(edited by Giltheryn.8603)
Showing Posts For Giltheryn.8603:
I don’t have any users per se, I’m just a self taught programmer messing with it for fun and don’t really have a particular project in mind right now. I’m sure there’s some people here that would benefit from that data more than I would. Though I do agree that it should be somehow separate as a permission since it could be considered sensitive information to some players.
I’ve been messing with this API just for fun and I was wondering if it’s be possible to add a field like last_played or is_online to individual characters?
I feel like the guild rep info would be more useful if we could see what character, if any, is being played at a given time. That said, it’s just an idea; I don’t actually need it for anything and I don’t know how easy it’d be to implement.
Anyway thanks for all the great work on the API stuff and for being so responsive to feedback/concerns.
So I know with the new map ANET is trying to emphasize actually holding objectives rather than just letting things flip and capping them again before the next tick. How do you guys plan to address this in EB, which won’t be a new map obviously?
Personally I’d like to see a change in how PPT works. The points scored from an objective should increase the longer your keep it, so like a fully waypointed keep could have, say, double the PPT income of a paper one. That would encourage both defending and attacking heavily upgraded objectives, and keeping them to upgrade. You could either make this straight point increase with duration held (up to some limit), or tie it to upgrade status. Just an idea of course, but something needs to change about the current system IMO.
Sounds fun. On NA also so can’t participate directly, but I’ll enter the raffle nonetheless. 13 please. Giltheryn
So when crafting some ascended weapons today for my guard, I realized that a 1-handed sword and a greatsword cost what appears to be exactly the same amount of materials. See: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Zojja%27s_Blade and http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Zojja%27s_Claymore for example. This seems very odd to me. It means that crafting a main-hand and off-hand weapon is significantly more costly than crafting a 2-handed weapon. I’m wondering if this is intentional, or if it’s a design oversight. If it is intentional, what’s the rationale behind that decision? It may just be because it’s 3AM and I’m tired, but it doesn’t appear to make much sense to me at the moment.
Good tips, thanks for posting them. One thing I might add though: Often, getting a quick decap on an unguarded point and returning to the teamfight is more valuable to your team than staying for a full cap. Full caps take a long time, time that you could be using to help secure a midfight or so on. Especially if you’re playing a high-mobility type like a thief, it can be very useful to peel from a teamfight (when safe), decap far, and go back to the fight. The enemy still loses the point income and one of their team members has to spend time capping it back. It’s somewhat situational , and I guess it falls under rotations, but it’s often a very useful strategy that I don’t see much in less organized games.
When I play PVP, unfortunately I frequently run in to players who are toxic and simply no fun to play with. Normally I just block/report them and move on with my day. This becomes a problem, however, when I’m repeatedly matched on the same team as people I’ve previously blocked. My options in that case are to lose out on potentially important communication from that player (calling numbers of enemies at a point and such), or unblock them and experience the vitriol that caused me the block them in the first place.
I believe a better solution would be to prevent players who are on one’s blocklist from being on the same team. I realize this might result in longer queues, especially for the type of person who is blocked frequently by other people, but I believe it’d improve the quality of matches for the most part. If a hard filter is excessive, you could also consider using it as a factor in matchmaking that could be weighed in addition to the existing considerations. Maybe this is a bad idea for reasons I’m not thinking of right now, but it seems to me that this could help make better and more enjoyable matches.
Next to a Charr for scale. I would have included it in the OP, but I don’t think the forum allows multiple attachments.
One of the things I find really fun about the open world in the game is the occasional massive meta event that culminates in an epic encounter. Especially in the BWEs and around launch, you would occasionally walk into an area, see one of these massive bosses, and say, “Hey, that’s really cool!” They were really fun fights, and definitely a positive aspect of the game.
Very rapidly though, something changed. People started figuring out exactly out long it took for each of these bosses to spawn, and exactly the conditions that led to their spawning. You very quickly got websites that would tell you how long it was until each was next up, for each server. These bosses, I think, changed from a really cool thing, to basically a scheduled repetitive farm, hoping for some valuable drops.
I think this is really for two reasons. First, as I mentioned the events could be accurately predicted to a schedule, so you could see an event would be active, waypoint, kill the boss, and take the loot. It stopped being about fun. That brings me to the second reason: The fights don’t change. The bosses are fun once or twice, but after that you know exactly how the boss is going to react, what the things are you need to dodge, and so on. Some of them could also stand to scale more to player count, as they get trivialized by the large numbers, especially after the recent chest loot improvements.
I think a lot of this could be rectified simply by changing how the monsters spawn. Instead of making the Shatterer spawn every three hours or so, make it more random. Maybe it’ll spawn in three hours, maybe not for a day, or even a week. Or perhaps have it spawn as a result of various individual and meta events all over the zone, instead of being tied to just a couple factors.
This still doesn’t avoid the issue of the fights getting old. It will help that a less predictable schedule means players encounter them less often, but they’re still bound to get tired of them after a while. So maybe you could add a little variety there too. Maybe give bosses a different set of skills and attacks each time they spawn, or allow them to spawn in multiple locations, or so on.
These next ones are probably not achievable except in the long term, but I’ll include them anyway:
You could also make a single event chain maybe choose a random boss to spawn from two or so, instead of being the same boss every time.
