Guild Wars 2

NoTrigger.8396:

“open world content” will never be challenging. and you dont have to be a genius to understand why.

It may not be challenging to you.

It is to a lot of players. For various reasons.

For one, there are those who have difficulties understanding the mechanics of what’s going on right now (Breach copper boss, anyone?). This is a problem of personal skill level (so it is a challenge to them) and it is wide spread. I still rezz dozens of players during a normal flow of SW.

Then there are events where the problem is the amount of coordination required by a lot of players at the same time (Teq was like that, TT still is, Balthazar temple is still easy to fail). This is not about personal challenge but about group behavior.

So the meaning of “challenging” is very subjective, as I see it. Plus, there is another aspect.

Personally, I hate group instances, at least of the group size this game has to offer. Waaaaaay too many bad experiences in 15+ years of MMO gaming in the past. After almost 3 years there are still dungeon paths I have never set foot into and I quite likely never will and I still have <15 fractal runs. They are not entertaining to me, so I don’t even care whether they are challenging or not. But I liked the few open world raids I came across in various games. They were something that I value much higher than challenging: they were fun.

Yalora Istairiea.6287:

• Use a Staff and attune to fire for the Phase one Wall attack. Your Skill 1 hits it just fine without using a Charrzooka.

Charrzooka skill 1 has a range of 2000. This keeps you effectively out of range for 50%+ of the ice bombs. Sadly hardly anyone notices this.

MShp.3429:

McWolfy.5924:

Dude. Its a l2p issue. Sorry

Seeing how a lot of people above you agreed, I would say that no, it’s not an L2P issue.

Sadly, it is.

Phase 1: grab a charrzooka stand in the bubble, autoattack the ice wall; when you see ice rain coming in, press 5. When you see an ice wall coming, dodge. When you are feared either stun-break or wait for one of the gazillion warriors and guardians around you to shout-break the fear.

Phase 2: grab a flame thrower and destroy the ice pillars to get the golems to the Claw.

You are not alone in not understanding this fight. Especially phase 2, a lot of uneducationable players always stand in a bubble and do next to zero damage while at the same time a few who understand the fight desperately try to guide the golems through the ice pillars.

That’s the annoying thing of this fight. Players who are uncapable or unwilling to adapt their concept of an encounter.

Rather than dumbing down the NPE it would have been better if the boss fights had some real explanation.

PS: breaking the cooldown of the charrzooka shield by dodging/moving didn’t work anymore last time I tried.

I seriously don’t know what “people” are upset about, since I don’t know them all.

I know what I’m upset about.

Having meager loot for market stability reasons.

I don’t care for market. I play this game for enjoyment. I feel good if I do something and get rewarded nicely. If I have to “work” for something, no problem. I wanted ascended armor for my wvw warrior, I worked for it, I have it.

But the way the normal loot is distributed in this game is unrewarding. Good loot (i.e. something to enjoy) is extremely rare AND on top of that it is random. Which means that it turns me down to do something over and over again knowing that it is not through how well I play but simply through chances in a numbers game that I might feel rewarded.

I think more bosses/events should have loot reserved to them exclusively (like that staff with the gargoyle on top, that IIRC is only dropped at shadow behemoth) and then there should be a more reliable way of receiving loot, like it is done with dungeon tokens.

Broom.2561:

Astralporing.1957:

Broom.2561:

You are assuming the distribution is random. It never truly is, however. There’s been numerous articles about this, so I’m not going to repeat it all here, but it’s a known thing.

No, it is not known. The only thing i can think of you might had in mind is the “computer rng is not a true rng” articles that are often brought up, in which case i can only tell you this – people that bring them up do not understand what they have read, and do not know in what way it is relevant to the discussed topic. And in what way it isn’t.

Loot distribution is based on algorithms. Algorithms are based on if-then formulas, loot tables (a database) and a lot of math. In other words, there are dependencies in these algorithms, and any outcome is weighed. And unless you have a REALLY basic code, with no external factors, that means ‘random’ never really is random.

