Guild Wars 2

Grok Krog.9581:

@osta, in that screenshot, you dont have the green light buff from killing a minion.

In this fight you need to kill a minion and acquire the Fragile buff, then go stand in the green light to make the Vortex fragile, then destroy it when the boss gets near

I did get the green coating buff, as you can see I have the protective bubble on. When you have the green coating, and get close to the green vortex, you get the protective bubble buff that allows you to walk in the ground AoE death.

Ok I circumvented the problem by double-dodging into the vortex’kitten box. His knockback has a cooldown, and you can dodge into it in-between his knockbacks.

jackaljag.8637:

That’s because you’re supposed to transfer the Fragile buff to it so that it can be one-shotted.

The fight is still bugged. Or at least, the vortex is. Even with the two buffs, I still get knocked back.

That’s why there are chat tabs. I have PvE, Guild, Dungeon and WvW. My WvW chat tab pretty much has all the chat channels active, so I only need to switch tab to have all chat channel active.

Unless you meant about switching channel when typing. For WvW, most of your typing should be done in /d. You could have a second in command (party member, guild mate, etc) to transmit your /team chat if you don’t want to type /team (or the single letter shortcut, forgot what it is), then having to switch back to /d.

I personally think you should strongly enforce /d use when you are commanding. Only speak in squad for your zerg, and if newcomers ask why you’re not saying any directives, let your squad members tell him/her you’re a good commander using squad chat. Being assertive, in charge and following protocol is part of being a competent commander.

I’m not a commander, but I understand very well your predicament. That’s what I’d do if I’d ever get a blue dorito

If an item gets added to the gem store that can change soul bound to account bound, the next step will be players wanting soul bound to be removed from the game to only have account bound. I don’t think Anet wants that.

Yes! It’s as if Anet wants us to play longer by trying each invasion map even though we did it before.

14. I don’t think that making modifications for 8% of the player base is in Anet’s priorities. Rather, I would think that specific monitors for the color blind would be better for them. I don’t know if those exist, but they’d be nice.

15. I’m pretty sure that it does stack if you drag them on the previous stack directly. It’s weird why it doesn’t stack when you double-click it into the bank. I guess it’s a bad coding that never got fixed, and since it doesn’t break anything, they left it there. Hopefully one day they’ll fix it.

16. I just use a macro to spam left mouse click when I open large stacks of consumables. Sorry Anet if you don’t like macros, but I’m not breaking my gaming mouse over your lacking design.

17. I don’t really use the forge myself, but I see and agree with that point.

18. While I do like the idea of having a big target reticle above my target, there’s already a downward pointing arrow above it. And I think in the game options you can select “Lock Target when I use a skill on it” or something like that. With the newly implemented no target on right click, you shouldn’t lose sight of your target. Personally the only beef I have with the Call Target is how long the reticle stays above a dead target. I personally never lost a called target unless in the situations you specified.

19. I think it has something to do with the fact that the borderlands ID change every week. I don’t mind taking a minute to ask fellow guild mates which borderlands they are in.

20. That’s what the bank is for. If you’re asking for a portable account-wide shared container, I think that’s a little too meta for my taste.

21. I personally use a Logitech G13 to play GW2, and don’t have to strain my pinky for Ctrl or Alt, but I do agree that some players would like them toggable (sic).

22. Like I said earlier, I think Anet focuses on choice and commitment in GW2. However, I would not be surprised in the future to see such an item on the gem store.

23. That’s more of a personal preference and something you need to choose on your own (whether to have in the option to auto-target on skill use or not).

24. There’s a favorite section for dyes exactly for that. Unfortunately, it only stores like 6 dyes. Seriously, choice and commitment is omnipresent in GW2. It’s a game design they chose, and we have to live with it until the player base whines enough.

25. Invisible bags for keeping them. Yes on the zone change persistence. I don’t use minis myself very much. Maybe that will change when they will implement the Polymock.

26 and 27. That’s just lazy in my book. There’s a fine line between convenient and lazy. A gentleman knows where the line is.

28. Maybe they will implement something with it eventually, and implemented it early so people will be aware of its existence.

29. See my post about commander tags for my suggestions. Basically, party members in bright blue, squad members in yellow on the map.

