Guild Wars 2

So I’ve read various things in numerous places on this topic, including these forums, but as there is no single clear summary anywhere I can find and I find the results of my searching to be questionable at best, I’m hoping somehow can bring me up to speed.

I know this is probably seen by many as a dead horse, but for those of us who have been out of the loop…is it the case that someone like myself who paid 80$ for the Digital Deluxe version before release, will have to pay another 50$ for the Expansion, which for those doing so now who had not bought the full game previously, puts them where I would be, but at a savings of 80$…for coming late to the party and not supporting things before initial release?

I’ve read that people who already owned the full game would be compensated om some way, but my research seems to indicate this is limited to an additional character slot, which is valued at far less than 80$. Is this accurate or have I missed something important?

I pre-purchased the original game because I thought it deserved being supported and I was considering doing the same for the expansion, but unless I am missing something the math just doesn’t work out. Can someone please summarize what the situation is in this regard? I’ve searched the News section but I don’t see anything on this topic.

Thank-you kindly in advance!

Good fights tonight, thanks to everyone who followed me around in the dark hours…some nice stuff!

I have no problem with this change, I realize some people have valid reasons for going AFK or leaving a match, but as the person doing this, if there is a price to be paid, it should be by you, not the other players. I don’t see this as unreasonable at all.

2) Matches which start at even strength but where players leave
For this one, there are 2 different scenarios – one in which a player leaves the match, before it has started, during planning time, and the other where they leave after match start. In the former case, this is sometimes due to their wanting to change classes, having seen the make-up of the two teams – this is a desirable thing. and should not be coded against. For both cases, it can be a disconnection issue.

This complicates any code-based approach to this problem. There are things which could be done, such as a button like the Ready Check which can be clicked to indicate you are changing classes, which could even retain your team slot indicator with an icon indicating same. It could perhaps add or freeze the game countdown timer…this is something that would need a soft but dynamic solution

The other scenario, where they leave after match start, is a very common one and is often as a reaction to the early happenings in game, team performance and so on. There are three elements to this case of people leaving a match:

-What should happen to the ‘leaver’
-What should happen to the remaining players
-What should happen to the game

There are a range of options here, which could be used alone or in combination. For example, the current system which is designed to punish the person leaving the match…this could be modified or replace to make doing so more painful to that player. Instead of (just) denying access to sPvP, or say tPvP, there could be a penalty in the form of Rank loss, Glory loss or even restriction from some of the PvP game types—-Solo or Team queue for example, keeping Hotjoin accessible.

For the non-leavers, you have those on the under-manned team and those on the opposing team. Here we have options like the match not counting as a win or loss for the undermanned team, the match not counting as a win for the full-strength team, or some other mechanism to normalize the consequences according to the circumstances.

For the game match itself, again it could become unrated, not impacting the rankings in any way, it could seek to fill the empty spot or perhaps even some form of auto-balancing if appropriate – players moved to spectate or the other team, so as to equalize numbers.

3) Matches which start at even strength but some players are AFK
AFK detection as mentioned already exists as part of the game mechanics. A game could thus be flagged as uneven strength even if there are 5 players in the match and this be treated according to the above-mentioned suggestions. This would include penalties, however they should be less strict in triggering and nature as going AFK is sometimes necessary…the frequency and length of these periods should determine the consequences.

4) Matches which start at even strength, where players leave and return
There are three reasons for this as far as I can see – people changing classes, people losing connection and people trying to AFK and avoid the penalties. The need here would be to determine which of the 3 the AFK was, and this would depend on what the game can detect in terms of the circumstances…a disconnection for example should appear different from a logout and so on. If some code could be devised which could intelligently determine what the situation is, it could then apply the various actions as were warranted.

I think it is very important to recognize both how negatively impacting uneven strength is to a match, and how commonly it occurs…and that even the smallest things that can be done right away, should be done, even if other more difficult things are to be done down the line…the audible alert, the pre-match entry ready check…these things can and should be done right away, as they will help to a degree on their own.

Thanks for the effort in collecting information on this issue and thank-you for taking the time to read this. I hope we see some action on this in the very near future – it is rare that one has the opportunity to be 100% sure of making people happier, and ANet definitely has that opportunity here.

First, a big thank-you to the OP – I’ve made a good half-dozen posts on this topic, as have many others, and this is the first dev response I’ve seen…so bravo.

Second, another thank-you to you Allie for this small but necessary and important step in addressing this real and painful issue. I also want to thank-you because now I can finally buy some more bank space…after the endless silence and lack of response or action on the 4v5 problem I swore I would not buy any more gems nor play non-tPvP sPvP until something was done…this is a start, hopefully in good faith, so the former at least I can now do.

As for the problem, it seems to me there are 4 types of uneven strength matches:

1) Matches which are uneven strength from match entry to match start
2) Matches which start at even strength but where players leave
3) Matches which start at even strength but some players are AFK
4) Matches which start at even strength, where players leave and return

I think it is important to recognize the different types, and also recognize which can be coded against and which can’t. I also think it is VERY important for ANet to not fail to do something on the issue in general, simply because some of specific causes have no (easy) solutions. Half a loaf is definitely better than none in this case.

So, by type:

1) Matches which are uneven strength from match entry to match start
This, in my view, is where ANet has the easiest job, and the best change of helping their customers with a few very simple modifications. In my opinion, no match should ever start if the teams are not at even strength…this seems obvious, as why would you want to deliver with absolute certainty an unpleasant and frustrating experience to your customers…but clearly this is not the case.

To address this specific type/issue, I recommend:

-Adding an audible alert to the ‘Match Entry’ window, that tells people the queue is up and where upon clicking the appropriate option you will enter the match. Considering queue times, there is no doubt many of the matches which start at uneven strength are due to the player simply being away from their keyboard, tabbed out to another window and so on. There are audible alerts for countless other in game events and dialogues which are of far less importance, it seems absurd that there is none here. Adding am audible alert could be done immediately and would without question eliminate at least SOME of the uneven strength match starts.

-Move the ‘Ready Check’ to prior to match entry, OR add a 2nd ready check
This again seems obvious…having a ready check before match entry would eliminate a portion of these matches.

