Guild Wars 2

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Hey everyone,

After reading through the comments and feedback, and some deliberation among the team – we have decided to adjust Crystal Desert by +300 for this match only, making them more likely to advance out of tier 4. Next week we will adjust them to +200.

Which poster(s) comments and feedback did this come from?

Extreme.8350:

Radian.2478:

Link.1049:

Can we reevaluate having arrow cart damaged nerfed? For the cost and the amount of supply it takes to build they should do more damage than an ele can do with their call down fire trick. A single elementalist is more effective spamming one button than 3 ac’s now.

One of the main reasons for arrow carts is the fact that it can hit up to 50 targets with its attack. Whether or not an ele does more damage than an arrow cart is entirely dependent on the amount of targets being hit.

Meteor shower can hit 72 targets.

This statement is not false.

Link.1049:

Can we reevaluate having arrow cart damaged nerfed? For the cost and the amount of supply it takes to build they should do more damage than an ele can do with their call down fire trick. A single elementalist is more effective spamming one button than 3 ac’s now.

One of the main reasons for arrow carts is the fact that it can hit up to 50 targets with its attack. Whether or not an ele does more damage than an arrow cart is entirely dependent on the amount of targets being hit.

Dawdler.8521:

Tier 5 mastery description: “5 Prevents damage from arrow cart fire to allies inside Force Dome”

But maybe not on siege as I said.

This will negate arrow cart damage to siege inside the force dome as well as siege users and non-siege users inside of the dome.

I am personally a believer that glicko should just be reset at the re-link. But if glicko isn’t going to be reset, then I think rating adjustments would be most sensible if done right at the re-linking. You could have a pre-determined rating that is given to each home server at the start of the next linking based on how well they did under the current linking. For example, the server that ended up with the highest rating under the current link will also start with the highest rating when re-linked.

right about to re-link
num 1 rated home server under current link = rating changed to 2000 at next re-link
num 2 rated home server under current link = rating changed to 1970 at next re-link
num 3 rated home server under current link = rating changed to 1940 at next re-link
num 4 rated home server under current link = rating changed to 1910 at next re-link
.
.
.
num 12 rated home server under current link = rating changed to 1670 at next re-link

What if I said that an Anet guild claim could actually harm the server of the guild claim? Lets say a guild plans on claiming a keep and is going to tactivate it and remove public tactic activation so that they can properly regulate the usage of the tactivators. Now lets say an Anet dev nabs it first and guild claims and has public tactic activation by default and then disappears. Now a different guild tactivates it. Next, someone starts trolling all of the tactivators and no one can do anything about it because of the public tactic activation. Now we have arrived to a situation where it actually would have been better if a different guild had guild claimed. Is this still favoritism by Anet?

IMO should have came up with a better argument for Anet showing favoritism like dropping 3000 omegas or something.

Your logic is very flawed. There are so many guilds out there who can guild claim with the max aura now. On top of that, we have servers linked so there’s even more guilds that can claim on each server. This literally makes no difference. If that keep wasn’t guild claimed by ArenaNet, there would very easily be a different guild that could have claimed it and it would still be guild claimed. In fact, I’d argue that just having WvW devs play on a particular server in the zerg makes a far bigger difference than them guild claiming. But from your original post, you don’t consider that favortism, but you consider guild claiming favortism. What about manning siege? Should Anet devs not be able to man siege? Let them play their game.

Tongku.5326:

Radian.2478:

My suggestion is

1) Glicko reset at each re-link
2) Change in the way server links are decided

Notice that a glicko reset has a huge downside which is that the first few weeks are predicted to have more one-sided matchups until the true server ratings are established.

Now for how to change the server linking algorithm such that glicko reset doesn’t screw over the first few matchups.

Run the following algorithm to decide the new server links:

Step 1) Select the 12 most populated servers to be host servers

Step 2) Generate all possible ways (combinations) to make the 12 server links such that all 12 host servers receive 0-2 additional servers linked to them.

