Guild Wars 2

I feel like the fix was too knee-jerk. A simpler better-understood fix would be to assign outmanned pips for the tick if the player holds the outmanned buff for at least any consecutive 15 second period or perhaps just a cumulative minute or two, dealer’s choice. However, pips should only be assigned if the player has been on the map for at least five minutes.

Want to know if you’ve been on a map for five minutes? Give the player a new buff on entering a map where the outmanned buff can’t apply pips and give it a five minute timer. (You can even call it “A New Challenger” akin to the Street Fighter meme. We know ANet likes memes!)

This is very much like the graphics issue that has plagued Spider Nest Cavern for months over in Diessa Plateau (the Devourer Burrow guild race). I’m at the site at Altar’s Windings in Queensdale at night time and it looks like someone turned a dozen kilowatt Super Trouper spotlights to the hill! Vampires would vaporize in a split-second in light this bright. Serious brightness.

This may have been mentioned before – there are at least 23 pages of replies here and I didn’t check them all – but the inner fascia of the Sorcerer’s Epaulets are being affected by the second dye channel from the boots. This is not limited to a single set of boots, as I have included different boot skins from a couple of different characters – one of these is even from the same set.

Both sets include an image with the color I’m currently using, followed by two images with a more contrasting color. The first set of images are of my reaper wearing Incarnate Boots. The second channel on the boots has been dyed Imperial Red, followed by Sprig and Electro Lemon. The second set are of my elementalist with Sorcerer’s Shoes. Here, the second channel has been dyed Silver, followed by Aureus and Electro Pink. Notice how the color on the inside of the left shoulder piece matches the dye from the boots – always the second dye channel on the boots, no matter the skin used.

I have seen some skins that seem to dye sections of their own armor or outfit improperly, and I usually overlook them. Silly ANet programmers, I always think. Never have I seen an armor take its color from the dye channel of another piece like this. This skin seems to have been programmed to draw its color from a grossly improper dye channel.

I enjoyed the sights of the Desert Borderlands, and considered them to be a welcome challenge, though I also appreciate the removal of the barricades. Also, “straightening the curves” was very helpful, but I’ll tell everyone here what I tell my friends and guildmates of the DBLs: Its the sheer size of the map that turns people away. It’s not just big; it’s too big! A DBL is even bigger than EBG, but has only as many points to take as an Alpine. It takes too long to move across it and there’s this huge chasm of an oasis in the middle that sees no use and takes forever to go around – even when Skysplitter was running, the Oasis was too layered to traverse quickly.

I understand the original purpose of a larger map with the same number of points to defend: Since people would be forced to run farther to defend, zergs may have been forced to leave more defenders or break the zergs into multiple groups to operate within the same map. It didn’t quite work out. Instead, large areas of the map would not change hands for hours, only for the lack of trying. A large zerg would occasionally take to the map and run a circle around it. It perhaps would sit that way for an hour or so before a commander would notice it and would go and flip it back, usually never running into a decent defense – maybe someone on an arrow cart for a couple minutes before abandonment. For the most part, servers stacked the EBG queues, while the DBLs sat vacant.

To be an effective map, it should be expansive. We are talking about a desert, after all. It should not be so large that a large-scale defense would be difficult without waypoints – even given good advance notice from scouts. A map size that is between the current DBL and ABL would be a good size for borderland maps, as many say that the Alpines are too small, though many also believe that the Deserts are too large. Any map size that approaches – I’d say 90% or greater size – or even exceeds the size of Eternal Battlegrounds is too large. Also, the keeps; the DBL keeps are nearly SMC-sized and they’re infernal mazes, to boot. I’m all for variety, but it’s easy to get lost in those things.

I’ve noticed this issue quite a bit myself in the past year, though I was never able to pin it on any specific action – usually happens in rapid mobile combat, so I suppose dodges could have something to do with it. Typically, I use a movement skill or a dodge roll to break out of the lock.

There is no problem seeing which borderlands players are on if they aren’t in your matchup. It isn’t as though you can send your server’s zerg to go fight them. This was implemented correctly for some time up until just a few months ago, so I know it can be made to work properly.

Old topic, but there are no other threads on this issue. There are no responses here yet and I’m seeing the exact the same issue. I’ve got friends on worlds in other matches and they’re showing as fighting on a borderland that is part of my match.

For instance, I, player X, am on Stormbluff Isle (t3) and friend Y is on Tarnished Coast (t1). He’s still on TC because I asked what world he was on. The issue is that for me, he’s showing as in Sea of Sorrows Borderlands, which is a map in my match (t3, remember). He then tells me he’s in Blackgate Borderlands.

After looking at this a little more closely, it seems a bug with the contacts server is grouping everyone by borderland color (SoS BL and BG BL are both the Green Borderlands in their matches for this week), and then reporting it back as the borderlands of the local match – unless they’re on a competing server, where it reports the location as World vs. World.

tl;dr: I see my TC friend in SoS BL on my contacts, when he’s really fighting on BG BL, another Green Borderlands map.

I would certainly like to see this bug fixed.

