Body blocking might seem nice on paper, but it’s very, very technically unfeasible. For those who say in GW1 it works, it’s because every player has his/her own prerendered instance, and that said instanced had little groups to play with. The number of interactions there is hilariously lower than that of GW2, so there’s your problem.
Implementing body blocking on a scale that simulates real-life conditions on it’s base is hilariously impossible once you take note that you’re not just the people in the map, you also have to account for the NPCs players spawn (turrets, pets, phantasms, etc.) in the collision, because not implementing it isn’t consistent with OP’s insistence on the matter.
In addition, over that layer of collision detection and prevention you also had to make sure that it didn’t bother with your hit detection calculations. Meaning that either way, you need a sufficiently and hilariously powerful processing power to just enable that kind of change.
So no, I don’t think body blocking will be implemented unless they revert their game design back to GW1, most likely having projectiles and other attacks locking on to players and reverting back to 2D instead of 3D combat, and removing heavy condition ticking too.
(edited by Advent Leader.1083)
This is more on unlocking the said traits, but trait unlocking should be rational and doable by the player, instead of binding the unlock on zone masteries that are for higher levels. Frankly, by design, it’s bad, because you force the players to rely on their stats instead of the traits that they might have during the level.
Query: would more PuGs QQ if in PvE, mobs applied all sorts of conditions and CCs regularly?
Hypothesis: conditions add another thing for players to watch, and a whole set of mechanics that run parallel with active combat. With GW2 combat pace, most players get overwhelmed managing both direct and condition damage, that they end up getting stressed by it, and people that come from games where damage is constrained heavily to one channel, they react aversely to the pressure.
Are any of that guy’s attacks counted as blockanle, reflectable projectiles?
I can agree that in PvE some gear needs to be looked up, but coupling back stats to other effects make it rather messy. GW2 was touted as fast paced action MMORPG. In that case, people should really change their mindset that the game feels like an MMO that uses trinity-like mechanics, when the game feels like, IMO a hybrid between a fighting game and your semi-traditional RPG.
Just a throwout here, but did you guys take into account the connection delay per calculation? It might be best to combine skills to sequences, and calculating each available sequence. That way, you can account for connection latency, since even if a setup has a lot of skills that need to be chained to provide max DPS, you’ll still delay in total probably DPS if you have latency that adds up over time.
I think the best way to check if it’s balanced is to understand the underlying mechanics of condition damage, with numbers to back it up. Show each and every class mechanics of how to apply conditions, and compare it to the direct damage mechanics, style, and application of each class.
THEN we can safely say that conditions are a problem.
Hypothesis related: People aren’t prepared for counters to conditions because of the direct-damage nature of PvE, which leads them to not be prepared transitioning to PvP/WvW, wherein damage is mostly heavy on after-effects.
I didn’t mean you, SM, I meant yayyuu. To suggest of making a single-action skill much more powerful is really… meh.
Actually, your suggest of nerfing field combos nerfs ALL professions reliant on field blasting, most importantly, engineers. Field blasting is better by design because it requires more motions, adding more pressure to players. Not to mention that it also makes parties mindful of their actions, because a mistimed field CAN mess up a lot of options available.
Honestly? They should improve on cross-profession combos more, but I don’t have ideas on where to start aside from adding combo-improvement traits to classes that need it the most.
After moving to TC and acclimating a bit, I’d like to ask for mentoring on Arah.
If they’d up condition code, it should be both ways – boost base condi calculation in PvE such that it’s not just us that benefits, but mobs as well.
Removing (or raising) the condi cap would not help mobs, since they hardly ever reach the cap on players anyway.
Not the condi cap. The condi cap can stay – I mean the damage calculation and scaling of conditions themselves, not the caps.
If they’d up condition code, it should be both ways – boost base condi calculation in PvE such that it’s not just us that benefits, but mobs as well.
Forum thread error fix post.
The thing with untargeted FGS rush against a wall is that it’s not bugged or being used as an exploit, it’s a balance issue. The problem I feel is that ANet doesn’t balance for PvE as well as they balance for WvW or PvP. It goes both ways – that they don’t update mob encounters often, and that they don’t check balancing when they change stuff for PvP and how it’ll affect people in PvE. On high-level runs, classes aren’t balanced well, but there is partial balance set.
I don’t think it even matters if its a bug or exploit. You are toggling an option that makes you do 10 times or more dps and giving you the ability to one shot a boss. Why?
Writing on mobile so this will look kittenty.
First of all, FGS can be seen that way… but there’s an inherent weakness to it. What are those?
1. FGS rush deals damage in ticks, which, in turn, opens up a weakness to retaliation. FGS 4 deals around… what, 25-50 ticks of damage in a five to six second frame? With that kind of ticking you would probably get OHKO’d from it, seeing that retal scales with power from bosses.
