Guild Wars 2

SBI… BP… naw. Making Anvil Rock proud in 2016.

Hey, Vegeta. What’s his power level?

XTR.9604:

You mean to tell me that an unfinished product went in to production?!

All of these by-popular-vote changes to WvW are “live beta test” releases, and that is a distinction between working and complete.

Desert does need Borderland Bloodlust. That would make a fine replacement for the orbital cannon event that never should have been.

Adding Borderland Bloodlust to Desert will require new structure models and object collision, maybe some textures, and five capture points. In a word: work.

Welcome to live beta gaming.

Never let it be sayed that he did not sayed it.

PS:

No top fight guild (GS, TW, etc) would ever run boonsharing against anything more than a 50 man pug blob. Not even in a GvG against a new guild.

LOL

Don’t worry. The dream is about to get rotated.

This is a summary of relatively simple QoL improvements to inventory and banking that I’ve wanted since Oct. 2012. Post-launch features mentioned below have agreed with my past self. I wanted those features before they were released. It can be polished further.

• Salvage kits need a “Use on all {rarity}” option, to cope with the insane amounts of Fine and Masterwork items we receive.

http://i.imgur.com/8hOBc8M.png

The recent improvements to WvW loot drop frequency has made this need truly annoying. We want rewards, but receiving loot clashes with the intent of entering WvW combat. We open and rapidly scroll and click to salvage junk while auto-running between fights, and this is annoying.

Inventory Wars 2.

• You’re losing sales. Shared Inventory Slots are too expensive.

http://i.imgur.com/6v80bLx.png

Account-binding of items is far more common than the reasonable number of account inventory slots a person will buy. I can buy 13 at that price. $120 USD to buy the gems in-game for the purpose (8,000 & 1,600; 500 remaining). That is a year of subscription to an MMO that charges for access.

I believe that you are losing sales here, and I know that mine is one of those.

You should be selling account-bound bag slots.

Shared Inventory Bag Slots should be a paid convenience, not a luxury.

• Common container items need the “Consume All” context menu option that Essence of Luck already has.

http://i.imgur.com/FXBB41M.png

All such container items, whether box or bag or pouch, are frankly insulting to double-click at the rate that they are dropped.

• Common salvage items need “Salvage all with {salvage kit}”.

http://i.imgur.com/02Llf0x.png

The feature would use salvage kits from inventory, listing the kits that are present in inventory.

These items are the same insult as never-ending containers. It’s a game reward that’s gated behind a Pavlovian labor. It’s not an amusing dice roll game of chance.

• Nourishment is a special case item that deserves in-game support as if it were an equipped item.

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

We use these as equipment, for character stats modifiers. They should remain present in inventory, filling a slot there. However, they should also have a slot on the Hero panel— http://i.imgur.com/T16Ycyf.png —where the utility and food for a player’s build is slotted and therefore automatically consumed as needed.

This removes a reason to open inventory during gameplay and removes a distraction from the gameplay. The inventory and the distraction are not improving or adding difficulty per se to the gameplay. They are adding annoyance.

With that improvement in place, the player agency in choice of nourishments for their character build will remain intact.

Feast items would still work, replacing the active nourishment effect for the duration of the feast’s effect.

• The gear icon in Inventory panel should be present in the inventory pane on the Account Vault panel.

http://i.imgur.com/BENaOWH.jpg

The need to open both panels defeats the purpose of having an inventory pane on account vault.

• Bank tabs need to be movable.

http://i.imgur.com/ySBRH1h.png

This week I bought my 13th bank tab. The new bank tab was added to the bottom of that list, but it wouldn’t have mattered where it came in. These need to be movable so that we can reorder the bank tabs as we wish after having previously filled bank tabs with items. Priorities change, and top of the list is priority one.

• Double-click on inventory item needs filtered sorting to player-chosen bank tab.

http://i.imgur.com/603MXc1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/dNwZ1iW.jpg

When I double-click an item on the inventory pane of account vault, it will move to the first available slot in my bank. That is useful if I know that the item has an unfilled stack in the bank.

That is useless otherwise. We sort our banks. We spend time doing that. Help us spend less time doing that.

The bank deserves a filter for items at the bank tab level. Graphically it is the bank tab, as a row (because of the space between bank tabs) that we use to visually remember where our stuff is.

A filter would work by adding a right-click choice here— http://i.imgur.com/s5Iqg3p.png —to that same item type in that item’s current bank tab. The bank tab would report that state in graphic and text in it’s header under “Filtered” or “Prefers” or the like.

