Anyone else feel like the confusion condition isnt quite balanced? Like the damage you take from confusion should be affected by your attack speed? Other games base bonsus damage you do on a coefficient that is affected by your attack speed. This is done so that faster attacks = less bonus per attack, slower attack speed = more bonus per attack. Its a balance thing.
Understanding that, shortbows attack speed is one of the faster attacks in the game. And yet, confusion does the same damage per attack to you, regardless of if you attack twice a second, or once every 5 seconds.
Throw in autoattack on our number 1 ability, maybe 3-4 stacks of confusion, and you will quickly find yourself taking upwards of 1500+ damage a second before you realize whats happening (thank you autoattack!). If im manually attacking things, and taking confusion damage, ive only got myself to blame. I think its rather unbalanced to affect the number 1 ability (for any class).
My proposed 3 solutions (only 1 is needed, but im suggesting 3)
1. The “Mesmers will cry” Solution:
- All class #1 weapon skills dont trigger confusion.
or
2. The “More reasonably on par with normal MMORPG rules” solution:
- Confusion damage scales up and down based on a coefficent determined by attack speed.
or
3. The “optional alternative”
- Confusion damage can never be greater than the damage you are capable of outputting per attack. If your attack could only actually hit for 800 damage (before defense/toughness factor in), then confusion would only be able to do 800 damage to you max, no matter how many stacks. 1 stack obviously wouldnt deal that, but after a certain number of stacks, the damage would cap based on your max damage per hit output. The concept here is that you are so confused, you are attacking yourself. Seems rather silly that you could hit yourself for 2000 damage, but not your target for that much. Maybe this is just an issue of confusion not taking into account your toughness and defense?
And before the trolls chime in with “turn off #1 auto attack”… I did that… and now my finger used for the number 1 key, is the size of the incredible hulks finger, making it really hard for me to explain when going to social gatherings…. so no thanks. Not to mention, turning off autoattack on #1 in pvp/wvw is a pretty big hit to DPS considering how mobile you have to be and not being able to just sit there in combat and only focus on spamming 111111111 like in pve.
I dont recall the devs ever saying they wanted the ranger to be a jack of all trades class. That was what they wanted for the elementalist.
Rangers dont need to be as tough as a guardian, or as burst damaging as a thief. However rangers do need something that set them apart from other classes. A class needs something that makes it shine compared to other classes that other classes dont have. Ranger does not currently have this. It probably should have been something about our pets, but pets are so broken right now, especially in pvp/wvw that its simply not the case.
A few places they could start:
1. Fix pet pathing so that a player cant simply run circles around a tree confusing your pet from following.
2. Fix pet skills from simply not working even when you click them and they seem to be going off, but dont.
3. Remove the skill root on pet F2 skills, so that they actually are useful in pvp/wvw. So that players simply cant move 5 feet away causing the skill to completely miss.
4. Give pets inherent AoE damage resistance, something they need in ALL aspects of the game. That way they dont instantly die in zergs, group fights, or in dungeons.
If thief stealth worked as well as ranger pets, you wouldnt ever see people complaining about stealth.
(edited by Gadzooks.4687)
Place superior arrowcart behind door, and fire away.
Meanwhile large zergs just stand in it and spam area heals.
Dont forget about the new WvW passive abilities!!
Now you can get a passive ability that increases arrow cart damage by 10%!!!
Now instead of hitting someone for 500 damage, you hit them for 550!
Oil canon and kitten
The same burning olil and cannons which are 99% of the time destroyed by a category 5 AoE storm which is completely unavoidable?
I agree about catas being fixed like this; it’s not a nerf, it’s finally working as intended, and that’s good. My only problem is that there is still no valid way to defend a keep or tower against the stupid, poorly executed targeting in this game; siege weapons melt so quickly you can’t possibly use them in any serious way.
Sometimes when you only fix SOME of the bugs, those that remain create a big imbalance in the gameplay. This is a good example. The catapult “bug” was one way the defense could counter all of the offense related “bugs” of a tower/keep battle.
IMO, “fixes” like this need to come in big sweeping groups. Until they can fix the majority of Line of Sight bugs, Z-axis AOE targeting bugs (where you target a verticle surface and the AOE hits a horizonal surface.), and Ability to Object collision bugs, they need to not touch anything. “Fixing” one of them just makes the other remaining bugs seem more powerful and unbalanced.
Cant wait for the update, lots of personal goal incentives to actually go out and fight stuff in PvP. Titles, passive WvW oriented skills and abilities, and the promise of new loot and styles to buy. All awesome.
Think we could maybe get a hint of up and coming incentives for the objectives of WvW? You know, capturing towers, defending keeps, and ultimately, winning in your tier each week? (incentives to win being the big one here, aside from bragging rights.)
With the limited number of Skills/Abilities available because of how Weapons work in GW2 a “radius” damage system like others proposed is much better than yours.