30. I think they will implement something with it eventually. Some features of GW2 were implemented without being fully used, like the guy in LA near the guild vendor that has a “To be used in the future” sell tab. Right now, I think that fighting gear is more appealing to other players than town clothes. In some months, when the new content will slow down, and players will homogenize their closet, the focus will shift to town clothes.

31. Nothing more to say, I agree.

32. See #26 and 27.

Nice list of suggestions. Here are my opinions on each point.

1 and 2. I personally don’t use Tab targeting, since I prefer to manually select my target, but I agree that sometimes in the heat of battle, I have to wiggle my mouse to find it in the midst of particle effects. And sometimes I end up selecting a trash mob instead of the Champion mob. Since they removed the right-click targeting, I would personally use it to bind it to Clear Target (or Unselect). That would save me from leaping backward to an enemy I’m trying to disengage.

3. What I find kittenly ridiculous about the TP is that while the sellers cannot post under the vendor prices, buyers are free to do so. That’s just bad design on Anet’s part. Also, although I agree with you, the back items are really too few to require proper sorting for now. You get most of your back items through leveling, with the heart/karma vendor, and at Lvl80, almost all players jump into the spineguards. I like your spreadsheet idea, but personally I think the TP is adequate for now.

4. The conditions do not crit by design and are capped for balance. I don’t think that condition builds are underrated, but I do think a lil’ buff (like increasing the number of stacks) would balance the direct/condition damage scale.

5. This has to be dial-in very carefully. Bosses wouldn’t be bosses if they could be immobilized, pushed back, pulled in, dazed and stunned across a zerg mob. Even the slightest increase in CC permissions would be unbalanced between a small party and a zone zerg. I think it’s fine that Champions and Legendaries are more or less immune to CC.

6. I posted in another thread on the topic of commander tags. See Commander Tags for reference.

7. The point of the influence is to induce commitment to a single guild. And as for seeing multiple chat feed, that’s another bowl of clusterfrack. If you receive multiple chat feed, does that mean that your own chat is sent to all your guilds? That would mean that your text would make sense to one guild, whose message originated and your responded, but totally not make sense to another or more guilds. Furthermore, the guild chat gets hectic sometimes, and I would not like to add another guild chat feed on top of that. I agree with the next suggestions. They are common suggestions everywhere.

8. Somewhat agree. I think that people on each other’s friend list should get unlimited send, but I still think that if you need to spam the directions (like in WvW), then it’s the players’ fault (short attention span, distractions, idiots, etc).

9. Right-click the gear slot? Manual drag to equip items? Bro, do you even double-click? Why don’t you just keep your bags separated in your inventory, and keep your alternate gear on a single line. When you want to switch, you just double-click a line of 7-8 items, and it’s done. As for having half your inventory kept for situation-specific gear, you must be new to RPGs if you think that gear should be kept in a weight-free vacuum and you can access it whenever you like from wherever you are.

Sorry if #9 was harsh.

10. While I fully agree and wish for the same thing, I think it’s designed that way to enforce commitment to a build. I don’t like it, but I understand it.

11. I posted about this, not sure if it was here or reddit, but I think that Anet will never implement a LFG option unless there is free resources and a dire need. The best explanation I have for this reasoning is the same with Portal 2 custom map . In the spoof promo, Aperture/Valve sneakily explain that there’s no need to waste company resources when others will do the work for free. Same with the LFG tool. People already use gw2lfg to form parties, mainly for dungeons, and it works just fine. Anet will probably think about making their own when gw2lfg will no longer satisfy the player base, but not anytime soon.

12. While I agree and would want that (infinite drawing like Zenith skins), I think it contradicts GW2’s stance on the subject. To be confirmed by Anet, but I think I remember them saying (posting) they want the player base to choose/commit to a skin, and maybe hold copies of the same gear with different skin(s). And the fact that there are people who have to have everything is an argument against skin locker, since hoarding skin, or skinned gear, would ultimately force hoarder to spend on banking and inventory space, aka gems.

13. Give it time. I personally don’t have anything against the current UI, but I remember in Rift where it was fully customizable to no extend, and I appreciated the work of the developers to make it a possibility.

So you don’t want trial players to experience WvW? While we’re at it, we should prevent them from joining PvE, and they can only watch videos of other players having fun in the game. [/sarcasm]

The point of a free trial weekend is to show potential customers a taste of the product. It’s really not in Anet’s best interest to deny trial players a big aspect of GW2 such as WvW. And even if you would counter-suggest having a trial player-only WvW server, that would still suck for them, not being part of “higher level” WvW.

