Guild Wars 2

Zarakittennpachi.3172:

Anet is showing some interest in making WvW a better game mode and the pips/leggy armor/backpiece and all that jazz is sure a step in the right direction as well as the separation of skills between gamemodes. (im not gonna talk about the recent balance patch)

However before you make any more changes to WvW fix the lag.
Honestly i love wvw but the lag is something that needs to get sorted especially in 3 way fights in eb. skills dont work lag is an issue.

If your servers cant handle it dial the numbers back down on each borderland and give us another wvw map like ebg (5 maps in total)

The lag makes me give up on the gamemode more than anything else

I suspect that it’s a game engine issue and it’s not something they will ever be able to fix without an amount of time/work that’s not just cost effective for them.

The original WvW maps (alpine, EB) already look SUPER dated because of so much jagged/spikey geometry. Please don’t make them look worse by doing these really bad visual patch jobs…especially when they don’t even fix the problem of people gliding into the structures!

This looks so rushed. Visually looks like trash, now makes it impossible to counter-siege from Overlook Keep into the gully by Ogrewatch/Veloka. Also, the earth elemental NPCs are getting stuck in the really poorly created geometry. This is seriously not the permanent fix, right?

This is definitely a bug. I made a post about it a few weeks ago on here but got no reply.

A few weeks ago I had something claimed with my guild and I neither stopped repping my guild nor left the map but the tactivators still kept switching to public periodically. I even adjusted the guild ranks so that only I could set things to private/public in case someone was messing with me, but it was still switching back to public randomly. It seems to be caused by guild members coming into (or possibly leaving) the map, whether or not they are repping at the time.

Edit: my post on this https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/private-tactivators-are-currently-bugged/first#post6633998

If you set tactivators to be off ‘public’ the structure will randomly revert back to public. So far it seems like people loading into the map while repping the guild causes it to revert back to public.

I’ve been setting a keep to private all week and it keeps resetting to public even though I am on the map and am repping the guild. It’s not from other guild members changing the tactivators to public.

It would be nice if they increased the magic find cap beyond 300% from luck. I realize magic find isn’t the most useful thing in the game and I also realize there’s probably not that many people that are capped. But for those of us that are capped, the stacks of exotic luck build up pretty quick and it kind of sucks that there’s really nothing to do with it beyond a few guildhall upgrades.

Ok so I love playing raids and have from the beginning.

So this is what has happened twice now where a commander (and this in Not new commanders) advertises on LFG and started asking people to join the squad and then after a while when they have a decent sized squad they started kicking Revenants and Necros from the squad. I PM them to ask what’s going on and the one response I go was you are a Revenant and the other one did not bother to respond.

That is messed up!

Was more of just a friendly reminder since I think they forgot about these armors :P

These upgraded skins were added with WvW reward tracks and have been untouched for a really long time.

Here is a screenshot comparing the size of the tonic and the size of the pet.

http://i.imgur.com/or3KB1J.png

This is the new mini added with this year’s Halloween. It’s great! It costs 120 Candy Corn Cobs.

But, it’s pretty tiny Could you increase its size to the size of the tonic? The tonic graphic is a little bit larger and would be the perfect size for this pet.

http://dulfy.net/2016/04/28/gw2-world-vs-world-poll/

WvW Scoring Improvements

Reduce the impact of night capping.
Lessen the gap between winning scores and losing scores so losing teams can still recover.
Adjust objective score relative to upgrade level.
Adjust score for capturing objectives.
Rebalance the score awarded for activities that don’t reward points per tick.
Take suggestions from the community!

The changes in bold have yet to be implemented even though they were part of the very first “poll”.

Also, there was already a poll 6+ months ago and scoring changes won. Why is there another poll regarding WvW priorities?

These polls only offer the illusion of feedback. In many cases they are yes/no votes and they only serve to make the players feel good (yeah, they listened!) and to make you, the game designers, feel good (well the community voted for this, so…)

+1 -1 sounds like a terrible idea.

QuickRain.4735:

I find it funny most of the people complaining about the manually adjusting are people on servers either in the top tier or a bandwagon server

What does playing in a particular tier have to do with pointing out the silliness of score manipulation? One of the manipulations is actually a negative point adjustment in order to try and bump a server down (Drabonbrand).

The complaining in this thread, at least from my perspective, is mostly about how silly it is to be messing with the matchup ratings in general. As I mentioned previously, what is the point of having a rating system if the game developers are just going to decide anyway?

I think a year or two ago most players thought that they (they being the players, not the developers) wanted to be playing in a situation where there were server rotations and the potential for mixed matchups each week in order to keep things interesting. I don’t think that the remaining WvW population, a year later, is large enough to support that desire, so the desire has now shifted to wanting stable matchups so that there is some consistency for players.

For those wanting larger zerg fights, activity at most hours, etc. then those players can gravitate towards T1 servers. For those wanting smaller scale, more roaming, quieter activity, etc. then they can gravitate towards T3 and T4 servers. And for those who play outside of North America and Europe, those players want to be able to cluster around a group of servers that will usually face each other so that there is activity for them because there isn’t enough of those players to spread out among all the current servers. But the problems with re-linking and with volatility make any kind of stable play impossible because now everything is shifting around all the time and doing these manual scoring adjustments just makes it seem like the team isn’t listening.

