above. Using the Heart of the Mists as a lobby toward this end might be useful.

4. Make defending locations an active process of managing and balancing supplies/defenses rather than a passive snooze fest. Defending a territory should engage players, even when there is no opposition on the map, at least as much as the HoT adventures do. Dynamic events within each defensible location should be balanced for the population present, rewarding for all players involved and focused on keeping players interested in defense busy at progressing toward increasing their server’s score. Of course, that would mean creating such events. I’m thinking something like the “Save Our Supplies” guild mission in Iron Marches for each camp, tower, shrine and keep, rather than “stand next to the canon and ask the map to help you if someone shows up”.

5. Forget catering to PvP players in WvW because, and this should be obvious, it’s not PvP. If you look at the 3 major parts of the game (PvP, WvW, PvE) each is capable of serving a completely different game type: tactical play, strategic play, progressive discovery. Just as story can best be told in PvE, tactical/visceral play can best be done in the small arenas of PvP (especially if you just crank out more vanilla maps to add variety). That leaves WvW as a brilliant place for territory capture strategies, more like Go than Chess. The meta phenomenon of zerging around WvW maps only exists because there is no strategic focus to the game type as it stands. WvW doesn’t play like the war game it should be; but, rather as a overly big PvP arena. The mixed messages that have been sent by the failings in that design have gotten us where we are now.

I also think it would be brilliant to add heroes that represent the racial sympathies available in the personal story (Grawl, Hylek, Ogre, Quaggan, Skritt) as these things are made to seem important to new players who play the story. This would be a nice nod to those who don’t specialize in “PvP-only” while also adding a facade of relevance to a neglected aspect of the game.

The same could be said for creatures that are often tamed and used by the player races, such as Siege Devourers.

Hugh Norfolk.2798:

returning heroes

Although I feel that the “heroes” of the GW2 story tend to be tertiary cannon fodder (yes, that includes Tybalt), I’d love to see more nods to the original GW1 heroes I played with for years.

Zhed Shadowhoof, Pyre Fierceshot and Razah are my favorite choices for PvP because, they’d bring some diversity to the racial profile while not being as obvious as Gwen or Rurik. I’d also love to see Talon Silverwing or some other great Tengu on the roster.

To Cyhann.2609’s point of having a defensive hero, I think future heroes should be available to support all 3 aspects of the game mode: offense, supply and defense. This, of course, should be obvious to a game designer for balance reasons. Plus, it would add much needed variety to matches, especially with such a lack of maps for the game mode.

If I had to pick a GW2 hero it would be Fen, the Giant from kittenattler Caverns.

Little Leota.5849:

I think it would be difficult to develop a tight-knit group if everyone is always off doing his or her own thing, with no thought to loyalty to those who ‘have your back’ so to speak.

Although I value honour and loyalty and camaraderie, I look at guilds like sports teams. I wouldn’t refuse to watch any basketball game unless the Lakers were playing in it, even though I consider myself a Lakers fan. Equally, I don’t expect my guild members to refuse to play in a guild unless they are playing in my guild.

Loyalty and camaraderie are earned over time. Guild membership is an instantaneous missive that can be revoked just as quickly. Demanding 100% representation is a lot like demanding loyalty you’ve yet to have earned.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

there never was any personal advantage to repping guilds permanently; the benefits went to the guild, not to the individual

Actually, the buffs that influence bought for guilds did give personal advantages to all guild members, if your guild leader was savvy enough to use them. My guild spent every bit of influence it could on providing experience, karma, crafting and harvesting bonuses to all members. Those benefits were applied to all representing members automatically. Many guilds failed to do this; but, it was possible. It isn’t now.

I’m not mentioning this to distract this thread from the subject of the original post; but, rather, to point out that a reason to represent a guild was removed.

Effectively, the game no longer gives players or guilds any reward for simply representing a guild, save for guild commendations from missions. Thus, the only benefit to representing a guild is cosmetic at best.

Since guild buffs are now mutually exclusive items players have to opt into using, rather than stacking buffs that automatically apply to all representing members, they are more cumbersome to take advantage of. Representing a guild for the sake of the buffs it can afford you is ancient history now.

For large guilds that have core members who will be present for large periods of time, this all has no effect whatsoever.

For small guilds and new guilds, not having any way of showing your appreciating of the strangers who join your guild before you get to know them well may prove to be a real disadvantage. You won’t have the numbers to keep your members company and you won’t be able to gloss over your lack of population or service during period when your small group isn’t all available to play together.

Given this, the best reason to represent any guild at any time has become to get credit for guild missions (via guild commendations). That’s the long and short of it. You can do everything else in the game, and earn every other reward in the game, without representing any guild.

There are no guild wars in this game, save the grind for guild hall mats and the churn of guild members. So, if you need an excuse to represent a guild, guild commendations is your only bet.

Of course, if you work for ArenaNet, representing a dev guild may also be a subtle form of job security. That does nothing for the rest of us. Representation requirements are just silly though if you don’t happen to be a dev guild and your job isn’t contingent on getting on well with other developers.

As Nightshade.2570 said above, having an in-game source of representation data would really help us guild leaders. It might also help good intentioned players juggle their representation time more efficiently.