-Add logic for match start that verifies player status
It is not clear exactly why matches start at uneven strength, and not clear from the questions Allie has asked if ANet even knows why. That is to say, when we as players sees only 4 names in the team list, it is possible that the game sees a team has all 5 players…but one may be in a different state in the process of connecting to the match/map and so on.

That said, it IS clear that the game is able to detect the states and status of players, for things such as when to display their name in the team list, AFK detection (which is very sensitive for some game areas, triggering even after a short duration of no player input) the physical location of players and so on. The game could detect and decide that a match is not even strength, regardless of the fuzzy status of the missing player, and do various things accordingly…extend the countdown timer, kick the player, refill the slot, kick a 5th player from the other team and start the match as 4v4 and so on…

I think most people would choose to be kicked back to the lobby and have to queue again, than have the unsatisfying and unpleasant experience of an uneven strength match. It is not fun for the losers to be sure. and even the winning team has had their game experience affected…potentially 9 people have had 10-15 minutes of their time wasted for the sake of 1 person, and in a painful fashion. Better to be kicked to lobby.

(continued)

2) Matches which start at even strength but where players leave
For this one, there are 2 different scenarios – one in which a player leaves the match, before it has started, during planning time, and the other where they leave after match start. In the former case, this is sometimes due to their wanting to change classes, having seen the make-up of the two teams – this is a desirable thing. and should not be coded against. For both cases, it can be a disconnection issue.

This complicates any code-based approach to this problem. There are things which could be done, such as a button like the Ready Check which can be clicked to indicate you are changing classes, which could even retain your team slot indicator with an icon indicating same. It could perhaps add or freeze the game countdown timer…this is something that would need a soft but dynamic solution

The other scenario, where they leave after match start, is a very common one and is often as a reaction to the early happenings in game, team performance and so on. There are three elements to this case of people leaving a match:

-What should happen to the ‘leaver’
-What should happen to the remaining players
-What should happen to the game

There are a range of options here, which could be used alone or in combination. For example, the current system which is designed to punish the person leaving the match…this could be modified or replace to make doing so more painful to that player. Instead of (just) denying access to sPvP, or say tPvP, there could be a penalty in the form of Rank loss, Glory loss or even restriction from some of the PvP game types—-Solo or Team queue for example, keeping Hotjoin accessible.

For the non-leavers, you have those on the under-manned team and those on the opposing team. Here we have options like the match not counting as a win or loss for the undermanned team, the match not counting as a win for the full-strength team, or some other mechanism to normalize the consequences according to the circumstances.

For the game match itself, again it could become unrated, not impacting the rankings in any way, it could seek to fill the empty spot or perhaps even some form of auto-balancing if appropriate – players moved to spectate or the other team, so as to equalize numbers.

3) Matches which start at even strength but some players are AFK
AFK detection as mentioned already exists as part of the game mechanics. A game could thus be flagged as uneven strength even if there are 5 players in the match and this be treated according to the above-mentioned suggestions. This would include penalties, however they should be less strict in triggering and nature as going AFK is sometimes necessary…the frequency and length of these periods should determine the consequences.

4) Matches which start at even strength, where players leave and return
There are three reasons for this as far as I can see – people changing classes, people losing connection and people trying to AFK and avoid the penalties. The need here would be to determine which of the 3 the AFK was, and this would depend on what the game can detect in terms of the circumstances…a disconnection for example should appear different from a logout and so on. If some code could be devised which could intelligently determine what the situation is, it could then apply the various actions as were warranted.

I think it is very important to recognize both how negatively impacting uneven strength is to a match, and how commonly it occurs…and that even the smallest things that can be done right away, should be done, even if other more difficult things are to be done down the line…the audible alert, the pre-match entry ready check…these things can and should be done right away, as they will help to a degree on their own.

Thanks for the effort in collecting information on this issue and thank-you for taking the time to read this. I hope we see some action on this in the very near future – it is rare that one has the opportunity to be 100% sure of making people happier, and ANet definitely has that opportunity here.

First, a big thank-you to the OP – I’ve made a good half-dozen posts on this topic, as have many others, and this is the first dev response I’ve seen…so bravo.

Second, another thank-you to you Allie for this small but necessary and important step in addressing this real and painful issue. I also want to thank-you because now I can finally buy some more bank space…after the endless silence and lack of response or action on the 4v5 problem I swore I would not buy any more gems nor play non-tPvP sPvP until something was done…this is a start, hopefully in good faith, so the former at least I can now do.

As for the problem, it seems to me there are 4 types of uneven strength matches:

1) Matches which are uneven strength from match entry to match start
2) Matches which start at even strength but where players leave
3) Matches which start at even strength but some players are AFK
4) Matches which start at even strength, where players leave and return

I think it is important to recognize the different types, and also recognize which can be coded against and which can’t. I also think it is VERY important for ANet to not fail to do something on the issue in general, simply because some of specific causes have no (easy) solutions. Half a loaf is definitely better than none in this case.

So, by type:

1) Matches which are uneven strength from match entry to match start
This, in my view, is where ANet has the easiest job, and the best change of helping their customers with a few very simple modifications. In my opinion, no match should ever start if the teams are not at even strength…this seems obvious, as why would you want to deliver with absolute certainty an unpleasant and frustrating experience to your customers…but clearly this is not the case.

To address this specific type/issue, I recommend:

-Adding an audible alert to the ‘Match Entry’ window, that tells people the queue is up and where upon clicking the appropriate option you will enter the match. Considering queue times, there is no doubt many of the matches which start at uneven strength are due to the player simply being away from their keyboard, tabbed out to another window and so on. There are audible alerts for countless other in game events and dialogues which are of far less importance, it seems absurd that there is none here. Adding am audible alert could be done immediately and would without question eliminate at least SOME of the uneven strength match starts.

-Move the ‘Ready Check’ to prior to match entry, OR add a 2nd ready check
This again seems obvious…having a ready check before match entry would eliminate a portion of these matches.

-Add logic for match start that verifies player status
It is not clear exactly why matches start at uneven strength, and not clear from the questions Allie has asked if ANet even knows why. That is to say, when we as players sees only 4 names in the team list, it is possible that the game sees a team has all 5 players…but one may be in a different state in the process of connecting to the match/map and so on.

