Guild Wars 2

Hey Guys,

So, i recently completed entanglement – seeds of truth, but didnt have Gates of Maguuma unlock or Point of No return. So, i purchased them.

But, when i try to do either episode, it bugs right away by not showing my objective on the map. When i go to the exact location (thanks to my good friend google), i the object isnt there..

Gates of Maguuma Bugs out at Fallen Hopes, and Point of No Return bugs out on the very first quest. I tells me to read my mail —> i do --> it still wont show the objective.

Help would be appreciated… this is beyond frustrating.

Talyn.3295:

konawolv.3971:

Talyn.3295:

konawolv.3971:

Talyn.3295:

Assic.2746:

I have a screen somewhere one moment.

20 stacks of burning

- Without Superior Sigil of Smoldering.
- Without Superior Rune of Balthazar. I have Superior Runes of Melandru in this armour and they are too expensive to replace them for this test only.
- Beigarth’s Gear (Knight).
- I have less than 500 Condition Damage there (signet + 10% of Power was converted into Condition Damage).

I know that this dmg is nothing to “things” Ele can do with fire, but I wanted to show that it is possible to stack burning up to 20 ALONE.

Sure you can get high burn numbers. And it will kill. But its far from optional.

1. Ramp up time.

2. The loss of support utilities also hurts the group.

3. Burning Nerf might be incoming.

Until this whole miss with conditions gets sorted out. I would stick with power builds.

“3. Burning Nerf might be incoming.”

This pretty much is contradictory to your argument. If its not at least optimal, then why would it be considered for a nerf? Also, the ramp up time doesnt take long at all between scepter 2, torch 5, zealot’s flame proc, gs 2, and gs 4 and … well you get the point.

As described in my above post, you do enough damage on trash for it to not matter between zerk and condi/zerk. But, if run into a few elites, champ, or boss, your burn / other condi damage shine. Literally, take any hit you have (which is already massive, my torch 4 will hit for 6.5k without a group cohesively might stacking) and add a flat 3k to it.. Thats INSANE.

Additionally, i still run “Stand Your Ground” and “Retreat!” for utility, not counting my f1-3 boon procs.

Because we are not the only class that uses burning for condition damage.

The math has already show the difference between direct damage very condition damage for guardians. Fact is: Guardians deal more damage with direct damage.

Unless you front load your conditions, which we can’t do, there is still a ramp up time. If done right a boss will die faster to direct damage before you get enough stacks to matter.

The OP asked about exploration and dungeons. not just dungeons, so Zerker may be marginally better in dungeons because of the low hp pools, but condi is far superior in world content. This, to me, makes the decision kind of clear atm. Also, i would like to know what gear was used in regards to the math that was done. Im currently using Zerker gear + condi runes.

its really not a joke when i say that i hit HARD and it seems like the extra 3k ticks are just bonus damage that i otherwise wouldnt have had.

Sinister was the gear used for testing, as it is the most damaging condi gear. And it’s about 14% better without the use of Unscathed Contender. Higher damage if you can keep UC up for most of the fight.

Any build can hit hard, I find zerker works best on my guardian in all game modes from wvw roaming to spvp and both open world and dungeons. Others have different experiences, and that is fine. I however don’t like to pack around an entire armor chest all time, so I use the one gear that works well in all.

I see. So the comparison was done between full on condi vs full zerker. If i was versed in testing methodology i would test my setup with zerker gear + condi runes and sigils. But i really dont have the time for it. This just seemed like a no brainer to me. Having major in Zerker and a minor in Condi per se. Its also super cheap as it isnt the meta.

the general rotation im using is to torch 4 —> scepter 2 --> torch 5 —> torch 4 --> gs 4 —> gs 2 --> gs 3 —> auto --> swap —> repeat. I swap ASAP to apply bleeding and posion consistently and apply my burst skills to keep the burning stacks up. The weapon sigils arent optimal for pve, but they are cheap, and are fantastic for wvwvw as applying more condis makes it harder for your foe to remove your burn stacks.

This builds my stacks, seemingly, very quickly

Talyn.3295:

konawolv.3971:

Talyn.3295:

Assic.2746:

I have a screen somewhere one moment.

