Guild Wars 2

As I sit here waiting on yet another round of fixes to download, I had a few random thoughts about Quality Assurance (QA).

Perfection is the enemy.

In the QA world perfection comes at a price. I would argue that perfection comes at too great a price to ever achieve it, but whilst I would make that argument, I would concede that your pursuit of perfection should continue because it’s in that pursuit that you arrive at an equilibrium that is acceptable. For instance (purely arbitrary numbers), if 97% perfect output (i.e., no lost product) costs $1,000,000 to achieve, then 98% is going to cost $10,000,000 to achieve, and 99% $100,000,000 to achieve and 100% is going to cost $1,000,000,000 (or more) to achieve. In manufacturing, if the value of the lost product between 97% perfect output and 100% perfect output equals $5,000,000 then it obviously doesn’t make economic sense to pursue that extra bit of perfection (because it would cost you $1bn to recover that $5,000,000). In the service industry, think of this output as customer satisfaction. So, step one is establishing what is an acceptable, cost effective, level of output (in this case customer satisfaction). The higher the satisfaction level, the higher the cost. The company leadership must decide what that level is and then resource to achieve it. But once that level is established, you must be ruthless in your pursuit of it because it is a perishable commodity and decays over time, mostly due to complacency.

Beyond the costs, there are other variables that prevent perfection (human complacency, incompetence, lack of resources, etc.). An effective QA system though can address and reduce the impact of each of those. A QA team’s primary duty is to identify the shortfalls in the available system(s) and eliminate all possible opportunities for less than perfect outcomes. But, with all that, the QA Professional must ensure that the system for detecting, cataloging, fixing, and disseminating information about faults is as robust and foolproof as humanly possible. If every day they aren’t eliminating a possibility for a repeat fault, then that QA team is failing. The QA lives in a harsh world but that’s the way it is. Repeat faults are anathema to QA and if repeat faults exist it’s a condemnation of the QA system.

In GW2, I would argue that there are multiple examples of repeat faults. Now, I don’t know enough about the internal workings of “the company” to make firm concrete recommendations about their internal QA but it’s apparent that it’s, hmmm, challenged. In order to have a quality product you MUST have a quality QA department. So, with that in mind, I’ll make some generic recommendations that have applicability to QA in general though not necessarily to “the company” in particular.

1) QA structure. QA doesn’t work for the folks they are quality assuring. They are semi-autonomous reporting to the highest level entity with purview and authority to direct changes in the systems being QA’ed. In some organizations, the QA department reports directly to the CEO.

2) QA personnel. QA starts with quality people. They must first be experts in the systems they are assuring. They must secondly be experts in professional quality assurance processes and procedures. They mustn’t be seen by the workforce as “squealers” but they can’t be afraid of calling someone out for shoddy work (and if they do that, they can’t afford to be wrong). Ideally, all QA Professionals would have spent years actually correctly performing the work they are now quality assuring. As a result of this experience and expertise, they get paid a lot of money. Interns make really bad QA professionals (as do summer hires brought in off the street to handle surge requirements).

3) Automated systems (it’s all about transparency). It is essential to have an automated professional system in place for reporting faults, tracking them, cataloging them, suspensing them, and disseminating information about fixes throughout the company. Every individual in the company should have read access to that data. In some situations, I would argue that your customers should have read access as well (though that is probably not appropriate for this environment). Each fault identified and cataloged in the tracking system is tagged with an owner. As the fault is fixed (usually by a process action team) the owner inputs that fix in the tracking system, the QA that first identified the fault verifies it’s been fixed, and then the QA updates the solution in the system of record. Included in that final update is the fix to the process that will prevent recurrence of the fault. That data, from birth to ultimate fix, is then never deleted but is moved to a historical file for metrics and lessons learned. Over time, this historical file provides you leading indicators that you can use to predict faults and prevent them before they occur.