Items double-clicked from inventory would still enter the first available slot, but would first check for that player choice.

• Soulbound need further audit.

http://i.imgur.com/ppwr4pL.png

That example is a karma purchased item made soulbound. Drop items can still be a problem here when the item drop action is bound to a character action.

Purchased items (regardless of currency) should never be soulbound. The purchase is a player decision. It isn’t necessarily an in-character choice.

Soulbinding of drops is a harder problem, but I think that “Soulbound on equip” is the most you should do there. If an item is not equipment then it isn’t made intrinsic to the character. The character hasn’t soiled it.

• Guild bank tabs are nearly 4 years out of sync with account vault, and that’s just wrong.

http://i.imgur.com/sNCqReF.jpg

This is one example of it. If I double-click that Chocolate Banana, I will consume it. I have to learn that by doing it. The behavior on Account Vault is different, but they should be the same: using the personal bank behavior.

The guild bank UI is buggy and slowly responsive in ways that aren’t present in the account vault, but have always been present in guild bank.

Please unify that code where relevant.

I want WvW rank badges, and I want them to be permanently added to nameplates while in PvP and PvE.

EU and NA have separate regional pairings because inter-continental internet links are still not as fast and reliable as intra-continental ones.

Nameplates are unified to one of the linked servers because having more than 3 team names involved in a mathematically 3-way battle will unnecessarily confuse the tactical issue of who is able to damage who.

Chiccotot.7296:

Currency count:

Gems
Gold
Karma
Spirit Shards
Laurels

Ascalonian Catacombs
Citadel of Flame
Twilight Arbor
Caudecus’ Manor
Sorrow’s Embrace
Honor of the Waves
Crucible of Eternity
City of Arah

Guild Commendations

Fractal Relic
Pristine Fractals

Geodes
Bandit Crest

Airship Parts
Aurillium
Ley-Line Crystals
Crystalline Ore

Proof of Heroics
Badges of Honor
WvW Tourney Tickets

…am i missing anything else? LOL

Maybe, but the list is also limited to the permanent currencies, and mostly account wallet ones. You’re missing all of the trophy items that behave as temporary (specific use) currencies, and the item drops that behave as commodities in lieu of currency (worst offenders: blue and green rarity trash items).

At it’s foundation it’s just an RPG problem. Itemization is an area in which ArenaNet has failed to innovate and has exemplified the problem.

Proof of Heroics is a redundant currency. So is Memory of Battle. They overlap unnecessarily with Badge of Honor. Their differences are forced in the design, not by necessity.

We had regularly scheduled EBG karma trains in 2012 tier 8. The goal was to assemble while the opponents were offline, or avoid them if they chased.

The date on this song is Jan 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vIoGp3R7ZI

Welcome to GW2 WvW.

</thread>

At this stage of WvW rebalanceblancerebalance for players vs siege, anyone honestly complaining about players being too strong against siege weapons has simply never fought against (nor with) properly placed and used siege weapons.

Tomiyou.3790:

Seasons maybe?
Like I really wanna love WvW, but I don’t have any incentive to play it.

“Need more incentive than just fun”. Get real…

Ruru.1302:

why fix what isnt broken

Fight what can not be fought.

Know what can not be known.

Rotate what can not be rotated.

Fix what can not be broken.

Physics?

GW2 has physics.

TorquedSoul.8097:

If population balance wasn’t the goal of server linking why was it advertised as such?

What are you expecting ArenaNet to do? Even more forcibly remove everyone from every server and reposition them in a 1:1 distribution with all factors considered?

TorquedSoul.8097:

If it doesn’t solve the balance problem then why do we need it at all?

It helped. Are you going to boycot asprin because it only lessens a headache where an opioid would entirely numb the pain?

TorquedSoul.8097:

The only thing that has changed with the linking is that the maps are more crowded leading to more blob fight activity. IF that was the goal, then yes Beta=Success.

Beta = Success

Can I just tweet @GuildWars2 when I’m ready for WvW to reset, please?

TY IN ADVANCE

Internet paranoia is a fascinating beast.

DeWolfe.2174:

Virtute.8251:

45 minutes to go

45 minutes after and you’re still not logged in. So why should anyone care for your opinion when you’re not even playing at reset?

buh bye

:D

https://i.imgur.com/DebloKJ.png

https://i.imgur.com/n0CQG77.jpg

;)

Bottom of the leaderboard will always be the bottom of the leaderboard.

Weakest, least populace server(s) sink. That’s the leaderboard’s job.

It’s working.