It’s not a good idea to make so many skills useless in so many situations by nerfing single target damage.
Im not against this system, im just against the current system of it being capped at 5 people. The radius damage makes sense too, although, with lag, might prove to be a real challenge for many people to ever hit people with the center area of their aoe attacks. But then again, this is why targeting larger groups would prove to be beneficial, more chance of getting at least some targets in the center of the radius.
I don’t understand, are you promoting AoEs being stronger the more targets they hit? that’s what caused them to be nurfed to a 6 player target limit in the first place.
Quite simply they need to remove the cap and introduce scaling damage from the center of the AoE. 100% from center to 25% at edges, fixes all problems and discourages heavy stacking.
Im saying that at 5 targets or more, it does the listed damage of the ability, no cap on the number of targets
And any fewer than 5 targets = reduced aoe damage.
AoE spells should be pretty worthless vs 1 enemy.
AoE capped at 5 targets is just a broken system. Means the same AoE spell is better for wiping small groups, as opposed to larger groups. Isnt this the exact opposite of what AoE is for? Shouldnt AoE be less useful vs fewer targets, but be amazing vs many targets? How about something along these lines:
AoE damage = based on the number of targets you hit
1 target = 20% of the listed damage done.
2 targets = 40% of the listed damage done
3 targets = 60% of the listed damage done
4 targets = 80%
5+ targets = 100%
This would mean AoE would suck vs fewer targets, but be great vs many targets (isnt that the point of AoE?).
Heck, even blizzards AoE “nerf” seems like it would work better than the current system:
Full AoE damage to the first 10 targets. Every target after 10, evenly splits total damage amongst the targets. So if your attack does 1000 damage per target, and you hit 10 targets, each takes 1000. If you hit 20 targets, each target takes 500. If you hit 40 targets, each target takes 250.
Honestly though, I dont think it has to do with damage. I think Anet nerfed AoE to 5 targets because it was too easy for someone to spam a few AoE abilities, hit 30+ targets, and drastically increase the chances of a loot bag dropping if any of those targets ended up getting killed. Jump on a ballista or arrow cart, fire into a zerg, and you will see what I mean.
I brought this up in mumble the other night, and everyone suggested I post it here.
Without going into the whole “Portal bombs” are great or suck debate, this is just a simple “rebalance” to the portal ability.
First – Remove the limit on how many people can use the portal
Second – Add 1 simple thing when you use a portal:
—- 5 seconds of confusion debuff
You are traveling through space and time, it would make sense that when you stepped out the other side, you would be a bit disoriented for a few seconds. This would allow portal use without limiting the numbers going through, and it wouldnt really change anything when using portals to 1. escape, or 2. travel to hard to get to places (ie: jumping puzzles.).
Anyway, just an idea, posting it because other people felt it should be heard. Ill leave it up to anet to decide if its a balanced change or not. (meaning I wont debate your dislike or like of my suggestion.)
Agree with everything said.
The state of WvWvW right now is that of “a good start”
Thats the state it should be in during the BETA. The game has been out for half a year now, and wvwvw is not any better.
In fact, its gotten worse. Zergs are worse now than at the start, culling is worse now than at the start, incentive and enjoyment to play is worse now, than at the start.
The devs should be ashamed at the state of WvWvW. Its clear their focus is sPvP for the esports factor.
The answers and solutions to the problems with WvW are out there, clear as day. This isnt an issue of the devs not knowing what to do, but rather, them simply not doing it.
Dont make gameplay that your own game cant support. Thats what the gist of WvW is at the moment.
At this point, id settle for something in between spvp and wvw. Maps that are half as big as WvW, with a population cap, and much fewer objectives. Dont get rid of wvw, but give those of us who want smaller, organized open world pvp, an option.
Im mostly speaking about the mechanics. Is the system pretty much complete aside from minor tweaks to balance, culling improvements, etc?
Are we stuck with the following mechanics?:
1. The majority of WvW revolving around “the zerg”. The side with the biggest zerg, wins. You dont need skill or much strategy when it comes to zerg gameplay. Its so extreme that zergs overcome pretty much ANY challenge in WvW in mere seconds: Smaller enemy zergs, Keep assaults, Keep Lords…. any of it. Zerg rolls in, seconds later, its over. Class build, skill combos, etc… none of it really maters.
2. Time+Effort = horrible rewards. Incentive… where is it? This is mostly in comparison to ANY other activity in this game. Crafting, Gathering, dungeon farming, Event farming, etc all yield better rewards for time and effort spent. This issue seems to have just been written off and ignored because players just use the excuse “Just get the rewards through other means”. Good, so take out incentive from the WvW part of the game, that surely will make things better. (/sarcasm). And no, im not saying i should get badges from every zerg kill. I often go 1 v 1 with people as I roam around, and walk away with under 10 badges after 2 hours of playing. 1 vs 1 seems to only net any sort of reward about 20% of the time. The time it would take to collect badges to buy 1 piece of gear is nearly 10 times longer than any other method of getting a reward in the game. Maybe if WvW badge gear was a lot better than other gear. Oh wait, its pretty much identical. Where exactly is the balance here?
