1200 range back on Short Bow skills. 900 still feels awful and I watch my arrows drop into the ground from distances that should be appropriate for a ranged weapon.
OK, found why it was completely inaudible in some places. Unlike other weapons (at least those of which I am aware), the gatling sound for the Beastslayer Rifle is based on your Environmental audio setting rather than your Effects audio setting. Doing something like this will make it audible…
I just tested it on my engineer now. It didn’t make any sound other than a single klink after a shot. Then is made the full sound all the time. Then the full sound stopped and I haven’t been able to get it back.
On my warrior I couldn’t get the full sound to play at all.
I (still) really wish they wouldn’t add any more recipes for converting stats and just eliminate the breather as a piece of armor. We still don’t need it to breathe underwater.
For now, I just stick with an exotic with non-matching stats. That works perfectly fine everywhere I play (including fractals and WvW) and I can recover the rune, too. It’s still a waste, just a 100g cheaper one.
You can get them for free from Bitterfrost Frontier.
There is no point in wanting them removed now and I think most people would vote to keep them meerly because many have them already.
They are not free — it costs both time and resources; some of us have other uses for those. Which is partly why I doubt if most people have them (along with the fact that they aren’t needed for fractals, raids, or PvE, and easily avoided for WvW).
It’s not at all too late to update the system, especially if, in doing so, ANet allowed folks who do own ascended breathers to convert to headgear, with whatever stats they liked.
I don’t really see how getting a bunch of helmets really makes up for losing the aquatic breather.
I love underwater combat. You have to put a little into it though. Disco from CERN always encouraged people to upgrade their underwater gear. And Dcon is the elite underwater unit of the FA Navy! :P
I have 3 underwater legendaries, 2 ascended underwater weapons (3rd in construction) and 8 ascended breathers. So I’m probably a little obsessive about it.
This is awesome: Being killed while outnumbered no longer grants any war score to the enemy team.
That might be something worth celebrating if outnumbered was a local buff instead of map wide…… or if the score actualy mattered….
^ This lol.
So not worth celebrating for people who don’t actually play the game as designed? I mean if you’re going to ignore the scoring of the game mode which counts the score according to things all over the map, whatever you’re doing is objectively no better from a game perspective than running around like a quaggan.
I play for my own enjoyment.
Ask TC players how much the score affects them, no matter how badly they lose they continue to gain glicko and are stuck in T1.
I’ve been playing on my GoM account this week, please tell me what difference the score is going to make at the end of the week when we are linked to a new server.
You get nothing for winning, you get nothing for losing. You can’t even claim bragging rights because the score is all about coverage, not skill.
The players playing to win and the players running around like quaggans are playing for their enjoyment too. I do both. At times I’ll even join a friendly group of people fighting in the middle of an open field for nothing at all, just to brush up. I believe there is room for all of those to coexist.
I know how the score affects TC players. I get to see the call for everyone to rally up at the end of a week if it looks like they’re going to be passed by another server in the matchup. The past month has been an aberration. TC has historically played to win.
There is more to skill than button pressing. “Coverage” is a convenient blurring of an actual problem (population imbalance) and the consequence of poor server and guild leadership. If your server and guild leadership is constantly telling everyone that server pride is dead or doesn’t exist and the score doesn’t matter, people aren’t going to show up and you deserve to not have coverage as a consequence of abysmal leadership. WvW armies are composed of volunteers. The players aren’t MOBA pieces. Morale is important.
I get that there is a subset of the WvW community that thinks the game should be changed to exclude any other playstyle than fighting for nothing in an open field and KDR being the scoring. But the change ArenaNet made here was a good one for people that want to play the game mode as designed.
This is awesome: Being killed while outnumbered no longer grants any war score to the enemy team.
That might be something worth celebrating if outnumbered was a local buff instead of map wide…… or if the score actualy mattered….
^ This lol.
So not worth celebrating for people who don’t actually play the game as designed? I mean if you’re going to ignore the scoring of the game mode which counts the score according to things all over the map, whatever you’re doing is objectively no better from a game perspective than running around like a quaggan.
