Some of our UI doesn’t gracefully handle the smallest resolution heights. Unfortunately this means the only thing players can do is up their resolution.
The real fix is to move some of those things around.
Awesome! Having in-game examples of what you’re talking about is incredibly helpful. I just feel like I wanted more than 1 example per talking point though!
Replays would of course be amazing. However, it’s not as easy as ‘using Gw1 code’. Replays and match history can live side-by-side. You don’t want to have to open a recording every time you want to see if you won or lost your last 5 matches.
I consider this a different problem than the readability of Asura animations. Yes, they could be fixed in the same way with many of the solutions the players have suggested. However, all melee attacks hit outside the visible animation for all races. That specific problem is not easy to solve because it is a product of us trying to create fluid combat.
I understand the scale issues; just making sure there weren’t some misconceptions flying around. Most melee attacks have pretty large hit areas to make the game feel better with latency. I believe they’re bigger than the animations show for every race/scale. Especially to the sides.
I can’t think of a way to fix this off the top of my head without plastering ground decals all over the place or somehow making streak effects better show the attack arc. Any other ideas?
At what point are you seeing players join teams from spectator mode? Rewards are based on time played on a team, so are people forgoing partial rewards to be on the winning team?
This is a pretty good suggestion. It would be nice to have a capture point separate from the rest of the game that has some PvP bells and whistles. In the mean-time, you can get information in these ways:
Icons at top of screen is absolute ownership: Blue means blue team is getting points, white means no-one is getting points, etc.
The color of the ground decal is who currently has capture progress, but does not indicate ownership.
The color of the ring around the capture point indicates who is making capture progress.
Example: Blue icon at top, half blue ground decal, red rings. Blue owns the point, red is decapping, and is halfway to neutral.
Though there are ways to get more information, its confusing. What other ways could capture points be more clear? Maybe giant +1’s in blue or red floating up from the capture pointer in-world?
We did ship with 3 round round tournaments with 8 teams and rewards were based on placement. However, the barrier to entry was high and queue times were long. Having a structured (in-game) way to support multi-round tournaments again would be fun though.
Sounds like you should try the ‘Play Now’ button. It prioritizes servers that are just starting a map, has playable space, and is the same server other people will hop into when they use ‘Play Now’ so that they’re usually never empty and/or fill up quickly.
I guess the problem really is how do you make an all encompassing system for PVP and PVE?
The answer is you can’t there will have to be two systems as long as you want an economy in this game.
Skill and trait templates could absolutely be shared. They would just be two compatible components in the larger template system with other non-compatible parts.
The problem is making the feature approachable and easy to use when there could be SO many potential parts.
Start small, man. Basic template it still better than no template.
Why not discuss the best possible system? Scheduling and phasing feature releases is our deal :P Plus, there’s no way we can avoid remaking the entire feature later unless we are good about scoping all possibilities.
You are all recognizing the problem with PvP templates versus PvE templates:
PvP builds can be constructed regardless of what items you own. The templates can even save weapon type and give you a free level 1 item if you don’t have a weapon in your inventory already because PvP has normalized attributes.
PvE/WvW builds must include actual items. This mean sharing non-PvP builds becomes very complicated. Either you simply can’t do it, or templates save out exact items for reapplication AND save out item type/level/rarity/prefix/suffix/etc for sharing.
Another aspect you guys are hitting on is the need for template ‘chunks’. This means templates are not an all-or-nothing application, but can be pieced together from various parts. For instance, you could have an ‘appearance’ template that consists only of wardrobe skins, dyes, and a finisher that you can apply and save separately from a ‘functional’ template that may contain skills, traits, and amulet.
This is quite an intricate detail, but you may even want to leave individual skill/trait slot empty in a template you’re sharing like a wildcard.
We absolutely want to make build templates. They could work similar to GW1, but there are more components to a build now. Using the old string-code method may prove to be unwieldy.
Things that must be in a template:
Weapons
Sigils
Rune
Amulet
Skills
Traits
What could be in a template:
Skins
Dyes
Outfit
Finisher
Things to consider:
Sharing (chat links? codes? urls?)
Viewing (seeing some else’s vs. seeing your own)
Saving (notepad vs. local vs. account vs. web)
Building (one spot in UI vs. multiple spots)
Websites (third-party sites should work with in-game)
APIs (Could expose an API to third-parties)
PvP vs PvE vs WvW (each mode requires different configuration options)
Could definitely happen that way. Do you think that’s more of a problem stemming from players not being able to easily switch builds on a per-map basis? It goes both ways: If someone is built for one map, there is no guarantee they get the map. They may do poorly on a map they didn’t vote for, or need to switch builds to adapt.
You can think about whether a certain implementation of a map vote feature would be a good one if you imagine how it works given any subset of maps. What if we had 2 maps, 20 maps, or 20 game modes?
I would prefer a map vote feature to be an improvement over the total RNG we have now rather than a solution to an atypical conquest map.
I dunno I feel like this thread is more about putting in a new feature, which could as a secondary part of this thread disenfranchise quite a few players
(33% voted to keep skyhammer in Soloque, this is not a small amount)
It’s not really about forcing players to do one thing or the other..
ALSO ::
IMHO Making the Vote a RNG system where each vote buys a roll for a certain map and the winning map is the one with the highest roll is fair. (I feel like this idea was ignored, or maybe I’m missing something)
Well said. I don’t think the weighted RNG is being ignored. It is an elegant solution that both caters to the masses and doesn’t ignore the minority.