Sigh,

ok, here is how it works:

a RNG (no matter whether True or Pseudo, please don’t start with BS like "there is no real random in computers) typically creates a bit stream of random bit settings. This stream can be interpreted as the mantissa of a (double precision) floating point number, thus the RNG creates floating point numbers between 0 and 1. And, statistically speaking, their distribution is white noise. This means that if you fetch gazillions of numbers from the RNG and mark them on a scale from 0 to 1, you end up with a straight line showing that any number is between 0 and 1 is equally likely to be drawn (remember, this is only true on a veeeeeery large sample base, like billions of draws).

Now you create the “loot table” of a mob. That might be like this (figures are only examples):

• the mob might drop equipment and, independently from this, it might drop crafting mats
• the chance of not getting any equipment at all is 50%
• the chance of something blue is 30%
• the chance of something green is 12%
• the chance of something yellow is 7%
• the chance of something orange is 1%
  For the crafting material a similar table is created.

• Now, when the mob is dead, for anyone who has tagged the mob, 2 random numbers are drawn from the RNG (there is quite likely only one RNG for all random sources on that map, no “reserved” RNG for a player; therefore even a PRNG generate true random output, because it is completely unpredictable in which order numbers are drawn from the random pool).

• If the number drawn for the equipment drop is less than .5, the player gets nothing
• If the number is between .5 and .8, the player gets a blue item
• If the number is between .8 and .92, the player gets a green item
• If the number is between .92 and .99, the player gets a yellow item
• If the number is between .99 and 1, the player gets an orange item

Which item concretely may be up to another random draw.

Can you see that you can have “algorithms” and “random” at the same time, since “draw a random number” is part of an “algorithm”?

maddoctor.2738:

The people working on the game engine are not the gameplay programmers, they are not the art or the story team.

Either the renderer guys have nothing to do. Then it is quite likely that they aren’t even there any more. Why have someone on your payroll if his/her job is complete?

Or they are still hired. Then they are still around for a reason. Maybe they are working on such a feature, then this request is obsolete since it happens anyways. Or they are working on something different, then they won’t stop that just to do a new renderer.

The only thing you can hope for is that the topic “support newer DX version” travels upwards on the priority list. Then you should present a good reason. I have yet to come across one. “Because it looks better” or “because it performs better” isn’t that strong of a reason in a game that in its current state is good enough for a potentially large share of its target market. What is the true economical gain?

Aidan Savage.2078:

Additionally, the only “evidence” people have are “I havent seen good loot (read: something expensive) in a long time/at all” which is at BEST a passing curiosity to the devs.

There might be one exception. If too many people have the feeling that they are not rewarded enough for their efforts and decide to leave, it might be necessary to really adjust the drop chances.

The point is though that only a tiny fraction of this game’s population cares to post here anyways. So this forum is far from representative.

nikdik.1934:

It’s common knowledge the RNG is completely dependent on how much money you spend on the Gem Store.

Again, I am quite sure that unproven claims to decry someone are not exactly covered by freedom of speech.

Knighthonor.4061:

With the beta portals, people need to understand when and where the RNG kicks in. People that got the drops where already selected before they entered the zone.

the RNG just determined how long it would take for them to get the Portal drop.
So people that grind hours and never got a portal, well thats because you wasnt on the pre-selected beta list that Anet had set up before hand. ..
—————————————————-

As for loot in the game, some accounts are flagged to get better drops than others more often. Especially newer accounts, because new players tend to quick mmos faster than the vets, in any mmo this is the case. Even in other mmos give loot based on account variables.

The problem is that Anet cant come out and say this openly because it would negatively affect the community which is the opposite of why the the drop system is designed this way.

Would you enlighten us with proof for your claims? And if you don’t have any, would you kindly mark your speculations as such rather than disguising them as facts?