Step 3) Choose the set of 12 server links that minimizes the standard deviation in the population of the 12 server links. For example, say you look at one possible way (combination) to decide the 12 server links. For each of the 12 server links, calculate the population (population of host server + population of guest servers). This gives you 12 different numbers. Take the standard deviation of that. Repeat this process, calculating the standard deviation in population for all combinations generated in step 2. Select the combination of 12 server links that ended up with the lowest standard deviation in population.

And there you have it. If you don’t like outliers, you can do steps 1 and 2 from above and then instead choose the combination of server links such that the most populated server link minus the least populated server link is minimized. Lastly, if you think that having more servers in a single link makes each individual server less effective (maybe poor communication or something), then you can always take off 5% from the calculated population for each additional server linked or something like that.

Half of what you propose was already done and failed.

The top population servers were linked with lowest pop servers, it didn’t work because their original populations still far outnumbered the linked pairs, while at the same time limiting overall playability for many of the low pop server people via queues etc.

So the top pop servers do not need any links whatsoever, hence you can’t have 12 hosts. The reason we have a 4 server link now is because A-Net tried to manually link servers based on collected data. Mind you, their data involves and is based on WVW activity rather then just sheer numbers.

However, for the rest of your post, there should be more movement and plain and simple manual intervention in match ups to allow movement far more responsive to bandwagoning and scenarios such as the current server links with 1 link being overwhelming to the others in its tier.

As long as mass server hopping and bandwagoning is allowed, there is simply and plainly no way for any algorithm to keep up, because those need hard, over time data to work and obtain averages.

So instead of coming up with some elaborate, time and labor consuming scheme of one sorts or another, just keep collecting data, then have a guy take 30 minutes and do the match ups based on the data, approve it by another 2-3 people, and you’re good to go.

I think that what you mentioned about going off WvW activity instead of WvW population is a better idea. My main concern is the current lack of degrees of freedom in choosing the server links. I felt that when you allow for each server to have 0-2 additional guests, you open up more opportunities for closer activity levels than when you require each server to have one partner (the set of rules used for the first server link). Maybe they have to also be open to having 4-6 tiers at each re-link and see which would give the best balance. When you add more degrees of freedom, there are more ways to have closer matchups. The down-side is that it’s harder to come up with a decision since there are so many options.

As far as lessening bandwagonning, I think they need to lock all servers after each re-link and then re-open them sometime in the middle of the matchup or towards the end. Maybe open them up with 2 or 3 weeks left in the matchup. The idea is for it to not be worth it to just bandwagon the day of the re-link. It should also not be worth it to bandwagon at any point in time only with the intention of doing it because of the current set of server links. I haven’t really thought a lot about what should be changed with server transfers very much though because that is something that helps fund ArenaNet and I don’t know what type of effect each idea regarding server transfers would have on the funding.

As for your bottom paragraph, ArenaNet may have done that for this re-link. I’m not sure though because I’m not an ArenaNet employee.

Famine.7915:

While on paper it may work, putting this into action is a different story. Say using this you do manage to get the most even balance of population possible, it still doesn’t take into account server performance. Some servers can do more with less while some servers can’t compete despite a higher population. Assuming a scenario like this happens (which is highly likely), that alone will throw off the matchups. Once again you will see higher population servers overwhelming a tier that they have dropped down to, or having a less populated server in a match they can no longer compete in.

So many more factors affect this outcome and all of this doesn’t even take into account ability of players to transfer or how frequently they do so.

I have always thought that the majority of the community wanted matchups to be decided by performance/skill more-so than the population gap. I felt this algorithm does that a tad better than the current one. I can see how servers that have a high percentage of pugs not competing well. I’d hope that they would meet at the bottom tier and vs other server combos like them.

My suggestion is

1) Glicko reset at each re-link
2) Change in the way server links are decided

Notice that a glicko reset has a huge downside which is that the first few weeks are predicted to have more one-sided matchups until the true server ratings are established.

Now for how to change the server linking algorithm such that glicko reset doesn’t screw over the first few matchups.