3. Short of setting 24/7 groups to defend, there isnt any real way to organize and mount a defense to incoming raids/attacks. This has to do with #1 (the zerg), as well as the proximity of things like Keeps, Supply and Forts to each other. Things are too close together, making it too easy for the attacking zerg to attack, capture, and move on before a side can organize and launch a real defense to stop them.
4. Having come from games like Daoc, Shadowbane, and even (shudders) WaR, the concept of wall/keep defense seems completely “off”. Not only can attackers hit targets they cant even see up on the walls, but its easier for the attacker to hit defenders, than it is for the defenders to hit attackers (totally NOT the way any sort of realistic keep defense goes.). Yes, this isnt reality, its a game, that doesnt mean it has to be so far fetched that it totally removes certain gameplay elements from a factions vs faction battle. Attackers should feel more or less weaker against wall defenders UNLESS they have siege to attack. Wall defenders shouldnt have to rely entirely on siege to mount any type of defense against attackers, especially those at the base of the walls. Wall archers? LOL please, Instant death. People trying to man wall mounted siege like cannons… instant death. The only hope for wall defenders is to play indirect fire siege weapons far enough back from the edge of the wall, and even then, some class abilities STILL manage to find a way to hit them.
There are lots of other areas where WvW could use some serious gameplay improvement (as well as technical improvement, but they promise they are still working on the tech part). Is what we see now, what we get for the next 2+ years more or less when it comes to WvW gameplay? Have the devs talked about some big, noticeable changes that are coming that will change things up quite a bit? Or is it futile for me to wait for any real changes beyond the minor tweaks and balances that will happen over time?
Personally, id love to see a few new, slightly smaller WvW zones added, called “battlefronts” which would have only a handful of objectives, and a population cap on how many players from each faction could enter. To promote non-zerg, small team organized gameplay and strategy. Results of each battlefront could add passive bonuses to the normal WvW areas.
Just curious. The level scaling in this game seems to give it immense content for when you hit 80 (being able to go anywhere and have it scale you to the content level). My only concern is this:
If im 80, in a level 25 zone, are the items that drop, and other various rewards for killing stuff, and completing events, scaled to be level 80 in value?
Or will i be a level 80, scaled down, getting rewards designed for someone who is level 25? (ie: level 25 items, karma amounts for someone level 25, money rewarded to someone who is 25, etc).
Indeed ..theres no doubt that it is the game engine that hass issue under high load .. However …we as players cant do ANYTHING about that ..what we can od however is beaf up our computers to run the game engine that little bit faster.
If you can afford that then great ..if not ..you will have to play the waiting game ..a game engine upgrade may come along and solve our problems ..it may mot ..thats up to Anet.
In the end all we can do is Upgrade our computers to get better performance ..is it the best solution? ..no …is it the only one we have at out disposal? …yes.
Or more simply this:
If you already take care of your system, keeping things up to date, dusted, clear of spyware, properly cooled, and tweaked like crazy for the purpose of gaming, then dont bash your head in over trying to get GW2 to perform better. For most people, there is no secret fix, there is no hidden setting, or system configuration that will suddenly make things work better if you are already someone who maintains their machine properly for the aspect of pc games. Try to enjoy the game as best as you can as it is, because struggling to fix something that isnt within your power to fix, will just cause you to resent the game as a whole.
You are putting words into my mouth. CPU bottlenecking simply means the CPU is the piece of hardware where the limiting is applied. Of course more efficient code runs faster…etc.
If its poorly written code that runs poorly on even powerful hardware, its not a CPU bottleneck, its a software bottleneck.
For instance, if I put a “wait 30 seconds” command after EVERY request for player assets on purpose, then no matter how fast your hardware is, its still gonna seem very slow. Thats not the CPUs fault, even if my code makes the CPU seem busy the entire time.
I think many people also get confused by the term “optimized code”. This again, is the code that isnt running efficiently, NOT the hardware.
Put sludge into your Ferrari’s gas tank, and the car isnt going to run well at all. Its not the car engine thats at fault, even if it looks like its struggling to even turn over.
Code = gas
CPU = engine
On the flip side, great gas wont make a bad car engine run much better. However, in the case of GW2, if Everyone with an 4ghz i7 SLI system was getting a steady 60 fps or better in all areas of the game, you could say that the code wasnt an issue. This isnt the case however, especially in places like WvW. In GW2, good systems are running poorly in very specific areas of the game. Some of these common places include Lions Arch and WvW. It seems to be related to when the game exceeds a certain number of players in the area at once, which means its most likely tied to the code behind this specific aspect.