MrRuin.9740:

And truth be told, I think the system works fine as it is. It serves its purpose in multiple functions.

The point is that human beings do not like to be constantly disappointed. With the loot distribution and the random chances that we currently have, the fast majority of the player base is constantly disappointed. Personally I don’t care for the economy of this game. If I wanted to play an economics simulation, I’d have chosen to do so. I could live with either a more reliable (“fair”) loot distribution than the current RNG or with better drop rates, even if it floods some markets.

I had one precursor drop for me in the almost 3 years I play now. While it felt great at that moment, I realized that it is nothing you can rely on or aim at. That is the reason why ANet will finally install the Precursor Collections. And IMO this is a great way to do it for other commodities as well. Rather than have one huge RNG gate with a minute chance of getting the roll, the collections consist of a lot of RNG gates with a way better chance for the roll, so you can advance in steps.

Rebound.3409:

…but the majority of oldschool players in this game QQ about this.

Just out of curiosity: how do you know it’s a “majority” rather than a few ten or maybe hundred repeating their complaints over and over again, making you feel it’s a majority?

Behellagh.1468:

Knighthonor.4061:

Its not a conspiracy.

NOTHING IS RANDOM IN COMPUTERS…. INCLUDING RNG…. thats not random. (FACT)

True but the current PRNG used pass numerous rigorous statistical tests to prove it is similar enough to a true RNG generator (that uses radioactive decay) to be indistinguishable.

No, it is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator.

For a first read.

Apart from that the rest of this discussion is…. amusing.

yolo swaggins.2570:

“RNG is RNG”
The main issue here is a lack of understanding regarding the nature of programming.

Yes, after working as a software engineer and architect dealing with RNG, cryptography and security for 25+ years, it MUST be a lack of understanding on my side rather than yours. Because it cannot potentially be true that you might be wrong, or?

Reading through this thread I start to understand why creationism is even a thing.

I don’t do them even with the gold reward at the end.

Astralporing.1957:

I don’t think that there’s enough people in the game that do like that amount of grind to make a decent beta population.

I don’t think we share the same definition of ‘grind’. Dry Top and Silver Wastes have quite some events, also of varying content and mechanics. The chance of a drop correlates to players doing the events. To me this sounds like ‘playing the game’. Now, if playing the game is a grind for you…

If the keys dropped from playing sPvP as well, would that also be grind, since you have to play sPvP matches over and over again? In other words, is sPvP anything else than a grind, since the only thing you can do is matches?!?

Fhaeris.9237:

Halvorn.9831:

Arrk.4102:

Fhaeris.9237:

Rin.1046:

But personally, I feel beta selection should be decided by Anet not GW2.

Do you seriously believe RNG is actally RNG?
After 3 years of not getting any precursor from either the mystic toilet or as a random drop, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s something account based. You might say I’m just delusional, but after seeing some of my friends getting precursor after precursor it became clear. Coincidences happen a couple times, not a billion times.
FYI I have 6 legendaries and I had to farm all 6. Never got any help from the “RNG gods” (aka Anet).
I’m not even gonna try this key hunting bullkitten because I won’t drop it, that’s for sure, since my account can’t.

I’m not sure you know what random means.

I am sure he doesn’t.

You guys are too naive.

I prefer education to tinfoil hats.

Da forum bug buggs da forum

Hybarf Tics.2048:

The first thing you realize after a few hours, is that there is no spoon, it is only yourself that bends to the will of Anet’s mind bending manipulations. So in conclusion it makes you wonder if they really want us in the Beta.

What is wrong with you guys in not understanding that distributing access to a test for a small part of the current game population by requiring those who want to be part of the drawing to actually participate in a part of the game rather than register somewhere on a mailing list is not much different from each other apart from being slighty fairer to those who actually play?

