Guild Wars 2

When entering a keep which has Presence of the Keep improvement the buff is not applied on me. This happens more often than not. The improvement is not on a cooldown and the keep is indeed claimed by a guild.

The workaround is to leave the keep (move outside the objective aura area) and then return to the keep and hope the buff is applied this time.

Missing the buff is very noticeable because I can then carry 5 supplies less. The improvement is also rather expensive make.

There are also related bugs:

• Sometimes the Presence of the Keep buff only contains few of the objective aura buffs the keep has. For example only the Magic Find +20% and WvW Experience +10%.
• When the claiming guild does not have Magic Find +20%, the Presence of the Keep does not allow extra supplies to be picked up.

Any hope getting this fixed before the next expansion? Or is this as difficult as returning dolyak misplacement bug? Or any better workarounds?

Ahnlok.3897:

This is just my opinion, but what do you guys think about Anet would let us clear most stacked conditions first and so on while using condition clear skills.
Tell me what you guys think.

Conditions are removed in a specific order: the most recently applied condition is removed first. When you play condi build you try to cover the most important conditions by applying lesser ones on top of them.

Removing the highest stack first would make duration stacking conditions more potent: Blind, Chilled, Crippled, Fear, Immobilized, Slow, Taunt, Weakness.

Please specify what you think is a problem and then how this new change would fix it.

Throwing out a solution and hoping someone comes up with a problem to match is doing things backwards.

In WvW you can mix and match gear freely (*) unlike in sPvP. Can’t you get the listed stat combinations by mixing existing items?

(*) There is some gold or time-gate or forced-PvE-grind or jump-through-UI-loops cost attached.

Johje Holan.4607:

Just to clarify. You don’t get points for killing an enemy. The death of an enemy gives your server points. Right?

So if 5 people kill an enemy, the server gets 2 points, not 10.

Right.

Participate in killing an enemy = 2 points
Stomp an enemy while you have bloodlust-buff = 1 extra point

The total war score is still available in the API.

There are external sites which turn this into human readable form. For example http://mos.millenium.org/matchups

Johje Holan.4607:

3-2-2 to encourage attacking the winning server.

Hear hear.

However with 3-2-2 distribution the victory could be decided halfway into the matchup(Tuesday morning). If a server won the first half of the skirmishes it might as well stop playing (Glicko aside).

With 3-2-1 a server needs to win 2/3 of the skirmishes to guarantee a victory (Wednesday afternoon). It is harder to catchup, though, because not only you need to win all remaining skirmishes, you also need to ensure the leading server comes 3rd in every skirmish.

1-(-1)-(-1) distribution would be interesting to try. That is having a victory point removed from both loser servers per skirmish.

Sarrs.4831:

I would honestly love to see some releases by anet covering warscore:active population ratios from before the Skirmishes change and VP:active population after the change. I expect they’re already looking at this data in private but I think it would be very interesting to see whether skirmishes are helping or hurting.

ANet will not publish player activity or population data.

Rink did some calculations on last week’s scores. The result was that victory points differences are greater than war score differences. Thanks to the world linking the war score differences had been small in past months.

I agree they should publish the results of their analysis if they are to poll whether to keep Skirmishes in the game or not.

nerovergil.5408:

2. My idea..

Queues and war score multipliers have already been suggested to fix population imbalance. Both ideas have been shot down for good reasons.

Tyler Bearce listed population rebalancing as one of the goals of the Scoring changes.

• In conjunction with population rebalancing, updating Scoring allows us to decide a winner of a match more fairly, and thus reward players more fairly
  • Currently we can’t give out worthwhile rewards for winning, as most match-ups are already decided before they begin

Just wait and see what he comes up with.

No. The total victory points may look prettier, but 3-2-1 and 4-3-2 systems are the same when your server needs to catch up. See my post.

Spurnshadow.3678:

I think this is due to the ratio of 1, 2, and 3. For arguments sake, lets play this out for the week with a total hypothetical situation of BG winning every skirmish, TC placing 2nd, and FA placing 3rd. At the end of the week, the total victory points would reflect that, with FA having 84, TC with 168, and BG with 252. But if one were to look at a typical warscore match, rarely does the match have such drastic numerical differences. It may be that this week is just a bad week to judge by because FA is in our match up. Too soon to tell.