4) Eliminating repeat faults. As a general rule, the person that caused the fault can’t permanently eliminate it. They should be part of the process action team that reviews, assesses, and recommends changes to prevent recurrence. But, the key here is they are part of a team. That team comes from representatives of every part of the process that touched the system from which the fault came. That team determines the root cause of the fault, determines changes to the process to prevent recurrence, and makes those recommendations to management. Once the system is fixed to prevent recurrence then that information is disseminated to ALL affected parties (acknowledgement required).

5) QA coverage. There must be sufficient QA personnel to properly monitor every aspect of the process. If the QA has to cut corners to get something out the door to meet a tight timeline, then you don’t have a QA department. You’re just paying lip service to QA. There are two ways to address this. One, you either extend timelines to ensure QA has time to do their job, or two, you add additional QA personnel and prioritize the work. There’s really no other quality way to do that.

Those are a few, off the top of my head, suggestions. I can provide tailored recommendations if you desire, but I have warn you it would be expensive.

Inculpatus, thanks for the recommendations. Checking with my financial institution was the first thing I did before contacting support. It’s definitely something with the gem purchase system (or my account is flagged for reasons mentioned above).

I’ve not played for about one year. I log in and after about 2 days, I try to buy gems and my problems start.

Several issues here, as I understand it. First, I can’t buy gems. I understand that may be due to AN’s fraud prevention because I’ve not been on in a long time and when I do log on, it’s out of state (from my normal log-in location), and I’m trying to buy gems. Ok, I get that. I file a ticket and ask for assistance. I also mention that I’m going to be traveling more and soon I’m going to be overseas and will log in from there. I do that in hopes that with the advance notice, I won’t get banned (would also like to be able to purchase gems, but that’s secondary to the ban concern).

So, after two days, I finally get something of a response. This isn’t a quote but it’s close. Sorry, but Support can’t tell you why this issue is happening and we can’t provide you any assurance that your account won’t be banned.

What the kitten does that mean? If Support can’t tell me anything, who can? I can provide the actual email response if necessary.

Well, this is somewhat discouraging. After two full days, all I can get is an automated response that my ticket was received and they’ll review it. One would think the folks in Bellevue would take an interest in someone trying to give them money.

I’ve tried to purchase gems 3 times over the last 24 hours. Tried two credit cards and PayPal, same thing happens each time. It goes to the confirm screen and then errors out saying try back later. Any suggestions?

mrstealth.6701:

I think they want both, but they are going to make changes to both based on what their vision for each game type is. As far as highly organized PvP, it was made clear from the beginning that sPvP was the intended place for that to happen. WvW was sold as the more casual form of semi-PvP, so I don’t expect them to make changes catering to a hardcore organized group within WvW, but to make changes that support the WvW game type itself. That’s the message I got from Devon’s post, that they are focusing on WvW itself, not the unrelated sub-gametype of GvG that exists within it. I call it ‘unrelated’ because it has no impact on WvW battle/war score, aside from queue issues(which I actually saw happen last night).

So original intent. sPvP for hardcore, WvW for the more causal semi-PvP crowd. Changes are being made to benefit both. Hmmm, ok. But here’s the problem, Mr. Stealth, the genres are no longer separate. They are mashing them together. They are doing this, not us. So, if what you articulate as original intent is accurate, they’ve abandoned their original vision. And further, no one that plays WvW, casually or otherwise thinks that the upcoming “Seasons” or this “Bloodlust” are positive for WvW, so your argument about benefiting everyone in WvW seems moot. I contend, still, that they are willing to degrade the experience of WvW players in hopes of saving their dreams of sPvP as an E-sport. They are desperate at this point and it shows.

You are wrong in your assessment that guilds that prefer GvG do nothing for the PPT game. On most servers, given all the external factors, GvG is really frustrating and getting one organized is difficult. So those guilds spend most of their time running around the BL’s zerg busting and defending the “casual WvW” player. If not for us, things would be a lot less interesting.

What really needs to be done is to give GvGers a place of their own, even if it’s just a separate map/instance in WvW with no WvW related objectives.

This is what we’re saying. It could be the exact same map. The solution could be as simple as what they did with the Jumping Puzzle. And then everyone’s happy.