You can’t have four tiers of 12 servers all perfectly balanced to each other’s strengths and weaknesses.

There is not and will not be a significant enough ruleset to enforce that on WvW teams. Bet on it.

Beta = Success

45 minutes to go

I’m thinking of you right now, cry post warriors.

1hr 15mins to go.

Sich.7103:

Aeolus.3615:

one of the things i would like to see is increased rewards for guilds to hold their stuff for X time days or whatver, it should be risky. maybe even add presecursor items or ascended items deppending castle, castles and towers would be disarable for defending teamand the actackers, more value.

Problem is that the game is WvW not GvG….
Defending something is a team play for all the server, but only the guild will receive bonus ?

He’s talking about the guild capture-and-hold missions that are already in play on claimed objectives.

RvR, GvG, and PvP are aspects of the same thing. So it is in WvW.

Reduce the variety of rewards per track (particularly the loot boxes) so that they will stack instead of growing to encumbrance. This happens on an inventory that is already maxed for bag slots.

Between combat salvage is so frequent that I’m calling WvW Inventory Wars 2.

If you need to balance the rewards for game currency value, just give us more coin and tokens. The non-stacking boxes are just silly.

PS: I do enjoy the irony of going from “too little reward” to “too much”, though.

I recall many people against things, too. Kinda looking forward to this one going to vote in a few weeks/months.

Most of these complaints about tournaments are players blaming the event organizer for player-generated problems that occur in spite of efforts (or without any involvement) of the organizer. Especially the bits about “making” people do things, commitments to logging hours, etc.

I’m not saying that a 24×7 tournament is an event worth organizing on the current game model. I’m also not saying it isn’t worth trying again on other models.

In other words.

Xenesis.6389:

They have to keep some randomness to it, otherwise you’ll get people complaining they don’t get to play the other colors, why are we stuck on red for 6 weeks now!.

Hm? I think you misunderstood me; not the other way.

Xenesis.6389:

The colors are assigned when the final glicko ratings(with the variance added) are calculated and the matchups are put together. So it is random, but the odds of a top server rolling red? basically only if they were rolling up a tier, or the ratings were really close in the current tier like T1/2.
(Look at who has red borderlands this week and their ranks)

Yeah, but eh. Nip it in the bud. Just input the glicko rank variable on map selector.

I don’t see any of this as a fix to a supposed problem in how time zoning works on a spherical planet.

I see it as a fix to a problem of stagnation and boredom.

:)

Jayne.9251:

Xenesis.6389:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

The current plan is to rotate the borderlands maps each quarterly update. That said, now that we are actively polling the community, perhaps we can start exploring other options.

For instance, nothing is really stopping us from having a combination of ABL and DBL maps running simultaneously. 2 of one and 1 of the other. If we polled that, and players approved it, then there’d be no need for the rotation, and players on both sides of the issue could play on their preferred map. The downside of course, would be any perception of imbalance that may arise from one map being considered the stronger “Home” map, but we could always give the more defensible map to Red/Blue and leave the less defensible map to Green.

TYLER YES! DBL for redbl and Alpine on blue and green bl.
Give it a shot and see how it goes!

Actually that makes sense, assuming red truly means the lowest ranked and not RNG.

E Z.

Give DBL to the lowest rank server in the match; ignoring color. That is, of course, if we agree that DBL is “more easily defended” than Alpine. I think that’s possibly true today, but is very questionable. Regardless, it may not be true after eventual terrain, environment, and NPC changes to Alpine (you gotta know that they’re thinking about that, right?)

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Our primary motivation for avoiding running another tournament, is that at the end of every tournament we saw a permanent dip in the number of players playing WvW. Presumably this was due to players burning themselves out during the tournament.

It is possible that some people burned out, but I played both tournaments in Gold League without seeing significant evidence of players burning out because of those tournaments.

In my experience:

Players who leave and site burn out were going to burn out regardless. The game was doing its job as an amusement motivator and the person hurt themselves. You remember that GW1 had an online time notification to players for that, and that the players ignored it? Same problem; personal to the player.

There were many players who returned for the tournaments after having already left WvW. I would bet that those people (and people like them) account for a significant portion of the permanent loss. That’s what my guild rosters have always indicated. It’s ongoing. Maybe delineating the data at the tournaments is not as useful as it seems on the surface.

People quit GW2 and/or WvW for reasons other than the tournaments.

I’ve seen plenty of players lose interest in WvW from a slow growing frustration at the eventual third tournament which never came.

