Guild Wars 2

Broken. I didn’t see an option for “none.”

Pifil.5193:

If ArenaNet went with your suggestions there’d be just as many negative feedback threads. People who are happy don’t tend to create threads.

Getting back to my point: I tried the new specs, wasn’t impressed by ANet’s trying to round hole/square peg everything, and am relieved I didn’t pre-order.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

I can go back to GW1 if I want to play ritualist, the original mesmer, paragon, or monk. I don’t particular want to play nostalgia classes.

So, no, I disagree with the OP.

Then don’t play them.

I’m reading a ton of negative feedback on just about every new xpac class elite spec thread.

Ellie.8095:

Engi: DPS minion build. A “mechromancer” of sorts. little robot swarms that are more than just immobile turrets or floating pulsing buffs.

Like miniature charr tanks and machinery rolling around shooting things. Or golem-like.

I like it!

Svarty.8019:

The Path of Fire elite specs seem to be an excuse to remake unpopular mechanics in a way people might like. I think this is a mistake. There’s a reason people hardly play mantras, turrets and kits!

At least they’re trying to make it “in a way people might like.”

I hope ANet is quick to remove anything that’s not fun (disbanding from the deadeye’s kneeling state) this weekend while remaining open-minded enough to live up to their full potential.

Sly.9518:

Lulz Thief needed a Ranged option and base Thief alone is assassin playstyle already, and Ranger is defined by having the pet……. and didn’t need another long range option especially since it already has two… and did you even look at the Lore behind spellbreaker? It shows why it’s warriors and not mesmers…..

Ok, give thieves a bard elite spec (eg LOTRO) then.

Why restrict rangers to pets only? Wooden Potatoes speculated about petless rangers for over a year now.

You’re going to let lore get in the way of a good time\fun mechanics?

Ariurotl.3718:

Yes, because Ranger lacks that long-range weapon option.

I think you missed my point. I’d rather stow the pet and wield a sniper rifle.

Einlanzer.1627:

Meh. Subjective. I like most of what they went with.

Subjective versus a proven formula in GW1.

I’ll agree that there’s some stuff to like — but like my title suggests, elites are not as good as they could be.

- Guardian should’ve been given monk\paragon
- Mesmer should’ve been given spellbreaker. (not warrior)
- Ranger should’ve been given deadeye. (not thief)
- Thief should’ve been given assassin. (complete with “You move like a dwarf!”)
- Revenant should’ve been given ritualist.

no queues and a built-in dps meter for squads/parties/teams.

I wouldn’t mind 9v9’s or 10v10’s, either. It’s just that we’ve tried 5v5’s for a while to compete with the e-sports, and they’re so boring.

I didn’t mean 8v8’s for queues/tournaments…but rather, the standard “play now” button in the server menu for non-ranked games, like they used to be.

I gave myself a PvP poll and here are the results….

Would going back to 8v8’s as the standard option be more enjoyable than 5v5?

100%: Yes
0%: No

Total votes: 1

Crescendo Forte.4821:

• Would this be effective?

Thank you. Please discuss.

Yes. +1

Smartphone notifications when friends come on-line:

Donari.5237:

That’s a pretty nifty idea. But since there could be as many tags in the map as there are players, how about instead of filling the bar with tags, there is just one, a white one in the black square as you have it, with a number in the tag of how many commanders are tagged?

Or a popup on mouseover of the white tag with the number, since again there could be one tag per player (and you know that if everyone tagging up would break something, there’d be organized attempts to do that just for giggles) and the number could get too large for the available field.

Thanks for the feedback. You’re right. If there’s a way to exploit/abuse, people will find it. Another possible workaround: Only display the 3-4 most populated commander tags. Maybe even a threshold of 2-5 people minimum in squad to get displayed. I’d love to be able to see who’s commanding without having to a. friend them or b. go server to server to server.

My suggestion is two fold:

Create “alpine” and “desert” landscapes for servers designating the respective borderland they’re assigned that week.