Maybe the devs waiting until now-ish or a little later to be able to catch East Coasters after work and/or school, then staying on ‘til the end of their workday to cover the West Coasters and points in-between… I imagine they weren’t planning on spending their whole workday on the forums. And I hope they aren’t and instead are putting the finishing touches on the Ranger’s new class ability that shoots lightning bolts out of their butts that insta-kill anyone chasing them. My Ranger isn’t quite feeling like she is a WvW Goddess of War yet.
Happens regardless of the size of the ears (this character has the Ear Shape slider all the way to the right and the Ear Thickness and Ear Length sliders all the way to the left, which are the settings which give the least clipping). But it is still noticeable both close up and at a distance.
Or, the Devs might have thought, “Instead of just adjusting recipes, let’s give the players new content as a way to address the issue. Kill two birds with one stone.”
One never knows…they might have been trying to please us! =)
Yeah, maybe but the term used; a new “farm” for leather indicates to me that they are less interested in solving the problem (that they introduced at the start of hot) and more interested in giving us another grind to work past the problem.
And lest we forget, the change to insignia and leather recipes affected everyone, this new farm will only be for hot players.
Changing the insignia recipes to require 5 cloth and 5 leather and changing the Cured T5 and T6 leather recipes back to require 3 and 2 sections would actually solve the problem they created.
And next time there’s a glut of some material introduce one off sinks to take care of it but don’t do this. I’m stocking up on gossamer before the next expansion hits in case they “fix” that.
It’ll be interesting to see what the net change is. Since currently one Ecto roughly equals one Hardened Leather Section, and you can salvage Ectos at a pretty good clip from rares found in ABML, the leather farm would have to generate a lot of Hardened Leather Sections per grind increment to not be a net loss.
EDIT – Oops, not currently, since the prices shifted since the announcement.
The Dreamer is consistent with the wings and auras and quaggan caps, plus SAB weapons and so on.
Well, yes. Except for that horrific noise. Basically my speakers are overtaken by screeching ponies.
I think I’d prefer a quieter variety of very immersive rainbow pony.
Which gets to your actual request, to take something out of the game because you don’t like it. Personally I like the sound and the uniponies. The female norn and male asura voices annoy me though, and the pinkish yellow effects on Dawn aren’t to my taste, so let’s have those removed from the game as well. We could just have all sound and graphics removed since I’m sure that everything is disliked by someone.
This was my first legendary and still probably my favorite. It has received a couple updates. I’m happy with it in its current state. I wouldn’t mind the footfalls being more visible. The fix to the sound made it much better than it was after all of the night effects were removed. I would agree that the sound would be better if it were just the howl effect, but louder, with the base warhorn sound removed.
I wouldn’t want the on use effect to change if it meant the wolf became a static effect or otherwise lowered the quality from the way it is now. I wonder if it would be possible to detect when the effect is spawning while moving and then spawn it further in front of the character.
I like more intense effects, but the fog at the moment seems to be in a good place running at max settings.
I had one goal for this year, getting all this year’s weapon skins. I thought I was in good shape because I had 7 tickets from completing a collection. I about cried when I saw they released a fulll set of 16. But I got lucky and got an Endless Bottle of Batwing Brew from a ToT bag early the first day that went a long way toward getting the rest.
I like the shadow raven mini, but don’t have it in me to pursue it. I did make the Endless Exotic Wraith Tonic, which is awesome. I also made and didn’t forge an Endless Shadow Raven Tonic, which is also awesome. And I bought Charles the Hellfire Skeleton after opening a ton of bags hoping to get him before he went on sale.
Overall, I feel like my plastic Jack-o’-lantern is full and I’ve enjoyed things more than if I’d let myself get too focused on one (albeit spectacularly awesome) mini.
Just want to throw in a thanks for this too. Thought he DR did give me a cahcne to play some alts I hadn’t played in a while. Also, thanks for making Charles able to be sold.
Scouts are what keep you from coming in third because rampaging hoards of four or five random militia, not in a party or squad and not in comms, flipped your home borderland at will. Of course, having some militia of your own that are on playing for fun helps too.