There were a good number of requests for harder, more challenging content. I’d guess that the number of players interested in SAB TM is a lot higher than the GvG playerbase. Likely even higher than the amount of frequent WvW’ers. The PvE population is by far the largest segment of the playerbase.

If this is true then things said by various members of the development team are not truthful. During the Pax event (and subsequently in a post, I think), Colin said that the number of people playing WvW on a daily basis was greater than all the people that played GW1 during its peak. That sounds like a lot people. Josh said in several posts that he knew what he was doing with Tribulation Mode would appeal to only a small group of people but since ArenaNet wants to be inclusive it was done. Of the three statements, yours, Colin’s, and Josh’s, all of them can’t be true. I don’t dispute your position that PvE is the largest segment, only your thoughts on TM. So, in TM, there is precedence that (at least according to ArenaNet), they will cater to a small group. Now, actually, I think TM is all about ArenaNet trying to get written up in the trade journals, but that’s just me.

TM is also just a rework of the SAB maps, not completely new content made by some separate team.

That’s all we want.

When I’m not doing something in PvE, I’m frequently in WvW. Does that mean more non-WvW-related PvE content should be added to cater to my liking of PvE content? I don’t think what’s in there now has any place in WvW (grub, vistas, etc). My point is that our preferences for game types other than WvW (whether that is PvP, GvG, or PvE) should not be catered to inside WvW. WvW is WvW, and if something is not directly related to WvW, it does not belong in the WvW maps.

I would argue that there’s plenty of PvE outside of WvW if that’s your thing. But, if we could get what we want, I wouldn’t argue with you getting more PvE content in the BLs. Especially if there were announced events. Then we could put you on farm.

mrstealth.6701:

I think the upcoming changes, as well as some previous ones, are absolutely horrible for WvW as a whole, but I don’t see what is so wrong with Devon’s post. He is straight up telling you that the GvG scene is simply not a consideration in their decisions right now. Sure that sucks for the GvGers, but it’s about as clear and honest as you can get.

Thanks for the feedback. We will have to agree to disagree. I don’t think he’s honest at all. Do you believe that all the changes they are making are to make WvW better or try and sell sPvP to a wider audience? If it’s the latter then he needs to say it straight up.

They want to make changes to the game that affect as many people as possible? I wonder why that mindset doesn’t apply to Tribulation Mode of SAB. I can’t bring myself to believe that more people play TM than play GvG in WvW. Yet, ArenaNet has an entire team dedicated to that sub-genre.

In regards to GvG on Yak’s Bend. Talk to [GLOB], [ONE], or [PRO] (just off the top my head). They can give you insight into attempts to organize GvG on YB. It’s happening.

DevonCarver.5370:

I have said it before and it clearly bears repeating, our focus is on making improvements to WvW as a game type. When we implement changes it is with that goal in mind. We are aware of the GvG scene and we think it is really impressive, but the effects of any of our changes on GvG as it currently exists are not a priority for us. As such, when changes do come in, like the new map, some of them will be a positive for the GvG crowd and some will not. However, none of the changes we make are intended to stamp out GvG nor are they intended to make GvG more popular. When/if we focus our attention on GvG we will do our utmost to make it a game type that fits the needs of as many people as possible. That time is not now.

We are focused on WvW right now and improving it. Please try not to conflate our decisions in regards to WvW as some sort of judgement or endorsement of GvG in any form.

How much WvW do you actually play? I’m still waiting.

Most of this post is kitten and the player base recognizes it. Of the changes you’re making to WvW, please articulate the ones that you think are positive to GvG. I think we can figure out the negative ones.

It’s amazing to me that you would imply that GvG doesn’t apply to “as many people as possible”, in a game called Guild Wars. 99.99% of the players running around in WvW are guilded.

Innovation at ArenaNet seems to have left the building sometime ago. The upcoming change to WvW is simply adding a game within a game (much like SAB is a game within the game). You’re lifting sPvP and dropping it square in the middle of an existing game structure. I suspect you’re doing that because you are trying familiarize more people with that stagnant variant in hopes of drawing more of the casual WvWer into it and furthering your E-Sport dreams. If that’s your decision, ok, but don’t try to tell us that you’re making these particular changes to WvW to “improve” it.