Performance issue-more people the less the GPU works
in Account & Technical Support
Posted by: Gadzooks.4687
Its actually quite simple, especially if you have recently read the stuff the actual programmers have posted recently about how the system works.
To sum it up in a very simple fashion:
When a player shows up on your screen, your game first gets notified of the player positioning. THEN it requests the assets for that player. (things like armor, look, race, etc).
1 person on your screen, very small amount of assets need to be obtained before your GPU can go to work rendering them on the screen
50 people on the screen, and now not only is your CPU having to control ALL the requests for assets for these players, but your GPU cant actually do much until it GETS all the assets for these players.
Your GPU is literally having to wait, while it does nothing, for data. Sometimes this delay can be caused from a CPU bottleneck. In this case, its more of an issue of how the game engine handles int I/O of data needed to GET to your GPU. There are just too many hurdles the data has to go through before it actually gets to your GPU.
Sure, a super fast CPU can help a bit (ie: 4ghz i7 machines can run at 35 fps with 60 people on the screen.), but that is FAR from how fast it SHOULD be running (ie: 4ghz i7 machines SHOULD be able to run at a solid 60 fps or more, but are bottlenecked by the games engine and how it handles the back and forth of sending game asset data.)
Until the devs find a better way for the game to handle the back and forth of player data within the game engine itself, there isnt much we can do to get the TRUE performance many of our systems are capable of. Unfortunately, even the devs stated,
“The fix is likely to be large-ish in scope” which means dont expect anything for several months or more.
If you are getting poor performance in most areas of the game, many of the tips and suggestions in this forum could help you improve things.
If you are getting poor performance mostly just in WvW, then all you can really do is wait for Anet to fix their engine. (and yes, an i7 4ghz SLI system getting 40 fps in WvW is STILL poor performance. A system like that should be able to easily run considerably faster than that.)
Or, 2 years will go by, and hardware will advance to a point where it completely hides the fact that the engine has performance issues.
I don't want to sit and farm Penitent/Shelter's/Jofast's camp all day, but I sure feel compelled to
Posted by: Gadzooks.4687
They should downscale better. That means:
a) Make us weaker in low-level areas. As of now I am too strong when I play in a level 20 area as level 80 character, allegedly downscaled to level 22.
b) Give us karma, gold, xp like in level 80 areas.
c) Give us level adequate loot like in Orr.
Then it would be the same (loot-/xp-/karma-/goldwise) if I play in Kessex Hills or Cursed Shore. And that would be a very good thing because the high level player would spread all over the world.
This is the solution they need to go with. It would fix this problem, and make the game more fun.
actually the maps are tine. They need to be 3 to 4 times as large as they are with the same number of objectives. As it is now trying to roam with a 5 man is painful trying to avoid the zerg.
This
WvW maps need to be larger, with the objectives further spaced out. Its zerg pinball right now, bouncing from one to the next, easily and quickly.
The game engine really isnt designed to handle large zerg either. I dont mean peoples performance on their own computers. Im talking about how the engine itself intentionally doesnt render all players on the screen on purpose. Im talking about how the game mechanics arent balanced around a keeps being taken or defended by 150 people. They dont scale, so the “Zerg” eventually far surpasses the gameplay challenge.
There need to be limits of some kind.
why is it a problem to go to a lower level region once you reach lvl 80?
I clearly don’t understand why people constantly complain about it.
You go to a low level zone and do events, ill go to an 80 zone and do them.
We will see who ends up with more money, karma, and most importantly – level 80 yellows.
Until the devs find an equal way to reward people for doing events in ALL areas of the game at 80, the majority will stick to where the rewards are best. Where rewards are suited towards the needs of their character.
I for one know I need the following at 80 for what I want in the game:
1. Ecto’s
2. Coin
3. Tier 5 and 6 mats for crafting
Cant get ecto’s in zones that dont drop 75+ yellow items
Cant get tier 5 and 6 mats in most low level zones
You can get coin in low level zones, but the amount is drastically lower than high level zones, so its very inefficient to farm coin this way.
When the devs figure out a way to reward level 80s the above things, for doing events in lower level zones, ill be more than happy to roam all over the world doing them.
Some you all seem to forget is that these DE’s happen all the time so if you didn’t get a shot in last time wait for the next one.
Except for when you hit 80, and everyone farms the same areas and events for hours on end. They you are competing with the same, often large, groups of players over and over and over.
Low level events, not really an issue…. at 80 however… its a totally different story.
Too bad Anet didnt scale event rewards, and loot, in ALL zones to be somewhat equal for a level 80. Id love to be able to roam the world at 80, doing events, than be stuck in the same 2 zones.
Would be nice if Anet supported this. Its not exactly a new concept.
Wait, the game is forcing you to get 100% exploration?