What approach would you have preferred if the conditions for this test are to limit the number of participants to, let’s say, no more than 5,000 players? How would you draw those 5,000 from 1 million of “but I want to be in, since I am important”-thinkers? How would you ensure that not 1-10% of those 995,000 who are not drawn will start complaining and feel that whoever did this draw is incompetent just because it wasn’t them who was lucky?

Arrk.4102:

Fhaeris.9237:

Rin.1046:

But personally, I feel beta selection should be decided by Anet not GW2.

Do you seriously believe RNG is actally RNG?
After 3 years of not getting any precursor from either the mystic toilet or as a random drop, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s something account based. You might say I’m just delusional, but after seeing some of my friends getting precursor after precursor it became clear. Coincidences happen a couple times, not a billion times.
FYI I have 6 legendaries and I had to farm all 6. Never got any help from the “RNG gods” (aka Anet).
I’m not even gonna try this key hunting bullkitten because I won’t drop it, that’s for sure, since my account can’t.

I’m not sure you know what random means.

I am sure he doesn’t.

MashMash.1645:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

If they are going to give us crafting scrolls instead of skill point scrolls from now on, and we don’t touch the mystic forge to craft, because unless you do that as a job you are likely to lose gold, then those scrolls are going to be even more worthless.

At least I could save them up and use them on a new alt, like my Revenant.

This is an issue. What do players that barely, or never, use the mystic forge, but have large numbers of excess skill points get?

What do you do with your excess skill points today, if you do not use the MF?

Iason Evan.3806:

I am more concerned with the future. When Stronghold and Conquest are merged it will add another layer of frustration for solo queuers.

+1

Well, if you allow premade groups of 4 in a game mode that does 5 on 5 matches, you have to put in a single player, no way around that. No separate queues will ever solve this.

So you cannot allow premades of 4 (or 3, or 2). Only solo players or full premades and then two queues. Which means that the full premade teams will potentially have to wait a veeeery long time for matches.

I have recently started to play WoT again, which has more or less the same problem. But: they have team sizes of 15 and only allow premades of up to 3 players to participate. That is way less noticeable. But it is not feasible here. You could have a nonranked queue with 8v8 matches, where premades with up to 3 players are allowed, but no more than 1 premade group per team.

It’s a tough problem to tackle. There will be no perfect solution.

How do I even know who is a premade? They do not necessarily need to share the same guild tag. Is there any other means of finding out?

• Random dungeon generator with preselectable group size, task type to achieve and difficulty (Anarchy Online Mission Terminals, I miss thee).
• Build Save and Load (best feature of GW1)
• A solution for Orr-Temple events in the age of mega server (event time still unsolved, it’s a gamble vs. Taxi)
• A tangible concept for the future of WvW

I left out things that have already been announced (traits revamp, guild halls).

More and more I think the problem isn’t the dailies themselves, it is that the events in the zones where dailies might be are completely not prepared for the amount of players around when the zone is the daily zone.

This morning I was in Fields of Devastation (is that the english name of the zone?). The escort events were ridiculous. 20 players vs mob waves of 3-5. Even as a staff guardian it wasn’t easy to tag enough mobs to have the event counted.

This is imbalanced. Events should scale properly. Those events were not designed for such an amount of players. The events should be fixed.

Saint.5647:

I was going to chime in to say the same thing along the same lines as well. I’ve spent the last few years working in research and very rarely have I ever seen a study with an abnormally high amount of trials. I don’t know where you have seen hundreds of trials run outside of simulations. In most situations it’s simply not feasible.

That tells you something about the credibility of some research. This is a completely different topic though: there are some areas of “research” where there has to be a result, and if the sigma cannot be good enough, you just ignore it, rather than improving your sample numbers. There are lots of studies out there about the weaknesses of studies.

But that is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is that, considering an even spread, the results presented as a proof of bad behavior are totally within the range of expectable and explainable results – given the small sample size.