Please stop making polls and stop using them provide the illusion of feedback.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Hey everyone,

I wanted to address the idea of moving world linking to monthly instead of every 2 months, since it is being brought up more and more frequently.

The team isn’t opposed to this idea; we actually think it would be beneficial to move to monthly because it would allow us to iterate faster on how we are calculating which worlds should be linked. However, the main reason for not doing this right now is the matchmaking algorithm, Glicko. Each time we shuffle worlds via world linking it takes about 4 weeks’ worth of matches before Glicko begins to reliably match make those new worlds into balanced matches. If we did world linking monthly, Glicko would not be able to create balanced matchups.

Our next priority poll is going to be asking if players would rather have us work on adding rewards to skirmishes (and possibly other feedback items being collected from this thread) or replace Glicko matchmaking with a 1-up 1-down system (wherein the winner moves up a tier and the loser moves down a tier.) The 1-up 1-down system should work better with monthly linkings than Glicko, so we are most likely going to hold off on 1 month linkings until that system is in.

Another possibility we could pursue is 1 month linkings, but use the Glicko offset system to guarantee the matches. Alternatively, we could manually change Glicko ratings to what we believe they should be for each world. Either option would force worlds to start out closer to being in the correct tier and thus give better matches faster. These options are contentious, so even if everyone on the forums seemed to like this idea it would be something we would poll on.

You need to stop doing polls.

1) It’s not really feedback when the options are just ‘more of the same’ or ‘something new’ as in “should things stay the same? or should we add world-linking?” Of course people are always going to vote for something to change rather than continue another year of the same stuff.

2) These polls only offer the illusion of feedback. In many cases they are yes/no votes and they only serve to make the players feel good (yeah, they listened!) and to make you, the game designers, feel good (well the community voted for this, so…)

You need to stop the world-linking. You either need to actually merge servers and permanently reduce the overall number of worlds because the game can no longer support what it supported years ago. Or, you need to abandon the world system entirely and come up with something new in order to force the player population to more evenly disperse itself. (Example: creating entirely new worlds and forcing everyone to pick one while controlling population caps)

You were working on this last year with the alliance system experimenting/testing. Was that system entirely abandoned in favor of the current band-aids or are you still considering the alliance system as an option?

Messing around with glicko or +1 -1 is NOT what will help out WvW. At this point what players want is match stability for activity and fights, not constantly changing matchups that are lively and active one week followed by dead and boring the next. And most players want a stable community aspect to WvW. This doesn’t necessarily mean “server pride” or that players need to be permanently affixed to one world/team/server, but it does mean that there needs to be a stable community component and messing with re-linking once a month would be a disaster for this even more than it already is.

The 2 hour blocks seemed to have made people care about the score again (at least temporarily).

I think it’s easier for people to understand and make sense of a 2 hour block of time rather than an entire week. “Hey, we’re only 100 points behind let’s hurry up and wipe some blobs so we can win the skirmish” is something I’ve heard a lot since skirmishes were added.

The skirmishes still don’t address night capping. In some ways the point distribution has made it even more difficult for a server to have a mid-week comeback whereas before it might have been possible for people to play a lot of extra time and have a score upset.

There is also still no incentive or reason to want to win the weekly match.

Are these all just going to be Yes/No polls?

Cause Yes/No can’t really address a complicated questions like Alpine and Desert maps together when, as I’m sure many will post in this thread, the Desert maps still need a lot of work even though they are pretty fun now with the changes that went in a month ago.

What happened to the alliance system you guys were working on? Did you guys decide to scrap that idea altogether or push it back and try other stuff (like this thread) before doing alliances?

The linking thing is already a mess, tbh. And I don’t really think a yes/no poll accurately reflects players’ opinions on world linking, but whatever. Adding additional servers and messing around with the parings all the time is just going to create even more of a mess. You’re already doing server merges and calling it “linked worlds” (great marketing spin there, btw) and adding new servers into the mix would pretty much end whatever is left of the community aspect of WvW.

It’s already the case that each server is left with a small core of players/guilds on each server that will stay on their server no matter what. Then you have the guilds and players that are willing to transfer around for a variety of reasons (drama, fights, boredem, etc.) but not necessarily transferring with any kind of frequency (in other words, these guilds aren’t moving every month). Adding in more servers would probably just accelerate that kind of transferring and probably end whatever is left of “community” in WvW. I realize not everyone cares about the community part of WvW, but it’s one of the things that makes the WvW mode unique.

Edit: to summarize: adding more servers would be moving WvW more towards Megaserver EotM-style play which isn’t what people want.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We are aware of this issue and working on a fix.

Woo woo!

I understand why the Desert maps looked like they were just hastily cropped onto the mists map…because they were.

But the alpine maps were part of the original mists map artwork….why did you guys go through and crop the map artwork out and paste it over top of the existing mists map? The cropping wasn’t done very well, either.