I think the issue here is OCD. Some people have this compulsion of “its there, I HAVE to do it.” Unfortunately, just because one might suffer from a compulsion like this, doesnt mean its the games fault, or the designers fault. Just because its there, doesnt mean you are forced to do it.
This game has a ton of OPTIONAL content. Things to do outside of the standard mmorpg gameplay. Its there to add variety. Its there to appeal to a greater number of players. Player A may not like X but loves Y, player B may not like Y but loves X. Both X and Y exist however to offer player A and B fun things to do, at their own CHOICE.
If you feel compelled to do ALL things in a game, that is your CHOICE. Complaining about it not being fun becomes a moot point when what you are doing is optional.
Intel stock cooler good enough to cool system for GW2?
in Account & Technical Support
Posted by: Gadzooks.4687
your CPU will run more hot than in most games, but still well within the limits of heat for your cpu, assuming your arent overclocking.
The game needs something like this. Not necessarily exactly what the OP posted, but something similar, and balanced out properly by the devs.
Progression and incentive good
Static and unrewarding gameplay bad
Limits need to exist for the following reasons:
1. The game engine has limitations. Even if your pc is uber powerful, the engine itself isnt designed to handle more than a certain number of players at once. Which is why many have issues with players not rendering, or popping into view late, and so on.
2. The gameplay mechanics change dramatically depending on the number of players. Think of it like football. It was designed around each team having a certain number of players. Change that number by 1 or 2, and not a HUGE difference. Put 300 people on each team, and suddenly its not really football anymore. WvW isnt much different. When zergs get SO big, and are everywhere on the map, its just not the same gameplay anymore. Certain mechanics no longer work as designed. IE: Challenges no longer are challenging, important factors no longer are important… all due to the sheer number of people involved.
Wish there was an option for this as well, especially in WvW battles.
An option to lower ability FX too would be nice. All those particles flying around sure makes things run slow, and hard to see whats going on.
We are the only class in the game without a 1200 auto attack which makes our WvW experience very different to most other peoples…
Im all for this, as long as its a trait you need to take to bump the range. IE: like the engineer trait.
It’s been three generations; what are you waiting for?
A robust 2012 game isn’t going to run smoothly on 2005 hardware.
Um, it was released in 2012, the game is based on an API thats MUCH older.
Directx9c came out in 2004.
Dx9 is hardly a robust 2012 engine. Now… what the devs are trying to DO with it, is an entirely different story, and interestingly enough, is the main source of the framerate issues. My bets are on the occlusion methods they are using, especially if they are using them for player models. Umbra is designed for non-dynamic static objects like buildings and trees. If they are trying to use that engine for player models, its not wonder even the most powerful systems are barely managing 30 fps.
It always comes down to 3rd party engine software that devs try to impliment into their game. Especially when they try to tweak it beyond what it was designed to do. (horrid flashbacks of swtor and the hero engine).
OP
Make sure your video drivers are up to date. Older drivers can cause different temps on your GPU depending on the game. This is due to poor optimization for the game in older versions of the drivers.
Its possible your video card is a beast, and is running the game TOO fast in some areas. Enable the framerate limiter in the game settings, or enable vsync. This will cap your framerate from going over 60 or so. Getting 150 fps in areas that arent needed, cause your card to run hotter.
Are you overlocking your card? If so, thats probably related to this problem.
And of course, graphic intensive options like Anti Aliasing, can cause your hardware to run hotter, so tweak those and see what you can achieve.
Hi,
So far i am loving the game..I am running game on medium to high with high textures etc.. Looks lush. Im getting about 50 60 steady fps when questing… now then, when i go into PVP i drop to 10fps if i am lucky… even tried running on the lowest setting and still i get the same drop in fps no improvement. I am wondering if you can help me out.. please see the attach dxdiag for information. I have lastest drivers.
Thank you in advance
MrRix
Many will say your CPU is the problem. It is older, and slower, but thats not the main issue here. Just as an example:
If your Core2quad is getting 10 fps in WvW, then someone else with a much more powerful i7 is still only going to be getting 30-35 fps.
Both are still REALLY REALLY low. Lower than they should be. The difference is, 30-35 is playable. 10 isnt.
The mega i7 machines out there should run this game at a steady 60 fps, and they arent. Likewise, on ALL LOW settings, a core2quad SHOULD run this game at a steady 30 fps, and they arent. Its the game engine. Its not very optimized yet. A better cpu will help, but its just a bandaid solution.
Its like putting a jet engine on a car with square tires. Yeah, it will move it down the road, but the real issue here are the square tires. Just because the jet engine makes it go, doesnt mean the problem is solved.
(edited by Gadzooks.4687)
The 5 man group vs the all too popular zerg.
Both styles of gameplay should be allowed without restriction in WvW.