Place mini commander tags, with color, on the servers. Possibly have the ability to scroll over the tag and see who it is that’s commanding.

Tenken.7342:

To a river so deep…

.. I must be looking for something

I’m in YBBL. I was really hoping to drop to T2 this week. There’s no balance in sight. I won’t partake.

Please fix.

Korgov.7645:

In order to avoid exploiting there should be a week long time delay.

Commanders could replay any last matchup’s moment from birds eye view and fine tune their tactics. Or talk more fact based crap on the WvW community forums. :P

The GW2 server already records tons of metrics. I doubt even those are not detailed enough to recreate any moment in the history of the game. This feature would require a lot of development.

Would players really be interested to see old matchups? I for one couldn’t care less, I just enjoy playing.

That’s a really good idea! Maybe not a week delay, but an hour or so behind the contest would still be interesting enough to watch without any exploitation and still feel “live”.

X T D.6458:

No, no and no……

I don’t see the harm in being able to, at a minimum, view other server match ups. Especially during high queue times on reset night.

With ANet’s help, we should keep looking for ways to make WvW seem more expansive/inclusive, rather than looking at a bunch of numbers on the gw2score website to “imagine” how other servers in different tiers are faring.

Observation mode in GvG was one of my favorite things in GW1.

There has to be a non-exploitive way to observe WvW action. Either only having the option to click on, or be “directed” by the cpu to orange sword battles, or:

Viewing other servers (those you’re not in direct competition with) orange swords, without being able to swing the camera too far away (if at all) from the action to reveal roamers.

1. Being able to see your friend’s queue position on the friends list.

2. Being able to switch characters and retain queue position.

Situational question:

In a small group of say, 3v3, (between , hypothetically speaking – no heavies – a necro, ranger, and ele) in WvW, who, if anyone, would you expect to call targets?

I would argue whoever is on the “front line” should do it. They will technically be rotating skills/cooling down first, so the ranger, or whoever is behind, should supplement that. Front liners also have the best view.

Does anyone disagree and think it’s the rangers responsibility to call targets?

Not saying there’s a right/wrong. I understand it means less as the number of participants go up. Just curious what some of the more seasoned players think is the most efficient/makes the most sense.

I’d really like to see the option in WvW to either:

A. Display subgroup (given and taken) DPS. Similar to what I see when I attack something, but among my allies as well. It’d be great to more easily see where we’re taking damage on the battlefield, so I can offer support in specific areas. Right now, the game lacks synergy in my opinion, and I don’t feel like I’m playing with my guildies, even though we’re all on Teamspeak.

I understand the concern with people getting snooty and even kicking people out for not dishing out enough DPS, so I’ll also offer…

B. Merely highlight who\what my subgroup is attacking. Example: An enemy\gate\object radiates red for “attack” and allies radiate “blue” for taking damage. I can see a problem with damage spikes if 60 people can focus on one person, but five people working together shouldn’t put one side in too much of a disadvantage — especially if both sides can do it.

I really don’t think you’re going to see people get kicked for stats in WvW, though. That’s more of a fractal\raid thing. Finally, consider the option to hide your DPS stats to your subgroup.

P.S. It would be awesome if commanders had the option to view any subgroups DPS given/taken. Even if only one subgroup at a time.

I agree with Supcutie. Make 8v8 hot joins and 5v5 ranked/unranked arenas.

Amazing point. Hadn’t even thought of that. I do miss the diversity 8v8’s brought to the table.

so PvP will be fun again.

EDIT: At least for hotjoin.

Arenas can stay 5v5.

this is actually a really good idea.

I also wouldn’t mind seeing a “login to nearest commander wp” implemented, either.

Here’s the story: My guildies took up their old habit of playing without calling me to let me know they were on. They unsuccessfully tried to complete the mission to secure a guild hall with only 4-5 people.