Cidhappens.4086:

Should be enough if there was an option like
“Stop bugging me, I know what I do, so stop asking me ‘Are you sure …?’ [yes/no]”
that will stop this dialog.
Should/Could be like “Don’t ask when [common, master, rare, exotic] or lower”
with a drop down to select the max rarity.

That’s exactly what we need, or at least would be a step in the right direction. With the newly implemented achievement points reward, I am now stockpiling mystic forge stones, which I’m using to make salvage kits. I would very much like so to be able to rapidly click to salvage, without having to confirm for a measly Masterwork item. “Oh, you’re level 80, fully geared with exotics? Are you SURE you don’t want that Masterwork armor?” Yeah Anet, I’m very sure, and getting tired of your kittens.

As promised, I read your post and will comment on it.

I don’t agree with all of your suggestions, so I guess I’ll go point by point.

First off, I agree that the commander’s tag is a mess. It’s nothing more than a blue dorito above a character. Any schmuck can farm 100 G, buy the tag and act like he’s the messiah. I see far too many commanders chilling with their tag up in LA, whom I’ve never seen in WvW, and sometimes not even in PvE outside of LA. In its current state, the commander tag is absolutely not representative of the player’s skills, experience and game knowledge, which it exactly should be. As a non-commander, I expect the commander I’m following to know his kitten, but alas, you all know it’s often not the case.

I think it derives from the easiness of obtaining the tag, or rather, the easiness of obtaining vs the responsibility attached to it. Another poster commented on how tags do not convey direct command, and players are free to follow them or not. However, I think that the principle of the commander tag is precisely that the said commander should be followed and obeyed, as he should convey directions, knowledge and strategies. Personally, I think it’d be almost better to follow the guy with a few legendaries, rather than a commander. Getting a legendary involves gathering resources from pretty much everything in GW2. In my book, THAT represents wide knowledge, exploration and experience of GW2, and should make a player worthy of following.

This leads me with a suggestion. The current state of the tag is aggravated by the fact that you buy the tag for both PvE and WvW usage, and I think that’s a bad design. Making the acquisition of a tag specific to the currency and/or method of acquiring would make better tag holders. For example, having to buy the PvE commander tag with your second Gift of Exploration, or getting it when reaching 5,000 PvE-related achievement points, would definitely means that the holder is knowledgeable in the PvE domain. Or getting your WvW commander tag with 1 or more Gift(s) of Battle would mean that commander would have a minimum knowledge of WvW. I think having a separate comm. tag for PvE and WvW (and even PvP, who knows if someday PvP will become huge) and a specific method of acquisition would reduce the clusterfrack we are experiencing now. If the tag would remain to be both PvE and WvW, then the requirements should definitely be something like gathering the resources for a legendary, but maybe not as steep.

Now, for the commander’s special abilities. I don’t agree with some of your suggestions, because I feel that Anet has already implemented tools for commander management. They are the /team and /squad chat. I know you mentioned that a significant portion of the player base may ignore these chat channels, but that fault is on the commanders’ hands only, not the players or even Anet. It’s the commanders’ duty to use /squad to communicate with his group, while leaving the /map or /team chat free for general information and strategies. There’s no need for a single color for each commander on a map if you’re only following one and he’s typing in bright yellow. And if you want to hear the other commanders’ situations while being in your own squad, that’s what the /team channel is for, while the /map channel should be used for the general players. We shouldn’t ask Anet for other tools if we already have some that could probably solve the problems.

I however agree with commanders having a little something to differentiate them in the sea of chatter, even from within a restrictive channel such as /squad. I would be more in favor of something subtle, like their names underlined, rather than their whole chat text bold, italic or underlined, which would make other players’ chat appear less important. Also, when you join a squad, the commander’s icon could turn to yellow (same as the /squad chat color) to facilitate following. The commander would also see his icon yellow, indicating players have joined his squad. Like I said earlier, there’s no need for commanders to RGB-choose a color if only one color is needed to show whom you’re following and receiving directions from.

On the whole, I think we all agree there’s something amiss with the commander tag. However I think that not much is needed to change to make it better, and that most of the work should be done by the players, both commander and not.