However, currently, the balance is a bit lopsided. People (note: not ALL people) seem to be more drawn to zerg, than to work in smaller groups. I believe this to be due to the fact that zergs give a somewhat false vision of being able to succeed at more things. Or the “safety in large numbers” concept.
Small groups can be extremely helpful and effective to the objectives on the map, but the lure of what zergs offer seem to over power that aspect. Added to the fact that badge drops seem no different whether im solo (1 vs 1), or in a zerg, there really isnt a gameplay benefit for not being in a zerg.
Would it be too game breaking if they implemented some sort of extra bonus for small groups? Here are some things that could be tweaked to give better rewards to people who arent in a zerg:
- Badge drop chance
- Karma rewarded
- Coin rewarded
Rewarding a player in a zerg the same amount of the above things, as someone in a much smaller group, isnt really rewarding someone for their efforts or gameplay. A 5 man that takes a supply camp works harder than 40 people in a zerg, taking the same camp. Why should the 40 get the same reward as the 5? Shouldnt it scale in a sense? TIP: dont take away the current amount earned in a zerg, simply boost the amount earned in a small group.
Maybe they could just make it so that zerg gave better of one thing, and small groups gave more of something else. Like better badges and karma in small groups, better coin and xp in zergs (from events and captures)
They could also give some specific gameplay bonuses depending on if you were in a smaller group, or zerg. For instance:
5 players or less (even if not grouped, but in the same proximity):
—— 50% increased repair speed
—— 50% increased sentry and supply capture rate
20 players or more (even if not grouped, but in the same area)
—— 50% build rate for siege weapons
—— 50% increased keep capture rate
They would give strategic reasons to join a smaller group, or a zerg.
you
can
leave
the
wall
and
attack
from
a
flankthe wall is there for seige weapons to be placed on not for players to attack from
Showing alternate strategies doesnt magically fix mechanics that are flawed with others.
Wall defense mechanics should work better. Should defending from the wall be the thing to do 100% of the time? No. Should it work better than it does currently without the limitation of flawed mechanics? Yes.
And no, walls are not just there to use siege weapons on. Thats one option, but not limited to just that. If they didnt expect players to attack from walls, there would be a ledge too high to climb up on. What we are dealing with here is the devs not knowing how to implement a proper use of game mechanics to allow for it, in time for the games release. Its probably something they want to improve, but its low on the priority list. Not game breaking, just frustrating.
(edited by Gadzooks.4687)
if you change the way it currently works you will break the game
the walls are there to use seige weapons from not for players to try and defend from with player abilitys
players attacking from walls doesnt stop them from using siege weapons.
The issue here is that players can already attack from the walls, its just a matter have having to move to the very ledge in order to do so.
Siege weapons should always be preferred for a combination of the following reasons:
Bigger AoE
More damage
More Range
Indirect Fire
So despite being able to stand on the wall and attack with your abilities, siege still has its benefits.
(edited by Gadzooks.4687)
Standing on the walls, attacking players assaulting a keep from below…
Rushing in from the ground, launching attacks up at the defenders on the walls…
Ive been on both sides of the scenarios above. (this isnt taking siege weapons into consideration here)
Does anyone else feel like the mechanics of attacking to and from walls is flawed?
Throughout history and warfare tactics, high ground is supposed to be advantageous. Especially that of something like castle walls. Presumably a lot fewer people could defend a keep from attackers, than the number of people needed to actually attack a keep. And this is just from being able to use bows, crossbows, rocks, etc from the well defended castle walls.
Yet, for some reason, in GW2, it feels easier to attack people on walls, than it does to be on the wall attacking people on the ground. I believe this to be a mechanic flaw in the game. Specifically with how line of sight works while up on the wall.
For most ranged attacks, even though you can tilt the camera to see over the edge of the top of a wall, as you stand on it, you still arent able to attack. Your character head (and sometimes more) is still visible however to the attacker on the ground. In most cases, you must completely expose yourself 100% by jumping onto the ledge of the walls in order to attack players on ground level. This seems broken. As if your line of sight to the enemy starts at your character ankles, rather than his head.
To add to this flawed mechanic, ground attackers can actually attack people who arent even showing much, if any, of their character over the cover of the wall, simply by targeting the top ledge of the wall with AoE. This creates a scenario where the people on the wall must stay a good distance away from the ledge just to avoid being hit, let alone ever getting to attack. This means ground attackers can hit wall defenders without even seeing them, but wall defenders cant do the same (broken line of sight mechanics while on the wall).
I believe a lot of this flawed mechanic can be fixed simply by properly adjusting the line of sight issues players have while ON walls as they try to attack people on the ground. Players shouldnt need to have to jump on the very ledge of a wall to attack someone clearly visible below. The only reason someone should have to move to the very ledge to attack, is to hit enemies directly at the walls base (ie: standing right next to the keeps doors).