2. FGS being dropped in ticks mean that you need to corner/lockdown a target, and that the target be rather immobile.
The problem is that the counters to this aren’t readily seen in the game, which, to be faie, is how generally ANet has been balancing things to PvE. Implement that, and FGSing stuff dead might require a little more action than needed. It also opens up other classes in high-level runs, too.
The thing with untargeted FGS rush against a wall is that it’s not bugged or being used as an exploit, it’s a balance issue. The problem I feel is that ANet doesn’t balance for PvE as well as they balance for WvW or PvP. It goes both ways – that they don’t update mob encounters often, and that they don’t check balancing when they change stuff for PvP and how it’ll affect people in PvE. On high-level runs, classes aren’t balanced well, but there is partial balance set.
I don’t know if this has been mentioned before, but it would really help not just for RP, but for everyone in-game, to have a map cycle option included in, so that we can re-roll ourselves to the shards we want to fall in, aside from either partying up with someone, or going to character select screen to just change shards you’re in.
From a couple of months ago: this bug is most likely related to the ‘hotfix’ they added with turrets – I think it did something because objects on the open-world don’t vanish immediately right now unlike before.
Now to wait for new announcements, since the news release for the Megaserver being rolled out on all open-world PvE maps is complete.
So the megaserver move was done in order to loosen up cloud loads and give more resources to some high-intensive maps? Huh. If that’s the case, then people should be seeing less skill lag in WvW.
Ummm.
Why support forum?
Huh. Is it weird to think about this kind of application in WvW as well? Might bouncing might be a thing soon.
Oh. Wait, didn’t exactly read fine print: You’re bouncing might off each other?
Wait, the trait applies might to you as well?
Ninja edit – typing in mobile is hard.
I haven’t browsed the entire thread, but was there mention of the now-missing armor sets in PvP to PvE, like the rest of the stalwart set?
OMFG stalwart shoulders! Waaaaaa.
Obligatory fix post.
Looks like the Grove in TC isn’t having megaserver problems now – they’ve probably changed something overnight, I believe, or the trolls went to sleep.
You can actually fight her in melee range, without stacking in the corner. It’s just that stacking, while legal under the bounds of the game, might seem illegal to you because mobs aren’t programmed to recognize positional changes that you or they do, and you think that they should probably do so.
You can try dagger only, since main hand dagger on it’s own has no blast finisher… pre patch.
Let’s look at the initial post: Pact should be there, but they weren’t. And you sought justification for them to be there by introducing a faction that you say needed to do the things the regular Pact couldn’t do, because then it’d be explicable that they could.
Either you were too hopeful for the Pact (which, to be fair in Scarlet’s case, isn’t their oversight, not to mention that your perspective is highly militaristic) or really wanted them to do what you proposed. And thematically speaking? It’s not really the kind of setup for a T rated ESRB game, and something that you can’t do in lore. Resorting to tactics that entail overwhelming force and such will destroy ANY semblance of PR your group has, and that goes with your support as well.
Wow. I feel this argument has become philosophical, and that it has deeply disturbing implications to the world view of some people here. Proposing a group to be systematically sociopathic is not only troubling, but doomed to burn out quick. You do have to remember the logistics necessary for the upkeep of such group, and from an RL perspective is pretty hard to try and make, what with the ESRB rating of the game.
We do have a role – vuln application – and we do it faster on our own, max stack at that, but we’re overshadowed by FGS, since any other class with vuln on crit traits can max stack with an untargeted rush 4.
- Mobs should be attacking while moving, healing other allies when needed, dodging more, and predict how the player will approach and attack them (example: A player using melee, bandit switches to range and takes a step back). Other various attacks should also be added of different kinds of mobs should be added, too. Horses don’t exist in Tyria, but I’ll still use them as an example. (example: horse has a flee or fight option which will most likely be random. Earth elementals has a self destruct move that spawns tinier elementals which may execute depending on the player’s melee/range and health)
I am against this because it will make movement insignificant. If mobs can attack while moving, what is the point of moving at all?
It actually encourages moving with the idea of using the environment to. Not to mention that people will have to work in order to keep at melee range.
Something to ask: why s/d over s/f in eles?
Are you cycling might in time? Is most of the players at it enabled with boons, sigil boosts, and the likes? You say stat check, but is it a bad thing if it is? It’s part of encounter mechanics, not to mention boon bonuses composited with proper trait bonuses give a hefty large boost.
Digressing, but when he means wurm try he possibly means a large, highly coordinated try where most of the participants have a strict set of conditions in play (voice chat, trait control geared and optimized, with food and nourishment, as well as attack pattern synced up).