20 stacks of burning

- Without Superior Sigil of Smoldering.
- Without Superior Rune of Balthazar. I have Superior Runes of Melandru in this armour and they are too expensive to replace them for this test only.
- Beigarth’s Gear (Knight).
- I have less than 500 Condition Damage there (signet + 10% of Power was converted into Condition Damage).

I know that this dmg is nothing to “things” Ele can do with fire, but I wanted to show that it is possible to stack burning up to 20 ALONE.

Sure you can get high burn numbers. And it will kill. But its far from optional.

1. Ramp up time.

2. The loss of support utilities also hurts the group.

3. Burning Nerf might be incoming.

Until this whole miss with conditions gets sorted out. I would stick with power builds.

“3. Burning Nerf might be incoming.”

This pretty much is contradictory to your argument. If its not at least optimal, then why would it be considered for a nerf? Also, the ramp up time doesnt take long at all between scepter 2, torch 5, zealot’s flame proc, gs 2, and gs 4 and … well you get the point.

As described in my above post, you do enough damage on trash for it to not matter between zerk and condi/zerk. But, if run into a few elites, champ, or boss, your burn / other condi damage shine. Literally, take any hit you have (which is already massive, my torch 4 will hit for 6.5k without a group cohesively might stacking) and add a flat 3k to it.. Thats INSANE.

Additionally, i still run “Stand Your Ground” and “Retreat!” for utility, not counting my f1-3 boon procs.

Because we are not the only class that uses burning for condition damage.

The math has already show the difference between direct damage very condition damage for guardians. Fact is: Guardians deal more damage with direct damage.

Unless you front load your conditions, which we can’t do, there is still a ramp up time. If done right a boss will die faster to direct damage before you get enough stacks to matter.

The OP asked about exploration and dungeons. not just dungeons, so Zerker may be marginally better in dungeons because of the low hp pools, but condi is far superior in world content. This, to me, makes the decision kind of clear atm. Also, i would like to know what gear was used in regards to the math that was done. Im currently using Zerker gear + condi runes.

its really not a joke when i say that i hit HARD and it seems like the extra 3k ticks are just bonus damage that i otherwise wouldnt have had.

Talyn.3295:

Assic.2746:

I have a screen somewhere one moment.

20 stacks of burning

- Without Superior Sigil of Smoldering.
- Without Superior Rune of Balthazar. I have Superior Runes of Melandru in this armour and they are too expensive to replace them for this test only.
- Beigarth’s Gear (Knight).
- I have less than 500 Condition Damage there (signet + 10% of Power was converted into Condition Damage).

I know that this dmg is nothing to “things” Ele can do with fire, but I wanted to show that it is possible to stack burning up to 20 ALONE.

Sure you can get high burn numbers. And it will kill. But its far from optional.

1. Ramp up time.

2. The loss of support utilities also hurts the group.

3. Burning Nerf might be incoming.

Until this whole miss with conditions gets sorted out. I would stick with power builds.

“3. Burning Nerf might be incoming.”

This pretty much is contradictory to your argument. If its not at least optimal, then why would it be considered for a nerf? Also, the ramp up time doesnt take long at all between scepter 2, torch 5, zealot’s flame proc, gs 2, and gs 4 and … well you get the point.

As described in my above post, you do enough damage on trash for it to not matter between zerk and condi/zerk. But, if run into a few elites, champ, or boss, your burn / other condi damage shine. Literally, take any hit you have (which is already massive, my torch 4 will hit for 6.5k without a group cohesively might stacking) and add a flat 3k to it.. Thats INSANE.

Additionally, i still run “Stand Your Ground” and “Retreat!” for utility, not counting my f1-3 boon procs.

i run zerker with Condi runes. Run scepter, torch, GS. The upgrades i use are poison on swap, bleed on swap, and burn duration on swap. My burst is high enough on trash for condis to not matter, but on high HP mobs/bosses, im critting like a beast + ticking for 3+k condi damage. This also scales well in wvw.