Here is what I am talking about. Original map from Google:

http://supergamezeit.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/WvW-map.jpg

Example of current map with really bad cropping:

http://imgur.com/RYdI7jv

Svarty.8019:

I’m disappointed that the defensive buffs are being reduced.
Chilling Fog and Airship were supposed to help defend the objectives, and they do. It’s not as if they are cheap to make!
I think Arenanet are making an error here: making their own content obsolete.

I believe it would be best if the players get weekly rewards as follows:
1st – 3 Chests as now
2nd – 2 Chests as now and 1 materials chest containing something for scribing upgrades
3rd – 1 Chest as now and 2 materials chests containing something for scribing upgrades

The worse you do, the more you are empowered to do better next time. With World-Linking, Arenanet have begun to put some emphasis even matchups and hopefully the above gesture would indicate a willingness to do so even more in future!

The “content” was stuff that should have never been added in the first place, though. No WvW player asked for banners, fog, airships, etc. But now they are in a sticky situation because these tactics are tied to scribing and guildhall upgrades and it’s going to be a mess for them to un-do things like banners.

The upgrade system itself isn’t the problem. Passive bonuses that strengthen the structures or provide helpful perks (like Presence of the Keep) aren’t the problem. The problem is the on-demand stuff like fog and airships. If those on-demand things are too strong (like now) then they really make the game annoying to play. If those on-demand things are too weak then it makes them pointless…why would anyone spend the ridiculous gold costs on crafting fog if it’s useless?

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Nerfs are coming for a number of the problematic guild upgrades like cloaking waters, chilling fog and airship defense.

For cloaking waters, the stealth duration is getting reduced dramatically.

As for removing the upgrade entirely, that also isn’t really an option, due to how it’s intertwined with the Scribing and Guild Halls systems.

Why was this stuff even added in the first place then? If you guys are referring to your own game additions as “problematic upgrades” then why not work on removing the activated tactics? The passive upgrades are fine and are the only kind of upgrades that should have ever been added to begin with.

Can’t you do something like remove the 3 activated slots and replace them with a 4th
passive slot while adding more passive upgrade choices. For example: walls take less damage, gates take less damage, cannons auto-repair after their destruction cooldown timer, X supply automatically generates at the structure every Y minutes, etc.

The passive upgrades like Presence of the Keep and Watchtower aren’t nearly as game-changing (or annoying) as fog, banners, airships, etc. with Cloaking Waters being the only passive that causes problems. And if you’re going to nerf these things to the point that they’re not very useful, why even have them in the game at all?

Chaba.5410:

Sus.3610:

I have had TC admins contact me about setting up channels for our guilds etc.

LOL. Someone on TC bought into the faked notes about server merges.

Why over complicate this? Just set up a TS channel for linked world members.

My understanding is that someone from DR messaged someone on TC. But why do you care?

I’m worried about what kind of mess this is going to create for server Teamspeaks. If verify is done through an API auto verify system then the code is going to need to be changed each time the linked worlds change. If we verify manually then we’ll need to setup a whole separate set of user groups. Either way it’s going to be a mess to deal with if the linked worlds change with any kind of frequency.

How does a 5-man raid dev team put out more content in 3 months than a 6-person legendary weapon dev team?

Also, this is a huge mistake lol. Legendary weapons are one of the few things that keep people playing this game for a long time…the months of farming to craft them. Really bad.

Mike O Brien.4613:

We’re investigating whether to fix or revert DBL. They’re both a lot of work. These next couple days will be your last chance to give feedback before we make a decision, so speak now or forever hold your peace.

The desert borderland is aesthetically pleasing and aesthetically more interesting than the alpine map. That’s about all it has. DBL has:

1. too many unavoidable choke points/movement restricting areas (alpine and EB have these too, but not nearly as many as DBL)
2. too many places to fall and die
3. towers that are meaningless (you can’t use trebs to hit any other structures from any of the DBL towers)
4. towers and keeps that are way too large.

Yes move it back to Friday 9pm EST.

Also please remove the annoying chime noise from other mail carriers. Thanks :P

Before today’s patch this mail carrier did NOT have the annoying chime noise that the various bird mail carriers have. This chime noise plays any time you send mail or sell an item on the TP.

My “dusk” Mesmer

I imagine most people, like myself, didn’t even loot the CE mail before deleting their first character. I never got the items so I wasn’t able to use them on a character and then delete the character, like others have done.

It was absolutely Anet’s fault for creating this problem. There was -not- a warning that the collector’s edition items were one-time only. There was no warning that I would not receive the in-game mail again.There was no indication that the mini-pet was a one-time only.There was no warning that by deleting my character that I would not be able to receive what I paid for.

If the items are going to be restored then just say that. I don’t really understand why the posts keep going out of their way to include a little part about how it’s the player’s fault when the problem was the goofy way that Anet decided to hand the items out. I have no problem contacting my bank about not receiving what I paid for if it’s not resolved—the game itself is great (!!) but the terrible CS is really what’s ruined the launch.