Showing Posts For Zhentar.6810:
I suppose the crux of the question is how priority is the rest of the stuff, if the smaller bits are taken care of? Would the commander system be functional enough with more markers, guild only tags, less suppression, better supplyinfo, and possibly additional marker shapes?
Yes and No.
Yes: those changes would be huge QoL wins, and allow us to make better use of the system, more often (though frankly, I think the system already meets the bar of “functional enough”).
No: a lot of the suggestions that have been made focus around WvW issues that aren’t directly commander related (e.g. siege deployment troubles/griefing). They don’t have to be addressed through the commander system, but they do need something done.
1) What is an acceptable amount of chat suppression for a commander? It’s important to realize that if the system remains as it currently does, with 100g for a tag, no chat suppression would mean that people can spend 100g to spam you with whatever they feel like. That’s not an acceptable solution. I think there are other things we could do, like provide a commander only channel that has no suppression but that people have to opt in to.
I think an opt-in solution would be useless. If you’re PUG commanding (which, if you’re getting chat suppression and aren’t using voice comm, you probably are), then you can’t rely on random people knowing (or remembering) to opt-in to hearing you.
2) How would it feel to have a system that gradually unlocked more commander abilities and icons, but that required dedication to WvW? Let’s say we added a commander line to the ability panel and you unlocked it with WvW ability points. What is the right starting price for that? 100 points? more? If that happens, does it make sense for the system to remain character based? Would requiring commanders to spend their WXP in this way limit them to the point that they didn’t want to do it? What if you still acquired the current tag by spending 100g, but you upgraded to new shapes via the WXP system?
I’m okay with a WXP requirement for commander; for WvW commanding, it would be a significantly better barrier to entry than 100g (I agree with others that it’s not ideal, but it’s definitely better). But if features are tiered, the public, map visible tag should be the last one, not the first. As others have mentioned, new commanders shouldn’t be lacking important management features. I don’t think adding a disincentive to acquiring them would be positive either (through the opportunity cost of WXP that could be spent for other bonuses). I do think it would be okay (neat, even) to have additional tiers that provide bonuses to the commander or squad, though (like Nike suggested on page 3).
I do like the idea of a tiered approach, though. 100G is a steep price to pay if you just want to lead a 10 man guild group. A lower barrier for a guild/squad only tag would be rather nice. And even without a gold cost at all, a significant WXP cost would still hurt a lot if you’re only commanding occasionally.
Would you rather see us make some number of small improvements in the short term and larger changes long term or just tear the whole thing down and start from scratch?
The only part that I feel needs to be torn down and restarted from scratch is the acquisition (and there’s not much to tear down there). The rest of the commander system works; it’s a good foundation to build on, the problem is just that there’s not much more than a foundation.
A random feature that would be nice – a sort of public ‘Call Target’ for building siege sites. It’s common to drop multiple siege at once (like 2 or 3 rams at a door), and it’s easy for people to get confused over which one they’re supposed to build first.
An inverse, don’t build target would also be nice for when someone accidentally drops a ram instead of an AC on the walls, or such. Just as a visual indicator, of course, since actually preventing people from building would be too easy to exploit.
1. Invisible Commander
Make it possible for the Commander symbol invisible to all players not in the squad. This would create the possibility for a guild grp to activate their commander without stealing the players from the main commander of the map. (other commanders can see him though you can also disable that or add an option to disable it)
As someone who runs in guild groups regularly, this would be so incredibly helpful. Currently, we have to set our group’s target on the leader, which is easy to get messed up in the heat of combat.
I also think i made a mistake by starting three threads about the process evolution of CDI. The goal of this particular thread type is to raise issues, discuss solutions, and brainstorm new opportunities.
I think this goal could have been better served by just having a single thread where all contributors could have discussed the global evolution of CDI together bringing up relevant examples for their specific areas.
I think that having more than one concurrent CDI thread with ANet participation isn’t a good idea, both for the discussions and the process feedback. Your enthusiasm for this initiative ensures that whichever thread you are watching the closest will outshine the others.
That is a good point. Let’s see if there is anymore commentary about that Topic proposal and then go from there.
Chris
I’ll throw in another voice against Skill Lag as a topic for the WvW CDI, with a different reason. I think that if you polled the community again today, skill lag would not get nearly the focus it did previously. The original call for topics was posted right around the beginning of WvW Season 1, which caused a significant increase in skill lag for a lot of players, making it a bit of a hot issue at the time (particularly because it got worse shortly after we were given assurances that it would be getting better).
The November 12th patch brought some significant improvements to skill lag. It’s both made it a much smaller issue for many players, and lends a lot more credibility to the promises that it will be addressed.
So please tell me more about what you mean when you say your other chars got this reset… when was this?
There was another WvW ability reset a week or so before Season 1 began: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/welcome-to-world-vs-world-season-1/
We will also be refunding all spent World Ability Points of all characters in the game at the start of the season
As long as you’re fixing the rest of the tooltip, it would be convenient if it showed the correct healing amount as well.
That presumes that there are simple database fields that determine what event triggers on a success or failure. That seems like a rather rigid and narrow sighted design; I doubt it’s the case. The next event in the chain is likely triggered by a script run at the completion of the previous event, so providing that information would either require the API to parse the scripts to try to pick out any events it triggers, or would require manual data entry that would probably only be marginally more reliable than the wiki.
which is then doubled or tripled (or what ever they used) for storage redundancies and safety and so on.
Probably even more than that. Depending on your needs, you can end up with quite a few copies of the data, especially if you’re using fancy database features like mirroring to improve performance (For a product I work with, the average is something like 17 live copies of the production data).
And it’s got extra costs on top of that; a bigger database takes longer to back up (and consumes more backup space), longer to verify, longer to mirror, and you can’t fit as much of your database in memory, so you need more RAM too.
At home, I can store a terabyte of data for under $100. At work, I can spend as much as $100,000 on a terabyte of storage.