Swagger.1459:

1 month was the majority vote out of 5 choices, but y’all can enjoy your empty maps again 6 months from now…

1 month was the plurality vote out of 5 choices, but we’ll go with it: If you were running ANet, and you know you didn’t etch this poll’s rules in stone, would you want to move on 1 month links and alienate +60% of your WvW player-base? I wouldn’t; been kittening them off and losing some here and there for almost 4 years now. I’d interpret and massage those numbers as best I could to keep more of them playing (regardless of how you, or I, actually voted).

SkyShroud.2865:

If this is election, do you think that will be allowed?!

If this were an election, there would be a run-off between 1 month and 3 months. I could be wrong, but I believe 3 months would win that fight, because math: If 7.95% of 2-month voters move to 3 months and 7.95% move to 1 month, 3 months would have almost 54% in that run-off. Anyone with half a brain can guess that those voting for more than 3 months wouldn’t go less than that.

In full disclosure, I voted for 2 months. I do realize that it only got 15.9% for itself, so I’m not going to “spin” any numbers. I will just say that I’m reading a lot of:

X T D.6458:

This seems like the best compromise in my opinion

and

azyume.6321:

It is a good compromise. Thanks, Anet

and

Heimlich.3065:

Two months is a reasonable compromise.

At the end of the day, this is ANet’s game – we just play it. They can (and should) listen to the players, vis-à-vis polling, but the developers should be making the decisions – all of them. Be happy that they even polled this at all – we could have been seeing a new link at the end of July.

Guess I shouldn’t nitpick over something so trivial, but someone should add some definition to the edges of the pie chart pieces. There are two same-colored pieces next to each other from the last piece being the restart of the pattern. (Yes, I do know I can look at the numbers instead.)

I know a lot here are screaming very loudly trying to be heard over the spawn-siege defending just hoping anet will ultimately listen, but has anyone simply stated a reasonable fix for the issue? People love having a solution without having to think of it first. Could it not reasonably be stated that if you can’t deploy siege, perhaps you shouldn’t be able to build it either?

tl:dr: A reasonable fix would be to block siege-building (contributing supply to build sites) if you are Siege Deployment Blocked.

I think I just did someone’s job; pretty sure concepts is a job somewhere there. ;-)

I have not yet had this happen – hopefully, I never will. While I certainly don’t mind the thoughts or imaginings of other players on this matter, I would like to get a CSR response or Gaile Gray’s thoughts to apply a little glue to this hypothetical, in the event that it ever becomes someone’s reality:

From time to time, ArenaNet releases new content for Guild Wars 2, so it is inevitable that new NPCs are introduced. If a player already has a character with a name that matches the name of one of these new NPCs, will the player be required to change their existing character’s name to yield to the new NPC? Also, do ArenaNet developers check their NPC names before introducing them to ensure this does not happen? Will CSRs check character creation dates in the event that it does?

I partly ask this because I do currently have two mononymous characters. One of them I don’t believe would be used, being of an asuran style and containing at least two syllables. The other is a sylvari with a not-uncommon celtic name that is an analogue to an English name. While none of the threads posted on this forum directly address this situation in particular, it has been brought up in passing at least once. Since this was not the issue in those threads, it was never addressed by a CSR.

I always attempt personal due-diligence whenever checking for existing NPC names – I like to know that my characters are unique. I would like to know if ArenaNet either does the same, or will do right by their players if an oversight is made.

I’m getting the same thing, though I have before…only this time, I am missing my GWAMM title. I am also missing all of my HoM achievements (the 500 AP is also missing…had 21.2k this morning, now around 20.7k) and all of the titles from them. I should have all of it unlocked.

Two major problems with raid grouping in a map requiring large-scale participation: AFKers and map auto-dormancy. The first problem is discussed in great detail already on the forum; a lack of participants slows the map-meta. The second problem hasn’t been discussed that I’ve seen, but put simply, when raid groups leave the map (the exodus!), the servers render the map dormant, ushering players to new maps. When this happens (and you know people will chase the volunteer buff), progress into the map-meta is lost (new map, fresh start). I had this second problem happen twice in a 30-minute span—not even half of the day-night cycle—and couldn’t even finish a single meta-chain.

I believe Gate of Madness has stumbled upon this bug. A zerg of guardians just ripped through t3 SMC with a single ram per gate, which were actively being disabled. Couldn’t even approach the door without melting, with all their symbols on the ground.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Sure, I’d prefer a true “custom exchange” interface (with appropriate sliders, defaulting to 100 gems instead of 400, and not hidden behind a separate button). But when originally added, the current interface was added as a stopgap to deal with not being able to buy gems in increments other than 400.

The custom exchange is just fine for coin-to-gem conversion because there’s no smaller denominations of gems, but for gem-to-coin, it doesn’t currently work this well. You don’t select the number of gems you’d like to use; you select the amount of gold pieces to receive and gems are deducted based on current exchange rates. Depending on the number you enter (or the button you press in the simple UI), this could leave you with uneven numbers of gems left over. I suppose people could “get by” with this, but it can (and often does) leave small numbers of gems sitting on the account that the player cannot use until extra gems are purchased to make a round block of gems that can be used.