This new system will cater to the zergers. There are numerous servers out there that can afford to put 20 mans on each of those 3 required locations and still have a large zerg running around taking towers/keeps and reinforcing a point as it comes under attack. This is going to force lesser populated servers to NOT play WvW, not play more.

And as to your last plea concerning our conflating your decisions in regards to you being supportive of GvG, please don’t worry. We would never do that.

Manoa.5897:

The codes are EU codes, which was a mistake. But customer server cannot magically convert all the unredeemed codes that are still in circulation into NA codes. Those of us who received EU codes at the Anniversary Bash are having to reach out to customer service for them to manually apply the minis to our accounts. And to be fair, it seems that most who have reached out to customer service reported that customer service applied the minis to their accounts fairly quickly.

The only case so far that has been drawn out is Strawberry’s, who has a unique case that is more complex than a simple “the code is region-locked for another region, we have to manually apply” issue. All we can really do is is be here for Strawberry for emotional support and hope that she is able to get situation resolved quickly.

Good morning. I attended the event. I was provided a EU code. When I got home that night I tried to input it and got the invalid message. I ticketed it that very night. Long story short, I’m still waiting and the person I attended the event with is waiting too. But to your point about converting to NA codes, my point would be that they shouldn’t have to. It’s just another example of almost getting something right. Almost.

So, I’m glad most of you have gotten yours, but I’m certain not all have.

Mine doesn’t work either. ArenaNet just can’t win for losing. They give out Euro codes to Americans attending a NA event in Seattle.

The longer this draws out the more you’ll be alienating some of your most ardent fans (those that took the time to come to your event).

JonathanSharp.7094:

Shaving vs Whack a mole.* We want to “shave” as much as possible, and not do massive improvements/reductions to classes. This means making slight tweaks to classes, rather than massive changes which can upset the balance of the game. A lot of times we use spreadsheets, generate the baselines for a given type of skill, and then bring the outliers up or down, depending on where they hit. Sometimes very slight tweaks can have massive implications.

Ok, I get this is the SPvP forum and your shaving vs whack-a-mole may be more appropriate here, but the shaving changes you make here turn into major changes in other areas. If Ranger short bow nerfs over the last year have been shaving, I shudder to think what you call major (double digit reductions in damage to our auto-attack and range reduced by 1/3rd). And those are just the tip of the ice berg.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Pedra.4381

That’s A LOT of explanatory information to not be comparing yourself to it.

They didn’t compare themselves to it.

Of course he didn’t.

Josh Foreman.8250:

Like before, I’ll throw out the caveat that I’m not claiming that the SAB team is that master craftsman pushing the medium forward in dramatic brilliant ways. Only that we are THINKING about the design choices we make, we recognize when we are breaking rules, and we have a reason for doing so. Because SAB exists within the ecosystem of Guild Wars 2 it’s not going to be an exact replica of IWTBTG. We’re a hybrid, and that brings lots of interesting challenges with it. I’m sure we’ll learn a lot from this first TM release, and incorporate those lessons into the next round.

That’s A LOT of explanatory information to not be comparing yourself to it.

Shoe.5821:

good 15 man Guild Group (and we are good) will lose to a bad 100 man zerg every kitten time. I guarantee it.

so?

So, skill won’t change that.

Edit: Read what the WvW developer is saying.

DevonCarver.5370:

I never said they did. However, I’d argue that they do in fact stand a chance against the 6th ranked server and the 5th ranked server. We are not trying to only ever match you up against your closest comparable server. That was what was happening with the system before and it was bad. If you are saying you don’t ever even want the chance to try and show your skill against a higher ranked server, then I don’t know what to say.

The panel questioning was shut down before I got an opportunity to ask my question and you were no where to be found during the “After Party”. My question was going to be: “How much WvW do you actually participate in during a typical week”?