The other day i had a ranger try to gank me, he had me down to 50% HP when i was able to properly react. Managed to burst him and walk away, im not even that great in 1v1 situations. So far, im enjoying the build… while it lasts.

Salamander.2504:

I love the healing power on celestial, and is one of the reasons I use it.

This. Before the changes to the traits, i use to run a full celestial guardian with GS and hammer. It was very effective because i played shouts, and had my guardian abilities traited to apply boons as well. Whenever i would apply a boon, i would receive a heal that scaled with healing power and would remove a condi. So, i was able to hit hard, remove my condis, apply boons, heal, and take a decent hit. I wasnt the best in any certain area, but excelled in large to medium group fighting, and could do anything i was really asked to: blast fields, heal, stability, frontline, DPS. I guess you could say what i was the best at was doing everything.

oh and dodge healed me too

IMO the thing that really put celestial over the top for guardian was the healing power because literally every button i pressed healed me. But, alas, that build is gone, and my celestial gear has been sidelined for full zerker with condi runes.

Hey guys,

So, i recently returned to GW2 after about a 4 month break, and logged in to find that my full Celestial Guardian shouts hybrid wasnt competitive anymore as my damage didnt seem to be up to snuff, and my survivability took a hit because my build had its condition removing properties nerfed and healing nerfed, while the condition damage is through the roof. So, alas, i set aside my gear set that i took months perfecting, and equip my CoF gear and slotted some condi runes in… Holy cow is my damage output insane! Ill admit, it is a bit of an adrenaline rush to push out so much damage. However, the game is currently damage or bust more so now than ever before.

But, here is the thought..

It has been my experience in mmo’s that the patch right before an expansion releases tends to break the game because its balanced for the content that is coming down the pipe, not what is currently out there. Maybe some of the new trait lines, gear, content, and class are the reason for these recent changes.

Now, i understand that GW2 isnt like other MMO’s and that these changes are kind of fundamental changes and not skill changes, but i have yet to see anyone take the upcomming content into consideration in their patch rant threads.

how did you resolve this? im having the same issue. this is the only game i have trouble updating

IMO, this game does take skill to be good at. but it doesn’t take skill to get rewarded for things. Also, imo, this game actually consists of a rather skilled player base COMPARED TO OTHER MMO’S which make the game fun when playing spvp and wvwvw. There is a larger issue with GW2 that trumps not being rewarded for skill vs time spent. And that is being rewarded for being lucky vs skill and/or time played. This, imo, is why people don’t really do pve content outside of dailes and some gold farming. GW2 has to do a better job of making pve more enticing to make the skilled and the general population step outside of wvwvw every now and then.

Yes, getting a cost effective desktop is the way to go. If you are shopping around for parts on a budget, AMD has the best budget friendly products in the Motherboard, GPU, and CPU market. 970 mobo, 7850 GPU, and an FX 6300 would run you ~$410-$430. Then you can get a $60 hdd, $70 psu, $40 worth in ram, and a nice 60 dollar case.

That puts you at <$680 that you were looking to put into a laptop, and youre getting something that will perform like a $1300 laptop.

Always shutdown your laptop when your done using it, and if you are planning on gaming on it the next time you use it. Putting your computer to sleep/hibernate can cause some weird memory glitches because when you put it to sleep it suspends your current session to the hardisk and then loads it back up when you boot. Also, when you put your computer to hibernate, it suspends it to the ram. I don’t recommend using either feature. Either leave your laptop on, or shut it down.

SolarNova.1052:

An intel i5 with OC giving 45 fps stable in WvW is indeed an exageration ..or giving the benefit of doubt ..said person hasnt been in a major WvW battle and thus not seen how far fps will actually drop.

However a i5 OC’d to 4.5ghz+ will be able to stay above 30 fps if the GPU can also keep up.
A FX 8350 will not do this BUT it is the only AMD i ever recommend since it can come close.
If a person is running a AMD rig and wants to upgrade just the CPU and the motherboard is capable of fitting the FX 8350 ..it is the logical choice.