Rigging the rotation is an interesting idea to avoid long queues with filters. I’m not actually sure if that would results in shorter queues than the matchmaking algorithm finding the best set of 10 people all with overlapping map filters. It would certainly still get slower the more maps you veto.
In either case, anything that increases queue times or effectively creates separate queues is probably not something we want to implement if it can be avoided.
What if people don’t care about having longer Q times? Those who like all maps can just select them all and have a normal Q time?
I would wait 10+ min to not get skyhammer/ temple / khylo
A fair question. This is what I would speculate: Some people wouldn’t want to compromise on their map selections regardless of how bad queue times get. They then want a way to have there map filter AND good queue times. Then we have to incentivize people to play with no filters so that picky players can still have decent queue times. This is very much a slippery slope argument, but as someone posted earlier, this is what happens in WoW. While it is totally feasible, it’s far more complex to teach than a vote system.
I meant uneven as in the number of matches with less than 10 players.
You mention people picking maps they are built for, do you consider that a bad thing? Imagine a scenario where we have templates. Everyone would always switch to the most effective build for a given map to ensure a win. That’s what people like to do, win
Pre-match veto
* Pro: Only play on maps you like
* Con: Longer queues (How much longer we don’t know)
In-match vote on RNG selection
* Pro: Every map gets love, but you play on ones you like more often
* Con: You will sometimes play on maps you don’t like
Personally I’m partial to the RNG + vote because of queue times. I can just queue up and not worry about maps until the match is ready. I wouldn’t need to ever Veto a map because I enjoy them all, but my preference may change at any moment.
In a veto system, we would have to balance how many maps you can veto versus the queue times.
In a vote system, do you think people would vote for the already most-picked map to not ‘throw away’ their vote?
Evan , so the filter can’t be implemented because of Q times? Because if there’s a vote system it still not the player choice but the majority.. And those who love skyhammer will never get that map basically.
Filters will always impact queue times, which is very undesirable. We should avoid anything that increases queue times or effectively create more queues.
You’re recognizing the problem with majority voting, but there are ways around it. Specifically balancing randomness with player voting. A few people have mentioned having random vote options, which sounds good. It makes it so the most popular choices aren’t always available. The remaining question is: How often would the least popular map (by any amount) actually get played?
Also, please do not focus your feedback specifically on Skyhammer and why you don’t like it. There we always be a least popular map and we should take that into consideration.
Skyhammer is only an example of a map that some people have vocalized that they like less than others. There will always be maps that people like more and less than others. What I’m trying to get from you guys is to think of how a map voting system could work with regards to all player preferences. How could we ensure that players can always get chances to play their favorite maps?
@infantrydiv, we could list individual stats for days, but what kind of features would you like on the scoreboard? Sorting? Comparisons? Histories? Live updates for spectators?
You know, for the end of match scoreboard, why not make it fullscreen a la Halo? Since there are so many possible stats to show, then I think it makes sense to direct a players attention to them in this way. You could even make it a part of the loading screen for the exit button, to make it non-intrusive. Also, histories would be great. I sometimes miss the scoreboard on some games and I find the info useful to analyze my plays. Even a limited one, past game, past five, past ten, would be really cool.
Fullscreen UI would be a bold maneuver. If we keep adding things to the end of the game like stats and reward tracks, we’ll need to eventually do something about the fact that you can still respawn and fight after the game ends. We could switch everyone to be friendly, deny respawn, kill everyone
@infantrydiv, we could list individual stats for days, but what kind of features would you like on the scoreboard? Sorting? Comparisons? Histories? Live updates for spectators?
We agree the scoreboard needs an overhaul at some point. What kind of functionality would you want to see on the scoreboard? Stat comparison between teams? Between players? What you scored best in?
Let’s assume anyone absent from a match for ‘x’ minutes is considered a disconnect and given dishonor regardless of whether they return. What happens to the 9 other people? Are they forced to play out the rest of the match? Should their ratings be adjust still? What about rewards?
I would like to hear your opinion on the original topic which is a small immediate punishment added to the current system. I am proposing only punishing those people that can’t get back in before the match ends. I feel like you are wasting time debating more complex systems that have 0% chance of every getting in game to avoid implementing something more simple like I proposed that might actually improve things a little bit without really hurting anybody because incorrectly you think what you have now is just fine and dandy. Basically why would you be against slapping a half hour queue ban on anybody that doesn’t finish a arena match the FIRST and EVERY time it happens? I am telling you from years of MMORPG playing experience that random internet problem related disconnects is not an excuse the vast majority of people would be more then happy to once in a blue moon have to wait a half hour to play if they were a victim of a badly timed internet problem disconnect if it could decrease the intentional log outs/quitting during matches by even 10%. You can and should try to do better then the current system. I am telling you I play a lot and the people I play with complain about it ALL the time.
In my opinion it is too harsh in the case of false positives. Right now dishonor gives some wiggle room for the people who legitimately disconnect unintentionally. If these people immediately come back into the game and can’t play for 30 minutes, they’ll just quit for the night. That’s not a very good way to treat the players. I feel there are better ways to reduce the number of missing players by having a pre-match ready check, and to reduce the number of quitters by improving matchmaking and incentives to play.
We can only be so strict with our current system as a deterrent before is starts severely affecting the wrong people. Dishonor currently allows 3 leaves every 3 days. To me this feels adequately strict. After putting in preventative measures, I feel the only missing component is a way to determine if people are in a game and intentionally ruining it. Solutions to that problem will always be complicated. Either we have a vote system, or some logic to determine active participation. There is no perfect solution for people being rude.