Run the following algorithm to decide the new server links:

Step 1) Select the 12 most populated servers to be host servers

Step 2) Generate all possible ways (combinations) to make the 12 server links such that all 12 host servers receive 0-2 additional servers linked to them.

Step 3) Choose the set of 12 server links that minimizes the standard deviation in the population of the 12 server links. For example, say you look at one possible way (combination) to decide the 12 server links. For each of the 12 server links, calculate the population (population of host server + population of guest servers). This gives you 12 different numbers. Take the standard deviation of that. Repeat this process, calculating the standard deviation in population for all combinations generated in step 2. Select the combination of 12 server links that ended up with the lowest standard deviation in population.

And there you have it. If you don’t like outliers, you can do steps 1 and 2 from above and then instead choose the combination of server links such that the most populated server link minus the least populated server link is minimized. Lastly, if you think that having more servers in a single link makes each individual server less effective (maybe poor communication or something), then you can always take off 5% from the calculated population for each additional server linked or something like that.

Deployable cannons would break wvw. Their effect on offense will be much more significant than an offensive ballista.

Basic balli with mastery:
Ballista: 45k hp
balli skill 1 dmg to siege: 16285
balli skill 3 dmg to siege: 32571

note: single target and 5+ players can stand in front of the siege to block the balli from hitting it

Cannon with mastery:
cannon hp: 74k
cannon skill 1 dmg to siege: 43642
cannon blast radius = 400

note: cannon armor rating is a lot higher than that of deployable siege. Basic balli with mastery = 8550 dps to deployable siege and 2840 dps to cannons (and oil).

Imagine going up top of the mendons hill, quentin lake hill, ogrewatch hill, klovan hill, NWT alpine BL hill, NWT desert bl hill, and building a cannon up top to cannon down all of the siege inside. Not only will it one-hit an AC, it has a 400 radius and can take out multiple AC’s with one shot.

Imagine an open field cannon in the middle of a wvw fight. This is just like an open field AC but the farther range makes it even more annoying.

Cannons are not designed to be able to be placed anywhere. You can also still cannon your own gate for defense which is only 4.12 shots to take out a flame ram. This would be even easier with a defender being able to place a cannon anywhere. They can even just put it on the ground behind the gate to do this where no one can reach it. This is even worse than gate trebs because (basic) gate trebs take 7.68 shots to kill a flame ram which is at least a tad more though still unbalanced.

tldr this will break attacking, defending, and fights

What exactly determines the links of the servers? Is it the rating of the host servers and the population of the guest servers? Or is it the population of the host servers and population of the guest servers? If has something to do with the host sever’s rating, I see how that would make sense, however, there appear to be more rating issues with the most recent server linking.

It’s weird because the server rating (which is only applied to the host server) is not only the rating earned from the host server but rather the rating earned from the combination of the host server and their guest servers. After a re-link is done, the new rating is not necessarily representative of the server since the rating is what resulted from the previous linking. For example, Yaks Bend will get a much lower rating than some of the servers who have less people than them. When the new re-linking is done, Yaks Bends’ rating won’t make sense initially since it will come from the rating of the previous server linking. Crystal Desert will have a much higher rating as a result of the 3 servers they are paired with but that may cause their rating to be way higher than what it should be after the next set of server-links if they don’t get much help. I don’t have any affiliation with either of those servers but they appear to be affected the most by this and so they make the best examples.

Also, not having the top 3 servers receive a partner appears to have a downside. I will explain. Before the most recent server linking, these servers had a rating that came from themself plus their linked server. After the most recent server linking, they did not receive a linked server and the rest of the servers did. Thus, each of these three T1 servers now have a rating that is greater than what their population represents since they didn’t get anyone. If the T1 servers keep playing each other, then it’s not that weird. However, the instant that any T1 server RNG’s down to T2, it’s over. They will lose tons of rating because they are not as good as their rating since their rating comes from the previous server linking where they had a partner.

I am thus noticing many servers having a rating that is not representative of their population. By the time they finally get close to their deserved rating, there will be a re-link and this process could repeat for a different server. Right now, CD represents this concept the best.