After that backfired horribly, I got a call later on for their second attempt, telling me to “get on here!” while I was out running errands. I said that I was a half a block away from the house and could be on in 20 minutes.

It was like old times!

From there, it only got better. From the nine people we had, it felt like everybody’s contribution was the difference between winning or losing. We had to actually pre-strategize and call/use targets before the final boss. We’d obviously try to rez “downies”, but in the core game, we would neglect the “hard downed” entirely.

This time, after running around like chickens with our heads cut off, we managed to collect ourselves enough to make a decision to assert ourselves enough to rez even the hard downed.

In the core game, if you were hard downed, you might as well grab a bowl of popcorn. You weren’t going anywhere until the end of the mission.

All of this was something the core game lacked.

So thank you, Anet. Thank you for the balanced gameplay and making my contribution felt needed.

Gotcha. Thanks!

I thought we were able to have 10 player parties with the new expansion in dungeons/fractals/instances. How do we access that?

I want my “10 zerker exp only speed run!”

Xenesis.6389:

@Liston.9708
I suggested that a while ago as well, the pve maps are done, so take the big ones and turn it into an ebg and add 3 spawn bases, and the rest like the towns into keeps or towers, outposts into supply camps. Take out the npcs other than the minimum vendors needed for a wvw map, hell put all those vendors into the middle of the map and let all 3 sides fight for access over them lol.

You can take it a step further and convert at least 3 of those maps, then randomly assign them per server in a matchup, so T1 BG could be fireheart rise, JQ could be frostgorge sound, YB could be cursed shore for a week. Add more maps to the random rotation and it’ll feel like a week long fractal.

Wow. That would be…wow.

The two of you should really get together and make an MMO so I can pre-order it!

Not sure if you’re T1 or not, but YB gets pretty boring just trading places with TC and BG every week.

With a fourth server, there might be more incentive to not finish last. Right now, I don’t think most people care. “Oh well, guess we’ll just keep playing musical tiers with TC and BG.”

Finishing second\third wouldn’t be so bad (at least we didn’t get last), and coming out on top would be even more glorious. After getting beat down by JQ week after week, it would be fun to see them try and fend three servers off.

The same could also be said for SBI, Mag, FA, and CD.

BrotherBelial.3094:

What I.it you are asking for OP? That the XP you earn in GW1 is added to your GW2 account? I don’t understand what you are getting at.

Thanks for asking! For example, getting an achievement point or two on your GW2 account for completing dailies in GW1.

The Topic title serves as the perfect “tl;dr.” I won’t be offended if you simply agree/disagree without reading any further.

If you take a look at my post history, you’ll see that I’m a ranting, raving, GW1 troll fanboy. Long story made short, I was rather taken aback when ANet reduced party sizes from 8 to 5, first in PvE, then PvP.

I tried raging against the machine. Some voiced their accordance with ANet (and even brought up some fair points about how certain skills/math works might not work with more than 5 people) But I’d say many, if not, more, agreed with me — that GW2 was headed in the wrong direction.

The majority of those who disagreed offered the same solution: “If you don’t like it, go back to GW1.” or, “Can I have your stuff?”

Well, that got me thinking: Is there anyway our xp, dailies, etc. can go towards our GW2 account? I know it sounds kinda selfish, but I’d like to enjoy certain aspects of GW1 (8 player parties, heroes, hard mode, secondary professions, etc.), but still roll with my GW2 buddies without feeling like I’m missing out on anything.

I’ll probably be playing GW1 regardless (Happy 10 year anniversary!) . But if I knew those dailies were going towards GW2 if/when they bring 8 player parties (raids) back…that would just be a huge warm/fuzzy.

I just want mounts so I can /map chat:

“Regulatoooooooooors! Mount up!”

That’s what I was afraid of. I used to see 8v8 customs every now and then…but not as of late.

It’s been a few months since the reduction to 5v5 and I was just wondering how many besides me thinks ANet should go back to eight-player parties in PvP.