I guess I am giving up on this topic. Conspiracy theories are successful because they appeal to weaknesses in our psyche. Secret rules in the code, the effects of PRNG, the aim to make more money through gem sales, it all makes sense suddenly…. not.

I look at MY code which shows me that the behavior is explainable without any dark secrets. That is my creed: it is all in the code.

I knew somebody will bring this up. Somebody always brings this up.

And it is wrong.

First of all, I am working at a company which does hardware security modules. They have true random generators, I’ve also used one of them and there is absolutely no difference in the behavior (the code is just too clumsy to show here, since it is a network device call).

Secondly, the major difference between a prng and a trng is that the first one creates identical sequence of numbers when seeded identically. Apart from that, the statistical distribution of values is the same considering a huge sample size.

Which is what I said.

Personally I am not too enthused about another WvW tournament. My server barely survived the last ones.

If you make imbalance a core design, don’t do competitions.

I am not giving up.

int run = 1;
int samples = 84;
do {
int lastRnd = -1;
int doubles = 0;
for (int count = 0; count < samples; count++) {
int rnd = (int) (Math.random() * 26);
if (rnd == lastRnd) {
doubles++;
}
lastRnd = rnd;
}

float percentage = doubles/(float)samples * 100f;
if (percentage > {
System.out.println(String.format(“Run Nr: %d, Doubles percentage: %2.1f”, run, percentage));
}
run++;
} while (true);

This time the small program calculates the percentage of doubles on the whole sample and prints it out, if it is > 8 percent.

Output:
Run Nr: 4, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 18, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 40, Doubles percentage: 9,5
Run Nr: 88, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 116, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 125, Doubles percentage: 9,5
Run Nr: 148, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 151, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 196, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 211, Doubles percentage: 9,5
Run Nr: 228, Doubles percentage: 9,5
Run Nr: 232, Doubles percentage: 10,7
Run Nr: 234, Doubles percentage: 10,7
Run Nr: 259, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 267, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 279, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 339, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 412, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 422, Doubles percentage: 8,3
Run Nr: 430, Doubles percentage: 8,3

Now I am changing the sample size from 84 to 840.

Output:

Even after 10 minutes of looping not a single sample had more than 8% doubles. Because at this sample size the result is much closer to the expected average of 1/26, ca. 3.8%

Your sample size is at least factor 10 too small to contain any clues on anomalies in the RNG distribution. Even for an even distribution of random results (read: the RNG produces white noise when viewed as a frequency graph) your results are expectable because of your sample size.

I’d rather program this. It gives a better impression.

int run = 1;
do {
int lastRnd = -1;
int doubles = 0;
for (int count = 0; count < 84; count++) {
int rnd = (int) (Math.random() * 26);
if (rnd == lastRnd) {
doubles++;
}
lastRnd = rnd;
}
if (doubles >= 10) {
System.out.println(String.format(“Run Nr: %d, Doubles: %d”, run, doubles));
}
run++;
} while (true);

Make 84 random number between 0 and 25 and count how many times the current one is the same as during the last draw (a “double”). Output whenever there is more than 9 doubles (together with the run nr to get a feeling for how often it happens) among the 84 random numbers. Repeat this forever.

Sample result:

Run Nr: 201, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 1195, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 1877, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 2336, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 2505, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 3225, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 3501, Doubles: 14
Run Nr: 3615, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 4350, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 4380, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 4672, Doubles: 11
Run Nr: 6234, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 7821, Doubles: 10
Run Nr: 9148, Doubles: 10

Can you see that? In the first 10000 runs I already have an attempt with 14 doubles.
The reason is that 84 is much too small as a sample size. There is still way too much fluctuation in that. If you choose a sample size of 10000, the number of doubles is much closer to 3.8% (1/26).

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Look at MY sample please. I have many more than 50 runs.

What, like in “84 is many more than 50”?!?

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Random means equal chance at each outcome.