That said, it IS clear that the game is able to detect the states and status of players, for things such as when to display their name in the team list, AFK detection (which is very sensitive for some game areas, triggering even after a short duration of no player input) the physical location of players and so on. The game could detect and decide that a match is not even strength, regardless of the fuzzy status of the missing player, and do various things accordingly…extend the countdown timer, kick the player, refill the slot, kick a 5th player from the other team and start the match as 4v4 and so on…

I think most people would choose to be kicked back to the lobby and have to queue again, than have the unsatisfying and unpleasant experience of an uneven strength match. It is not fun for the losers to be sure. and even the winning team has had their game experience affected…potentially 9 people have had 10-15 minutes of their time wasted for the sake of 1 person, and in a painful fashion. Better to be kicked to lobby.

(continued)

I can win, either by killing or simply forcing them to run and not dying, over 50% of the time on my Condition-based Trap Ranger, where the stealth, knockback, channel through stealth of Rapid Fire and AoE from Barrage on Longbow all suit such an encounter well.

The AoE damage from Torch 5 and the traps is also very well suited against thieves, where their stealthing is less of an issue and more of an opportunity – if you’ve forced a thief to retreat to Shadow Refuge, it pretty much works in our favor as if/when you get the AoE down, they are toast. Successful CC and conditions from pets often make the difference as well.

In fact, a certain percentage of the time, the thief will pop out of stealth a distance away, downed, due to burning or bleeds…the only fights of this kind that I lose are where something goes wrong (pet F2 fail, long-casting heal is interrupted or I take too much damage in the initial opening attack from stealth) or the thief is exceedingly good and/or lucky. Otherwise, it’s a stalemate or win for me as they must disengage.

As for preventing me from taking camps, this is one area where Entangle is actually of use – with the amount of AoE I can put out, and the addition of stealth as an ‘oh kitten’ option, that’s very rarely a problem anymore either. It’s probably the one thing Rangers excel at honestly.

All of these changes, whether you like them or not, are pet-related. How have they not understood yet that we want to be less-reliant on our pets, not more…yes, there may be other changes forthcoming, but this is very disappointing.

I run a condition-based Trap build, with Longbow and Axe/Torch and I find it works very well, good for roaming and useful in group fights as well. The key in my opinion is knowing your strengths and weaknesses, and playing accordingly. Ranger in general and this build in particular is a finesse platform, and has to be played that way in order to be successful.

You can see my build and gear in this video here. When running solo and not escorting yaks, I equip Torch in my offhand and use Signet of the Hunt, Viper’s Nest and Spike Trap, with Heal as One. When escorting yaks I switch Torch for Warhorn, and Signet of the Hunt for Flame Trap. When not solo, I again use Warhorn and switch to Healing Spring. If working with a chokepoint or manning a Ballista in the open field, I use Frost Trap instead of Flame Trap/Signet of the Hunt.

I should say up front that with this build, while you can have success, you will die a lot. The lack of stunbreak and condition removal means you must rely on your CC, pet CC and dodges/evades to survive encounters where those things are normally necessary. It is the kind of build where if everything goes right, the fights are fairly easy…if something goes wrong, if a pet F2 fails, if your long-casting heal is interrupted, if you are too late on a crucial dodge…it can hurt. Bad.

That said, the build is in my opinion a fun one way to play, and effective in all moves of combat – provided you observe the above. It is great for soloing camps quickly, for holding chokepoints, for killing thieves and spirit rangers, and works well for asset-based fighting, up to walls or down from walls. With the combo fields at your disposal and great AoE heal, you can also contribute very well to group fights.

One of the keys things for groups fights is managing your engagement with the zerg force properly; getting into and out of range effectively will make the difference. Using your longbow stealth, pet and weapon CC and your dodges can allow you to make the necessary contact with the conflict area and get out safely. The more you play the build, the better feel you will get for the ranges involved and the easier it will become to avoid horrible and painful death while getting the job done.

It’s definitely not for everyone, but I enjoy it – you can see a few examples of how the build plays on my youtube channel…lots of death, but being a ranger, that isn’t always the same as defeat…and for me, there’s nothing quite like seeing a downed thief reappear out of the stealth he thought had saved him. :P

Unfortunately that isn’t quite true. This large response was no doubt in part due to my complaints on the previous attack, where only 4 people manged to flip it and not a single person came to help defend, this after spending a painful 2 hours to upgrade it fully…I would have welcomed even a few zombies. :P

At least there was no-one standing on the stairs last time watching the circle…

Vash.9183:

Anthrage.2519:

Here’s a short video of a fight at north camp on TCBL – always fun fighting you guys!

It’s always so amusing to attack the north camp on Tarnished Coast’s home borderland. You guys never fail to show up and don’t stop running back if you die. It reminds me of your nickname in the old days… “Tarnished Zombies.” :P

Here’s a short video of a fight at north camp on TCBL – always fun fighting you guys!

Just a very short vid of my view of the Dolyak Parade – very nicely done!

Just a very short vid of my view of the Dolyak Parade on Tarnished Coast – very nicely done!

Nice little series of fights on SoS BL a few hours ago, smaller scale moves (15-20) on Hills, Garri then Bay by SoS, making it to the lord room each time but we managed to defend successfully on all 3. Lots of fun!

Defense is definitely boring if you are not being attacked, this is true. One of the things this idea is intended to do through the new more-than-tick points-on-capture mechanic, is to produce more attacks on assets. That aside, yes, defense is boring…but people do boring things all the time, when the reward is sufficient – the old yakking for karma, current karma or WXP trains…these activities are repetitive and unexciting yet people do them because of the reward.

Denying your enemy a large amount of points is not exciting, and likely not sufficient reward to motivate active defense. One way to do this could be through a bloodlust ruins-type control pad that would exist on the ‘doorstep’ of each asset, where the supply depot for a supply camp or the gate for a fortification would be. Any player standing on this pad would earn WXP…say at the rate of 5 per minute for camps, 15 per minute for towers and 25 per minute for keeps.