The players on the ground are SUPPOSED to be at a disadvantage because they are completely in the open, with zero cover. The players on the walls are supposed to have an advantage because they are up high, and have the cover of the wall. The games current mechanics remove ALL of these things, actually grantings the ground attackers a noticeable advantage over those actually on the wall.
Given, wall defenders should STILL be targetable (just not as easily seen) if they can target and hit ground enemies. There shouldnt ever be a time when one side can target and attack, while the other cant, aside from using INDIRECT siege weapons like catapults, mortars, and arrow carts.
It would be nice if the devs could at least look into the code involving these mechanics, because they seem pretty flawed right now.
(edited by Gadzooks.4687)
i think the simplest answer to the topics question:
“Because im playing a thief.”
interpret that in as many ways as you like :P
Can you guys get the profiling working properly so we can at least give you profiles of what’s happening on our machines? I’m sure there’s a lot of usefulness to be had there.
This.
Short of sending my computer to Anet, im more than happy to volunteer to have you run something that monitors the game performance on my system. I can see the numbers myself, but that doesnt seem to help anet much in fixing it.
Glad that it isnt being ignored.
1600 seems like a small dent though. Hopefully we can get this number raised. Bots directly impact my experience in the game more than anything else, including bugs, broken exploration nodes, and downtime.
I couldn’t disagree more. When a group of 6 people gets swarmed by an enemy of more than triple their number, and you don’t get honor, good, you don’t deserve it. And this would promote not discourage mass zergs.
The game should use the “damage done” ratio for loot in this situation.
However, for me, Im not upset about not getting loot while in zergs. Im upset with all the times I solo (ie: 1v1) someone, and get NOTHING for it. That… is broken.
50 people zerging 1, shouldnt ALL get badges.
However
if 1 person, manages to kill 50 people solo, he should get badges for ALL 50 of them.
The simple solution is to make it so that you have to do at least 33% damage, or be the top 3 damage dealers, to get loot. This means the following:
1 vs 1 = Always get a badge
2 vs 1 = Always get a badge
3 vs 1 = Always get a badge
4 vs 1 = Chance you may not get a badge
5+ vs 1 = even less chance of getting a badge
Right now, its just outright broken. 1 v 1 people all night long, and my ratio of kills to badges is about 8 kills, for every badge drop.
Anet has shown the math in the game code can be broken (just look at dungeon reward diminishing returns, or play around with adjusting the copper amount when you buy gems via game currency, and laugh when lowering the copper by 1 makes the gem amount go UP instead of down). Im willing to bet that the math behind the badge drops is currently “not working as intended”.
WvW is good as it is now. 5 people can already hold back 30 who are using no siege weapons with little trouble.
There, I fixed it.
lol, you guys know nothing about graphics programming. How old is OpenGL yet look at Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3, Doom 3, Quake 4, Rage. It’s not about the API it’s what you do with it. Just because Guild Wars 2 uses directx9 c, that doesn’t dictate how good or bad the graphics have to be. If that were the case graphics would never improve if we always had to wait on Microsoft to upgrade DirectX or the committees over at the OpenGL Working Group and Khronus to improve things.
You’re right, I can create a graphic app in DX6 that runs like mud on a i7 SLI system because I didnt code it well enough to take advantage of the hardware, or optimize it well enough to run smooth.
Its an old API that if used correctly, should be able to run smoothly even on systems that have hardware thats a few years old. (on low settings)
Newer versions of the API grant access to functionality that only newer hardware can support, which is why DX11 games often have higher reqs. Older versions of DX dont have this restriction. The only thing that makes an older DX game run poorly, is how well its programmed. Ie: optimization
(edited by Gadzooks.4687)
This is a PC (COMPUTER) MMO game released in 2012 Expecting it to run perfectly with 100000FPS on 6yr old hardware is a joke.
Probably best if you just stick to Wow.
Based on the latest version of Direct X 9, which came out in 2004. There is no reason why any hardware in the last 6 years shouldnt be able to run this game on LOW settings at a steady 30 FPS.
The idea is to get as close to 99% cpu/gpu usage all of the time, but obviously that will never happen because one or the other is going to choke, it always does. There is never a perfect match. Using a Core2Duo with a GTX680 will get identical or sometimes worse FPS than an old 8800GT. Because the Gpu is ALWAYS waiting for instructions from the processor.
If you eliminate the processor bottleneck eg: i7 3960x, then you’ll ALWAYS see close to 99-100% gpu usage because the gpu is not waiting for instructions from the processor. Which in turn = more FPS.
There are some flaws here.
1. Many people are reporting no where NEAR 99% load on their CPU, but still its “bottlenecking”. Myself, my CPU load never goes higher than 70%, and often, my GPU is at 0%. This isnt a true hardware bottleneck, its a “soft cap” set by whatever the developers coded the CPU to do. Unused CPU resources go to waste, resulting in bad performance.