What is everyone else’s thoughts on server links and server rating? Does anyone else feel that it is weird that the server rating after a re-link still comes from the server rating earned with a previous partner? I’m not saying they should reset glicko after every re-link…that would be even worse. The way it is now might be the best way to do it (I don’t have any idea what would be better) but it certainly brings up a few complications that are not trivial to correct.

I just think it’s funny how they even have “don’t count my vote” in the percent to begin with. Spaghetti code.

Cerby.1069:

@Radian your post was most insightful.

I imagine this will be difficult with pug groups though to alternative shields when they are all ontop of eachother (left to right technique wouldn’t work well). Will have to think of a method to get that done easily. Getting hit by an out of range a/c at that spot is pretty much to be expected a this point.

I was curious with the double gates. You can actually stand ontop of that lion statues and place siege up there. It gives a good angle from which to take down defensive siege. If you outnumber the enemy in terms of ‘ranged firepower’ I’m curious if that would allow you to clear the outermost gate without much trouble. With the inner gate though I’m curious if there’s a ram spot that isn’t able to get hit by the cannons or a defensive treb/cata

The best situation to attack the double doors of the Overlook keep is if you are the red team. As you pointed out, you cannot ram both doors with the same ram (unlike the other two keeps). There is a balli spot on top of the statue that you can use to clear some of the siege up top and it has been used against me as a defender a few times. The difficulty of the double doors rush on Overlook comes from the fact that the only inner you can attack after breaching the inner is that same side (the second double door) which gives the defender tons of time to place siege and their siege that is used to protect the outer can also be used to protect the inner.

The problem with trying to place rams outside of treb or cannon radius is that the trebuchet has 420 radius when traited and the cannon has a 400 radius while the flame ram has a 360 range. There are some gates that are designed where you can place rams super far over to where no gate treb can reach but this keep won’t have such a position on the inner. The southeast inner cannon of Overlook can cannon its own outer double-gate too which will cause all sorts of problems. You also have to clear the inner burning oil pot before ramming inner which is a pain to AoE because it has 5 times more health than an arrow cart. One sup AC with mastery can take out both burning oil pots in 80 seconds (every attack hits both oil pots). Your best bit if hitting the double gates is to have over 1k supply (and people resupply after building on outer if needed) and have tons of people AoE AC’s as well as use the balli on the statue, drop tons of shield generators to protect siege, and then have enough supply to drop enough rams on outer and inner. Force doming the rams (you can force dome all the way forward to cover the gate) is crucial because that’s the only chance you have at breaking in the inner vs a gate treb or someone using the southeast inner cannon.

As far as alternating force domes works, the easiest way is to have friends who know how to do it. If you don’t have that luxury, try your best to see if you can get anyone on teamspeak to alternate force domes (helpful if they have a mic but if you still need more volunteers, then just be open to those without a mic). It usually works best for me if I explain to them how it works 3-5 minutes before the attack instead and get volunteers then instead of just throwing them down and asking people right on the spot to alternate. Sometimes you have no choice though. I try to set up a rotation for them and let them know they can talk over me all they want if it’ll help them with alternating their force domes.

General strategy: if there are two shield gen users, just alternate when you see the other person’s force dome buff wear off. If there are three users, I have an easy trick. Person 1 force dome starts when the last two digits of the scoring countdown tick at the top of the screen are, say :55 and :25. Person 2 force domes when the last two digits of the scoring tick countdown are :45 and :15. Person 3 force domes when the last two digits are5 and :05. What you have is each individual person is force doming every 30 seconds but they all do this 10 seconds apart so that the force dome is permanently up. This way, they don’t even have to talk to each other or anything. They just go off that score ticker. You can explain this strategy to them ahead of time if you plan on using it.

What I left out of my above post was the option of attritioning this keep which would be to treb SW outer of keep from stonemist (from NW outer SM, NE outer SM), SW outer of keep from mendons (south of lord room), or east inner wall or double doors from Veloka (west of lord room). This would take a long time and I’m not usually bored enough to do it.