This may motivate some people to spend more time at owned assets. Some people may try to afk on these pads, but this would only draw enemy players to these locations, and spawn need for more defense. This is just one idea, there are many possible ways to reward people for defending.

The main point of my idea is that a large zerg or a group that has night coverage, that is superior in whatever respect, cannot and does not gain more from this system…they don’t make more points than they would otherwise through defending than they get now, they can only prevent the other side from acquiring these ‘new’ points by taking upgraded assets. The server that is at the other end of the spectrum and not dominant, is going to have less of these kinds of points -upgraded assets – for the dominant server to take. So it should not be an issue, at least in that respect.

Surely there are at least a few people with the faculties to read all that and offer some intelligent commentary… :P

This method of tying realtime points value to upgrade status also helps mitigate ‘no-defense’ PPT asset-trading, and prevents abusing this system, as there is a finite amount of points an asset could produce since it takes a set amount of supply and time to upgrade it, while rewarding waiting until an asset is taken as it will give you more points overall once it has been upgraded.

Zerg tactics are also addressed via this change, motivating a larger force to split up and defend it’s assets, and not focus so much on flipping them for tick. Even losing un-upraded towers could net the enemy server more points than you are earning from anything you just take for tick. Over-matched servers would gain a clear and simple avenue for catching up or earning meaningful points, by focusing their fewer numbers on single goals – taking upgraded assets over a longer period of time, rather than ninja-flipping assets for tick points. The more a match progresses, the more points are on the board for the taking – offsetting the snowball effect.

Lastly, Bloodlust’s mechanic of giving points for stomps is a good one, but the stat bonuses should be removed, or traded straight up with the Outnumbered buffs. To be considered as another small-scale method of earning points, the ruins cap areas could give a steady stream of points while owned individually, regardless of the Bloodlust buff status. A Conquest source of points inside WvW.

That later may need to be zerg-balanced in some way, but in conjunction with the main change, it should be equally open to all servers.

While the concept of making points through denying them to your enemy may seem abstract and lack glamor, it makes a lot of sense and would be pretty easy to do with the existing mechanics, given each asset has a set value/variable for it’s supply capacity already. You would literally be able to walk up to a tower and see what it gets you for the effort you invest – unlike per-tick gains where you are not always sure if you will still own something when the tick ends.

So first, thank-you for reading this far! And second…what do you think, crazy or no?

So I think even the most forgiving person, including ANet employees, would have to agree that there are some issues with WvW. Certain things which are shall we say less than desirable, and those things would include but not be limited to:

-Zergs or zerg-play being overly dominant as a strategy, especially when against non-zergs
-WXP-induced tactics, such as not defending assets and playing for WXP and not PPT
-Blowouts or match imbalance, snowball effect etc
-Bloodlust effects

It occurs to me that some of these things could well be addressed in ways which compliment one another, and that the divisions of servers into groups coming with the League system might be the ideal time for such changes.

Right now, there is often little motivation for defending assets in WvW. First, since the point gain is only dependent upon owning the asset at the end of the tick, actively defending it is not necessary from that perspective. Second, as long as an asset is secured or resecured before tick, allowing it to be taken by an enemy server and then retaken by your own is more advantageous from a WXP perspective.

One way to address this would be through changes to how both assets and Points Per Tick are awarded, as well as how WXP can be earned. It has always seemed wrong that an asset is worth the same number of points to someone endeavoring to take it, should the asset have no upgrades or be fully upgraded. There is a strategic benefit of course to wiping upgrades on an asset, but the act of taking it from the enemy has the same potential reward whether it was upgraded and difficult to secure or not.

Altering this fact would change the calculus for both the attacking and defending sides, with the overall equation as regards deployment of forces becoming much more complex, with different variables and multiple potential solutions. It would be possible to make an asset worth more points through defending than simply taking and owning at the tick. Where points denied to your enemy are just as important, indeed more so, than the points you yourself can possibly earn through ownership.

One way to do this would be by tying an asset’s upgrade status to it’s points potential. For example, currently a Keep will earn you 25 points per tick, or 100 per hour. You can lose and retake the Keep multiple times each tick, and still earn all the potential points from that asset during for the hour. There is no motivation to hold it for the defenders, and no points-based reward for an inferior enemy force to try to take in the face of it’s likely being retaken for tick.

What if however, an asset awarded the team taking it an amount of points when they took it, in real time, and this amount was relative to the asset’s upgrade status? For simplicity’s sake, let’s use the supply capacity value to determine how much point an asset is worth for taking. With this system, an un-upgraded Keep would be worth 500 points simply on capture, which would require the defending team 5 hours of ticks to match, at 25 points per tick. Just taking the Keep becomes a viable form of points acquisition, as good as, or even better, than just holding it in the first place.

This also means that defending a Keep, in this scenario, for that hour, is actually worth more points than just what you get for owning it, if you do manage to prevent the enemy from getting those 500 points. Points your enemy does not get are important in such a system.

It is unfortunately a sad fact of GW2 that as good as the Art Direction is, much of the interface and game mechanics are quite bad. Not having the skill cost on those you have not opened up yet is just one of many such glaring oversights.

It can be a pain, but the Wiki is very useful indeed. If you type /wiki in game, it will open up for you in a browser…about as good as it gets.

Personally I went Norn for the racials in WvW, specifically the dash/stealth from Leopard form. I can’t count the number of times that has gotten me past a zerg into a tower or keep to defend. Good for getting up on siege as well in the field…and the others have a good range of usefulness as well depending on your build. Best bang for your buck in terms of abilities access in my opinion.

Looks like points were refunded early – anyone think this will revert once WvW comes back up or actually stay?

Points for spiking I have no problem with either.

Obviously there are a lot of people who are unhappy with the current state of affairs, and an equally large number of ideas or suggestions on how to deal with it. Here are a few of mine:

1) Bloodlust Changes
I feel the point control mechanic and aesthetic of the borderlands ruins are quite nice, however the granted buff is poorly considered and contributes to imbalance between the servers, much like the orb buffs did.