I gave 5v5 a fair shake and I just don’t like it. I wish they’d at least consider making half the server browser 5v5’s and the other half 8v8 or 10v10.

Thanks for both of your suggestions. I do notice a slight increase in FPS now!

I installed a new graphics card for the computer in the living room, and my fiance says it’s almost too glamorous and it gives her a headache. I also switched from DVI to HDMI which helped a little.

I’d like her to be able to enjoy the game. Has anybody else encountered symptoms like these and are there any graphic settings you’d recommend to remedy them?

I play it on a Lenovo Yoga 11s Ideapad. It was pretty choppy until I upgraded the memory to 8 GB. As long as you have 8 GB, and don’t mind low/blurry graphics, you’ll get a decent frame rate.

1. Hard Mode
2. LFG “Raid” tab
3. Scalable rewards (5-24 party sizes, the more in your party, the less rewarding the drops are)

I just wanted to pontificate on an idea that I might have subliminally read on the forums:

Just add a “raiding” option to the LFG tool. Let the “host” (whoever initiates the search) limit his/her group size from 5-24. Like I said before, consider balancing the risk/reward. The more people you go into an area with, the easier it will be and the more greenies and blue drops you come across. The less people you have, the sweeter the treasure that’s dropped.

Keep the good ideas rolling!

I’m finding it nearly impossible to play this game for five minutes at a time without getting bored after hearing this rumor and knowing that it’s not true.

Good thing I have Guild Wars 1 to hold me over until this happens!

Oh, how I miss Tales of Tyria…

I would reduce the PvE\PvP party size from eight, like it was in GW1, down to five.

That way, you and seven of your closest friends can only play WvW (which five of your friends hate, anyway) if you want to play the same game mode together.

Oh, wait…

Thank you for not only the thread, Chris, but actually checking in periodically.

Proposal Overview:
QoL: Eight-player parties in WvW, PvE, and PvP

Goal of Proposal:
I find that I’m no longer able to engage any single game mode with all of my friends at the same time. More often than not, my friends fill up their parties with five people before I have a chance to join. As a result, we’re often hanging out on Skype, playing in completely different areas of the game.

I’d also like to welcome people back who haven’t played GW2 in weeks, months…years? But I feel that I am unable to do so because again, five-player parties fill up too quickly.

Proposal Functionality:
I can understand with the increased popularity of MLG and spectator gaming why ANet wishes to focus on five-player parties and 5v5’s. I also remember 10v10’s and 8v8v8’s in GW1. Those kind of matches, and eight-player parties are what kept my friends and I up until the sun came out. I’m not trying to say you should make the game unplayable with five players. You can keep everything the way it is, but scale more enemies and tweak a couple skills to work with eight players. I can see how this would be difficult in open world areas, but even if you inoculated it so we could start out with eight-player instanced areas, iron out some of the bugs and expand upon it some more if the reception is good.

Associated Risks:
In the past, people have argued, “If they give you 8, you’ll want 12. If they give you 12, you’ll want 42…” That’s not what I’m implying. If you give me eight, I can be in a party with my fiancé, my three best friends and their significant others. I’ve heard from plenty of the community on why they’d like eight-player parties, even less from the community on why they wouldn’t, but nothing from ANet. I don’t mean that as a challenge, but the fact you haven’t addressed this directly still gives me hope that it’s at least still under consideration.

Again, I just want to reiterate that I don’t want to take anything away the five-player parties or 5v5’s. But, there needn’t be a reason to banish the eight-player parties or 8v8’s.

If they brought back 8v8’s, it’d be harder to stack higher ranking players on one side – spectator mode or not.

Killthehealersffs.8940:

Did it stop the ‘’ppl only abuse the spectator to join the team with the higher lvls ’’’ ?

:P

I can see your point – but if you’re actually skilled, it shouldn’t matter what your rank is. (to a certain degree)

I sometimes used it to confirm if someone was slapping the kitten out of me, “Okay, their rank is high that’s why…”