Guild Wars 2

Once Alt+F4 is fixed, your /death = 0 mode will just be that much more hardcore.

Ever since a couple patches ago, my client is downloading 10 MB every single time I start it. It appears to be exactly the same data every time (10289 KB), and it happens before showing the Account Name/Password screen, so no bar like with a larger patch. Has this been happening for anyone else? It’s not a huge deal, just seems kinda wasteful for them to be sending me the same file of that size a few times a day.

@Aicus
Are you sure it started from the very beginning again? I know that when I downloaded it, I was able to stop the download several times and restart it later, and it always began where it had left off. The display can be kind of confusing though, because it starts the bar at 0 again, it’s just that the bar now represents what’s left to download, not the full client.

For Shmoo sounds like it really did restart, which sucks and isn’t intended.

MrKnieves.4162:

But I don’t think there’s anything Anet can do about it, whoever is willing to go through something so tedious to avoid a kill could also just exit through the task manager.

Sure they could do something… Have characters persist for a minute or two after logoff/disconnect while in combat. Like every other pvp mmo I’ve played… :-\

I think the main issue is that supply camps, particularly the northern borderlands ones, can be taken REALLY quickly. A group of 3-4 who know what they’re doing can capture one in 2-3 minutes. And maintaining a defense of 2-3 people with siege is incredibly boring for those people, plus likely to get smashed in seconds anyways if a group of 6+ show up. There are exceptions, sure, but it seems to work out this way more often than not.

While I’m disappointed we didn’t do better, I think it’s fair to say IoJ brought a good fight this week, especially compared to last. It’s pretty clear that we usually don’t have the coverage needed to defend our gains during the time zone gaps. SoR and SoS are very strong opponents, and I love seeing and finding ways to counter the new things they throw at us all the time. On the maps we can keep somewhat decent numbers on, mainly our BL, it has been a lot of great action.

I would expect WvW to make Arenanet revenue indirectly by pushing gems to gold exchange, since it can be a huge gold sink. Upgrades, and to a lesser extent siege, can easily set back the more zealous wvwers 10 gold a week. It’d be interesting to see numbers on how much siege is acquired through gold, and how much comes from the mass farming of jumping puzzles during lopsided matches.

They’re not taking them away permanently. The inclusion of orbs in the first place shows that they’re interested in having that extra layer of strategy. But the current system is just not very good in some ways (snowballing), and they need time to come up with a replacement.

IMHO It should even be craftable and tradeable on BLTC; but then again, I came here from EVE.

They mentioned working on guesting in the same announcement, so rest assured they are very aware of your situation. Still no ETA on the guesting, though. I definitely don’t see it as a “crap decision”, as WvW is one of the game’s more unique features (from other MMOs that have comparable PVE), but it currently has numerous glaring issues, one of which this change partially addresses.

Definitely better than nothing, and better late than never. Good change.

No way will IoJ be in top tier… We’re in second in the second tier, with SBI more than doubling our score, and only a very slim lead over Blackgate.

Welcome the internet? :-P

No, more seriously, I agree with you that there’s something wrong with the whole commander mechanic right now. In fact, I thought it was totally bonkers that barring the 100 gold commander book, you can’t make a group larger than 5. Allowing anyone to start a “warband,” as they were called in Warhammer, is extremely critical to making open pvp successful and relatively casual.

It’s not even funny how much of a better experience PUG-ing in WvW would be with larger groups by default. We could call them Krewes, and have the cap at 15-30 people.

Nice post. Gives some concrete info, instead of just “orbs are too much” or “orbs don’t matter!”

The only damaging condition Chaos Storm applies is bleeding, and I’ve never seen that work on siege. The other damage you’re seeing is just regular damage ticks that occur along with the boon/condition ticks. I’ve played mesmer and ele in wvw, and have found the ele to be a bit better at cleaning up siege quickly, though I haven’t looked into Feedback.

Edit: Feedback seems to require line of sight, even though it’s an AOE effect, unlike other ground target ones. So it shouldn’t be able to reach the siege, unless it’s set up horribly.

Anyone out there know if the ranking takes placement in the match into account? (2nd and 3rd place or just victors and losers?)

I’m beginning to think of the lack of balancing ability of the three-way system to be more and more endemic to the current scoring and ranking system. As long as it matters to ranking whether your server gets 2nd or 3rd place in a match, there will be no compelling reason for a server currently in 3rd place to ally with the 2nd place team.

Edit: Made a post about it here.

The current system has me a bit confused, and I was wondering if anyone could help me understand it.

Initially I thought that the three way match-up would do a pretty good job of mitigating server population imbalance. The two losing teams would be compelled to coordinate at least a bit in order to topple the winning team, each in hope that they could put themself in the position to be the winner if the time came. I believe this WOULD be the case, IF the ranking/scoring identified a winning server and two losing servers. The problem is that, in practice, it appears to create a first, second, and third place in each match. Because of this, the current third place team’s immediate incentive is simply to not be last place, and the easiest way to do this is to pressure the second place team, which the first place team is doing already. Combined with the snowball mechanics of orbs and supply surplus for the top team, this results in what we’re currently seeing. In most matches, the second and third place teams might swap positions, but the first place team generally remains so unless they crumble from within, which isn’t too common and doesn’t make for good sport.

So my question is, does the current ranking system simply work based on the winner in each match, or does it weight for first, second, and third place?

Sounds like a really nicely executed push. It’s too bad you didn’t get SM to show for!

100% agree, the invisible players problem is very serious. I can’t count the number of times I’ve died to a mysterious void with particle effects coming out if it.

DirtyHoudini.2917:

Zelthios.5902:

Range is always a better option in War. Why do you think we invented guns?

This is a fantastic response to a video game balancing question. Forcing everyone to play range because it is the better option in war. The range classes don’t benefit at all from this obviously. /sarcasm

Do you have some kind of proposal?

Sounds like you got caught off guard with a concentrated effort. Upgrades augment your chances, but it’s not going multiply the number of defenders by three…

Eredon Terrace 560 > Isle of Janthir 70 > Sea of Sorrows 65
Beat that!