2. Gpu always waiting on CPU is realy dependent on how the programmers coded the game. For instance, Alien vs Predator 2, has a VERY low cpu overhead, maybe netting around 11% CPU load, but your GPU will be constantly working because thats how they designed the game. A game like GW2 (still based on Dx9, which is YEARS old), hardly pushes off ANYTHING to the GPU.
Bad design decision from a developer standpoint imo. If i had to guess, id say its related to the Umbra tech they inherited. Umbra allows for a special type of 3d object occlusion that is supposed to help the game perform better. This is for things like 3d buildings, trees, hills, and other static world objects. I have a feeling this tech is also being used for player models as well. Using this tech with player models adds a huge new element of dynamic calculations that have to be made before the Umbra tech can even start working. And this isnt even considering the fact that in large battles, there are more player models to keep track of than say, buildings in a city that you can see on your screen at any one time.
The devs have their hands full regardless, trying to figure out how to optimize this, especially 2 of the major parts of the games hyped, Dragon/Big Boss fights, and WvWvW, are the 2 things most affected by these performance issues.
Selo, given that WvW maps are capped at a few hundred in a game with over 2 million (so far) players, I’m really content with 80% of the players not being interested in it; keeps our queues manageable. There are enough of us that find it fun on it’s own merits.
Thats why you make WvW rewards things that you only use in WvW.
Players who currently have no interesting in doing WvW, because of the lack or rewards, STILL will not be interested. You only get the “honor farmers” who care nothing about pvp, doing pvp, when the rewards are useful outside of pvp.
Do you really think someone who doesnt care about PvP is gonna care about getting a customizable “finish them” banner?
Do you really think someone who doesnt care about PvP is gonna care about a passive ability only usable in PvP that allows them to carry 50% more supply?
Build the rewards around concepts like that, and it keeps those 80% away still. Throw in mini pets, or a nice weapon, and suddenly they will all flock to farm it. (ie: dont add mini pets or uber weapons as rewards)
Dont see any nerf. Get power/precios/crit full exotic gear and u get a lot badges:)
More damage=better chance get badges.
I already proved this theory wrong.
Devs: WvW - Viewing Vista improves Framerate.
in Account & Technical Support
Posted by: Gadzooks.4687
ack, meant to post this in the bug forum. feel free to move it there, forum Mods.
Devs: WvW - Viewing Vista improves Framerate.
in Account & Technical Support
Posted by: Gadzooks.4687
This is mainly a post for the devs to help them further improve WvW performance.
My framerate in WvW starts ok, and as I enter battle, gets continually worse and worse. Eventually, im putting along at 5 fps.
Then I encountered something odd. I viewed the cutscene from a vista, which ran super smooth and fast, and aftwards, my framerate had gone back to how it was when I first entered the WvW area. Played for another hour, framerate was getting horribad, found another vista (an already viewed one), used it, and boom, frame rate improved again.
Seems like there is some degrading performance issue. Perhaps whatever viewing a vista does, should be happening automatically as you play every couple of minutes, to keep peoples systems flushed and performing less poorly.
Has NOTHING to do with the damage you do.
Ive gone 1 vs 1 with MANY people in WvW and not seen a single loot bag drop. And sometimes, when a bag DOES drop, its got junk in it, no badges.
If it were based on damage, then 1 vs 1 should = 100% chance of getting badges. And it doesnt.
I think there is some other factor here that the devs have kept quiet about. My guess? Diminishing returns on players who have recently died.
Someone dies, grants badges, and then comes back after death, and gets killed again… wah lah… no badges.
Its probably like a 5-10 minute “cooldown” for each player to prevent people from farming the same person/easy target over and over again.
Unfortunately, anything more than 30 seconds, is too long for the massive scope of WvW.
Right now, WvW is the WORST option for obtaining armor/weapon skins in the game. Ive put in hours and hour and hours of time and still dont even have enough to buy ONE piece of gear.
Fix it Anet, pretty please.
I agree with #2 and #4
There needs to be fewer objectives, and further spaced objectives
Taking a keep that is defended is a LONG process, but its still within what I feel is reasonable for me personally. Maybe a tiny bit shorter would be ok.
However, I totally agree that taking an undefended keep is WAY too fast. There is ZERO time for anyone to respond defensively to a keep being attacked that is undefended.
This problem, as far as everyone can tell, really only applies to people who have issues with their CPU and GPU BOTH being underutilized. It’s usually with systems that should be more than capable of achieving far greater performance than they’re getting.
This pretty much seems to be the issue. We are at the mercy of the developers it seems. Throwing more powerful hardware at the issue can help, but is only a bandaid solution.
4ghz i7 machines running SLI should be getting a steady 60+ fps anywhere in the game. There is no excuse for a DX9 game to perform worse than that on a system like that.
Lets hope the devs have a solution, and a speedy deadline for implementing it.