Rink did some math using the last week’s scores. The Victory Points system yields much greater relative points differences than plain Warscore system.

That’s not the beef. While running away with score is now capped, so is catching up. There will be a moment into the matchup when it is not even theoretically possible to catchup. That moment seems to come sooner now.

Straegen.2938:

My guess is the players that voted for scoring changes will finally learn that changing the scoring won’t effect coverage and general population issues. PvD and mowing down out manned players will still be dominant issues in WvW.

On the plus side, winning will be… oh wait… still utterly pointless since we aren’t rewarded for winning with anything meaningful.

Was population balance fix ever an item to vote on? I think ANet has that as a main goal even without players’ votes.

Population rebalancing is somewhere down the roadmap. Reward for winning a matchup follows.

• In conjunction with population rebalancing, updating Scoring allows us to decide a winner of a match more fairly, and thus reward players more fairly
  • Currently we can’t give out worthwhile rewards for winning, as most match-ups are already decided before they begin

Belenwyn.8674:

The now introduced system is only the fundament. The next is to give the slots different weightings. Night slot will grant 3, 2, 1 VP. Prime time slots will grant maybe 9, 6, 3 VP. Side times could give 6, 4, 2.

That feature was named Action Level – Victory Point Multiplier. ANet is not releasing the action level feature for now. You can find discussion on the feature in the linked thread.

azyume.6321:

vana.5467:

QQing.3089:

Sounds interesting. I’d like separate WvW balance to be next. I don’t want boon meta to die, just get leukemia.

It’s funny they should mention the first poll. The context makes it sound like this is the clear #1 request from the community, yet in the thread they made prior to the polls, skill balance won by a fair margin. That part seems to have been forgotten.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that they’re working on something WvW related.. but I do wonder what happened to “future balance updates will take WvW into consideration” (paraphrased from MO).

I’m also not convinced by this new system. It’s a band aid on runaway matches, but people are still going to be logging in to empty maps ~18 hours of the day.

What is funny whatsoever is that people still have no clue how things works on Guild Wars 2. WvW devs are not responsible over profession balance. They might, perhaps, give feedback but all decisions are made by the balance team.

Off-topic, but the balance team has made some changes with WvW in mind, too:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/updates/Game-Update-Notes-April-19-2016

You should give SFR another chance.

The matchup resets on Friday evening. That’s when the most activity takes place. You are bound to find commanders then. The activity cools down towards the end of the matchup. Especially when the score is as lopsided as in SFR’s current matchup.

Besides transferring costs gems (in-game gold or real life money).

Yes, that is the current WvW leaderboard. It just does not reflect the server linking which is only 4 months old feature.

SFR is one of the host servers (better) in the linkings. Players tend to transfer from guest servers only.

EotM is a different game mode than WvW. EotM will be the same no matter which server you are on. EotM does not count towards the leaderboards.

There has been several balance passes since HoT already. The professions and skills are balanced upon balanced upon balanced. There was even WvW specific balancing in April. You should feel exactly at equal level no matter which game mechanic or profession you use.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/updates/Game-Update-Notes-January-26-2016
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/updates/Game-Update-Notes-April-19-2016
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/updates/Game-Update-Notes-July-26-2016-1

The Last Stand feature will counter the added difficulty of catching up due the skirmishes. I hope. If only the multiplier is set high enough.

There is another way I would like to consider: punishing the skirmish losers by removing victory points.

Same scenario as above: The green team wins the first skirmishes of the matchup and the red team loses them all. This could continue up until Wednesday afternoon (56 skirmishes) and both red and blue still have a chance to win.

1-(-1)-(-1): Blue 56, red 56.

Both blue and red team would be at equal footing to catch up. All they need to do is win all remaining skirmishes.

It makes no difference whether the green team comes 2nd or 3rd, so no added difficulty there. Nor ganging up on the weakest team to secure the second place.

Sphinx.8014:

PseudoNewb.5468:

If the skirmishes are the only source of points, then
4,3,2
3,2,1
2,1,0
Each and all will results in the same exact placement results all the time. The differential between scores are the same in each situation, and the differentials in score is what determines 1st 2nd and 3rd. It has psychological differences, but the are in reality the same.

The winner of a match won’t change very often with the new scoring, that’s not the point of it though. However, there is a huge difference between 4-3-2, 3-2-1 and 2-1-0.