EremiteAngel is dead on in regard to the importance of recognizing the contributions of scouts. And the militia are heroes too.
Yes. Your behaviour painted you as the bad guy. You aren’t seeking to solve issues. You’re pushing for changes that would put more control in the hands of the people that caused the issues in the current system such as yourself.
There would be more control in the hands of ALL guilds/players not just him and his alliance, and an alliance system is a way of solving current issues. Anet themselves clearly went quite far along in the design of the system as a solution and quite a few other players have raised a similar system as a solution. I dislike his actions in the past but they are irrelevant in this discussion.
No, they aren’t irrelevant. All guilds/players had the same amount of control before and some players abused it. Putting more control into players hands will increase the amount of damage those players and guilds prone to abuse it will cause. The examples of those actions, and some players propensity to commit them is directly relevant to a discussion of giving players more control. And a link between those players with a propensity to commit such actions favoring a system that would allow them more ability to do so is also relevant.
An alliance system isnt a way of solving the current issues. It is all of the worst of the issues made central to the game mode.
There are people that support exclusionary systems, systems they can abuse for advantage and systems that make themselves more important. There are people that oppose the polling system, which is an inclusive system and allows a wide range of players to have input and want only their opinions heard. And there are people who just support bad ideas. So some people supporting the system or it having been considered by ANet with the beta group feedback doesn’t make it any better of an idea.
Anet needs to consider for NA to provide a server link to T1 servers again. The reason I say this is due to the fact that when players know ahead of time that servers ranked 1-3 do not get server links, those players attempt to game the system by tanking to rank 4 so that they get a link and then do well in T1. There’s already been a pattern established by players watching how both YB and then DB lost their server links in T1 and dropped down to T4. And tanking for a link is talked about in the darker corners of the internet.
No, that’s what you believe, the tanking.
What anet need to do is not to provide any links to servers that has “Very High” and above populations. Of course, some “Very High” server might just cross that “High” benchmark and not really that “Very High” server. What I am saying is, arrange the server such that all the links are comparable to a “Very High” server. This effectively make players think twice on moving to “Guest” server and upset the balancing. Using tiers as benchmark is silly to begin with.
It’s funny, but that bolded section is the kind of stuff that was said in response to descriptions of the shady practices committed by server leadership, war councils and guild leaders listed in this thread (and elsewhere) at the time they were committed. It was all true.
As Chaba said, tanking has been talked about in the “darker corners of the Internet.” A description which I find both apt and sad.
I’m not sure I understand your idea on the “Very High” server thing. Could you explain it a bit more?
Didn’t the idea evolve to battle groups behaving less like guilds, more like servers, where the limits would be much lower – and alliances formed by matchmaking?
Which could be as often as weekly?
Making the issues like buying guilds, and bandwagoning largely pointless.
That does raise the issue of anets matchmaking skills – but thats another team and another topic.
Doesn’t it somewhat render your concerns no longer applicable?
This is what I keep trying to explain to him. The idea of battlegroups would hinder what he’s describing. It wouldn’t enable it. If anything is enabling the actions he describes its server-links.
At the end of every reevaluation, there is a literal wave of transfers and gems spent. Arena Net wants to reevaluate the community after 2 month iterations of WvW, but the community wants to reevaluate what server they play for after the reevaluation. Arena Net places systems in place to control the flow of the bandwagon. They lock specific servers and open others. However, doing so is upsetting the community and causing instabilities every time.
In general, the overall GW2 WvW community will do whatever it takes to play where they want. They would even organize to accomplish the goal. So this server-link system is literally creating bid wars in hopes to balance everyone every 2 months. It prays on the instability of servers and not the over abundant and it uses a servers link as a form of temporary coverage and that allows guilds and communities alike to take advantage.
@Thelgar.7214 Those very same things you claim I did that had a negative effect are the very same things you are ignorant of. But at the end of the day, I just did like everyone else. Those very same things that happened are being repeated none stop every 2 months as well.
