Guild Wars 2

Louveepine.7630:

1) MEGASERVEUR!
Especially in Europe, where he virtually 6 different languages??. This is a mess!

This. If you don’t fix this quickly, you will lose players in droves.

Nerelith.7360:

There are ways to one…. add new maps, and 2… keep the old maps from being deserted. Simply have what can be a combo if story quest and Dynamic event, where you talk to Jo shmo in a new map… and he sends you as part of the quest back to some of the old maps. This way you STILL have players In the older maps.

What character levels should newly added maps be targeted at? I think it makes no sense to have new maps for levels < 80, since players do not spend a lot of time there (except for world events) and there are already enough of them.

But your idea is interesting. Is there any existing event chain that sends a player across different maps yet?

(Yes, I know it is OFFTOPIC related to the original thread)

IMO adding large new areas currently will only result in more of the older areas being deserted.

Now with the upcoming MegaServer-System, this might change. I have hopes that they are waiting for this to be running smoothly and fully rolled out and then add new areas.

Having said this, I personally do not share the love for Cantha and I am not very obsessed with an expansion. I found the LS to be quite entertaining and in my opinion it kept the game alive throughout the last year. Now if they get their things sorted after the China launch, they may have brought the systems and experience to a level, where they can forge more interesting LS content, potentially with a more persistent result.

What I want to say: it may not be so obvious even to ANet themselves, where they will never go to.

TBH i think neither precursors nor legendaries should ever have been tradeable. Precursors should have been an account bound ingame reward for an involved, complex quest line or task which takes part in pve, wvw and pvp and the legendary should have been account bound on crafting. That would have been rewarding.

Additionally, ascended stuff should have been tradeable so that the crafters had something rewarding for their effort to reach 500, too. Sadly it is the other way round.

It also adds interesting features to NPCs like Hyleks.

Launching tongue to reach the moon in 3, 2, 1…..

Jim Hunter.6821:

Only if those 15 people are standing on top of each other. The counter to aoe that has worked for years in every other game is a little skill called spreading the hell out.

But this will also mean that the 15 people will no longer benefit from the Aoe buffs and condi cleanse that they are giving to each other otherwise, which will make them even weaker. You have to focus somewhere. Which will make you vulnerable and with removed Aoe cap, even more so.

Plus, the zerg can spread out as well and still has more buffs and higher concentration of condition AoE, no longer limited by any cap.

dodgycookies.4562:

I keep hearing remove the aoe cap but I dont think you guys really have thought out the consequences of doing so

When you remove the aoe cap it just benefits the zerg more not less. I know you all think that a 5 man ground of zerker eles can dominate but consider this: a 40man zerg with 15 warriors would be able to heal 30k hp instantly just by the use of 1 shout, most hammer warriors run 2/3 shouts so you are looking at doing 60-90k hp regen just from the wars. Even assuming you poisoned them all, thats still 40-60k healing in 2 instant cast shouts, and this doesn’t even include the guards or eles.

They would have 100% protection uptime and almost unlimited condi cleanse so with all the buffs, to down that 40 man zerg you would have to hit each of them with almost 80k direct damage in less than 1 second and make sure you down them all at once, because if you don’t, they will instantly heal back to full hp.

The removal of the aoe cap would make spike damage the meta. It would encourage the instant kill classes that every mmo has discouraged because theres no real flow to combat or time to make any decisions to react. To remove the aoe cap, you would have to seriously redesign every class’s game mechanics from scratch, which we all know Anet will not do.

or as some people have suggested only remove the damage cap but keep the healing/boon cap in place…but that seems completely unfair to the support classes imo.

Plus, the 25 remaining necros in the 40 man zerg will not have their aoe’s capped anymore and therefore melt down the 15 man group quickly…

Finally at least someone understands that removing the AoE cap will do the exact opposite of what people hope for. It will only encourage even larger zergs.

strifer.7986:

i dont give a flying kitty of pve,living story and all this crap, i’m a www player and i still play your game from the start only for this feature!