4-3-2: 1st place gets twice the points of the 3rd place. Creates mild gaps.
3-2-1: 1st place gets three times the points of the 3rd place. Creates medium gaps
2-1-0. 1st place gets infinite times the points of the 3rd place. This creates huge gaps and can completely unbalance otherwise balanced mathups.

I’m with PseudoNewb on this one.

One advantage of the victory points is that the awards are easy to adjust. Tweaking the war score components (kills/bloodlust/sentries/dolyaks/objectives) is a lot harder.

With the old war score system any team could (in theory) kill 50000 enemies in the last tick and steal the matchup victory.

Let’s look at a scenario where the green team wins all skirmishes at the beginning of the matchup. Red loses them all. How far into the matchup this can continue until the losing teams no longer have chance to win?

3-2-1: Blue team: 56 skirmishes. Red team: 42 skirmishes.

With the 3-2-1 victory points system the blue team could lose (2nd place) 56 skirmishes to the green team and still be able to win the matchup. Green team would have to be at the 3rd place in all remaining skirmishes.

If the green team won the first 57 skirmishes, then the victory points after Wednesday afternoon would be irrelevant.

Running the numbers for different skirmish victory points awards:

3-2-1: Blue 56, red 42.
4-3-2: Blue 56, red 42.
2-1-0: Blue 56, red 42.
10-9-8: Blue 56, red 42.
2-1-1: Blue 42, red 42.
1-0-0: Blue 42, red 42.
1-1-0: Blue 84 (*), red 28.

(*) In the last scenario the green team would tie with blue and win the matchup by war score difference.

It may be surprising that while 4-3-2 yields closer victory points totals (thanks Rink), it is still just as difficult to catch up as with 3-2-1.

Maybe there is some psychological factor favoring 4-3-2, but that’s impossible to calculate.

We should focus on the goals Tyler Bearce set in Let’s Talk Scoring post:

Benefits

• Winning a Skirmish by a small margin, or a large margin, awards the same number of victory points.
• This keeps the winning and losing scores closer together, allowing the losing worlds a fighting chance
• Teams will still want to win as many time slices as possible, off-hours coverage is still important, but less dominant

I’m really worried about the second bullet here.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Let-s-Talk-Scoring/first#post6145749

No. If there was a WvW pass, players would use it for bandwagoning.

PvE players can easily afford to pay the 500 gems to transfer to a medium population server.

Or you could ask ANet to rollback the megaservers feature and we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place. Good luck with that.

WvW Rank = The amount of time you have walked behind a blue dorito and auto-attacked the NPCs on EotM.

Why would you want to show that?

Population imbalance is the number one issue in WvW. Fix it and the game mode will become greatly more attractive.

Quoting myself:

First fix the population balance and everything else will fall into place effortlessly:

• With equal populations the servers will perform somewhat equal. Only skill, luck and politics decide the matchup winner.
• Then matchup winner can rewarded which brings out ebb and flow of 3-way warfare. Less lopsided, stagnant matchups.
• Instead of measuring coverage Glicko rating would measure skill (+luck+politics). The leaderboard would then be something to brag about.
• A server can be matched up against (almost) any other servers and still have a meaningful matchup. More variation.

Unfortunately I do not have any solution to fix it. I have been reading these forums for suggestions, made some myself, but they all fall short. Server linking is not the solution either.

Here is a list of solutions to fix population imbalance. None of which is very appealing. Just search the forums and read up the naysayer’s comments why.

• Longer queues
  • Less maps per matchup
  • Lower quota per map
  • Equal numbers only access (with auto-kicks)
• Forced migration
  • Server linking
  • Server merges
  • One way transfers
• Handicaps
  • Super soldiers
  • PvE units/elements/loot
• Score bias
• Replace WvW game mode by something else
  • Asymmetric game mode (Diku’s globes)
  • EotM game mode (factions)

ThomasC.1056:

The highest tier your objective is, the biggest its area is. Then, points would be calculated as a function of area units a server owns.

Somewhat simpler version of such system is already being worked on.

Upgraded Objectives Score Higher

• Each tier of objective upgrade increases the amount of score per tick
• The goal is to incentivize defending your upgraded objectives and assaulting opposing upgraded objectives

Source: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Let-s-Talk-Scoring

Yuffi.2430:

1. Will DBL now have way points that are open for whoever caps the keep (like Alpine) or will will there be the previous system where the WP belongs to the nearest spawning server?

