Guild Wars 2

This is another one of those “change PPT” threads. Right now, PPT is worth X value for the life of that objective at that tiering. You hold an objective of a certain tiering, that value will never change, e.g. you hold SMC at T3, you’ll always get 30 PPT until you lose SMC.

What I’d like to suggest is a decay of that value where by if you hold an objective at T3 for N period, the value drops by Y. E.g. standard PPT increase from SMC T0 (12 PPT) to T3 (30 PPT). After a hypothetical 45 minutes of holding SMC at T3, PPT falls to 28. And if you want to take it further, PPT could fall even more over time until some defined baseline is reached.

The defined ‘baseline’ may still be worth more than the next level down objective, so SMC at T3 may never go below 21 PPT at the current PPT schedule.

If the ‘baseline’ is +1 PPT of the T2 PPT value, Camp PPT may need to be adjusted since those are currently 2, 3, 4, 5 depending on tiering. One thought might be to adjust Camp PPT to 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 with a decay to 5.

This would allow servers not as focused on PPT to narrow the score gap somewhat during a skirmish.

Thoughts? Too complex? Dumb idea? Would NSP hate it?

Bring back CD+AR+KN+ET

I prefer 3-2-1 over 2-1-1 (though I’m not sure I’m really fond of the skirmish system at all, besides saying “our guild won that match”). In tier 4, 2v1 just doesn’t happen. There’s no collaboration or even implicit collaboration between 2nd and 3rd place. Instead, 1st and 2nd place just goes after 3rd place. This allows 2nd place to gain easy PPT and easier PPK without losing anything to 1st place, potentially allowing them to win the skirmish. And of course, 1st place does the same to 3rd place for the same reason.

To provide an example from last night, CD was in SBI’s tier 3 SMC inner last night. We were doing quite well against SBI and simply wanted to cap for the sake of papering SMC — we have zero expectations that we will hold onto SMC for a long period of time due to our overnight coverage. DB decided to enter SMC, and we were hoping they might cap as we were on the 2nd floor fighting. And who comes up the ramp? DB. While we wiped them, it didn’t make sense for DB to come after us, they should have worked on lord and only fought CD if CD came back down to lord. Eventually CD capped SMC. Again, this is the 2nd place server (DB) going after 3rd place (CD) — not the goal of the current 2-1-1 system.

There’s zero incentive for 2nd and 3rd place servers to go after 1st place; the 3rd place server still won’t ‘win’ that skirmish, significant effort for zero gain. 1st place is 1st place for the most likely reasons of coverage and map population.

With 3-2-1, it provides 3rd place an opportunity to elevate to at least 2nd place without having to fight 1st place for the entire skirmish.

I can see 2-1-1 being preferred by Tier 1, where they collaborate (or sometimes ‘server leaders’/commanders beg) to keep all three servers in Tier 1/1.5. But for the lower tiers, I don’t think 2-1-1 provides any benefit.

T4 encounters skill lag, and those aren’t high pop servers. Just takes 2 groups of 30+/ea in SMC to encounter it.

I get why skill lag exists — not only does the server have to process it for each player (probably in the form of a queue system), it needs to communicate each of those skills with each client. With that many clients in close proximity, skill lag is likely going to go unresolved.

So while these servers might be Cyrix 6×86MX-PR166 with 1GB RAM running on Windows 95 OSR2, there’s more to it than simply upgrading hardware. The devs should take inspiration from high speed trading, but then again, if a dev has that skillset, you’d probably go work for a financial company involved in high speed trading :-) (or Microsoft).

1) Skill lag
2) Map load screen bug
3) Make SoI change PvP-only
4) Less ACs
5) PvP-like rewards

I was personally on KN at the time and was thrown into a TC pairing in T1. That lasted all of 3 days before I transferred to CD (nothing like a commander doing the same thing 5 times in a row being rolled by BG each time, then blaming her pugs for it). I believe at that time CD was in T3 though within the next one to two weeks of being a 3 server matchup, CD went back to T4.

I don’t recall which servers CD was paired with when we were in T3.

With 4 servers it was so easy to just faceroll anything we were up against.

They lied to you. They’re transferring to CD because CD has such a high population, it’s only a matter of time before it’s T1.

Crystal Desert, according to ANet, has a higher population than Blackgate. With that in mind, we’re on our way to Tier 1! All we need is great commanders who can work with pick up groups and help them succeed. And we want you to succeed with the awesomeness that is Crystal Desert!

In order of needs, CD is looking for:

1) EU coverage. Our coverage here is poor to near non-existent. This is where CD struggles to maintain anything that was capped in the SEA/OCX timeframe. This timeframe would get preferential treatment with regards to guild transfers.