So…. just because I only cite 2 incidents (even though I stated it was two of many) it only happened twice. Check. How about all the other incidents cited by other players in the numerous other posts on this exact same topic.
That’s right. You don’t see them, therefore they don’t exist. That’s what’s “silly.” Feel free to keep cherry picking though. It’s not helping your argument at all.
how about the numerous times I’ve already stated it’s a question of dealing with harassment in general and has nothing to do with dueling in specific? if you ignore posts, don’t attack others for ignoring yours (which was already a repetition and has been discussed).
It’s not effective of me to write on this while not having skimmed the majority of the thread yet, but I’ll bite. What changes to dueling would you like to implement to have incidences of this not happen to people? Would you accept that people on your friend list are the only ones you could invite to duel? But this implies that friend lists are something you do not just take fro granted as some sort of contact book. Would you make it guild-locked? But the problem is that you can’t duel with other people?
The closest to not have you locked down is for the system to have better traps for ‘disruptive’ behavior. Flagging people to be blocked from said features after repeat or valid reports that might not constitute total violations on the Code, but will soon be, could work, with the added problem of manpower on ANet’s part.
To be honest, the dueling thing might be easier to implement this time around, given that tools to change traits and such are coming up. While it is a nice feature, the main issues that plague here are to what kind of dueling would people like? Would they go for the traditional route of jumping into combat directly? Would there be some map changes, and would those map changes have unintended consequences to do? Would you go the non-traditional route, instead sending players to another instanced map with traits balanced for the game mode?
There’s so many things that you need to account for dueling not just to be a feature, but something people will use.
The closest solution that I can think of that -might- even work, is to have ANet think about what community labels to put on each and every server. It will be harder work, but it might help a lot. Making it official, on the other hand, will put flak on them with regards to how they would label the communities.
I’d like to point out that the what people perceive with the mega-server design might be misleading, so waiting for the next blogposts for clarification might be nice. The current inference of the design, though, can be said to affect large movements of players that do organized effort because the larger the player population in the movement will be, the higher the chance that it will be fractured at a more greater scale than the previous server setup.
Maybe it’s best if people don’t try to stir up inflammatory posts? The only main issue here would be people guesting over for roleplaying. Checking from what Colin said, the biggest problem to roleplayers would be that the communities are much more restricted, given the fact that while there are unofficially designated servers for RP, there will be outliers who would like to try and test the waters for roleplaying, so to speak. There’s also those who roleplay but have other home servers, so they will have lower priority in joining the world shard.
That being said, guesting COULD be a solution, given that there is already implementation to it beforehand, but it could also be disabled in weighting when you move to the home cities, and the starter zones.
Edit 1 (Mostly technical notes)
Given that the mega-server can be thought of changing the behavior of the servers from hosting a singular shard regularly maintained and then adding once the population skews, to serving shards on demand, initial seed shards will be likened to the previous implementation, with the added functionality that gives priority to connecting the same people from the same home server. This partially solves the issue of people connecting to shards with lower initial population, and also gives the game’s servers less static overhead to account for. The problem, then, lies in people connecting to the older shards on demand. Any organized effort that has filled up one server, but not fully filled a majority to it, will have their movement split in different shards.
In all fairness, this is not just an ‘RP’ problem, but more of organized movements problem. You -could- game the system by using the join method in parties, but since shards will be served on-demand, there will be issues, especially with connecting to shards with much more active population than lower population, because at those times the incoming traffic to a shard might be more than the outbound traffic to it, not to mention that the easiest solution to use – moving people not of the same population/scan type with most of the people – will be irritating to the player.
(edited by Advent Leader.1083)
The bobble-head change seems to be constrained on the character you logged in that had it first. Logging in to alts which wasn’t affected yet seems to not make the effect appear. Just a tidbit.
Try logging on a character that hasn’t had the bobble effect first.
If you really need it off change PC date/time to something not 31st March, or 1st/2nd April.
Change your PC time to not be in the 31st March, 1st or 2nd April.
All bugs that happens with Detha happens when she’s in combat and her script for the final room is running. It’s the same in P3, when the asura gets attack when he starts his monologue before setting up the extractors. The best tip I can give to not get that bug is to get to the farthest part in the room with the entire party, but not directly towards the area where the event should trigger. It should leash the NPCs away from the mobs it aggroes. Once the mobs are away, you can leash the NPC back to it’s event zone.
gw2dungeons.com isn’t accessible from here. Does anyone have the raw IP address for it?
How much DPS loss do stacking changes give? And will it become a choice between bringing force/night/day/bloodlust for engineers and eles who are stuck with two sigils instead of four?