That’s where I basically stopped reading.

For any non-infinite sample size random means random. Full stop. Every “pattern” you see is expectable. If they didn’t occur, it wouldn’t be random.

crunchyraisin.6054:

This needs to be its own queue as well, please don’t mix with conquest!

This. I would like it to be a conscious decision to enter Stronghold mode (I would like this for court yard as well btw.)

Beldin.5498:

Ravenmoon.5318:

At 60 FPS your PC needs 16.6ms to spit out a frame. That is less than a 10th of a second so you can’t really feel any delay at 16ms. But there is definitely a delay, even if it is hard to gauge scientifically it is there. The higher the frame rate the better the response time. At sub 30 FPS your actions start to feel sluggish and at 15 fps you actually notice the input delay. Crazy right … all those spoiled brat gamers that kitten and moan about 60 fps.

If you have ever wondered why most pro gamers play at minimum 120Hz screen and why they are willing to sink 500-600$ on a screen that characteristically has nothing really better than your average 200$ 60Hz screen – that is the reason. Having higher frame rate gives you an advantage. Fact. Thus highly competitive games are frame limited.

I don’t care about those “pro gamers” .. and those pro-gamers surely would also
not play a game in the internet where the ping already invalidates everything
you wrote, if they really are soooo pro.

16.6ms for a frame .. fine .. but it needs maybe 20ms for the data of your opponent
to reach the sever, and another 20ms to arrive at your PC .. so that will bring down
your reaction time again to something like 25 fps.

Personally I don’t think that arguing is of any use here any more. He will not accept your reasoning anyways.

The majority of players does not seem to have serious performance issues as they are not complaining, that’s why it would be a suboptimal investment for ANet.

If ANet have the spare time, ok, I don’t care. I’d still rather have them add an option to reduce particle effects, not because of fps but because of clutter.

I wanted to hint at something different.

If you have, say, 4 distinct roles one way is to say “ok, I have 3 players so you have to decide which role you give up at any particular point in time”. However you could also say “ok, i have 5 players so you have to decide which role you +1”.

I think that the second variant leads to more fights.

Morkel.2039:

I think that having more things to do than the available player is what makes this new map interesting. 10vs10 would mean that all roles are covered at the same time and strategic decision would be less important

You mean like soccer, football, rugby are unorganizable zergfests with multiple players for the same role etc?!?

8v8 would be great.

…but there is a problem.

I mostly play unteamed, so I will typically be in a PUG. With a game mode as tactical as Stronghold, playing against Premades potentially using some voice chat will be a disaster.

Look, almost 3 years into this game a tremendous amount of players I come along in matches still haven’t understood Conquest. I frequently see someone on my team or the other team fighting an enemy player close to the base without positioning into the circle in order to decap it. It is more like “me see red name tag, me must fight, ugh ugh”.

Now you bring an even more tactical game mode to a crowd that is already overcharged with capping a majority of 3 points. That may be ok as long as the tactical capabilities are evenly balanced across both teams. But with the current matchmaking this can quickly become very frustrating for someone who rarely teams up before entering a fight.

rapthorne.7345:

I for one don’t see any issue with hopping in to eotm for all of the 10 minutes it takes to earn daily credit for keep/tower/defender/spender/etc but it seems the OP is incapable of going to other modes of play to complete their dailies

I for one had no problems doing 100% map completion including WvW on 5 chars and 100% completion is solely optional. Still ANet decided to take WvW out. It’s not about capabilities. Its about stopping to “force” players into game modes they don’t like.

I can clearly see a reason to take out double daily fractal.

rapthorne.7345:

Pretty sure you need to earn badges in WvW to be able to spend them for the big spender daily.

EoTM nets you way more badges than WvW.

The point in question is: is it complicated to change it, so that only one fractal task appears per day and if this happened (no more double daily fractals) what do we loose?

I think we’d loose nothing and I think it shouldn’t be that complicated to change. That is all.