2. Is bloodlust being added to Desert BL or removed from Alpine?

3. Are the PvE type mobs being reworked to be similar in number and strength between the BLs? (Or even removed?!).

1. Yes, available as an upgrade for any team holding the objective. The following release note applied to DBL as ABL got back into play 2016-05-03.

WvW—GENERAL

• Keep waypoints have been changed to be part of the upgrade system rather than being automatically available to one team.

Source: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/updates/Game-Update-Notes-April-19-2016

2. No info available. I would guess there will be bloodlust only for 2 teams at a time, which forces roamers to fight over it.

3. The number of ambient creatures got halved on ABL and EB but not on DBL. As I remember it, there weren’t that many creatures on DBL anyway.

WORLD VS. WORLD
Eternal Battlegrounds

• Halved the number of ambient creatures (deer, drakes, wolves, etc.).

Alpine Borderlands

• Halved the number of ambient creatures (deer, drakes, wolves, etc.).

Source: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/updates/Game-Update-Notes-May-3-2016

stephanie wise.7841:

also some want the new dbl map why not add them as extra map to play?

it would spread more player across map and would lower the lag on each map, less blob fest.

The lower tier matchups can only populate EB and 1 borderland map during prime time. I’d rather had less maps.

The blob fests and queues are a problem created by players transferring to only same few servers.

Svarty.8019:

LetoII.3782:

Svarty.8019:

Dawdler.8521:

Svarty.8019:

• Arenanet develop the ability to measure who is first, who is second and who is third (at the moment) in the match.

Requires too much complicated math, sorry.

You know what? You’re probably right!

LetoII.3782:

Supply isn’t really the problem when doing 50v5 keep defense

Supply isn’t the only option, but it is a logical start point. It’s possible that other bonuses could be added to the third place side.

… and to be frank 50 should really win vs 5 anyway.

You say that like they don’t.
More supply won’t help population imbalance

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you.

I am of the opinion that although Siegeraiser was a well-intentioned effort, I’d like to see a LOT more of that sort of thing. The cheapest way of doing this is to measure the positions at a point in time and hand out bonuses to whoever is losing.

If handicaps are handed out, how do you adjust Glicko at the end? Surely the weak server doesn’t deserve all the warscore it got with the handicap.

I think handicaps are doing the balancing all backwards. First fix the population balance and everything else will fall into place effortlessly:

• With equal populations the servers will perform somewhat equal. Only skill, luck and politics decide the matchup winner.
• Then matchup winner can rewarded which brings out ebb and flow of 3-way warfare. Less lopsided, stagnant matchups.
• Instead of measuring coverage Glicko rating would measure skill (+luck+politics). The leaderboard would then be something to brag about.
• A server can be matched up against (almost) any other servers and still have a meaningful matchup. More variation.

How to fix the populations? I don’t have a clue. Forced migration is probably not going to be popular. I felt the server linking was a clever attempt but it fell short.

Svarty.8019:

Korgov.7645:

Should the feature be rolled back?
Yes.

Come up with a better solution to repair damaged cannons/oil/mortars. (hint: siege weapons regenerate health while the objective is not contested)

Repair Hammers aren’t worth all the [time and effort (both from devs and players)], supply, gold and soon badges.

I mean, what’s the point? The logistics of supply in WvW are already often problematic.
Perhaps this element of the cost might be significantly reduced?

Exactly! Repair Hammers are a waste of everybody’s time.

Spending more development to determine the correct supply cost cannot be justified.

The only reason Repair Hammers were proposed was because the development was already complete and making polls, typing release notes, merging code branches and bug fixing, handling feedback, etc. are not away from the real development (Scoring changes). I wonder though…

The whole point of 3-way fight is that you get the two losing teams ganging up on the winning team. When the top team gets beaten down, the balance and focus shifts against the next winning team. This actually makes the matchups balanced and bustling with activity.

Unfortunately this does not happen in GW2 WvW. The problem is that there is no reward for winning a matchup – nothing to fight for. The only thing the teams can fight for is better Glicko rating, and the system can reward not only the winner but also the second and sometimes even the third team in the matchup. The two strongest teams often gang up against the weakest in order to secure easy points which results in lopsided matchups.

So.. a week of Repair Hammers in. My initial conserns about upsetting the balance did not realize. In fact the Repair Hammers did not have any effect (good or bad) in my matchups.