What Shadelang posted is how I usually attack Overlook.

There’s a few different ways to attack the southwest outer wall of Overlook. You can treb from stonemist (from NW outer sm wall or NE outer sm wall), cata from the hill above anz, or drop point blank catas. I personally like using the anz hill and quickly resupplying in stonemist after flinging tons of catas.

The west inner gate is pretty terrible to attack. It has tons of good AC spots up top but more importantly the northeast inner cannon (of double gate) can cannon it’s own west inner gate. which hits rams for 43.6k. Your only viable options are south inner wall or east inner wall. Unfortunately, both of those walls have a set of stairs that go up the middle which means the defenders have a good spot to put their AC (on the back part of the stairs!!) so that it’s hard to AoE. If you go east inner, you have to spread out your catas as much as possible so that you can throw 8-10. The easiest way is definitely south inner (though sometimes there’s tons of siege there so you have to try east inner). You have to throw 2 shield generators and 3 sup catapults at bottom side of the cliff. The benefit of using the south inner spot on the side of the cliff is that skills on the defenders skill bar won’t reach from up top the wall. The downside is that the AC user can very comfortably AC down your siege. That is why you must put the shield generators and 3 sup catapults together so that you can alternate force domes and force dome all 5 siege items with the same force dome. You have to have people alternating the force dome (the actual AC negation lasts longer than 10 seconds). If you still have supply after that, I would throw the rest of the catas up top a little ways away because you’ll be siege capped. Make sure you take out the southeast inner cannon and the southwest outer cannon (above SW outer gate) if you hit south inner because both cannons reach the cata cliffside.

I think this poll is going to be biased. The servers that are winning are going to vote for less frequent world linking and the losing servers would vote for more frequent world linking.

ArenaNet is not open to permanently having ONLY the Alpine borderlands which is why that option was not in the poll. It is certainly true that you cannot look at this pole and say “most people want to permanently have 1 desert bl.” You can look at it and say “of the options presented, having 1 desert bl was the most popular.” If the option of not having any desert bl was presented, it could have been the most popular vote. One of the main reasons (probably) for Anet wanting to have the desert bl worked in one way or another is because of all the work they put into it. I don’t think they’d want to remove desert bl completely after it has only been used for a few months because it would look like a big waste (already sorta looks like a waste).

I felt hardened gates was good the way it was. The nerf encourages zerging even more. I personally thought hardened gates was fun. Nothing is worse for outnumbered defenders than successfully countering all of the attacking siege and then losing it because the attackers sit there and PvD it for a really long time. I think this will create for more boring game play because PvD is not fun.

I have played every profession and elite spec and Daredevil (elite spec of thief) is by far the fastest. You can spam out shortbow #5 with locking ground target to max range and then trait your dodge to give you a little nudge foreward. You can also equip shadowstep, the initiative regeneration signet, the endurance restoring heal, and some other stuff. You also have Steal and 50% fast endurance regeneration.

The second fastest profession is not even close to Daredevil. If you want to know the second fastest profession, it’s Warrior with GS + Sw/W with permanent swiftness, reduced GS recharge, reduced sword recharge, bulls charge, reduced physical skill recharge.

After that it’s probably Druid with GS + Staff. After Druid, I’m not really sure what the remaining order would be. A mesmer with mimic + blink + temporal curtain, an ele with the movement signet + lightning flash + lightning hammer (skill 2 spam) + fiery greatsword are probably the next fastest.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

The current plan is to rotate the borderlands maps each quarterly update. That said, now that we are actively polling the community, perhaps we can start exploring other options.

For instance, nothing is really stopping us from having a combination of ABL and DBL maps running simultaneously. 2 of one and 1 of the other. If we polled that, and players approved it, then there’d be no need for the rotation, and players on both sides of the issue could play on their preferred map. The downside of course, would be any perception of imbalance that may arise from one map being considered the stronger “Home” map, but we could always give the more defensible map to Red/Blue and leave the less defensible map to Green.