One would also think these massive bosses would have more impact on the world. Maybe you chase them around and try to kill them as they terrorize villages, rather than the bosses sitting around on a hill until some brave heroes decide to slay them. To paraphrase a quote from the original blogpost about dynamic events, long before release, “They just sit around in a field picking daises, waiting to be killed”
I realize some or most of this may be difficult to accomplish due to development resources, priorities, engine limitations, and so on, but I think that such changes would make the world a lot more active and vibrant, and make these bosses fun to fight again.
Reading through this thread, I’ve seen very little actual evidence or logical argument supporting claims either for or against the occurrence of such a change (Though personally, I have no reason to believe ArenaNet would have reason to lie on the subject). Please familiarize yourselves with principles of logic and objective experimentation before making such claims. As a starting point, I suggest looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_Bias.
Sample size: easily 500+ encounters.
Subjects: 50 guild members.
Time Period: 2.5 months10-15 of these guildies (the same ones) ALWAYS received better loot wherever they went.
The rest ALWAYS received, at best, salvage trash.If it were truly random chance, those 10-15 would have crap loot more than 3/4 of the time, they didn’t.
If it were truly random chance, the remainder would have good loot at least some of the time, they didn’t.If the chance of dropping were truly random, rather than just “random in aggregate”, there would not be a vast, stickied thread of people who are vowing not to spend one dime in the gem shop until they fix this.
I’m sorry, but that is still anecdotal, and makes several fallacious assumptions. For one, you fail to provide any numeric support for your claims regarding loot. I realize this may not be possible in retrospect, but it does jeopardize the validity of the proposed evidence. I find the last point to be especially fallacious, as popular opinion does not define objective truth in any way. I rather doubt you spent any significant length of time reading the pages I linked. Additionally see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation for further reasons for the assertions’ invalidity.
“Correlation Does Not Imply Causation”?
Are you serious?
Loot is “caused” by an algorithm and ONLY an algorithm.
If there’s a statistically significant pattern, such as 1% drop rates occurring EVERY loot (about 25% drop rate assuming 4 items per chest) for 500 loots in a row for a significant percentage of the populace, or a 1% drop NOT occurring at least once for every 200 items (this accounts for a VERY large standard deviation) looted in a sample of 2000, then yes, THE LOOT ALGORITHM is the cause.
I was responding specifically with that link to:
If the chance of dropping were truly random, rather than just “random in aggregate”, there would not be a vast, stickied thread of people who are vowing not to spend one dime in the gem shop until they fix this.
You seem to suggest that a large number of people perceiving a change is proof of such a change having occurred. In the absence of data to back this up, this is not the case. In response to the remainder post, statistically significant data is all well and good (although it would still only suggest a causation, scientifically, not prove one), but I still have yet to see such data. You may provide numbers, but I see no source for those numbers, and “If” seems to be the operative word. Perceived drop rates mean little or nothing. Without seeing specific data derived from properly controlled conditions, there is little or nothing that can be assumed.
Reading through this thread, I’ve seen very little actual evidence or logical argument supporting claims either for or against the occurrence of such a change (Though personally, I have no reason to believe ArenaNet would have reason to lie on the subject). Please familiarize yourselves with principles of logic and objective experimentation before making such claims. As a starting point, I suggest looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_Bias.
Sample size: easily 500+ encounters.
Subjects: 50 guild members.
Time Period: 2.5 months10-15 of these guildies (the same ones) ALWAYS received better loot wherever they went.
The rest ALWAYS received, at best, salvage trash.If it were truly random chance, those 10-15 would have crap loot more than 3/4 of the time, they didn’t.
If it were truly random chance, the remainder would have good loot at least some of the time, they didn’t.If the chance of dropping were truly random, rather than just “random in aggregate”, there would not be a vast, stickied thread of people who are vowing not to spend one dime in the gem shop until they fix this.
I’m sorry, but that is still anecdotal, and makes several fallacious assumptions. For one, you fail to provide any numeric support for your claims regarding loot. I realize this may not be possible in retrospect, but it does jeopardize the validity of the proposed evidence. I find the last point to be especially fallacious, as popular opinion does not define objective truth in any way. I rather doubt you spent any significant length of time reading the pages I linked. Additionally see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation for further reasons for the assertions’ invalidity.
Reading through this thread, I’ve seen very little actual evidence or logical argument supporting claims either for or against the occurrence of such a change (Though personally, I have no reason to believe ArenaNet would have reason to lie on the subject). Please familiarize yourselves with principles of logic and objective experimentation before making such claims. As a starting point, I suggest looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_Bias.
After today’s update, my GW2 launcher has crashed upon every login attempt when asking for a mobile authenticator code. My account is linked with the Google Authenticator app for android. Login is successful, but the game crashes when the authentication is submitted. From the dump text the error seems to be an assert of
“argCount == 1” from the game’s Launcher.cpp on line 897. (I launch the game with 2 command line arugments, ‘-bmp’ and ‘-testVerticalFov’.) This error is always reproducible, by simply logging in with an authenticator enabled. I have already submitted the error report when prompted, and I hope an issue of this severity can be resolved quickly.