I would propose 2 possible new version of Bloodlust – 1 easy to implement and one likely a bit harder, from a coding perspective:

1a) Change the Bloodlust effects so they are similar to the current Outnumbered effects – +15 Magic Find, +33 Experience, +15 World Experience – and have them stack both with eachother (3 possible stacks, 1 from each BL) and with Outnumbered should it be in effect as well. Bloodlust would not remove repair costs however.

This change would both reduce the imbalance the current effect causes for those who have it, while still giving them something in return for their efforts. It also as a side effect helps those servers who are overmatched and outnumbered, by giving them access to something that will pay dividends longterm, and encourage play even under difficult conditions, a.k.a., getting repeatedly crushed by forces many times your size. This will help population on otherwise outnumbered servers.

1b) Keep the same stat-buff type buff that Bloodlust currently is, but scale it so that it’s effects are inversely proportional to the number of people on the Borderlands in question. Imagine the buff amount is of a total maximum size in terms of amount of stat points, and divided by the number of people receiving the buff.

These are several ways to actually do this so that it is not taxing or overall complex for the system to calculate or manage, but this too would provide some reward for the server who acquired the buff, and help those servers otherwise overmatched, if they managed to secure it for themsellves.

2) Anti-Zerg Mechanics
Like the above, I have 2 potential ways to address this issue, of very different types.

2a) Use mechanics similar to those which detect the number of players required to trigger swords, to detect when a group of players within a certain area is above a certain size and impose a new debuff called ‘Combat Fatigue’. This would impose a movement speed debuff, say -10%, on groups of players over 25 in size.

This would be a subtle, simple but substantial mechanic that would help the smaller groups or solo players compete with the zergs, and do so in a practical but not punishing way. Travel time and not getting run down are significant factors in the dynamic that results when zergs are out rolling.

2b) Add a new large area-of-effect debuff called “Blood-soaked Ground” which would come into being in any location where more than 25 downed or defeated players are detected. This debuff would reduce healing effectiveness and endurance regeneration by 15%, and cause killed players to go directly to downed state. Other more elaborate effects could be the spawning of risen from dead corpses, or of a large boss-type mob, a Reaper, that attacks everything in sight.

This idea of course would impact both sides of a battle, and would discourage even zerg vs zerg fights. The specifics of the debuff could vary, but the general idea would persist.

3) Add a new supply-built siege item named ‘Field Camp’.
This small earthwork and stakewall structure (using perhaps one of the various existing models of this type, such as those the centaur art employs) would be about 1200 units in diameter, cost 200 supply to build and have HP equivalent to 25% of that of an unupgraded tower wall. It’s sole purpose would be to provide some open field LoS blocking from ranged attacks and to create artificial chokepoints. It would also be impossible to deplay if you do not have the Outnumbered buff.

4) New Supply Mastery skills
Rank 6 Cost: 10 – Gain ability to drop supply. (becomes a chest like the yak would drop)
Rank 7 Cost: 15 – Recover supply from players you kill. (5)
Rank 8 Cost: 20 – Recover supply from yaks you kill. (5)
Rank 9 Cost: 25 – Gain ability to steal supply from enemy supply depots if not in combat mode. (applies movement debuff)
Rank 10 Cost: 30 – Gain the ability to deposit supply into a supply depot. (Only works if you are carrying the maximum amount of supply possible for you, F thus becomes a toggle between Take and Deposit.)

Good post. As others have mentioned, there are more variables involved than this suggests, but it is a good summary of the two damage types and how the system works. It is likely the upcoming changes will impact this current state of affairs, and all of this will need to be reevaluated fairly soon.

Personally, I prefer conditions over direct damage, largely due to this inefficiency and because I feel it dovetails well with the Ranger’s few strengths, and definitely suits my playstyle more. I do think that both options should be equally viable for Rangers however, and would hope that this is made so not simply by nerfing one of them…we’ll see before long just what is going to happen on this front. I am not hopeful.

runeblade.7514:

I have seen your videos.

I liked your playstyle, but you died way too much. When I tried playing a copy of your build, I died way too much and I did very little damage.

I definitely do die alot, no doubt. A lot of those fights end in a downed state battle, which most of the time ranger comes out on top of. The thing with ranger in general and my playstyle in particular is that if something doesn’t go right – pet F2 fails, or my long-casting heal doesn’t get off, or I run into something where the lack of stunbreak and condition cleanse costs me…it’s pretty much death. No denying that.

But, when everything works…it’s great, and I love it. As a ranger, winning a 2 on 1, or even a 3 on 1, which I’ve done, is awesome. It’s true ranger has a low skill ceiling, but we have a high ‘luck’ ceiling I guess you could say…so much of our kitten nal is passive or too random or precise that it’s a considerable factor.

JSharp did recognize this Ranger issue once that I saw, unfortunately he wasn’t of the opinion that it should be changed.

Still, I love the Longbow with all it’s flaws, how can you not love doing stuff like this?

Again, some people such as Tom Gore don’t get it – it’s not about rank, nor is it about losing. It’s about having an enjoyable experience, not one which is frustrating by default when a match starts 5v4. tPvP is what you play when your team is on and you want to win, but sPvP exists for a reason, and people are going to play it – period. There is no reason whether some people feel sPvP should be played or not, for the game mechanics to be such that those who DO choose to play will have an unpleasant experience DUE to those mechanics.

There are a lot of good simple ideas in this thread, and there are many basic things that could be done to mitigate this problem. This too is an important point. It’s not about prevent 100% of uneven matches, or punishing all leavers or AFKers…but basic things like not starting matches that are 5v4, moving the ready check, adding the audible alert to match window pop-up…these things WILL reduce these painful matches by some amount, at a very low cost effort wise…and this is the question; why does ANet not do these things? Why do they not even acknowledge the problem, or address it at all?

Presumably, because they feel as Tom Gore does – that sPvP is not a serious game mode, and no-one should play it. If that is the case, they should simple remove it. Of course, tPvP has the same issues as sPvP from a mechanics perspective…so that is no solution at all.

ANet needs to do these basic things, if they expect people to believe they care about PvP, if they truly care about the quality of their customers play experience, if they are to be believed when they claim to want to provide a good quality, enjoyable game….because this issue is real, these solutions are easy, and not saying or doing anything is all anyone needs to know.