If however that person has the extra cash to also change the motherboard ..then the only real choice is to switch over to an Intel i5 and OC. Specialy if its for playing GW2 mainly, and other current games. The FX 8350 may well be a better choice if u do professional work frequently aswell as gaming ..ether that or an i7.

Ofcourse there will always be the so called ‘fanboys’ on both sides claiming this and that ..and tbh is all just hearsay.
We who help out on the tech forums frequently can only recommend and advise using facts,figures,benchmarks, and other proven information that is availabe.

Thanks for the level headed response, and everything that you said is very true. I have yet to OC my cpu, I may pump it up to 4.4 or so because I use the stock heatsink. I may order a different one, but haven’t decided that yet and I don’t feel like getting a new psu yet. The reason that I would even recommend buying the fx 8350 for a new build is for the reasons stated in 1) & 2). The fx 8350 will age better and have a longer useful life than an i5. i7’s are a different story, but you also pay a hefty price. I think into the future though as I don’t think I will have money every year to blow on upgrades, so I am going with the platform that will last me the longest. However, if your main focus is to play mmo’s I would go with an intel platform. Their single threaded performance crown wont even be in question until late 2013 or early 2014 when steamroller is released in the form of an fx 8550.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/tech/fx-8350-performance-experience/first#post1046050

This is a thread that I wrote on my experiences with my fx 8350. Performs as well as an i5 3570k from the feedback I have read. It’s cost effective, and is on the am3+ socket, which is said to support Steamroller when it comes out. Not to mention it has 8 cores, which will age well. I am sure that GW2 will not be the only game you play forever. So, I would go with a platform that will age well and give you more upgrade options.

Hello all, I have been doing some searching around the internet for what people think about the fx 8350. It seems that all I can find is people asking whether or not to buy it as an upgrade over BD/Phenom. Most people that reply to the threads just jump bandwagon and say “get the i5’s as they are better for gaming.”

So, I am here to clear some things up.

1) Yes, MOST games don’t use 8 cores (bf3 multiplayer being an exception to that) and 4 cores is becoming more main stream. So, why get the 8350? Well, out of all of the amd processors the fx 8350 has the most powerful cores and is the highest binned chip so it get the best ocing potential. So, even if you aren’t using all 8, the 4 that you are using are the best in socket, and you have 4 cores left over to multitask with. woot.

2) “8 cores is a waste”. This cant be more false and half of that was covered in 1). The other half I will cover here. The majority of people with good pc’s own bf3. bf3 runs off of the frostbite 2 engine, and frostbite 2 has shown support for 8 cores in bf3 multiplayer. Now, take that knowledge and couple it with the fact that frostbite 2 is the engine that will be featured in almost all of EA’s upcoming titles. Also, more cores ALWAYS ages better than less cores with more power per core. This is so because as games progressively move more towards multithreading (as they will be now with next gen consoles having huge multi-core cpus), you will need more threads to run games optimally. Hence why if you play farcry 3 and compare a core 2 duo to a Phenom x4, the phenom x4 will destroy it. That is also why in bf3 multiplayer an fx 8350 > an i5 3570k.

Now, here are my games that I currently play:
BF3
Tribes Ascend
GW2

My Rig:
fx 8350
radeon 7950
16 gb ram
1080p
vsync

In BF3 I play with everything maxed out, and I get 60 fps the majority of the time and occasionally take a dip to 45-50. I am sure that vsync has something to do with this. My gpu usage is at a constant 99% meaning that there is no cpu bottlenecking going on.

Next Tribes Ascend I play at max settings and inject x8 AA into the game (which unlockes visuals such as jetpacks lighting up that the game doesn’t support with it’s ingame settings. Kind of like a hidden setting. Its kind of weird.). I Never dip below 60 fps.

Finally GW2, I play maxed out including SS. I get a constant 60 fps in sPVP, get 30+ in LA, and get 60 fps while exploring. The lowest I have ever gotten was 17 fps during a dragon event with a $* ton of people zerging it. That was closely followed by 18 fps in a wvwvw zerg that I would have to estimate had about 70+ people in it.