Does the Repair Hammers make WvW better?
Ever so slightly, yes.

Ability to repair damaged cannons/oil/mortars is for the good. We didn’t have this before.

This is outweighted by the ability to repair golems which is bad for the game. Sometimes accumulating damage over several assaults is the only way to fight them and Repair Hammers nullify this tactic.

User experience?
In general Repair Hammers feel awkward to use and overly complicated for the little they do for the game.

Cons

• Costs BoHs and silver
• Consumable
• Requires inventory slot
• Requires opening inventory, double clicking the item and pressing skill 1 to use
• Unequip button instead of put back to inventory skill (destroy vs cancel)
• Cast bar is as poorly implemented as all other siege cast bars
• Auto-targetting instead of allowing player to choose what siege to repair
• Auto-unequip and destroy the hammer when entering water in ABL bay keep
• Not being able to repair siege that is being used (this is good for game balance, bad for usability)
• Uses skill 1 instead of F-key to spend supplies
• As much fun as refreshing siege

Pros

• You can move around and even resupply while holding the Repair Hammer
• There is an AoE indicator showing the area where your repairs will take effect when you channel the skill
• Repair skill can be channeled multiple times

Should the feature be rolled back?
Yes.

Come up with a better solution to repair damaged cannons/oil/mortars. (hint: siege weapons regenerate health while the objective is not contested)

The GW2 Wiki still has the misspelt name for the camp:
https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Champion's_Demense

Gudradain.3892:

Straegen.2938:

Scoring isn’t the problem, scoring is the symptom of a problem. They can jack around with how points are calculated all day long but it won’t change population and coverage issues which are the actual problems.

According to me, the only way to fix the coverage issue is to get rid of the 24/7 aspect of WvW.

This essentially means that you would battle different opponents depending on the time of the day.

Would you be fine with that?

No, I would not. Even my small guild has members playing at different times of day. Putting members in different instances would erode the fellowship.

WXP = warscore system would not work.

Problem number 1: WXP is gained in EotM. A server can place unlimited number of players in EotM.

• Possible solution: Remove WXP from EotM. Simple enough. EotM players would not complain, would they?

Problem number 2: Players do not get WXP for defending nor preventing capture nor disabling siege nor securing supply lines nor holding objectives nor reviving lord nor scouting nor building and refreshing defensive siege nor playing out defensive tactics. WvW would turn into EotM where nobody bothers to defend anything. All objectives held would be only seen as opportunities for the enemies to gain WXP.

• Possible solution: Reward listed activities (and more) by WXP. However ANet has been trying to do this for years with no success.

There is only 1 rare scenario where the Repair Hammers have a positive effect on the game. Here is the scenario:

• Enemy roamer attacks outer cannon/oil/mokittenuring quiet hours.
• The siege is taken to 1% and not completely destroyed.
• Defenders are not able to repair nor rebuild the siege.
• At the beginning of prime time the enemy zerg attacks the keep and can remove the outer siege at an instant.

Has anyone seen this scenario take place and successfully countered it with Repair Hammers? Anyone at all? I haven’t.

Even this one minor issue could be better addressed by for example allowing cannons/oil/mortar regenerate while the objective is not contested.

Were EotM players allowed to vote on trying the Repair Hammers? They are not WvW players.

The only two components our guild’s scribe is in short supply are Badges of Tribute and Flax Fibers. The former is available from playing WvW and I have no argument on that.

The problem is Flax Fibers which are only available (in sufficient quantities) in PvE. This needs to change. Either make them available in WvW (loot tables, reward track, whatever) or remove them from Scribing; whichever is easier.

ANet has been fully aware of the problem by creating special farm areas for Flax Fibers in PvE zones.

Many players have their alt characters permanently parked in those areas. They play each character few mins per day only to harvest these areas. Is this engaging and fun content? Don’t the PvE designers have any pride in their work?

As result those players who refuse host farm alts are forced to make gold transfers via trading post. Why do WvW players have to finance PvE farmers?

Bridget Morrigan.1752:

Some WXP for renewing siege, but only if under a certain threshold.

A visual pulsing indicator on siege that is about to expire that’s visible without you having to click on the object. This should correspond to when the WXP is available.

Refreshing siege is not fun. I would rather remove the whole concept from WvW.