I use Longbow with my trap build in PvP and while it is definitely not easy mode, nor god mode, it allows you to do some things which are very useful in that game mode. Keeping people off points, getting people off points, securing revives and stomps…I use it more for control and less for damage, which with the traps and a strong condition damage pet, works decently well.

The key to making Longbow work in my opinion is understanding it’s limitations, offsetting them with your utility and trait choices, and developing a good rotation for your weapon kills, which includes your second set.

For example, when defending a point, or securing a neut and capture with an incoming enemy, a spike trap placed between your enemy’s approach path and your position on point will stop him long enough for your to get pet knockdown and/or a ranged knockback off, followed by a fear and if you have the distance, a barrage…this sequence will usually keep the incoming target off point long enough for you to get the neut and/or cap. Practice, getting a solid feel for the ranges and time, is what makes a largely under-performing weapon actually do a job well.

Obviously longbow’s stealth and ranged knockback are very useful in PvP….you can kick someone off a point to stop a cap before they can hit you, knocking people off various positions of height is also good – not just a question of fall damage but the time it takes them to get back to where they were. It’s also a good interrupt, much faster now than it used to be and of more use in that role. I myself love Longbow on Khylo, for running the treb and knocking them out, for the clocktower, or even pegging the hostile treb from the roof opposite it’s position…the same goes for hitting people there attacking yours.

In my view, Longbow is a lot like the Ranger overall – it’s best used as a finesse tool, it’s not the best at anything, but it is moderately good at a lot of other things; it’s all in how you use it.

It’s not about the ranking. It’s about the quality of the experience. 5v4 matches defeat the purpose of playing the game, any game, period.

…on Kyhlo. Discuss! :P

It’s not only that these 5v4 matches start that way which is frustrating, but that despite countless threads asking the questions Kwill has asked – what causes these matches in the first place – ANet has not bothered to explain. This is like adding insult to injury basically.

In any case, if they aren’t even doing the most basic things – audible alert, moving the ready check, kicking uneven team matches back to lobby – sadly I don’t think they care to do them, and no amount of pleading from their customers will change that.

The only way at this point to motivate change would be through something they do care about, such as the cash shop income….I pre-ordered this game, I’ve bought a lot of gems, but I simply can’t support it further with this kind of failure to address real issues of importance. At this point I frankly don’t know what else to do.

Guild Wars 2 is a video game. Most people play video games to have fun, and perhaps escape from the crap that occurs in daily life. sPvP is a competitive (in theory) game type.

Being stuck with a 5v4 match is neither fun, nor competitive.

So why does ANet force such an unpleasant experience onto it’s customers? I have no kittening idea. But I’m getting tired of it.

Some of you say, well, it is not ANet’s fault if someone goes afk, stops playing or disconnects. This is true. They are at fault however, for allowing a game which is 5v4 from the get go, to start. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to intentionally deliver such an experience to 9 people. None.

In any case, there are some very simple things that ANet could do – if they cared to spare their customers the frustration of such an unpleasant experience, or at least try to mitigate it:

1) Add an audible alert to the game entry pop-up window.
There is an audible alert for when you receive mail, for when you succeed in a new achievement, for when you level – even after level 80…but none for when players who have been waiting in a queue are about to be pulled into a match where the absence of a single player ruins the experience of the other 9? This is quite simply unbelievable, outrageous and to be honest, downright disgusting.

2) If teams are not full when the match timer hits zero, extend the timer by X minutes. If they are still not full at the end of that time, kick everyone back to the lobby.

3) Add a reporting tool for afk players. If a person receives 4 afk reports within a 5 minute period, lock them out of PvP for 1 hour. For every such report set/infraction after that, increase the lockout time by a factor of 4. Reset/clear lockout timer every 7 days. Such reports can only be accepted by team-mates.

4) Rank Loss
Players that are infracted for AFK or disconnect suffer PvP Rank loss of some amount.

5) PvP Lockout
Players who are infracted for AFK or disconnect more than 5 times in a week are locked out of PvP for 1 week.

The first 2 of these are simple, highly reasonable and should be done without question. The 3rd is less simple but also reasonable, and the last 2 are strong but not excessive methods of discouraging these actions. I would ask ANet to very strongly consider some or all of these very acceptable things to help their customers avoid the experience that effectively nullifies not only their reason for playing this game type, but playing this game entirely. If not, I would at least like them to explain why they want their customers to continue having this negative experience…because there has to be some reason, and I don’t see it.

You bet. I figure with all the doom and gloom up in here lately we could all use something like this to have us some fun – a few laughs, some people will learn a thing or two…we could even do something interesting with the format, depending on how many teams we fill out.

Only one rule though – anyone says ‘petting zoo’ and they are OUT. :P

There are numerous possible fixes to this serious problem if ANet were interested in doing something about it.

I think we’d need as many people to play as possible to field enough teams to make it interesting, so yes indeed. :P

My take on this is that PvE is primarily content driven, where PvP is experience driven – the nature and quality of the experience, how it feels etc. I myself, and I know some others agree, would be more happy to see quality of life changes to PvP than new content – at least in the near term. New maps and rewards are nice, but you only see those things if you play – addressing the issues which cause the quality of the play experience itself to motivate people not to play would be a priority in my opinion.

Thanks Jonathan, those are specific details that I know a lot of people appreciate and are very happy to hear!

Do you folks have anything up your sleeves to address the painful issues of: “Major frustration #5: Dishonour and Uneven Matches”, especially those games which start at uneven strength, which a dishonour system can’t influence?

Thank-you very much once again for the details, really awesome!

2 additional things from me on this.

First, this is not an either/or proposition, it is not the case that casual players or those who could not handle 2 additional powers would be forced to do so. It can very easily be done in a way where it would be optional, as are so many other such functions in the game currently. This is a non issue.

Second, the idea that Rangers with direct control over their pet’s 2nd and 3rd abilities would require rebalancing. This is absurd. All other professions have direct control over all of their mandatory abilities, and are able to execute CC lockdowns, chain stunblock and the like…this is very much a false premise. It is already possible for a skilled ranger to dictate which of his pets execute what powers in controlled circumstances – distance of pet from target and recast timer status – the problem is this is successful in a very small fraction of attempts, due to the mechanics involved (random variability, invisible cooldowns & timers) Direct control would bring things up to a balanced state, not over it.