So you are playing this for 1.5 years now and you still cannot spell it correctly? You surely aren’t playing www… Guess what I was thinking when I saw a thread named “Someone is working on WWW problems?”. What WWW problems?

Having said that I tend to agree with you. Even as someone who only plays WvW once or twice a week I have to say that the fact that the number of durable errors and problems in WvW has not significantly decreased over time is extremely frustrating. I am a sw dev myself, so I know how hard it is to give any estimates, but ANet, a significant part of your customers wants to see some enhancements and love in the area they came here for. Please show some more sympathies and give us at least a little bit of a roadmap.

Eleir.9325:

I hope they never do living story again. It almost killed this game.

No, it kept it alive. If the LS had not been there, way more players would have left by now. You will see that in the coming months when no content changes are going to happen. Fixing old bugs in an unchanging world will not be enough to keep players interested.

There need to be content changes. And as for the “expansion” thing: that will grow old quite soon. I still think continuous small updates are the better option. They just need to stay.

May I suggest that, if deciding to do so, the chosen charity project is an international one?
There are players outside the US who might like to donate, too. I think it is naturaly understandable that they will be more willing to contribute to a world wide charity (or one that is closer to them) then a national one, at least if it is not in their own nation – which may be too much to do from an organizational aspect.

Carighan.6758:

Halvorn.9831:

I see your reasoning but I think this game has larger problems than this. However I do not get why ANet keep hurting themselves with debatable moves like this one.

Because we as players wanted them to destroy LA?

Did that force them to introduce this air ship and not provide crafting stations in the new central hub?

What is going to happen once you find out that the airship pass is even better than Lion’s Arch ever was, since you do not need to go through the mists first in order to get there, saving another loading screen? Even without the destruction of Lion’s Arch it would be convenience behind a paywall.

So all of this is not about convenience behind a paywall but about taking away a small bit of convenience and putting it behind a paywall. And you sense the end of the world because even the Noachian deluge started with single rain drops.

I see your reasoning but I think this game has larger problems than this. However I do not get why ANet keep hurting themselves with debatable moves like this one.

Matisse.9356:

Why should the glass be half-full, when it is so much better half-empty, is it not?

Why would you accept a half-full glass when you can ask for a completeley filled one?

• Legendaries tradeable in AH; how legendary is it to just open your wallet?

• Ranger issues, especially Pet-based ones

• Imbalance between ranged an melee fighting; ranged fighters are “lost” for their team, hence a lot of the “rangers are bad” shouting; they aren’t, they are just no contribution to the team

• Night capping in WvW devalues the hard work during prime time

• Can I please have an option to remove all the useless graphic fireworks from the fights? Maybe it looks nice to some, but it is an annoyance to a lot of ppl I’ve talked to.

Ajax.4970:

Halvorn.9831:

Prysin.8542:

Take rangers. They are hated through and through by pretty much every player around. Why? Because once upon a time, they all tried to play it at some point, they couldn’t get the hang of it (it is NOT supposed to be an archer, if you try play as one, you die) due to the treacherous design. Most players fall into this design pitfall, making rangers seem weak and useless.

Now let’s look at the name of the class. It even has the word RANGE in its class name. Can you guess what is wrong with this? It is supposed to be THE ranged class. So it is not a design pitfall, the current state of ranger is a misconception. It should do the best damage with ranged physical weapons, full stop.

Why should the ranger do more physical damage than a Warrior with a longbow, why should it do more damage than an Engineers rifle, that would be unbalanced.

The pet AI problems set aside, IMO a ranged class should focus on immobilize (roots and snares) and ranged damage. The ranger is already weaker in close combat than warriors and engies have a lot more AoE-damage. Why shouldn’t rangers be among the top classes in ranged combat? I cannot see how that would be unbalanced. If you succeed in countering the immobilize, the ranger would be in big troubles.

Prysin.8542:

Take rangers. They are hated through and through by pretty much every player around. Why? Because once upon a time, they all tried to play it at some point, they couldn’t get the hang of it (it is NOT supposed to be an archer, if you try play as one, you die) due to the treacherous design. Most players fall into this design pitfall, making rangers seem weak and useless.