Yet, those very same things make all this relevant and that’s specifically why I can speak on them. That’s also why I can identify a solution when it’s placed in front of me like the battlegroup leak I describe and it’s why I can identify the effects of server-links and the toll it takes on the community.
I think by now anyone reading what you write can identify your problem, Thelgar. Your problem is with me. It’s something I call blind hatred. You hate me for something you perceive I did for reasons you believe I did. You hate me enough to block out all reason and logic and go on an offensive. You’ve even assaulted someone who just simply agreed and associated him with me when I don’t even know him outside this forum.
Anything I say you degrade. Any idea I give, will be seen as a small part of a larger scheme in your head. Just keep in mind, that the system I describe wasn’t created or associated with me prior to me being leaked it. What I linked came from a Discussion. It’s Arena Nets words and it would hinder what you perceive I did.
I don’t hate you. I don’t even know you. But your past behaviour speaks for itself.
Battlegroups were a bad idea from the start. I heard the same leak you did. I was opposed to the idea long before you brought it up again and for all the same reasons. You could ask around to verify, but I doubt you will. You’d rather play the victim.
EDIT – Oh, and for those who haven’t caught Mal’s schtick, trying to make up some irrational reason people disagree with him or criticize the things he has done is Mal’s MO. What was the last one Mal? Calling someone “sick in the head” as I recall…
The plot thickens…
Hes focused on Me. I’m focused on solving the games issues. \o/ You say i’d rather play victim but you paint me as the bad guy thus im defending. You see the issue here.
Yes. Your behaviour painted you as the bad guy. You aren’t seeking to solve issues. You’re pushing for changes that would put more control in the hands of the people that caused the issues in the current system such as yourself.
I hope you realize how self-defeating this stupid change is for druids.
You’re effectively going to pigeonhole them into healing power by decreasing baseline healing without giving the druid specialization any additions to make it viable in an offensive stat build as a DPS role.
What are these developers doing? They haven’t fixed what makes core ranger and druid dreadfully weak DPS builds, so they have to play a dps/healer hybrid, and with this change now rangers will be forced into healing power gear so they can’t even contribute much DPS at all.
You’re also going to effectively delete druids from open world as they can no longer solo or be self sufficient due to not being able to run dps gear without gutting their celestial avatar survivability/utility.
It won’t be nearly as bad as you describe it,but a healer with healer gear.
God forbid,this is unheard of.
Again though, the tradeoff is what do Druids get in return? If they just lose healing power, then that makes them weaker than they are not, which is not that strong. I can understand them wanting to make Druids use Healer gear if they want to be primary healers, but the Druid class also needs to be functional as a non-healer option, which means that the non-healer gear needs to do enough damage to make up for not being as good at healing.
This is a really good point that I’ve been thinking about since reading this. Just making healer builds weaker by requiring more Healing Power for the same effect isn’t going to meet the stated goal of “see(ing) that role as one of many choices in your attribute build.”
It is like the ranger nerf to shortbow to make longbow more appealing. Longbow didn’t become more appealing until it was buffed, and in the meantime neither was appealing and shortbow is still unappealing.
1. BG During Season 1 made deals to recruit mercenaries to BG for the sake of winning Season 1. Doing this time, the only say I had was as a guild leader.
Didn’t you say before that only five people knew about this at the time and the community as a whole did not. As one of the five, couldn’t you have announced this to the community and opposed it publicly? And, did BG just help YB without any communications from you?
Didn’t the idea evolve to battle groups behaving less like guilds, more like servers, where the limits would be much lower – and alliances formed by matchmaking?
Which could be as often as weekly?
Making the issues like buying guilds, and bandwagoning largely pointless.
That does raise the issue of anets matchmaking skills – but thats another team and another topic.
Doesn’t it somewhat render your concerns no longer applicable?
This is what I keep trying to explain to him. The idea of battlegroups would hinder what he’s describing. It wouldn’t enable it. If anything is enabling the actions he describes its server-links.
At the end of every reevaluation, there is a literal wave of transfers and gems spent. Arena Net wants to reevaluate the community after 2 month iterations of WvW, but the community wants to reevaluate what server they play for after the reevaluation. Arena Net places systems in place to control the flow of the bandwagon. They lock specific servers and open others. However, doing so is upsetting the community and causing instabilities every time.