Regardless of the fact that you seem to think differently, WvW is dictated by numbers, unless it’s the GvG scene where comparable numbers and skill play a huge role (a method of play that you don’t even seem to acknowledge). But when a low level server goes against a much higher level server, a good 15 man Guild Group (and we are good) will lose to a bad 100 man zerg every kitten time. I guarantee it. And our wanting to “prove ourselves” or not prove ourselves, has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of that contest. The mega zergers will come out on top. The fact that you seem to imply any other outcome is possible, given the state of WvW, leaves me rather dumbfounded. Anyone that plays WvW knows that.

Eolirin.1830:

There are different teams in the company working on different projects. Things are done in parallel. Josh’s team, mostly content designers, some artists, and a minimal amount of programming support, would never be responsible for meta, balance, loot, QA, progression, or any system that touches the entire game. Nor would hiring a bunch of additional devs dramatically increase progress on those fronts; there is a diminishing return to additional developers. It’s a choice of SAB or some other content, not of SAB and gameplay improvements.

This is a false argument. You are correct, that in the current distribution of the company “resources”, there is Josh’s team and others. And in that model what you say is true, they work in parallel. However, and here is the falsity, there doesn’t have to be such a distribution of “resources”. Companies have a finite amount of money to pay people and put together teams. They could use monies currently being spent on this niche development team and add more resources to fixing existent problems. From listening to the guys talk on the ArenaNet PAX panel this evening, I don’t think QA and other sections are overwhelmed with so many resources that they’re in danger of hitting diminishing returns.

Nebilim.5127:

Excuse me? There is the normal mode that was made for the broader audience. So we have that to appeal to the majority and tribulation to appeal to the minority. Everyone is happy. Are you telling me that the minority should be ignored because the resources could be used for something else for you guys? Nice hypocrisy mate.

I’ll explain a bit, Mate. Nothing I mentioned that needs fixing is related to a small elite group of players. Everything; meta, balance, buggy releases, applies to everyone, so what I’m suggesting is that instead of continuing to stroke their egos and do stuff that makes it into the trade journals, they need to focus on the core of this game and get it right. Until they do that, all the resources they expend elsewhere is a ridiculous waste.

Hire someone that understands how to fix the meta. Hire someone that understands how to balance professions through a method other than “whack-a-mole”. Hire someone that knows how to run a quality assurance program and stop publishing horrendously buggy content. Stop using the live servers, and us, as their test bed.

So do I think all of that is more important than catering to a very select few of platform jumpers? Yes, I do, most definitely.

Josh Foreman.8250:

I’m going to lay out the game philosophy behind how we decided to do Tribulation Mode because I think it’s going to be misunderstood by a lot of folks.

This design decision isn’t about being hard, being easy, or anything else you discussed. It’s much broader than that. It’s about ArenaNet’s decision to expend resources on a mode that they themselves know only caters to a select few. They do this at the same time that they continue to put out flawed buggy content and absolutely ignore major sections of the game that very large numbers of people play. One can wonder why and there might be many reasons but the most obvious is for the particular designer’s ego. It’s about them (ArenaNet) not about us (the players).

Meta is ridiculous right now (which wouldn’t be too terribly bad if they showed some modicum of ability to get it right). Imbalances in professions still exist. There are major bugs still existent that have been ignored for months (many months). We have designers posting about how every change they make is “well thought out and reasoned”, yet after every balance patch they continue to make changes to their changes. We have another that posts his usual condescending “information” about WvW and tells us that ArenaNet can’t publish anything “until it works”, while at the same time they are publishing crap that requires multiple new builds to at least get it close to functional.

This train is heading towards a crash, the only real question is going to be if it’s one of those old movie type slow motion ones or a spectacular full speed crash and burn.

DevonCarver.5370:

That being said I think we have some interesting ideas for the future, but they are not guaranteed to make it out of testing, because they have to work.

Must work? Great to hear, but is this a recently adopted requirement for going live with updates?

SynfulChaot.3169

Things aren’t all rosy. They also aren’t all terribad, so don’t jump on me for that. The biggest problem is that things keep getting adjusted for sPvP only. Which is why SOAC sees things as fine. sPvP is the place where rangers shine the most. Outside of that, however, the class needs a lot of work.

