Guild Wars 2

I think the writer got his analysis pretty dead on.

I run a guild on Tarnished Coast and we’ve been seeing a lot of what was described (and more). My stance during recruitment (before the game launched) was that I would not allow multi-guilding as a general rule. Exceptions could be made on an individual level if it was felt the reason made sense.

This was an extremely unpopular stance prior to launch and I know a lot of people with a similar position saw themselves getting eaten alive in forum rages from players who felt that it was their absolute right to guild surf every night, and that it was up to the guild to earn their participation at every moment.

I can understand, from a players perspective, how intoxicating this new freedom might be considering how many guilds in other games largely held the exact opposite position and really took advantage of (or neglected) players.

But I also knew perfectly well that the opposite extreme was going to be equally as dysfunctional. And as predicted it is. When players can channel surf guilds, they have no reason to invest into a specific one. They literally become consumers of what the guild is offering, like showing up to eat dinner, with zero motivation to help set up before-hand or stick around afterward.

Event planning and implementation is not easy, and the above mentality does little to help that. You need as many (or more) planners and facilitators than consumers of that content.

The “represent” drift has already started to occur in my guild, although it remains minor right now. Interestingly enough the people doing it are the same ones that have stayed un-engaged with the guild, but will show up to consume events we are able to put together. They do not respond to offers of assistance, don’t often engage in /guild, and are generally very distant. They are also clearly dissatisfied with their experiences with the guild.

Oddly enough, the folks that have integrated extremely well with everyone (the guild moved over from WoW, so there is a solid foundation of pre-existing members) are the ones that have gotten into Mumble with us and socialized.

It is an unexpected turn of events, since in WoW our voice chat was used almost exclusively for raiding and was otherwise totally neglected. In GW2 we have people in Mumble interacting whether we are in-game or not (I’ll sit in Mumble while I do dishes and just listen). Keeping out in-game /guild channel active is actually something we put a lot of intention behind since it is otherwise not something that is happening naturally like it has in other games.

I do believe that the action oriented nature of GW2 has made it substantially easier to use voice instead of type.

Anyhow, rather than re-state what the GameSpy article already stated, I do want to offer that I am steadily realizing that guilds need a lot more in the way of administrative tools to help address what the game already offers. I need to know how often someone does not represent the guild, I need to know when they last logged in. Things like that. I am a tolerant person, but I’d still like to be able to make informed decisions in cutting people loose if they clearly have no interest in the guild.

It would also be nice to have an in-game association between accounts and characters if that character has represented the guild. Having a roster of account names forces you to manually compile character lists which is mildly annoying.

I also think, despite the prolific use of Mumble, that we need the ability to create custom channels. I know that being able to form guild alliances, or just have a channel for OOC banter, would help a ton. The game lacks certain social tools that I think people expected to have.

I can’t comment on the Dungeon Finder tool simply because the guild will generally never need to use something like that. We are very good about supporting each other in that way and keeping runs going on a nightly basis. I can see the merits of the system, I suppose I can see the down-side too. Ultimately I am just fortunate enough to not need to pursue that either way.

Maybe it is being born and raised in Washington state that did it, since we have only 2 1/2 seasons in that state, or maybe it is just in my blood. But I am a complete and total Weather Junky.

This very much carries over into my MMOs, and while it seems like such a minor thing, I find it very disappointing when a game has no weather effects or the ones it has are very lackluster.

I’ve been fairly pleased with what GW2 has given me on that front, although I fantasize a bit about actual “seasons” being added to the various zones. However, there are two fractals on FotM that blew me onto my rear, took my lunch money, and left me begging for more.

I’ll avoid specific spoilers out of respect for those that haven’t seen one or both of these things, so forgive my apparent ambiguity. However anyone that has done a few rounds in FotM likely know which two I am talking about.

There are two distinct experiences that these dungeons / routes give that really hit that sweet spot for me. First and foremost was making the weather “dangerous”. There is something profoundly primal in this that is so much more epic and intimidating than even fighting the largest of dungeon mobs.

Now, I know that one of these experiences is tied to a mob, but I am also distinctly aware that it doesn’t need to be.

The journey just after that then transitions into the second most fantastic element of what is seen in FotM (taken to an extreme in another fractal) and that is encroaching darkness.

GW2 does a great job of playing with fears, and certainly there are some spots where a traditional sense of claustrophobia is achieved through very cramped spaces. However having players in a wide open space, and then create a suffocatingly intense darkness you have to deal with is a WHOLE different (and I would argue way more intense) sense of foreboding claustrophobia.

I cannot begin to truly express my deep affection and appreciation of these experiences that we got with FotM. I applaud the designers as loudly as I can on these additions.

But I have to ask…

Knowing the intensity of experience that these environmental treats can provide. Knowing that making the world itself your enemy, even if the immediate danger is from the creatures that are taking advantage of that environmental circumstance.

Will we ever see these degrees of severity grace the open world? Will they remain tricks in a toolbag, or might they ever be realized as a part of the personality of Tyria itself, and find their places in the darkest corners of caves and nooks. Or on the highest, coldest peaks?

It had to be asked, at least on behalf of those of us that worship at the alter of extreme weather and dark places.