I think that the desert is a bit harder to defend than alpine. There are cata spots on south outer fire keep (the most recent patch negated one cata spot but created another) and south outer air keep that are impossible to defend on siege. There are some decent cata spots on fire keep inner (between the pillars and diagonal) and then two double cata wall spots on earth keep. There aren’t really any OP cata spots on the alpine keeps though there are many treb spots in camps and towers. I think that the logic that you presented would be better than a rotation and that Green BL should be the desert BL and the other two should be Alpine.

I would recommend getting on a dragonhunter that is tanky and equip staff and 11111 through all the fights. Make sure you have provision master and do as many fights as possible. If you can command, I would go to edge of the mists and bag farm there. If there are any good fight guilds that blob on your server, follow them in wvw. The key is to have a lot of fights and have each fight be blob vs blob.

X T D.6458:

Hmm, report this as a bug. And apply hardened gates if you can, that should help add some defense for it.

The other team but hardened gates on their garri yesterday. We rushed wg and hardened gates was on the outer gate but not the inner. I don’t know if that is intended or not though.

Mendons receives yaks considerably slower than the next slowest tower in EBG. It is comparable to the speed in which the north towers receive yaks in the alpine BL. It is harder to defend on siege than most towers, however, it does have a close route from spawn. Anzalias is bad all the way around (sure you can treb smc from it but the blue and green team can already treb smc from two outer towers each). I personally think red keep shouldn’t be able to treb stonemist and stonemist especially shouldn’t be able to treb red keep. I’m fine with trebbing stonemist from towers (and vice-versa) though.

Non-HoT accounts can interact with a built shield generator but instead of manning it, their skills are replaced as if they picked up a bundle. As a result, you can walk around and your skills are replaced by the shield generator skills. However, you cannot use any of the skills on this “bundle” that you picked up so it serves no purpose.

If one spawn exit is blocked off:
-Take either of the other exits

If all spawn exits are blocked off:
-Switch maps

If all spawn exits on all maps are blocked off:
-Transfer servers

If all spawn exits on all maps on all servers are blocked off:
-go to sPvP

If the sPvP spawn exits are all blocked off
-go to PvE

If PvE is boring:
-uninstall

The Ventari Ele.5812:

Josh XT.6053:

“Soon™” -ANet 2016

-Anet 2012.

-Anet 2012 – present

The rewards should not have been nerfed. You are likely capturing less objectives than you were before. While the overall capture volume of each server may be higher now than before the merge, the capture volume for each individual group should be a little bit lower. There are many more groups in wvw now so it is less likely that you will be able to k-train undefended objectives. If you are looking to k-train, it’s probably going to be easiest during off-hours. There’s so many groups going around during NA prime that you will be having more zerg battles and less captures which means less WXP.

2. What are your thoughts on the rate at which you gain participation?

-There needs to be a cap on the amount of participation you can gain from repairing within a certain time period. Maybe do not allow more than 90% of a gain from repairing. This is extremely important because repairing in many situations is harmful (repairing an objective that is being trebbed and draining the supply out of it instead of building siege to counter the treb).

The air keep is a far bigger joke than the earth keep. There are walls on both the inner and outer that are impossible to defend on siege (south inner and northeast outer). Southwest outer wall is also tough to defend on siege if they have their catapults really high up. The double cata spot at earth keep is pretty easy to defend against. If you are doing a good job checking for white swords and scouting, the double cata wall at earth keep won’t work often.

All EBG keep inners can be CATAPULTED from a tower. That is way more significant than trebbing open field.

Unless you are playing on minimum field of vew and minimum vertical camera, there is a very good AC spot on the back part of a set of stairs that can very easily see that cata spot. The problem there is not the splash damage. The problem is the shield generators they can build on offense and negate the AC damage that can reach that cata spot.

jamesdolla.3954:

Home team needs to be able to use air and fire keep waypoints when they own them and enemy team should still be able to use their lane keep waypoints when they own it. As a home defender it is super hard to travel to the action on the bottom of the map and this could make the bl’s more playable and air and fire keeps more important in the grand scheme of things.