I have done some research and people have been complaining that their i5’s oced to 4.4 ghz+ dip below 20 fps in wvwvw zergs. This, by all accounts, should beat my fx 8350 handily do to public perception. However, from my experience, it doesn’t. This low fps may be caused by the client bottlenecking itself and/or an internet speed issue (although I have Verizon FiOS).

So, if you are thinking about upgrading your old cpu to the fx 8350, I would say do it. There is honestly no reason not to if you have already have a am3+ socket mobo. Don’t be perturbed by from buying this thing because the public perception is that it isn’t for gaming. I upgraded from an fx 4100 @4.3 ghz to this and gained 15+ fps in all of my games except gw2 zergs (which leads me to believe that its a client issue more than anything), I went from 9- 11 fps in zergs to sub-20.

SolarNova.1052:

FYI.

You CAN see a difference between 60 fps and 120 (difers person to person).. however you will only notice this difference on a monitor that can handle said fps ..i.e a 120hz monitor.

The human eye doesnt work in frames per second. And i wont get into how it does work since it would take forever.. however theres no need to say ‘its proven blah bla’ since its perfectly simple to test yourself.

Simply load up an old game that you can run at super high fps… use a program to cap the fps ..like evga precision ..and go through the fps count in 10’s.
So start of at 10fps ..then 20 ..then 30 ..and so on untill you reach your monitors limit ..i.e 60hz or 120hz. And then you have your answere ..to ‘can YOU see a difference between X and X frame rates’ ..it wont be the same for everyone i might add.

Granted you cant test above 60fps if you dont have a monitor than can show above 60fps ..anything above 60 fps on a 60hz monitor will cause tearing and wont actualy be showing the fps indicated on screen. The indication on screen will be the fps that is being pumped out to the screen ..but not what the screen is actualy showing (due ot its limits)

mmm no, i cant tell a difference. I have never ever heard of a person that can. All i see are articles that say you cannot tell the difference.

Teknobug.3782:

Swordbreaker.2581:

Amd cpus are the best value for your money. But you also get what you pay for.

The Phenom II X4 and X6’s are great and even some of the Athlon II X4’s are good, the FX Bulldozers are terrible although some people has gotten good results from an 8120 or 6100. The APUs are proving to be worth the price ($120 for A10 5800K as I built a microITX system with that last week, amazing piece) and the Piledriver 8350 should be much better.

The FX 4170 is mediocre, but man it overclocks to 4.8GHz without issues but the power consumption is its biggest problem (as is with the Bulldozer series).

Ummm, how is the fx line terrible?? again look at the price and the performance. And the fx line is more power efficient than the x4’s and x6’s, and are more flexible.
I am getting completely acceptable performance from my little $109 cpu

Mrowqa.3861:

Well it’s good data, but it’s not much of diff from 2500K which will get same fps on 4 Cores ( 8 threads) this game is just not optimized for multi core CPU ( 2++ ).

Even I3 will outpreform sometimes in this game an FX 4100 oc’ed while it shouldn’t and it gets it kitten kicked in other games where FX shines.

This game got poor engine design, on my i5 2410M at 2,3-2.9 GHZ i get 20-25 FPS in WvWvW. while my grap card 540M is bottleneck.

Again, the fx 4100 costs $109. It should perform like a $109 cpu. Which it does.. and then some. You have no clue as to what you are talking about.

I am locked in at 60 fps on high settings when i am exploring the world. I get 45 fps in cities or more. I get 15+ on Dragon DE’s and 15+ in WvWvW zergs. Dont believe people that sit there and say that intel is simply better…. That is not the case. You need to look at the price of the processors that they are using.

@swordbreaker You are an idiot… anything above 60 is not noticable. Scientifically proven fact. Stop being an elitist and get your $2k+ build out of here. Youre not cool and you are spreading unfactual information. Compare a $150 amd cpu to a $150 intel cpu. Not a $150 amd cpu to a $210+ intel cpu. His comp is getting FANTASTIC performance for the amount of money he spent on it.

Here is my rig:
fx 4100 @4.3
8gb RAM @ 1600
Radeon 6850 @840/1060

Upgrades in the next few months will be fx 8350 and a radeon 7870. I will be getting 30+ in everything garunteed.