If there is a bad thing that the tournaments can be said to cause, it is that the tournaments blatantly showcase the ways in which WvW is fundamentally flawed as a teamed competition. The flaws don’t make it not fun, but they do make competition insignificant outside of individual fights. Most player-to-player drama centered around perceptions of that.

Xenesis.6389:

Boy I sure do hope they can move reset to stardate -306608.048630085
It’ll fix all our problems.

No more resets until August 10, 2629, 22:30:21.

May 23, 2016, 10:54:03 if you meant the – as negative.

I’d vote for that.

Shadow.3475:

pm this and am that use 24hour clock so everyone know what your saying

https://i.imgur.com/F5oB8Ru.png

xD

DeWolfe.2174:

Chris, Anet’s logic is flawed as Frick on this? For starters

I stopped caring when you punctuated an assertion as a question.

Puck.9612:

Ten may not be late for you but some people have to work on Saturdays.

NA people who need to sleep near 10PM on Friday, to work on Saturday, simply don’t get to play Friday reset. That’s it. Sorry.

I don’t wake up at 3AM to play OCX only because I want to play OCX. I do it because I occasionally clock in to work at 4:30AM.

#DealWithIt

Make Colonial America Great Again

Xenesis.6389:

Meh just move it to 10am on mondays.

1PM EST Wednesday, so that Asia and Oceania will be asleep, while NA will be at work. We all know Europe actually prefers their regional servers.

There will be no queues at reset!

Difficulty with timezone math aside (we all lean on maps and such for that... or just get it wrong).

Chris is right. Not obeying daylight savings, and using 7PM or 6PM PST as the benchmark is the correct thing to do. Even if it’s an unpopular thing, particularly among east coast NA players interested enough to rally for votes.

Time is a fluid thing, afterall. I’m in Central timezone NA, usually sleep through “NA prime time” to the start of OCX (that means I wake up at about 3AM), and yet I play Friday Reset at 9PM along with my Aussie and Kiwi friends who do that for their Saturday afternoon.

Get over yourselves, east coast.

Sidizen.9048:

I just think it’s weird that graphics don’t affect my FPS.

The graphics settings aren’t affecting your WvW FPS because the graphics systems of the client are mostly c. 2010 code for DirectX9, using visual effects methods, textures, models, etc., that fit within a compute budget appropriate for that year.

Those client systems have been improved since launch, but the foundation was built before launch. Your GPU and CPU are simply over-spec for the client’s target.

WvW causes downward spikes in FPS because the GPU stops producing frames while it waits for the CPU or Server to tell it what to draw. That is only a local problem for your PC if the CPU is bottlenecking, and that’s actually difficult to analyze sometimes.

If your PC parts are all younger technology than c. 2014 for when their technology was released by their manufacturers, we can just assume that the “problem” is in how the WvW server/client relationship code is structured, and can also assume that the FPS loss is that most common form of it: WvW on GW2.exe can not calculate a battle between all of the clients it allows to connect to the same instanced map.

The FPS loss in that scenario is irrelevant to any graphical effects calculations. That’s why your settings don’t change the outcome. The FPS loss is in the client-to-server-to-client communication loop, which is necessarily forcing all clients to occasionally (and frequently) pause their image (frame) draw routines while waiting for more data.

mcarswell.3768:

very true. you stated in an earlier post that Anet has said PPT is here to stay. i’m curious if you have that reference…because if that’s true, then it’s discouraging…

As interesting as the link to dev statement may be, we don’t need that to know it’s a true claim.

PPT can’t be removed from WvW because that action would effectively mean building a new game type. PPT stays because WvW fundamentally is a game of capture-and-hold.

The new systems being tacked on will never wholly replace that foundation.

WvW without PPT is a job for GW3, if ANet is interested in it to begin with.

Previous posters referring to marks as traps = key insight gg.

If OP is troll then it’s trolling against what OP reminded me of, which is commanders in voice comms saying “marks on downs.”

OP gets a gold participation star either way. :happy:

WvW is MOBA, and the players are creeps. WvW != RvR.

Server mergers are a staple of the RvR game format. It always comes to pass.

WvW has always been a diluted RvR format, relative to past and future RvR games. Server loyalty (in the sense that you would refuse to or dislike playing with another server, just on principle alone) is a fool’s errand. Guild loyalty is what ultimately matters.

WvW is a hybrid. It mixes heavily with the ideas that GW2 and GW1 PvP and GvG borrowed from, and its map design is clearly templating the MOBA “lanes” concept.

The WvW leaderboard is a relatively static structure. The matchmaking is there to move competitors but intentionally does it slowly.