Have you tried running from north keep to the south towers and from the side keeps to the south towers? It’s actually faster to get to both south towers from north keep than it is to get to the south towers from the side keeps.

That has been around since launch

My guild got 11 guild commendations in 1 hr 20 minutes of PvE guild missions last night. This WvW guild mission alone may take an hour and also has a high chance of failing (yak gets picked off, supply camp gets blobbed) and it’s really boring too. They should just make you hold it for 15 minutes. It shouldn’t take way longer than the PvE missions.

It was designed this way to allow more guilds to be able to participate with guild claiming. If you can claim a keep, camp, and tower at the same time then two guilds can claim your entire EBG side. You can already claim 4 things at once (one for each map).

When you decide you want to place siege somewhere, the game will observe where you want to throw it and check if there is already 5 siege items within 1000 units (any direction) of where you want your siege item to be placed. If there is already 5 siege items within 1000 units, your siege will not be able to be thrown and you will get a message saying “You cannot place siege weaponry here.” I don’t think this siege cap applies to everything except rams. I have seen situations in which the siege cap glitches for catapults and you can throw more than 5 catapults right next to each other.

That guild mission needs to be removed and replaced. Adding more time to a guild mission without increasing the reward does not make any sense. On top of that, it is already a guild mission that most people find boring.

It was a poor move to not update this guild mission after yesterday’s update. For now, you might as well only attempt this guild mission at north camp of your home BL making sure you own north keep, NWT, and NET. You also need to not kill the yaks at the camp. North camp has 4 yaks and the rest of the camps have 2.

I don’t see a problem with Anet wanting you to actually have to play on the profession that you want the elite spec on

I tried a supply camp solo on each profession a while back. Not much success on mesmer lol…

Attacking siege is already good enough. It’s incredibly easy for 30 people to take something defended by 5 people if they just build golems and have players dps the cannons and oil down before walking the golems to the gate

Looking at point 3), you probably didn’t spend much time in the desert borderlands. I can get from the waypoint in north keep to inside the outer of either of the other keeps in 1 minute 5 seconds on a mesmer.

I have measured the radius of the ground target skill “Deploy Flame Ram” to be 300 units. I measured it by comparing the size of the ground target skill to various ground targeting skills on my characters and noticed it was the exact same size as Ice Spike which is a 300 radius ground target skill for elementalist. The range for flame rams is 360 units which is 60 units longer. As a result, having the tip of the green ring touching the gate will guarantee that the ram will reach but you actually have some margin and can afford to have the tip of the green ring be a little bit off the gate. I have no idea what Arenanet used to decide the radius of various ground targetting deploy siege skills.

Anyone else ever experiment with how far over to the left and right you can place a ram that still hits the gate? I experimented with it while commanding in edge today and took some screen shots that I’ll post here. Every ram in these screen shots was able to hit the gate (I hopped on them to test).

http://imgur.com/a/NRhkR

If anyone else has any screen shots of trying ram placement like this, feel free to share as well

I have some tutorials here for EBG:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLv24yJ9VNpklKsYJZHsw69tJ-EccYC4Il

only problem is it was before HoT so it doesn’t mention anything about shield generators

I have been able to play most of GW2 just fine with 15-20 fps but in HoT my fps is generally 3-7. I am running everything on lowest settings. Are there any plans of optimizing the HoT graphics?

Thank you. I tried throttlestop and it didn’t seem to make a difference. Here is a screen shot

http://i.imgur.com/dCX4PhB.png

FPS is still low even after the 32 bit client patch that reduced memory usage. Any thoughts? Thank you for your time.

I also have screenshots of my processes/task manager
1) Before starting up gw2
2) In a map on gw2 before fps tank
3) In a map on gw2 after fps tank

http://imgur.com/a/BtQ2T

I appreciate the help

Thank you MrFayth,

Here is what my computer’s temperature looked like 10 seconds after the FPS tanked

http://i.imgur.com/WfGyAIT.jpg