2) Additional commanders in NA and SEA/OCX Prime time. While our NA Prime coverage is excellent for one, perhaps two maps, we could benefit some more. SEA/OCX coverage could use improvement on BLs or where cross-map is required.

3) Early NA Prime (around 2 – 4:30 PM PST) could use an additional commander. We typically have the pugs around, but not many commanders to lead them to victory.

CD has it’s own TS and forums. Guilds who transfer may be eligible for their own channel in CD TS.

With the exception of EBG reset, queues are often low to none at all. Perfect for starting a new guild, or for those sick of the long queue times in T1 and T2.

There’s lots of room for varied play style. Plenty of fights to be had in Tier 4 (except when YB transfers down, they don’t like to fight), and roaming/havok’ing is quite alive if that’s your thing. Then again, if you want to just stick on siege and make callouts when the enemy zerg is at the gate, that’s cool too.

So come on down to Tier 4. CD needs you!

Make CD DVD Again

Enjoy the portal bombs, if it is anything like [TL]s bombs, they’re almost always failures. When they portal, you just get bags by dumping all of your wells on top of it. No need to change portals.

CD really starts up around 3 PM PST or so daily (at the end of the EU coverage) all the way through the beginning of EU.

Can’t say I’ve seen it, but what I would suspect is DDoS mitigations happening at the edge network increasing latency, rather than the actual patch (the game binaries don’t need a patch because that is not where the DDoS is originating from).

Open a case with GW2 support. You’ll get the run-around, from blaming your graphics card, to your hard drive/ssd, to your network, or perhaps even your ISP, but open a case regardless and most importantly, keep pushing. Ask to escalate. Until this issue gets critical mass with enough people complaining, linking to multiple threads about the same issues, ANet CS will not file a bug with the developers for the developers to take a look at it. Here are a list of reference threads you can include with your ticket. Some of these also reference the ‘disappearing’ NPC/character bug(s), but they usually go hand-in-hand with the long waypointing.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/WvW-Character-Displaying-Load-Bug/first
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/WvW-Stuck-in-Loading-Screen-Bug
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/Loading-Screen-Issues-WvW
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/Serious-Problem-Getting-Worse-Spreading
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/Character-Model-Disappears-after-Transform
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/NPC-s-turn-invisible
https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4gwha0/npcs_turn_invisible/
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/WvW-Character-Displaying-Load-Bug

CD v. World. CD biglyist server.

I would vote “no” on this idea. For one, I like who I play with on my existing server quite a bit, and this has potential to bring about external fragmentation (that is, fragmentation introduced by ANet and not by choice). Second, the population doesn’t need to be balanced across more servers, but rather balanced within WvW, even if that causes 4+ server blobs. I’d like to see a system where the worlds were linked based on the population of the previous link during the world’s average peak time. If we peak in NA prime, pair it with other smaller worlds that peak WvW activity during NA prime to get as close to 100% as possible — or alternatively, pair smaller worlds with a ‘host’ servers non-peak time, and for CD that would be any timezone but NA prime, to bring about a more round-the-clock coverage.

What I do not like about the current system is that the population is simply based off of who could potentially log into WvW, and not who actually logs into WvW.

That said, outside of prime time coverage, T4 is a lot of fun as-is with the links. We lose some and win some. Our server pairings have generally been with nearly unpopulated servers, WvW-wise, which isn’t the best, but it hasn’t stopped us from having fun and being semi-competitive.

I like 2, as it has the possibility of driving people towards a particular guild should they see a lot of action from that guild within the timeframe. This should be balanced towards the commander, though. If a commander is driving a squad, capturing an objective, the commander’s guild should receive a weighted “score” for being named the guild that contributed the most. Many commanders in T4 do command with guildies, but we often pick up an even more significant number of pugs (which can sometimes make up more than 60% of the squad). Otherwise, I’d go for Option 1.

Ultima.5318:

Lapiy.7160:

Here’s a recording from a reset during the SF link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewmeiALA6Vc totally CD and not SF’s NA running away from fights and dying alot to make our K/D bad am I right?

OMG LOOK AT ME I CAN FARM BODIES IN EBG!!!! IM SO PRO

With a map chat commander who uses turn signals XD

That’s so toxic!

We actually do not hate KOTA at all. We played with, and enjoyed playing with KOTA. Honestly, I wish we were still linked with SF.