I don’t think this game needs a hard mode. It is not too easy. It is a tiny but very voicy minority that wants hard modes. The majority of players still has problems even surviving in simple situations. And no, ANet should not focus on a minority just because it complains loudly. Where they introduced more challenging content it is underused, since nobody really wants it.

I’d rather see ANet focus on something different. What this game really needs is a better education of how you fight and survive and take responsibility for your actions rather than relying on those around you to rezz you and carry you.

If that is done we can talk about raising the difficulty bar. Because we have raised the abilities of the average players. We are far away from that though.

Ravenmoon.5318:

I am running R9 290X which frankly destroys your GPU in every test in existance. I rarely get 100 frames per second. If I am within intensive scene it dips below 30.

Fighting the miasma in Lion’s Arch a year ago was cancer to me. The events after that, even more so. All those people zerging single boss mobs. That frame rate was going back in time.

To be honest at the time I didn’t overclock my CPU (i5-2500k) because of heat issues, plus Crysis was maxing out on 100 fps, so it was running its stock clock of 3.3GHz + turbo(500MHz). Now that I juiced extra 1GHz out of it the fps is more stable in low to medium places but if i dare to go to WvW without effect LOD, i’ll be playing slideshow 2.

No, I won’t toss $600 for CPU upgrade just so I could get decent FPS in one game, while everything else runs at least with 60 fps.

And give an estimation: what percentage of players is in the same boat as you? 0.5? 0.1? Less?

You spent more than three times the money for your rig compared to me. Yet I can perfectly live with my performance in WvW, even if it’s in EB, three zergs. It could be better, but it is not awful.

If ANet has spare dev time, I vote they spent it on toning down particle effects – that would help all of us find bosses and our own mouse cursors.

I switched from a GTX 460 to a GTX 960 the other week. Man, what a difference for a CPU-bound game.

I think, a lot of the theories in this thread about the used technologies and their effects on performance are… let’s say… not very well founded.

The thing that irritates me most is the lack of tolerance for each other on both sides of the fence.

It is not true that people are rude just because they find this April fools joke funny. It is not true that people are sad unhumorous beings just because they don’t find this April fools joke funny.

It’s just a different level and view on things like respect and freedom. I wish there was a more adult way in this community (or in western society in general in 2015) to cope with such a situation.

That is the really bad message I get from this situation.

Halvorn.9831:

No matter what it is, someone will complain.

Man, I knew I was right.

What I didn’t know then was that I would be of them.

Personally I find this April Fools Joke insensitive. I would have preferred an official message saying “we had something in preparation, but respect of recent tragic events led us to a decision to hold it back. Happy April Fools day”. The complaints would have been much more minute plus the public reputation would have been better.

But things are as they are. Better luck next time, or shall I say “tactfulness”?

No matter what it is, someone will complain.

What is the problem with the boxes? The figures are calculated correctly. The rank is not influenced by win/loss ratio, that’s why I said you should forget about it anyways.

Mrbig.8019:

silvermember.8941:

Mrbig.8019:

And no don’t say fun.

Proc Wars 2 is definitely not fun

If you are not having fun, then quit. With the amount of QQ that comes from you, I would say quitting is the best thing you can do for yourself, but that would be me assuming I know what goes through your mind.

There is no reason to do anything other than to eat, sleep, drink water and poop.

Rofl i’ve already quit.

/thread

Nothing to be seen here except someone who has problems to understand that not everybody shares his view of the world.

I don’t understand why win/loose ratio is even a thing. If you PuG, win/loose depends 1/5 on you, 4/5 on the others (+ your opponents). It shouldn’t even be in personal statistics.

pickpocket.2071:

GLHF pressing 11111 with your boring living story zombie key mashers

So in your view: dungeons = ^1234567890, whereas everything outside of dungeons = ¹

I couldn’t disagree more. You play a different game than I do.