The custom UI used before the exchange changes, while not including wholesale purchases, did allow you to enter a specific number of gems to exchange (allowing you to use all your gems), rather than a gold-only coin entry that could leave gems on the table. The stop-gap measure that was put in was supposed to appeal to players that liked the old exchange but not the new wholesale system. While the gem-buying functionality was restored, the coin-buying side still falls short. If the custom coin purchase can have only one entry box at all, I guess another suggestion would be that a custom gem-to-coin entry should be the reverse: enter x gems, receive y coin. You could enter any number of gems (an indivisible unit) and receive coins of all denominations to make the exchange work, because gold is divisible everywhere right now except the exchange.

Now, I’m not just one to say something and not put something on the table. I did give a suggestion (now two different suggestions) that I believe can add something constructive to make a better experience all-around, only changing the custom purchase and leaving the volume purchase as is. It’s just another concern that some have and it doesn’t hurt to post it when properly presented. If a dev comes around, reads it, and responds one way or the other, even just giving technical limitations, so much the better; at least we’d know whether or not it’s something they can look into.

I’m pretty much in the same boat on this. Due to my own OCD personality, I now hold on certain currency trades because I prefer to handle gems in larger, yet squared blocks; basically, any multiples of 100 where the hundreds-place is divisible by 2 or 5. Under the old system, I’d buy something for 700 gems and then use 100 gems in a gem-to-coin transaction; whatever gold, silver, and copper the 100 gems got me, that’s what I took. If I were just 300 above the nearest 1000 gems, I’d maybe go ahead and spend 300 gems instead.

With the new currency system (even the custom exchange with its new no-silver, no-copper exchanges), this is no longer possible. Often times, you can’t enter a rounded amount of gold in the custom exchange without the system telling you that you’ll spend some unrounded number of gems. Rather, it will be some small number of gems off the mark either way; you likely won’t hit one of these hundred-rounded numbers without putting in many hundreds or perhaps over a thousand gems, which is not a viable option.

A previous poster mentioned exchanging one way and the other over and over until hitting the right mark (a likely joke; I can only hope so, anyway). This would be a terrible solution. Really, it would be a fool’s errand; completely moronic. This leaves me just one good option: sit on any gold unless I can get exactly the number of gems I want, or sit on all of my gems unless I can spend a nice round number that I’d want. I suppose ANet is making quirky people like me into very frugal spenders.

I guess this is where I include my own SUGGESTION: If the exchange system would allow the spender to enter one of either side of the equation, and the other number auto-fills on the form in response to the custom entry (while also allowing a rounded-to-copper coinage or round off to ten-thousandths gold), it would encourage players like me to use the exchange more often. This would still keep all aspects of the simplified “volume-buyer’s” UI intact and make those that want true exchange customization even happier. I just can’t believe that no one at ANet has even thought about such a solution! Unless of course, it would break a “Microsoft Points”-type money-holding scheme that you did not see me mention, and that we’ll just keep on the q.t. (my inner conspiracy theorist…I really am an odd duck).

I’ve taken notice that a lot of these newer gold sellers are fresh accounts with 0 AP, doing their whispering from their races’ starting instances. Any chance to neuter some whispering sellers by restricting whispers from the five starting instances? This would force gold sellers at least go through the first 5-10 minutes of the game before they could commit an offense…perhaps slow them down a little.

Wolfey.3407:

http://v2.gw2stuff.com
as beautiful as it is, It’s very very very out dated on the timers :X

I’ve noticed similar issues with other event status checking sites, though I’m wondering if event status is just not updating for some events on certain servers. Noticed that the site you posted and gw2.thelazy.net/events were both at least an hour behind on the Maw on SoR earlier.

Edit: Guess we’re not the only ones to notice it. Poke posted at https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/community/api/API-errors-bugs/first#post2080880 about an hour before my post concerning a hung “Active” status for Claw of Jormag on Elona Reach, after it succeeded.

Felix Omni.3829:

TimeBomb is correct; the wiki license is not the same as the API license and that should be made clear. That being said, there’s no reason to have the full text of the licensing on the wiki article if we’re just linking to it on the forums, so I cleaned it up a bit.

I was actually just thinking this. When ANet finally fleshes out the final license, it could very well be longer than the remaining content on the page. (Aren’t they all?) And let us not forget that these licenses can be subject to changes. A link to it, and a message with it stating that use of the API constitutes acceptance of the license and terms at said link.

Not a necessary addition…

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Copyrights

This page is linked at the bottom of every wiki page and states that any content obtained from Guild Wars 2, its web sites, etc. can potentially be found on the wiki, going on to say that the rights, title, and interest in and to this content remains with ArenaNet or NCsoft, as applicable, and not pursuant to the wiki’s GFDL. As such, the license was more than covered.

The false positive has been corrected in MBAM as of database version v.2013.04.23.07. If you are still having this problem, check for updates manually or wait for an auto-update if you have it enabled (auto-updates can take up to a day).