I lied. One server appears to have slipped from “Full” to “High”. It just boggles me a bit. If it is all a big secret squirrel deal I suppose I have to accept it (seems strange that it would be).

I just like things to make sense, especially when I find myself fighting against the mechanism (in this case the inability to get additional folks onto my server).

I guess at this point I’ll have to take what ANet has said and combine it with my observations to conclude that “Full” means 40 – 100% of players logged in that have the server chosen as their home server.

This of course opens up a lot of other questions on how they established the baseline population assigned to a given server, and why Bot Banning doesn’t have an apparent impact or benefit for the players.

If X number of players log out and the server status does not change from “Full”, how did they get to choose that sever to begin with? Full means Full.

The only thing that makes sense is that Y number of accounts were allowed to select that home world before the X value of active logins was imposed against it.

If that is the case, when Z number of accounts get banned / cancelled due to botting or charge backs or whatever, shouldn’t that translate into some benefit or shift or opening for legitimate players waiting to move servers?

At this point I am not seeing it.

If the server status for a given home world is tied to the number actively logged in players, why did the entire list of server statuses not change in the slightest when they dropped a new build about 5 minutes ago?

If ArenaNet says it is actively logged in players, okay. But I still can’t wrap my head around the apparent lack of any measurable peak vs non-peak home world status changes no matter when I look.

I jumped out of the game the very moment that the new build was announced. I patched quickly, got in game, and then proceeded to log out and in for 5 minutes to see if any change occurred with the statuses.

I did not see one single change at all. Not one.

Frankly, if trying to get friends onto my server is a complete waste of time because that home world status is determined by something else entirely and isn’t going to budge but in extremely rare cases, so be it. I just want to know.

Valtameri.2075:

I’m pretty sure mod’s already answered to this one, and it indeed does mean how many players are actually logged in, not the overall amount of accounts created.

Now if i weren’t so lazy i’d pick up the link from somewhere, but maybe some other kind soul will do that.

I saw the response yesterday, and was going through the associated Reddit thread that was discussing it. The assessment of the response was a mixed bag, I tend to lean more toward the group that found the response a little too open for interpretation. Mind you, I could just be prone to making things difficult.

The only reason I ask is because this “Refer A Friend” business has me pretty directly involved in trying to coordinate with some folks, and I have been watching the server status like a hawk at every chance (even from work).

I am not seeing ANY fluctuations in the server status at all. As in ZERO. Every MMO I have ever played whose server status was a reflection of actively logged in players, will show a very clear “peak” and “non-peak” fluctuation in the status.

It isn’t so much that I actively dispute the players that view that status of being actively playing population, but I am having a hard time completely and totally reconciling the utter lack of peak / non-peak fluctuations.

Obviously I am just trying to figure out how I am going to handle the upcoming weekend if I can’t group with the friends coming to check out the game.

Knowing what is going on with the server status doesn’t exactly solve anything, but it at least allows me to approach this whole thing with more of the facts.

At the risk of being torn apart for asking this, could we get a clarification on the statement made yesterday in regards to what a “Full” Home World actually means?

Specifically, is the status of “Full” a reflection of the number of actively logged in players at any given moment, or is it determined by the number of accounts in total that are associated with a given Home World?

A lot of people believe that it is simply a reflection of the population currently logged in, but I have been watching the status of the servers and I don’t see them dip at all, which seems extremely unlikely (albeit entirely plausible depending on how tolerances are set currently).

It seems more likely that the momentary status changes that do occur are due to server transfers taking effect and causing the total number of accounts associated with a Home Server to drop below the “Full” threshold.

If indeed the status is tied to total number of accounts associated with a given Home World, how quickly does a round of Bot Banning actually translate into a reduction in that associated number so that additional players can join a previously “Full” Home World?

I don’t know that I see much impact of a given Bot Banning wave in regards to the status of a Home World, which is really odd. Obviously I may not be catching it in the millisecond that the status goes from “Full” to “Heavy” and then back to “Full” due to mass migration.

So, forgive me if I am being insane here, but as I understand it you can currently group and adventure with players from other servers as long as you do so in an overflow.

If you were to enter a map that was not currently in an overflow state, the group would split due to a lack of the guesting feature being in place. They would go to their home world and you to yours.

I was curious to know if it would be possible, as a temporary stop-gap until guesting is added, for every zone to have a minimum of 1 overflow running whether it was needed or not.

This is becoming extremely prolific. This needs to be fixed quickly. I regret that we can’t get the people doing this banned as well.

I had tried to correct the location of one of the NPCs but they are being shoved into corners so they can’t be moved.

I have been seeing Guardian players using a staff ability to shove NPCs away from their normal location, sometimes to pretty dramatic effect.

Might want to look into this.

The Guild Vault NPC in Divinity’s Reach on Tarnished Coast is no where to be seen, she has been shoved far away from her normal spot.

I opened incident 120826-005156 on the 26th of August, still waiting for this to be resolved.

I had purchased 1600 gems during Beta Weekend 3, which correctly carried over to Early Access. I was able to purchase 1 character slot without issue, but the second slot I attempted to buy later the same day deducted the 800 gems but never gave me the character slot.