For example remove the need to refresh siege:

• Decay timers are not resettable nor deferrable
• Siege weapons built within friendly towers/keeps/castle do not have decay timers
• Siege weapons built elsewhere have 1 hour decay timer; flame rams have 15 min decay timer as before
• Golems have 1 hour decay timer regardless where they are built
• If an objective is captured the newly hostile siege within that do not have a timer yet all receive 15 min decay timer
• Add Self-Destruct skill on siege to get rid of troll siege pushing region/map limits
  • Available for siege that do not have a decay timer
  • Available for members of the guild that has the objective claimed

Or for example remove the need to build defensive siege in advance:

• Decay timers are not resettable nor deferrable
• Siege weapons built within friendly objectives have reduced supply cost (only 1/4 supplies needed)
• Golems’ supply cost is the same regardless where they are built

Or at least make refreshing a whole lot easier. For example:

• Display the lowest friendly siege decay timer on the objective’s details window
• Add Refresh Siege option for tower/keep/castle lord dialog
  • The option refreshes decay timers of all siege within the objective

Infusions

• The infusions system got whole lot more complicated from WvW point of view
• Turned WvW into pay-to-win by locking extra 20 combat stats on rings behind expansion purchase
• WvW players are now required to grind Fractals for weeks for the best-in-slot rings/backpack
• There is no WvW enrichments in the game
• WvW Laurel Merchant sells duplicate stat amulets
• WvW Laurel Merchant sold duplicate stats rings and accessories are needlessly branded unique

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Korgov.7645:

I would like the extra ring infusion slots made available to base players, duplicate amulets removed, and all infusions slots accessible by WvW currencies.

• Infusion slots can already be filled with any infusion.
• Stat+5 infusions are available for WvW currencies (+7 and +9 aren’t…yet).
• Extra infusion slots are available via the first tier of Fractal Attunement Mastery. None of them require fractal currencies.

The continued existence of same-name|different-stat amulets, rings, and accessories seems to be an oversight, that will eventually be fixed (probably).

So everything that you want is already in the game, except that infused rings|backs and attuned rings are gated behind the expansion, which is just as reasonable (or unreasonable) as gating specializations and the revenant.

To infuse a ring requires 750 Fractal Relics. You can only have attuned (2-slot) rings without grinding Fractals for weeks.

Edit: As you already mentioned the expansion is pay-to-win even when the player doesn’t use revenant or elite specializations.

Link.1049:

Maybe they could introduce a mechanic that only allows so many people from each side into an objective area? Like no more than 5 or 10 at a time in a camp, 10-20 in a tower, 50 in SMC or keep?

What exactly would that solve? Give some examples.

We have a queue system in place for each map. It basically prevents some players playing where they want. In theory we have EotM where players can wait out the queue. ANet has removed crafting stations from the borderlands because some PvE players were adding to the queues. You should address such issues.

If you try to achieve some kind of structured PvP area, there is sPvP just for that. Small maps, simpleton mechanics, limited gear, predictable encounters, etc. Big yawn. Nothing like the chaos and player created content we have in WvW.

But first change PPK to points-per-finisher.

Jeknar.6184:

Since we’re talking about fractals, we could use having Infusion Extractors not blocked behind the Fractal mastery. It prevent all base game players from being able to remove Infusions from their rings without destroying them.

That would be great.

Another thing that bothers me with the infusions change is that HoT owners can have 20 more combat stats over base players. As if the elite specializations were not unbalanced enough. They did say in the patch notes balance reasons guided them, but I suspect they didn’t consider WvW at all.

Further the WvW Laurel Merchant sells duplicate amulets for each stat combo. E.g.

• Thackeray Family Crest
• Mark_of_the_Imperial_Guard

I would like the extra ring infusion slots made available to base players, duplicate amulets removed, and all infusions slots accessible by WvW currencies.

Straegen.2938:

Yes and the hundred or so more items that should be in there but aren’t… since we asking for items we will probably never get… how about the ability to save it out.

Player to combat log: What killed me?
Combat log: I don’t know… why can’t you figure it out?

I remember there was an external tool which allowed you to save the combat log into a file. The tool scans pixels on your screen, locates the combat log and converts the pixels into text. It included an overlay for damage meters. The whole thing looked overly complicated and I never bothered to install it.