In general, the overall GW2 WvW community will do whatever it takes to play where they want. They would even organize to accomplish the goal. So this server-link system is literally creating bid wars in hopes to balance everyone every 2 months. It prays on the instability of servers and not the over abundant and it uses a servers link as a form of temporary coverage and that allows guilds and communities alike to take advantage.
@Thelgar.7214 Those very same things you claim I did that had a negative effect are the very same things you are ignorant of. But at the end of the day, I just did like everyone else. Those very same things that happened are being repeated none stop every 2 months as well.
Yet, those very same things make all this relevant and that’s specifically why I can speak on them. That’s also why I can identify a solution when it’s placed in front of me like the battlegroup leak I describe and it’s why I can identify the effects of server-links and the toll it takes on the community.
I think by now anyone reading what you write can identify your problem, Thelgar. Your problem is with me. It’s something I call blind hatred. You hate me for something you perceive I did for reasons you believe I did. You hate me enough to block out all reason and logic and go on an offensive. You’ve even assaulted someone who just simply agreed and associated him with me when I don’t even know him outside this forum.
Anything I say you degrade. Any idea I give, will be seen as a small part of a larger scheme in your head. Just keep in mind, that the system I describe wasn’t created or associated with me prior to me being leaked it. What I linked came from a Discussion. It’s Arena Nets words and it would hinder what you perceive I did.
I don’t hate you. I don’t even know you. But your past behaviour speaks for itself.
Battlegroups were a bad idea from the start. I heard the same leak you did. I was opposed to the idea long before you brought it up again and for all the same reasons. You could ask around to verify, but I doubt you will. You’d rather play the victim.
EDIT – Oh, and for those who haven’t caught Mal’s schtick, trying to make up some irrational reason people disagree with him or criticize the things he has done is Mal’s MO. What was the last one Mal? Calling someone “sick in the head” as I recall…
I’m not opposed to a duration nerf for the boons on SoI, but I hope it isn’t so short that it makes it useless. ArenaNet has a tendency to make drastic changes that make things useless.
Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.
Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.
No, It’s like you didn’t read. Battlegroups help Arena Net balance what we have. They help improve on the negatives things people like yourself believe only select few are responsible for when in actuality everyone is. The issue is not with the community. The community is acting like mankind acts. Mankind organizes and communicates. This is nothing different than the server communities that even yourself is apart of.
I read. You’re making the point. The server leadership will abuse battlegroups the same way they’ve abused the existing structure to try to exclude people who don’t agree with them. The difference is with battlegroups they would have a greater ability to do so. They’ve proven they’ll abuse that, so they shouldn’t be given more ability to do so.
And, you’re blaming the entire community for the types of things you’ve been involved with. And you know that isn’t true. Server leadership and war councils regularly act in secret and mislead the communities about what they’re doing and the reasons for it. It is the fault of a few that we are where we are now. And you’re the poster boy for those few.
No you are ignorant to the maximum level. But, I will let you be that way. You can believe what you want but my examples make it perfectly clear. You choose to be blind as you always are.
Your examples make it perfectly clear you’re asking Anet to allow you and people like you greater ability to do the same type of damage you’ve been doing to the game mode and communities that you have been. I’m certainly not ignorant of those things, and I’ve been able to see them quite well. I’ve even been able to see to read you bragging about them at the time you did them.
Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.
Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.
No, It’s like you didn’t read. Battlegroups help Arena Net balance what we have. They help improve on the negatives things people like yourself believe only select few are responsible for when in actuality everyone is. The issue is not with the community. The community is acting like mankind acts. Mankind organizes and communicates. This is nothing different than the server communities that even yourself is apart of.
I read. You’re making the point. The server leadership will abuse battlegroups the same way they’ve abused the existing structure to try to exclude people who don’t agree with them. The difference is with battlegroups they would have a greater ability to do so. They’ve proven they’ll abuse that, so they shouldn’t be given more ability to do so.