That’s SOAC’s second biggest problem. They’ve tied themselves to ArenaNet’s pursuit of an e-sport presence and in so doing are essentially saying to kitten with the rest of the game. For both them and ANet, that’s where the pot of gold is at the end of the rainbow (at least as they view it).

Chopps.5047:

Have any of you guys tried my mighty ranger build? Right? You’re all PvE’ers, right? Maybe you just aren’t playing ranger optimally?

Somewhere between Bas’s “ArenaNet finally gave us the diversity we wanted” and your one and only dungeon build, there seems to be a serious disconnect in the story line. Either that or maybe things aren’t as rosy as you and the SOAC team would want us to think?

Chopps.5047:

The pet/player relationship is likely close to where they like it. What’s the specific issue with pet damage? I barely even notice the change, thank god. It could be worse.

And here in a nutshell is the ArenaNet road ahead (as I’ve been saying for a couple of months now). They are making changes for the specific purpose of shaping perception. It’s the easy path to profession balance (nerf the shortbow to make the longbow better in comparison).

When they get everyone to think that things are fine because they could be worse, they’ve won and achieved their goal.

Chopps.5047:

lol bully pulpit ahaha…wait are you serious, Pedra?

So everything I said and that’s all you got? Bully pulpit? Really?

Making Rangers sound better than they are…funny you should mention that Chopps.

Edit: If you can’t refute, report; seems to work well here. Well played SOACGaming.

Bas.7406:

Actually we don’t get inside access with Arena net. We are able to talk to them occassionally, but we don’t get anything that any other media isn’t able to get easily. I really think Rangers are overreacting this patch. So you can’t sit there not die and farm noobs with hard hitting pet attacks while using constant evades and regen to stay alive. I guess you actually have to fight and attack for real.

Granted, some of the changes seemed a bit bad, but the overreaction is ridiculous.

Oh how kitten easy this would be.

Contrary to popular opinion though, I don’t like to take down easy targets; so I’ll just be quiet on this subject.

Best of luck with your commercial podcast.

Jindrake.2851:

With this in mind, we mean to argue that the class is by no means broken, and if anything it’s more balanced and actually improved from it’s former status.
Arenanet shows concern over us, and takes away a small part of what we can do, as a sacrifice for the build diversity we all keep wanting.

Anything for continued access, huh?

Dexter.3459:

Hey, don’t let this thread die. I’m holding onto the vague hope a few Anet devs have ranger primary.

Of course such a developer exists. He even posted in this forum once upon time. But, don’t hold your breath that you’ll see any help from him. He’s the same developer that said two Rangers with pets shouldn’t be able to take down end game bosses (regardless of the fact that other classes do it solo with ease).

And purely coincidently, what have we seen happen to pets?

ToT.7018:

and have boycotted the gem store.

You and me both, brother. You and me both.

Essence Snow.3194:

This basically acts as a +1 that some accounts are marked as lucky and some are not, but ofc all we get is a NO w/o any kind of evidence. Proof is in the pudding and so far all the evidence shows that there is something amiss.

“Wi Flag”. I’ve been saying this for a while now. I know someone that has found 3 precursors on same character (2 drops and 1 MF).

When I click on the Bug Forum why am I getting this message in a red banner:

“You must be a moderator or administrator to access this page!”

Einlanzer.1627:

Like every other class, rangers are designed to fit a variety of play-styles, and to make the most of them you have to gasp mix it up a little bit, move around, and alter builds and skills based on tactical needs.

And of course, all that retooling and regearing, etc, potentially funnels money into their store, doesn’t it?

Makes you wonder. But, of course, that’s just conspiracy kitten, right?

stale.9785:

Add to that the truth that the entire game is balanced around it’s least played aspect, pvp, and you’ve got a playerbase that started out deceived about the class, then gets lied to by the devs, nerfed for the sake of pvp, then lied to and nerfed again. I’m not surprised at the anger – I’m amazed that anyone still plays the class.