If you can’t see what ArenaNet intends to do with this linkage system, then you need to review their details again and think it through.

Links will shuffle.

Servers can have no partners.

Servers can have multiple partners.

Host servers have significantly reduced population caps.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Potential (controversial) additional change:

• This is the Action Level – Victory Point Multiplier system
  • It’s important to include map populations as a factor, to make the system more fair for off hours players and its important to include time-of-day as a factor to prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score muliplier low by exiting WvW

Tyler,

As an American who primarily plays between 3AM and 9AM UTC -5, I strongly disagree with your final point there. Time-of-day is only a factor in Action Level if you excessively worry about player agency as a factor in “gaming the system.”

Do not worry about player agency gaming that system. It is exceedingly rare that a home world’s WvW community is capable of that level of agreement and cooperation. There are always significant amounts of dissident opinions and actions in a move like that. We have tried and failed to organize such moves in the past. This is a non-issue.

It is only imagination that leads to that worry. Look at the data.

If you use an otherwise correct scoring system to directly punish the actions of players naturally playing outside of NA prime time hours, then you will be unintentionally damaging their desire to play at all.

The only people who will cheer for that move are either misunderstanding or ignorant of the implication.

Map population should consistently be a factor in Action Level, across any “time of day” relative to server time. That part is correct.

Devaluing that factor based upon the server’s local time is nonsense. You’re operating an international game on the NA servers.

~ Anvu

I’m an American in Central Time Zone who, during the work week, primarily plays between 3 AM and 9 AM. That’s the time bloc we call “OCX”.

As the official ambassador of NA in the OCX bloc, I am here to inform you that OCX rejects your spurious and capricious charges of “night capping” and returns to you the charge that you’re all filthy day cappers.

Hah, he thinks OS was built for duelers.
Oh, you cutie, you.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We changed stability so that it can only be removed every 0.75 seconds and added an effect that plays when it is removed.

Add that the target cap of 10 on nearly all stab-stripping ground-target AoEs has indirectly strengthened Stability so that it is now stronger than its original state as a non-stacking duration based boon.

That target cap is too much in favor of Stability in live-game group play where Stability can easily be taken to 25 stacks and reapplied frequently.

People who love for their own melee to be invulnerable to hard CC are going to love that fact.

People who want their hard CC controls to have a chance at stopping a heavily booned opponent may not even realize why it isn’t happening now, and are generally powerless to answer this with a game mechanical reply. There is no rock-paper-scissors in how this Stability (and a lot of things like it) is working now.

PvP should keep the control AoE targeting with target capping.

WvW should go back to uncapped.

No control skill in WvW should ever strip more than 1 stack of Stability in a single “proc” instance. Especially when the strip is coming from range above 300 units. However, the AoEs do not need to be target capped, and repeatedly crossing the “proc” area should probably repeatedly hit.

Tiny Doom.4380:

You have no concept of loyalty, do you?

Of course I do. That doesn’t mean that I need to speak or think of WvW servers in terms that are more appropriate for guilds and friend lists.

Besides, you weren’t separated from your friends and ally guilds.

Tiny Doom.4380:

Carpekitten is not a solution, it’s the problem. Server moves were a mistake from the get-go.

No it isn’t, and no it wasn’t.

Tiny Doom.4380:

If you want to play on another server, buy another account and start over.

That’s far more uncompromising and destructive than what you’re accusing me of. Even CU isn’t going to do that to you in their RvR, and that game will be far more strict than WvW is with cross-realming and team-swaps. They’ll make you restart a character, but not an account.

Tiny Doom.4380:

Without meaningful server loyalty what exactly is the point of “world versus world versus world”?

Server (or more accurately, Home World) loyalty clearly plays a part in short to medium term gameplay, but to extend that to this extreme of patriotism—basically just flag waving and grandstanding like you’re some sort of disenfranchised labor union—this is patently silly.

Again: In GW2 WvW, the sort of feelings and behavior shown in these threads is more appropriately attached to guilds, not worlds. Even in WvW. Especially in WvW. The facts are in the design, and those facts existed before this week’s patch.

katz.8376:

Virtute.8251:

katz.8376:

quit kitten talkin about the queues :-P

The rest was transient or irrelevant.

in your opinion

In fact. It’s in the design and four years of forum wars.

katz.8376:

quit kitten talkin about the queues :-P

The rest was transient or irrelevant.

katz.8376:

phsh. i don’t care.

Okay. Don’t worry, the queues will be over soon, and the rest was transient or irrelevant.