Again, whether people choose to believe it or not, the stated reason from the dev in question was very clearly that of players not being able to handle the complexity of having this control – this is fact, anyone can hear it for themselves. It was not, I repeat NOT a question of balance, nor it not being able to be done – it was considered and discussed by ANet and rejected on the basis of difficulty to the player, nothing more.

Whether you agree with this premise of it being too difficult or not is immaterial, as it could be optional, as many other such things are already. The muddling of this issue is very simply not valid.

I use fire on my LB in WvW and it is very effective.

I don’t think any of us are overly hopeful about anything positive being done to the class, however it doesn’t hurt to post ideas. Nerfs are as much the response to player feedback as positive changes, and we know those are done.

I’m not sure that holds water, given elements of some forms of prevention exist already in the current mechanic. We’re literally talking about something as simple as an if/then statement…I don’t think it’s a question of complicated.

That however is the point – with all of the myriad complaints about this issue, there clearly has to be something going on we don’t know about or this would have been addressed. This is what I hope ANet will clear up.

Well that would be my point regarding meaningless. Obviously any changes would inherently be in the right direction and in the future…they wouldn’t intentionally make changes for the worse, and unless they have time travel…the statement was no doubt well-intentioned, but the lack of detail was itself very much in stark contrast to the spirit of the post and needs of a reply, in my opinion.

I agree with you that indicating which of the many issues mentioned will be addressed would have been preferable and indeed entirely sufficient without any time frame. Hope and patience are dependent on knowing that the issue one has will be addressed, and the reply sadly did not provide anyone with these issues with any reason to feel that the particular issues will be.

Again, I don’t want to seem to be picking on the wording of this statement too much, and any dev interaction is preferable to the opposite obviously…but substance matters, especially in the context of such a wonderful effort by the OP and the serious nature of the issues and the feelings and frustration they cause in the players.

Sokal I must applaud you for such a well-written, brilliantly considered post – I like many others have had the same experiences and thoughts, and posted numerous times in a far more frustrated and less constructive manner – yours is clear, simple but maintaining the necessary information – truly you should be commended for it; well done.

Unfortunately, while I appreciate there is a dev response in this thread, with all due respect, it is absolutely disheartening in it’s lack of substance – especially when compared to the effort and grace put into the original post. A one-sentence reply which addresses none of the points raised, is heart-breaking for those of us feeling as the OP does….if such a well-thought out and expressed communication from the players cannot get a response of real weight and impact, then we really are all well and truly without hope.

“Right direction” and “upcoming future” are about as vague and meaningless as one can imagine. The OP, and those of us suffering this pain and frustration, those who continue to endure the pain involved in playing PvP, deserve a bit better than that. The original post made me feel good, confirmed someone knows what I am going through, and how I feel…ANet’s reply made me feel bad, underlining the fact that there is nothing of substance we can comfort ourselves with.

‘The sun will come out tomorrow’ is nice and all, but that feeling will only last till tomorrow…which is in reality only a day away.

ANet: Why are 5v5-x matches allowed to start?

This is a serious question, I am hoping to find out what game mechanic is the cause for these – most of us area bit unclear on what it actually is on the player action side that causes it, or what the game is doing precisely after people queue up that leads to thanks. Thank-you very much in advance for any and all info – any details that can help us avoid these frustrating and unpleasant experiences would be appreciated!

Speaking as a ranger, water is definitely not balanced in PvP….I have no problem with it being removed.

Welcome to sPvp! As an older player myself I can sympathize, but sometimes wisdom and being cool under pressure trumps twitch skills, so there is hope!

Aside from the excellent guides already referenced, a great way to pick up a few things, especially while doing something else, is watching match videos on youtube, specifically those from the perspective of the class you are focusing on and even with individual maps. Ranger especially is somewhat of a finesse class, in that you need to make up for it’s failings with skill and how you play it, so watching what is done is a great way of learning.

Good luck, try not to let the issues with sPvP deter you – and as a suggestion, if this is a guild effort and you have enough people for it, custom arenas are a nice way to play in a more controlled setting, and a great tool for learning and bringing a group up to speed together for tPvP. Most importantly, have fun!

No, it’s not a new Necromancer-only Condition….it’s another way of describing something I think we should experience; an all-Ranger sPvP Tourney.

Some of you have probably seen or heard of the all-profession tournaments that have gone on in the past, and the next one has been long overdue and is unsure of happening at all. So, it occurred to me it might be interesting for us to run a little tourney ourselves, where not only 1 but both teams were composed entirely of rangers.

Aside from allowing us the opportunity to share eachother’s pain, it would be an excellent way for some ranger players to be exposed to builds, weapon skills, tactics and playstyles they may not yet be aware of or overly familiar with. I know when playing in the 4 last all-profession tourneys I picked up something in every case from my ranger team-mates…ranger has it’s issues as we all know, but every one of us has found our own ways to make it work in some form or another, and seeing that in action would I think be a nice diversion from our misery, and we may even learn a thing or two!

So before I put too much work into this, look into streaming, casting or prizes, I want to see what if any interest there might be such tourney, how many teams we could field, what players would be involved etc. If you would participate in a ranger on ranger painfest, please post here in reply with your build type and rank – the latter just being to gauge general PvP experience level – and any tourney or team-making format ideas you might have.

We’re all in this mess together, the least we can do is have a little fun, maybe learn a thing or two as ranger layers, and who knows, perhaps put on display in a highly concentrated form, the issues our profession has, for the devs to see and…well, for us to have fun mainly. :P

I won’t go as far as the OP, but there is no question in my mind that the premise of it being too much micromanagement for a player to handle, giving them 2 additional keys/commands to worry about, is laughable. It is as laughable as when someone from ANet responded to the reports of the Temple map coming up more often than the others by flippantly saying “Sounds like it’s… random.”, and then after more people posted, saying “Alright, after more people posted that they were having this same issue, I checked in with the team and they let me know that there is a bug causing Temple to pop more than other maps.”