And, you’re blaming the entire community for the types of things you’ve been involved with. And you know that isn’t true. Server leadership and war councils regularly act in secret and mislead the communities about what they’re doing and the reasons for it. It is the fault of a few that we are where we are now. And you’re the poster boy for those few.
Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.
Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.
Warriors:
Shouts- Trooper Runes. The occasional shake it off. Dogged March/Warrior’s Sprint reduces soft cc
A change that forces Warriors to use trooper runes and shouts to survive condis again is a bad change. Condis are overpowered if they make only one set of runes and utility skills viable for a class.
At least one above you and the other people in favor of battle groups, which includes a guy who was involved in match fixing and deliberately stacking two servers for advantage as well as a guy who posted a screenshot here celebrating TC spawn camping with arrow carts after the first guy stacked the server. You fit right in with them, playing the victim and acting offended after you attacked someone first.
Battlegrounds take the worst exclusionary and “play my way or gtfo” aspects of guild/server leadership and make it a mandatory part of the WvW experience. I’m not surprised at its proponents. They are the people whose personal influence will be increased if the system is implemented.
I dont see battlegroups making anything more exclusive or more inclusive. That is human nature and any system that allows even a little self-organization will result in players expressing their preferences to play with one group vs another.
Battlegroups do balance the population. Why wouldn’t you want any system that balances the population given that imbalances in population is the most destructive part of the game mode.
And battlegroups may possibly weaken the position of server leadership since recruiting and influence will likely be locked to the battlegroups and not the servers. This isn’t likely to bother anyone except for those few players that have manage to position themselves as kings/queens of the servers. Reducing the scale of the organizations naturally reduces the influence of those players.
None of what you said is true. Battlegroups are basically unlimited stacking of guild groups, movement of which does more to imbalance play than individual transfers. And the server leadership will simply become battlegroup leadership with the ability to kick people, something they couldn’t do from servers (though they still manage to create an environment in which people are harassed from the map and/or server). Battlegroups put more influence into the hands of people that have proven they will use it to benefit themselves at the expense of others and game balance.
So your entire argument is based on your fear of getting kicked? Then form your own battlegroup with like minded people. It can be made up of many small guilds who hold hand and sing kumbaya.
Ahhh, manipulation of opinion by a personal attack – calling the other person afraid. These are exactly the kind of people that favor a system that allows them to attack and kick others like battlegroups – they are toxic lowest rung of the gaming community.
Battlegrounds take the worst exclusionary and “play my way or gtfo” aspects of guild/server leadership and make it a mandatory part of the WvW experience. I’m not surprised at its proponents. They are the people whose personal influence will be increased if the system is implemented.
I dont see battlegroups making anything more exclusive or more inclusive. That is human nature and any system that allows even a little self-organization will result in players expressing their preferences to play with one group vs another.
Battlegroups do balance the population. Why wouldn’t you want any system that balances the population given that imbalances in population is the most destructive part of the game mode.
And battlegroups may possibly weaken the position of server leadership since recruiting and influence will likely be locked to the battlegroups and not the servers. This isn’t likely to bother anyone except for those few players that have manage to position themselves as kings/queens of the servers. Reducing the scale of the organizations naturally reduces the influence of those players.
None of what you said is true. Battlegroups are basically unlimited stacking of guild groups, movement of which does more to imbalance play than individual transfers. And the server leadership will simply become battlegroup leadership with the ability to kick people, something they couldn’t do from servers (though they still manage to create an environment in which people are harassed from the map and/or server). Battlegroups put more influence into the hands of people that have proven they will use it to benefit themselves at the expense of others and game balance.
Battlegrounds take the worst exclusionary and “play my way or gtfo” aspects of guild/server leadership and make it a mandatory part of the WvW experience. I’m not surprised at its proponents. They are the people whose personal influence will be increased if the system is implemented.
Maybe lock the guild to the current lowest pop server permanently for WvW purposes and players that elect the “Guild Option” are locked permanently to that server for WvW as well. It might not be a popular option, but it would work.
The guilds WvW benefits would be restricted to that one server as well.