• Remove camera spin/repositioning when using siege

For example I want to refresh dozen siege weapons in a keep. I run on a wall with some arrow carts on it. The camera is facing camera along the wall. When I use an arrow cart the camera spins uncontrollably towards the direction the arrow cart is facing. When I leave the arrow cart I have to re-orient the camera back to original direction. Repeating this dozen of times is frustrating.

For example I want to use trebuchet against attackers at gate. The trebuchet is placed close to a wall. When I start to use the trebuchet the camera is moved uncontrollably inside a wall preventing me to see anything.

Nethod.7068:

I would like to see a damage recap pie chart

Condition damage dealt %
Power damage dealt %
Damage from Misc (IE Resistance/Feedback) %
And a CC tracker saying how many times stunned/daze/ect

edit: …that I could just put on the screen and it auto-updates itself when combat starts and ends, visually displaying the damage taken in real time.

That would be great a feature. You would not even need to wade through combat log entries in many cases.

Tossing another idea:

• Instant replay camera after death.
  • Plays back last 20 seconds prior death in slow motion.
  • Augmented floating combat text shows what skills you used and what skills affected you.
  • Options to hide augmented combat log texts or entire UI and to control replay speed.
  • Can saved as a video file or shared over social media.

Jeknar.6184:

Neftex.7594:

1) the combat log sometimes doesnt log everything (got hit by 19k coalescence some time ago, wasnt even shown in combat log)

2) those filters arent enough, lets say i want to find everything that hit more than 5k or damage dealt to 1 particular enemy etc.

Ok, now we making progress, you finally said exactly what you want. That’s how you make suggestions.

Hear, hear.

Some use cases could also help improving the combat log or perhaps to implement alternative method of achieving the goals.

For example:

• As a player I want to know what damage sources contributed to my last death so that I know to pay attention to those in future.
• As a mesmer I want to know how much damage my iWarlock did so that I can either shatter him earlier as useless thing he is or keep him about and let him win fights for me.

A combat log might not be the best solution for the above use cases.

INFUSIONS AND INFUSION SLOTS
With the Infusion system being unnecessarily complex for what it does, we’ve taken steps to simplify how infusions work and make acquiring them far more straightforward.
First off, we removed most of the restrictions on which kind of infusion you can place into each kind of equipment. For balance reasons, we had to keep utility infusions and amulets separate, but all other types of infusions can now be slotted into any kind of ascended equipment.

Source: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/updates/Game-Update-Notes-July-26-2016-1

How to get a best-in-slot ring for WvW?

Before: Buy the ascended ring from WvW Laurel Vendor.
After: Buy the ring as before, then attune and infuse the ring in Mystic Force. You can have max 3 infusion slots on a ring. Simpler, eh? See how-to’s below.

How to get 2-slot ring?

In short: Use Mystic Forge to attune your existing ascended ring.
Estimated time in PvE: 4 hours

1. Buy Heart of Thorns
2. Complete Torn from the Sky story
3. Master the Agony Channeler
4. Buy +1 Agony Infusion from the Trading Post
5. Enter Fractals of the Mists lobby
6. Buy Agonized Essence from INFUZ-5959 vendor
7. Buy Infusion Extraction Device from INFUZ-5959 vendor
8. Extract infusion from the ring you are about to attune (Mystic Forge would destroy the infusion)
9. Buy Philosopher’s Stones from Mystic Forge Attendent vendor
10. Attune the ring in Mystic Forge
11. Re-apply the infusion you extracted prior forging

How to get 3-slot ring?

In short: Use Mystic Forge to infuse your existing attuned ascended ring.
Estimated time in PvE: I leave it to someone who is actually willing suffer the crap that is PvE to measure.

1. Acquire 750 Fractal Relics
2. Enter Fractals of the Mists lobby
3. Buy Shard of Crystallized Mists Essence from INFUZ-5959 vendor for 300 Fractal Relics
4. Buy 3 Glob of Coagulated Mists Essences from INFUZ-5959 vendor for 3*100 Fractal Relics
5. Buy 5 Vial of Condensed Mists Essences from INFUZ-5959 vendor for 5*30 Fractal Relics
6. Buy Infusion Extraction Device from INFUZ-5959 vendor
7. Extract infusion from the ring you are about to infuse (Mystic Forge would destroy the infusion)
8. Infuse the attuned ring in Mystic Forge
9. Re-apply the infusion you extracted prior forging

Edit: Added Fractal Relic prices of the mists essences.