In other words, we are the people playing this game. We are the ones who are non-devs, who have the experience of players, the knowledge level of players and the capabilities of players…if we are saying something is necessary, if we are saying something is manageable, then to without any basis in fact refute that is not only wrong but offensive. Some people do not know what they are talking about, and sometimes these people can work for ANet. They are people too, and have the same failings we all do. No-one is perfect, omniscient or infallible.

BUT, this is not a position from which to make either vague comments or definitive statements. The idea that adding 2 additional commands would overwhelm enough people to outweigh the benefit is impossible to accept as anything but disingenuous. Especially when you consider this could be optional. We need to dispense with this fallacy once and for all.

Next absurdity is that this change is not necessary. There is a statement by the same dev who put forth this reason against making the change, saying that invisible internal cooldowns are a negative thing – I am paraphrasing, but if needed I can and will listen to the casts and find the video in question so people can hear it for themselves. Invisible cooldowns are one of the very reasons why having direct control over these 2 additional pet abilities is necessary, because without it, having appropriate use of the 1 pet skill we are supposed to have direct control over control over is quite simply impossible. Any ranger will tell you that sometimes when they press F2 to execute their pet skill, that it fails due to this ICD. This is not disputable.

This class is full of skills which are conditional, where getting full value is not assured – even though the classes are balanced against one another on the assumption that this is not the case.

For example, in addition to the one mentioned above, you have powers like the Axe 1 skill, the auto-attack Ricochet. This skill will cause the throw axe to hit a total of 3 targets by bouncing between them. It will hit a 1st, and if a 2nd is in range, bounce to that, and if a 3rd is in range, bounce to that, doing it’s damage amount 3 times. If there are only 2 targets, it nicely will bounce back to the 1st target after hitting the second, so you still get the intended 3 hits of the listed damage.

However, if there is only 1 target…you get only 1 hit. No additional damage in compensation, no additional effects…you simply do not get full value.

The same is true for the many or skills or traits which are balanced for the status or location of the pet – that is, whether it is alive or not, or in range. This is something which is not always assured, and depends on a level of control over the pet which we neither have nor can be reasonably expected to micromanage. In those circumstances where the pet does not meet the needed requirements, we do not get full value.

It is not only that we cannot control the pet’s 2nd and 3rd skill, but that we cannot use the 1st, the F2 skill, with a 100% success rate, BECAUSE we don’t control the other powers, their ICDs and thus when the F2 power is even valid to be used. Not only that, but we cannot SEE when this cooldown is making the F2 power impossible to use, because the cooldown or skill timers are invisible. There is no way anyone could say this is not punitive with a straight face. Not without being called a liar.

This issue is an excellent example of the fallibility of human beings and the fallacies they will both allow themselves to believe and then attempt to make others believe as well. This is not a question of programming or limitations of game mechanics…anyone who knows anything about either can say that with high confidence…but rather similar to the meaningless and insulting “Sounds like it’s… random.” statement, it is an opinion expressed with no bearing in reason or fact whatsoever.

2 + 2 = 4, no matter how much someone tries to tell you the contrary….every ranger knows what this mechanic means to their gameplay, how much it hurts them, and no amount of hand-waving is going to convince any of them otherwise.

I’m going to add one to my list, and comment on some suggestions others have made:

6. Modify Ricochet, Axe 1’s Damage Mechanic
Many Ranger skills are too conditional, you only get full value if your pet is alive, or in range, or off it’s cooldowns…in this case, the additional hits from Ricochet only come into play if there are additional targets in range – their presence or position. Only one target, you do not get full value for the skill. These conditional elements of Ranger skills are basically yet another form of RNG.

If I were to change this therefore, I would do something similar to how Longbow 1 works – how damage scales based on distance – except in this case, have it start at a higher damage amount for the first and possibly only hit, and scale downward for each subsequent hit. This has the virtue of also making sense from a physics perspective. :P

So for example…first hit currently does 291 base, with the other 2 being the same. This would be a potential total of 873 total damage assuming the listed 3 axes hit. Even without modifying this overall damage values, you could have the first hit do 500, the second hit do 250 and the third 125 for a total of 870 damage…it’s pretty much perfect.

- – -

Ocelot.4278:

One that has surprisingly not said directly in this thread..Pressing F2 should cancel any current action the pet is doing and start casting its skill, the cast time would be fine If pressing F2 allways resulted in the pet trying to cast it skill, whether it misses or get interrupted is fine..

Unfortunately I don’t think this is possible. The main reason F2 does not go off exactly when you use it, is because of the invisible internal cooldown on the other pet skills, which it uses when it feels like it and you have no control over, nor can even seen the cooldown for. Doing what you suggest would basically mean removing this cooldown…and could be compared to removing internal cooldowns on any skill, such as another profession’s skills. I don’t think that would respect balance, as much as I’d like it.

Now, outside of the reason being the pet’s powers are on cooldown, purely having F2 interrupt anything else the pet is doing, including one of it’s other cooldown-triggering skills, before complete and cause the ICD; that I’m fine with.

I think all Rangers would agree that just 2 changes would completely revolutionize the class: 1) Give direct control over all of the pet’s 3 skills 2) Have F2 be reliable via any of the means mentioned above. That would be incredible.

Troopa.6179:

axe as non ranged
Sometimes it’s annoying that a ranger only can use 1 1handed melee weapon. Why is the axe, for god sake, a ranged weapon. of course we can be lucky to have a ranged axe as the only class but something else to change from sword would be nice too.
I have something in mind like the axe#1 of the warrior and for example vulnerability to #2 or #3 because an axe can break even a shield. #4 and #5 of the rangers axe is okay if you close an eye on the not moving of #5 but else it would be op.

I’m going to have to disagree here. While Axe has some issues, I like the fact that it is a ranged weapon – not to mention that it is a 900 unit range weapon that can apply a 3 second Chill -66% movement speed, +66% skill cooldown time debuff, as well as a 10 second Weakness the next time your pet hits. I have big issues with Axe 1 and Axe 2, but Axe 3 and the ranged nature of the axe are in my opinion one of the few good things rangers get away with.