From the player perspective though, this is the real issue, not where the profession may or may not be at this particular moment in time.

My question and it is simple.

Is the path forward the one they’ve currently chosen, i.e., change the base line by nerfing a build to make others more powerful in comparison? In other words, are they going to continue down the path that they can get the balance results they want by changing people’s preceptions rather than making meaningful fixes (as one Developer alluded to in an earlier SOTG).

Isn’t there some sort of rule that says a Sticky should have relevancy and accuracy? Once out of date, shouldn’t they be deleted or unsticked? If there isn’t such a rule, there should be.

Cempa.5619:

Thing is we have some darn powerful builds right now, as we speak rangers are steamrolling players and dominating 1vX.

All day yesterday I did not lose a 1v1 and I spent hours going up against each and every build one by one they died. 1v2 I liked my chances but against good players I had to get away or find water.

Bad players are bad; regardless of what profession you’re using to stomp them.

jubskie.3152

So not getting what you want gives you the right to verbally abuse them?

Seriously, if all that hate was directed at you, would you be motivated to work at all?

jubskie, this misdirected ire of yours grows old. If the ANet employees were working out of the goodness of their hearts and for our adoration then you would have a point. But since neither of those are true, you don’t.

We are customers (paying customers, I might add) and they treat us like mushrooms. They troll us, they flat out prevaricate, dissimilate, obfuscate, and are quite frequently disingenuous. They have NO meaningful discourse with us.

There have been attempts by a number of people to have intelligent, thougtful discourse with ANet developers and some of those people even put tremendous effort into detailed analysis. And what did it get for us? What good did it do? Did they even acknowledge it?

So, keep crying for the poor ANet developers if you wish but they are undeserving of it.

Durzlla.6295:

A lot of thieves tend to list themselves in the middle actually.

Obviously not the majority it seems because I doubt seriously that any non-thieves put them down there.

JonathanSharp.7094:

Just wanted to come out of my lurk mode for a bit and let you guys know that we are watching this thread on the balance team.

Keep it constructive, but keep going, we love reading the debate!

Well, I guess we don’t have to wonder where they get their balance data from anymore. Of course, you have to wonder when they’ll figure out that all the Thieves list themselves at the bottom of the lists.

Kevlar Eater.1985:

They’re mad because they’ve experienced their first (or second? I dunno) nerf. Once they start getting as frequently gutted as the ranger patch after patch with a dev basically trolling them, I’ll learn to sympathize. I’m not saying they should take it; of course they have quite a few problems that need addressing.

I can’t mention developer names or I get infracted but if you notice, after the last nerf (pre-25 June), there was another developer that stopped in here for the soul purpose of trolling. There’s no doubt at this point, that’s all the Ranger forums are good for, developer trolling.

Hax.8701:

While I am not an employee, I can tell you that when I roam with full Apothecary gear, trinkets, and weapons, with 0/0/30/10/30 I can kill about every class that comes in my way. Now say you’re sorry.

Then in the interest of improving WvW roaming, allow me to suggest that you teach your elite skills to the other Rangers in your guild as they are in terrible need of instruction.

PerfectOctave.5172:

No and these posts aren’t helpful in any way.

How ’bout you show us an example of a helpful post that has resulted in anything positive for the Ranger community?

Anything at all…anything.

jubskie.3152:

That would only make sense if we were to assume that every single person that gives these toxic feedback feels that all of this started from that lie. It would be a bit presumptuous if we were to believe that.

If only there had been the singular lie. But, unfortunately, there have been so many that each individual spewing the “toxic” feedback can simply pick one of their choosing and make it their own personal reason.

As I’ve said before, for me personally, I didn’t start where I currently find myself in regards to my disdain for ANet; I was clearly and distinctly led here. I believe that to be the case for most “toxic” posters here.

jubskie.3152:

Pedra.4381:

jubskie.3152:

*And when one of them finally has the guts to participate in discussion, they get viciously attacked.

jubskie, purely hypothetically speaking, if someone tells you a blatant lie and you call them a liar that is not a vicious attack. It’s a statement of fact necessitated by their actions. If said person then wishes to construe being called a liar because of their lying an attack, then that’s their perogative and their problem; but what they really need to do is evaluate themselves first and ask what did they do to deserve it.