We’ll do our best to KOTA STACK! until we relink. We’ll be honored to watch THE BEST KOTA STACK at that point in [TIME]. o7

Ultima.5318:

Followed you around for 30-45 mins one night and all you did was cap a camp and kept telling guildies to “KOTA STACK”

LOL that sounds like something we would do. Just remember when you see us on the battlefield again….

KOTA STACK!

Report it as a bug. The more people report it, the more likely it will get the attention of devs (maybe).

Reticle, crosshairs, inverse triangle, whatever you want to call it… I’d love to be able to change the color. In WvW zergs, often you encounter a sea of red where your red targeting reticle/crosshair/inverse triangle just gets lost. Allowing us to set it to any RBG value would increase the visibility of the reticle considerably.

Thieves. Just outright hate them, especially those who gank in front of keeps or the spawn point.

Boon stripping doesn’t effectively work. I use it on my chrono, often targeting the commander. The boons almost immediately pop right back on the commander. The best I can do is strip then share, but it doesn’t hurt the opposing player, it only helps friendlies around me.

As someone who played on CD (KN, actually), the CD + DH fight was completely unfair to DH. It was a faceroll. SF was somewhat more fair, but not by much. SF was best at simply defending their keep using siege, but not much else. Even night capping went in CD’s favor.

Now that CD is in T3, we’ve either got fair-weather WvW players so our participation has dropped off, or we’re just not quite good enough for T3, I’m not sure which (although last weeks score was close, this week looks to be a blow out).

Regarding SoS/YB vs. CD, I’ve seen it. I have a video of it. YB held SMC and briefly before the reset last week, CD grabbed it (I believe we lost it again just before reset). We owned (mostly) the south corridor. We fought YB in the NW corridor and SoS in the NE corridor. Did YB/SoS fight each other? Nope.

I’ve also seen, but don’t have a video for, YB and SoS grabbing the CD towers on either side of the CD EBG keep.

If it isn’t coordinated, they’re certainly making it strongly feel like it is.

This seems similar to a bug I posted at https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/Poor-Performance-When-Client-Reaches-3-5GB/.

And that’s the feedback I’m looking for, much appreciated. And not the most uh sensible build, but it has worked just fine for PvE so I didn’t see the point in changing it.

Build:

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vNUQJATWnUqAtCiFsAmsActgFCBbZHEAqawh1zab9p3t7ydlI9zA-TlUAQByQDhh0E0FlEfSFEGpDICmgSoKBcRpEO2foIqQ8KlBE4SAkElIA4ABmIKoaAERVhu9EAilSwAAIA38m5bbGIYyG6QnZbGA-w

Here’s generally how I play:

Generally ‘front line’ with cmdr until zerg contact. Often on rams, or near rams when not lighting up a wall with 5.

Often using speed (skill, Staff skill 3 (10 s CD) when in the open, especially without others for support. often use Staff skill 3 when intermixed with enemy to move quickly outside of a blob/to cmdr. Staff 4 and 5 are really only used for getting away, firing up skill 5 behind, then skill 4 directly behind.

For LB, Skill 8 + 9 then 5 for either putting AOE in a blob/painting a wall, or 8 + 9, 2 for blob (multi-target) or just to down someone quickly. LB 4 either when someone is too near, or when attempting to stop someone who is near down/stopping someone from completing a down. LB 3 I rarely use.

Skill 7 generally when just available, more or less often for taking down lords.

Skill 0 for when on top of cliffs/walls and preventing a pull, but outside of that almost never, with the exception of when skill 9 and Staff 3 are in CD and I need to get somewhere ASAP.

I’m happy with how I play, but, especially around the trinkets, runes, crystals, I’m not sure they’re appropriate for this kind of build and am looking for suggestions.

Agreed, it does ‘solve’ the problem, but it’s a poor workaround for a 64bit client. There seems to be some internal issues with how memory is handled within the client once you do approach 4GB VAS. It’s almost likely there’s little reason to use a 64bit client… (since 32bit processes on x64 receive up to 4GB VAS).

Specifications:
i7-2600
32GB RAM
Samsung 840 EVO (1TB)
nVidia 980
Win 10

I’m using the 64bit client, and after playing WvW for a few hours (probably closer to 5 or 6), the client reaches roughly 3.5 – 4.5GB of VAS used. At this point, the game starts to ‘hitch’ where there are full pauses in play, warping of characters, etc. The mobs stop loading completely (and if I use Strawberry Ghost, I disappear forever as well!), although I can see their name tag. Waypointing becomes an agonizingly long process (upwards of a minute or so). Skills stop showing their graphical effects, specifically Ancestral Grace just shows my Druid quickly running instead of turning into a wisp. Restarting the client “fixes” it.

Has anyone else seen this over an extended play time?