Justine.6351:

Korgov.7645:

If they were serious about WvW they would introduce WvW Enrichments at the WvW Laurel vendor ASAP.

Brainstorming what the effects could be:

• Allows you to carry 5 more supplies (Legionnaire’s Enrichment)
• Deploy a superior quality siege build site when you deploy normal siege. If you deploy a superior quality or a guild blueprint the supply cost to build is reduced to normal siege level. (Commander’s Enrichment)
• Gain extra point of war score when you kill an enemy (Grunt’s Enrichment)
• Afflict Marked on all enemys within 600 radius (Scout’s Enrichment)

great idea!
*How about +25stacks of vulnerability to anything you call target on?
*How about weapons do +1000 dmg to doors AND walls?
*How about enemies who strike you take 10 stacks of burning for 5min?

The WvW enrichments should meet 2 criteria:

1. No combat bonuses
2. Usable in WvW context only

That way they would not affect other game modes, nor cause power creep and saltiness among players.

That extra damage on gates and walls would allow zergs to dig their way through keep walls without building any siege.

Though I am somewhat inclined to propose the following :P

• Upon entering Fractals you instantly take away all the loot and rewards from the entire instance for yourself – including other party members’. (WvW-Strikes-Back Enrichment)

If they were serious about WvW they would introduce WvW Enrichments at the WvW Laurel vendor ASAP.

Brainstorming what the effects could be:

• Allows you to carry 5 more supplies (Legionnaire’s Enrichment)
• Deploy a superior quality siege build site when you deploy normal siege. If you deploy a superior quality or a guild blueprint the supply cost to build is reduced to normal siege level. (Commander’s Enrichment)
• Gain extra point of war score when you kill an enemy (Grunt’s Enrichment)
• Afflict Marked on all enemys within 600 radius (Scout’s Enrichment)

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

From the OOS AMA by the devs:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4uqx15/out_of_the_shadows_devs_here_ask_us_anything/d5s3q7s

Q: …is there a specific reason the amulet infusion slot has been replaced with the enrichment slot instead of just… well, having two slots? I have to get a bit more AR for 14 characters now, which is quite the hassle, just because the amulet slot is gone. Was it a technical limitation you didn’t get around reasonably or was it simply a choice?

Developer response:

A: It was a systemic limitation.

With the change to infusion slots which let players place any Infusion into any Slot, we couldn’t keep both kinds of amulets.

[it] actually takes fewer +1 Agony Infusions to get 150 AR post-patch. To get 150 AR now, you only need to make 12 +8s and 6 +9s. You don’t need +11s or +10s anymore.

If you currently have a set of +11s and +10s, you can take those to the new vendor in the Mistlock Observatory to break them down into +9s and +8s. Once you’re down breaking them down, you should have enough Infusions to get 150 AR and still have 2 +9s left over.

---

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4uqx15/out_of_the_shadows_devs_here_ask_us_anything/d5s372q

Q: Is there any way to add a WvW Infusion refunder for laurels since the new infusions slots now allow for any type of infusion, the defensive infusions are pretty useless now.

And the dev response:

A: No plans for that. Those infusions are still functional, even if they’re not meta, and refunding laurels is tricky because those can convert to gold.

Thanks, Illconceived. This answers the question and at the same time makes my heart sink. A systemic (it that even a word?) limitation prevented the developers to implement the desired solution and WvW players were selected to take one for the PvE player base.

Still missing a response. Come to think of it, none of the possible answers is appealing.

1. It was an oversight. Oops, sorry. The game is just too complex to get any changes in without iteration.
2. The developers have carefully evaluated the feature from WvW point of view and this feature actually makes things simpler in WvW context.
3. PvE developers didn’t like how their Golem Rush/Repair Hammer/Cannon Blueprints/Vertical Design ideas were received and now they’re are taking a kitten on WvW players.
4. Fractals has the priority and whatever makes the Fractals tick better can trample lesser game modes, like WvW.

Sorry for the bitter tone. Maybe there is a perfectly good answer around the corner.

HazyDaisy.4107:

How often do you use Utility infusions in wvw?

Never. And that’s the point really. The WvW amulets used to have defensive or offensive infusion slot.

Add to the insult no enrichment infusions were added to the WvW laurel vendor.