Turning the other cheek is a nice concept but in practice it leaves you with swollen red cheeks.

If only the posts were as simple as you say. People that post that they lie almost always include a lot of censored words, an insult to their intelligence, a threat to their employment or just a lot of vitriol. Heck, Robert was even called a “Double Agent” just because he posted in the Theif section. :/ Imagine all of that hate directed at you. Would you be enticed to visit, much less post, in such an acidic forum?

I would submit to you that there are ways to avoid being in that situation and it begins (it starts day one) with clear, open, and meaningful communication. But, for ANet, that boat left pier a long time ago and its too late to jump on it now.

This disconnect between the player base and ANet really comes down to one simple question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg (the distrust or the cause)?

jubskie.3152:

*And when one of them finally has the guts to participate in discussion, they get viciously attacked.

jubskie, purely hypothetically speaking, if someone tells you a blatant lie and you call them a liar that is not a vicious attack. It’s a statement of fact necessitated by their actions. If said person then wishes to construe being called a liar because of their lying an attack, then that’s their perogative and their problem; but what they really need to do is evaluate themselves first and ask what did they do to deserve it.

Turning the other cheek is a nice concept but in practice it leaves you with swollen red cheeks.

The developers would ask us to believe that all the recent “balance” changes were fair, necessary, and good for the game.

I would find that easier to accept were they not changing their own previous work that supposedly was originally fair, necessary, and good.

Maybe it’s just me, but given the magnitude of these changes that thought bothers me.

Hugh Norfolk.2798:

Hi everyone,

I wanted to jump in here and clear up the confusion about why traps are unavailable. We have disabled the use of traps in WvW because of a bug that came up in the recent patch. We will be turning traps back on as soon as possible once we resolve this issue.

Hugh

Your player base is delighted to have been allowed to test this on the live servers and find this bug for you.

EnemyCrusher.7324:

Please give the devs feedback here. Tell them why skill X sucks, or why trait Y is terrible. But, please do so in a logical and constructive way, because all of this whining, conspiracy theories, and nonsensical hyperbolies will get you nowhere, and drowns out any constructive feedback that might actually improve the game.

There are countless threads were very smart people provided very constructive information concerning a variety of Ranger shortcomings and NOT A SINGLE ONE has resulted in anything positive for the Ranger community. So please…well, those forum rules again. Sigh.

Setun.4368:

Questionable ability being able to hit our arrow cart where it’s next to impossible to target if you’re not in the tower itself. For shame AR’s kitten guild, for shame.

I’m not in this “Kitten guild” you refer to (and yes, I know who it is), but I got to say this. I’ve yet to be in a tower defense when someone in the SBI zerg didn’t employ this exact same “technique” and the AC zoom hack.

I plan to keep my 30/30/30/30/30 build sooper sekrit.

dunnberry.2964:

Jumping puzzle etiquette=PVE scrubs…we’re in WvW, if its read its dead, that’s most etiquette you’ll be seeing from me and many others

Why only kill the literate?

dtxman.2054:

Would like to congratulate SBI guild Kiwi you are real stand ups attacking 3 of us not fighting back at the end of jumping puzzle in WvW. Congrats really shows off your skills and prowess.

Unless they outnumbered you 3 to 1, I wouldn’t ever come on here and admit I died in a fight to [Kiwi]. The embarrassment of that would simply be overwhelming.

Bran.7425:

Shiren.9532:

What happened to balancing with small changes? In one patch they did a massive nerf to the shortbow’s range, they move a 5 point trait that almost every build used to a 30 point trait (quickness on pet swap) and did an almost universally across the board significant pet DPS nerf. These are not small changes and they all came in the same patch. How is this fine tuning?

Just putting it out there what if these changes are what the balance team thinks of a small?

Then their level of stupidity surpasses even where I thought it was (and I already thought they were pretty kitten stupid).