Here’s a bit of Wintersday nostalgia from 2012, straight from our guild site’s gallery page.

!http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Jm1A0wzDxDI/UNI9Yz58edI/AAAAAAAAAR8/eJzsFF324WM/s400/Wintersday_Borderlands.jpg!

Celtic Lady.3729:

Shouldn’t every guild still have everything they had before without redoing it? Sounds like super bad design.

You might think that a new guild system wouldn’t delete previous capabilities; but, ArenaNet apparently doesn’t see it that way. Many players agree with them.

Curious that.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

People who want to start a guild and attract new guildies are going to have an uphill struggle to get and keep new people if they have no finished hall, no large roster and have to ask for donations.

New players who enter the game 3-6 months from now will have a host of leveled up guilds to choose from; but, if they attempt to start a new guild with other new players, they won’t have the materials or coin necessary. The guild will serve no purpose for them, except as a chat tool, for months while they amass the resources to upgrade to the most basic guild capabilities.

If they play like many of my members do (no meta builds, limited zerging, limited speed runs in fractals/dungeons) they’ll be too poor to upgrade a guild in a timely fashion.

Remember what it was like to earn your first 20G? How long did that take you?

rchu.8945:

The fact that he admitted he’s been asking members for donation shows he wants “sooner” rather than “later”. How soon? I dunno. But it’s obvious he wants to happen quicker than the norm. Maybe he can do less “asking” start recruiting more members.

It wasn’t ever my goal to lead a large guild. In fact, at 40-50 members (most logging in once a week, if that), we’re already about 30 members larger than I’d wanted to be. Adding more ambivalent members is not a goal I’m motivated by, though I do continue to recruit in the hope of gaining 1-5 people who are active, positive additions to the fold.

That said, I am in a hurry to recoup lost guild capability, not to have a maximum level guild hall. All I really want is to be able to provide the 3-5 members I rely on most with the same services I offered them in September. That’s not a big ask. Sharing those benefits with the remaining transient members is a welcome opportunity, once we get there; but, we have to get there first. On the path to accomplishing this I have turned down more massive donations from my most active members out of respect for their time and loyalty.

As a guild member you may think it’s great for a single player to donate 200G toward a guild effort; but, as a leader, I refuse to put that kind of burden on a single player when there are 30 other folks lurking about.

The rush to get back what we’ve lost as a guild isn’t something I’m thrilled about; but, as a leader I feel it’s important not to refuse service to my guild members, regardless of how casually they may be involved in the guild or the game.

Could I deplete the materials and gold I have, and that of my most loyal guild members, in order to get the guild hall upgraded quicker? Yes. Would that be a fun endeavor that everyone involved would have no regrets about doing? I don’t think so. If members were thrilled about donating coin and materials to the guild they would have been doing that pre-HoT, just for the fun of it. Our bank’s never been empty; but, it’s not full of tier 6 mats and account bound items either.

The key here is that the buffs we provided before HoT empowered more fun in the game by letting players feel more powerful and better rewarded while doing what they were going to do anyway. Now, once players have donated anything they’ve hoarded, they have to do specific things in the game, whether they enjoy them or not, in order to help benefit an institution (the guild) before it ever gets around to reciprocating that generosity. That sounds like a job, not an amusement.

Perhaps you’d agree that spending time to regain what you’ve earned previously is only fun the first time? Maybe you’d even agree that farming flax seeds in Verdant Brink isn’t the most challenging or rewarding experience you’ve found in the game? If you concede either of these points, you might see why I don’t relish the thought of spending months doing these things with guild-mates simply to give them what they once had without any added effort.

Tigaseye.2047:

People should be able to make/join a guild and then contribute to its growth, automatically, by just playing normally.

This is the polar opposite of that kind of system and as such, it is a major step backwards.

Well said Tigaseye.

Psientist.6437:

A check box or some other way for GLs to select an upgrade at the relevant NPC that when selected puts an aura/border/indicator around the material in the Treasurer tab. That buff would disappear when the material load for the chosen upgrade is met.

Now that’s a brilliant suggestion there Psientist. What an elegant design.

Guhracie.3419:

It may not bother you as a guild member (since you can just rep in a larger guild), but it’s pretty obvious to me why a guild leader would be stressed about it.

Well said Guhracie. This really is the point I’m getting at here. As a member, when you choose to represent the largest guild you belong to that means your contributions to other guilds suffer. The guild leaders of those smaller guilds see this as their representation numbers deplete and their abilities to do things dwindle. This is only complicated further by the fact that small guilds will take longer to regain the buffs and boons they’ve lost than large guilds, even if all members represent all the time and donate regularly.

The imbalance here creates an economy of representing members that favors large guilds at the expense of small guilds.

I’m in El Capitan; but, the issue is obviously in the HoT code, as I don’t have heap errors crashing the client in core Tyria areas.

I don’t remember how the heap and the stack relate to each other; but, I do know that the gist of the problem here is poor memory management. The client is crashing because it is either overfilling the heap or making poorly targeted calls to it. This may have something to do with the outdated cider wrapper or some kind of wine implementation. I’ve no idea, because I’m not a programmer.

Still, I would expect Anet programs to know more about this than I do.