Now let’s look at the name of the class. It even has the word RANGE in its class name. Can you guess what is wrong with this? It is supposed to be THE ranged class. So it is not a design pitfall, the current state of ranger is a misconception. It should do the best damage with ranged physical weapons, full stop.

MeGaZlo.9516:

World population? Really, guys? Really?
I do not know how about america. But on eu servers there are lags for 3-15 seconds in most of the fights on all servers. Lags even in the empty open fields. Guilds falling apart because they can not play. People are leaving the game, because they do not see the point of SUCH wvw. Neither one tactic works in such lags, but only huge “1-spamming” zerg. Therefore, all the glory hunters flock to the top servers where are bigger zergs. That is why people stop going on WvW on some servers. And you discuss population… wonderfull!

Except at night time, where some servers have their overseas population, others have not and will lose the matchup during that period, no matter how hard they have fought during primetime. Yes, it is an issue.

Elbegast.6970:

Halvorn.9831:

There is a very general problem.

You cannot have content that creates an evolving world on the one hand and make it stay forever on the other hand. It’s a contradiction. If you defeat the dredge and flame legion, that invasion is no longer there and it makes no sense to still have its dungeons around. Either evolution or persistence. You cannot have both.

I choose evolution. It means, I cannot repeat old content and it will be forever lost and only in my memory or in the history books. That’s the price to pay for an evolving world.

Except that the world hasn’t ‘evolved’ through the LS. You take away the current LS patch and you have essentially the same exact game that was around a year ago. What has evolved?

You are right (except aetherblade jp or so). Which means LS is not a story with persistent consequences anyways, so in that sense its “chapters” may as well stay in game, with the effect that like e.g. for all the dungeons from a story point of view it is completeley useless to rerun them. How often can you finally kill an enemy?

But that is the major problem with all “worlds” aka MMORPG’s which can never really evolve, since evolution would remove content. On the other hand you cannot simply only add content all the time, since you are only either spreading out your playerbase or creating ghost towns.

It remains the same: if you want change, it cannot only mean additions, it also must mean removal.

There is a very general problem.

You cannot have content that creates an evolving world on the one hand and make it stay forever on the other hand. It’s a contradiction. If you defeat the dredge and flame legion, that invasion is no longer there and it makes no sense to still have its dungeons around. Either evolution or persistence. You cannot have both.

I choose evolution. It means, I cannot repeat old content and it will be forever lost and only in my memory or in the history books. That’s the price to pay for an evolving world.

I don’t think there is a feasible way to balance wvw-populations, neither between servers in general nor on a time-of-day basis due to populations distributed over different timezones.

What can be balanced however is the scoring system. And IMO it needs to be tweaked in such a way that a server which is outnumbered on a map receives more points per tick for the estates it possesses.

If we consider the total number of players on a specific borderland to represent 100%, then a balanced situation would be that each server holds 33.3% of that population. In this case the scoring should have an even multiplicator for all servers. But if e.g. we have a situation 40%/40%/20%, then the 20% server should have a multiplier of 2 for its scores, since it only has half the population during that tick, so possessing a keep in that situation is worth more than possessing it if you have a lot of players on the map.

This could also even out the night cap situations, where a server without a large overseas population may be outnumbered, but it does not hurt that much.

Topics to discuss in PvE:
1) Usability of all classes and builds (zerker warrior only groups should not be the single best option all the time)
2) Make crafting meaningful
3) Solutions for the overflow problem

WvW:
1) Come up with ways to scale points/success better for less populated servers/smaller groups
2) Get rid of PvE achievements in WvW zones, at least as long as there is still an overflow problem
3) Create more single tasks to work towards in smaller groups

lordkrall.7241:

– little-no downward scaling
[..]It is also something that people have wanted since release.

How many? The 5 most voicily complaining percent?

For the rest of us the GW2 world has only gotten smaller by this patch, since it has lost a world boss. Should they continue “revamping” bosses like that?

I doubt it is a good idea to do so. Adding a new boss is ok, it may get ignored like the karka queen but it is not taking something away.