Guild Wars 2

Crimson Clouds.4853:

@Thelgar

But you can’t have it both ways:

-DON’T make them tradeable. The people who have the dyes already unlocked will complain that they can’t even sell the birthday presents for a few gold.

-DO make them tradeable. The people who have already unlocked the dyes and investors will complain that the market has crashed because suddenly they’re abundant and tradeable…

Sure, I’m sure market prices have decreased a bit because unless you’ve used up all of your birthday dye kits for now/have very limited characters/are impatient you can easily get any expensive dye you want (except the exclusive kits released after the 3rd birthday, I hasten to add). But there are plenty of people who would’ve opened their kits for the most expensive dye to sell if they were tradeable, devaluing any expensive dye available from the kit…

A-net just can’t win, really…

There is no both ways issue. If you have all the dyes unlocked, trade the celebratory dye kit to a Black Lion merchant for a ticket, make the ticket trade-able for an account bound version of future dyes. Or make the celebratory dye kit tradeable straight up for the new dye if you have all previous dyes unlocked.

Chuck.8196:

I am also hoping they don’t give us something we barely use once again such as, in my case, Birthday Blaster. But a dye collector being given a dye is just opposite of exclusion. If there’s nothing to use it for do what I do and store it in your bank. Perhaps, in the future, they will update the gift? I haven’t read if they say would NOT do that but I may be wrong. Haven’t looked into it.

Giving you a dye kit you can’t use is pretty much the definition of exclusion in regard to consideration in putting together the birthday package. They haven’t updated the kit in a year despite new dyes being released. Parking them in the bank and hoping isn’t a solution. I tried…

Manasa Devi.7958:

Dreamslayer.7659:

We’re just a few weeks away from the 4th Anniversary and I would like to ask that whatever Anet decides to do, please consider everyone.

The 3rd year gift was a very cool dye selection but it was also not able to be used by many of the most avid dye collectors who already had all the dyes available in the selection.

Many of us held out hope that new dye collections would be added and that we could use the gift in the future, but that has not happened.

I realize that it’s a small percentage of the community, but it was disappointing that many of the players who are most interested and focused on dye collecting found themselves excluded.

Please don’t let that happen again.

Thanks

Some new dyes from those packages would’ve been nice, but the unopened ones I still have in storage would net me almost 2,000 gold if I were to just sell to highest bidder of the most expensive one of the moment. I consider that a very nice present.

You can’t sell them. They’re account bound. Hence the reason they’re worthless for those of us that have all the dyes already.

Thelgar.7214:

Kind of a mixed bag. I’ll start with the cons so I can end on a high note.

CONS
- The Recycled Assets Fractal is tedious to play through.
- The elementals trait change is awful, it makes the class feel sluggish and less enjoyable.
- Too much talk and not enough action at the start of the LS episode. I got bored and quit.
- The new area feels like another event grind map. I’d like another map with hearts and stuff to mess around with like the Asuran starting zone was before it was gutted.
- Ranger axe 1 skill change is awful, can’t see why it would be done except to make short bow not look as bad as it does (didn’t work).
- Guardian scepter 1 range reduction to 900 was unnecessary. Range 900 is awful (see Ranger short bow above).

PROS
- Change to infusions worked out well for me. Went from 80 AR to 150 AR without spending much.
- Ranger pet changes were nice.
- Minor warrior buffs are nice too.
- Happy to have some toys back in WvW, a lot of people I’m playing with are having fun with them.
- Salvaging change is great QoL
- More e-motes are always welcome

Kind of a mixed bag. I’ll start with the cons so I can end on a high note.

CONS
- The Recycled Assets Fractal is tedious to play through.
- The elementals trait change is awful, it makes the class feel sluggish and less enjoyable.
- Too much talk and not enough action at the start of the LS episode. I got bored and quit.
- The new area feels like another event grind map. I’d like another map with hearts and stuff to mess around with like the Asuran starting zone was before it was gutted.
- Ranger axe 1 skill change is awful, can’t see why it would be done except to make short bow look as bad as it does (didn’t work).
- Guardian scepter 1 range reduction to 900 was unnecessary. Range 900 is awful (see Ranger short bow above).

PROS
- Change to infusions worked out well for me. Went from 80 AR to 150 AR without spending much.
- Ranger pet changes were nice.
- Minor warrior buffs are nice too.
- Happy to have some toys back in WvW, a lot of people I’m playing with are having fun with them.
- Salvaging change is great QoL
- More e-motes are always welcome

Name: Dye collector
Prerequisites: None
Goal: Collect all 403 dyes available from unidentified dyes
Reward: 25 AP, Title “I like it colorful”

I already have all of the dyes. The reward is being disappointed by the celebratory dye packs I get on my characters’ third birthdays.

You buy mist essence. The infused recipe uses five vials, three files and one shard, which adds up to 750 fractals relics, which accumulate more quickly than I expected.

Fashion Mage.3712:

Thelgar.7214:

I’m going to revise my opinion on the scepter. I still think it was ruined as a ranged weapon. But it is quite possibly the most fun melee weapon in the game if you use it like you’re hitting people with a stick. My only concern is ANet going back and nerfing the damage and leaving it at 900 range.

It was never a good ranged weapon (not as a 1200 range weapon anyway), although it’s certainly not a melee weapon either. The nerf to 900 range feels unnoticeable to me since hitting anything with the scepter from 1200 range was borderline impossible.

What are you using it for?

I love the greatsword. Style, skills, it has it all. I wouldn’t mind other weapons getting some fixes, so I can change up my swaps more often though.

In WvW there is a niche build with scepter/shield or scepter/torch which was useful in certain circumstances to support ranged classes. And scepter made a nice switch weapon sometimes in fights with range heavy enemies or in pursuit.

900 range in WvW in those situations results in a lot of “Out of Range – kitten – repeat” situations or you have to overcommit to do more than tag someone that overcommitted.

gennyt.3428:

Yeah worker warrior is boring but maybe a PvP character shouldn’t be built like a Mack Truck and hit like one too? If you want the excitement of doing real damage then take some risks and trade something for it.

It should do both. Just like other characters hit like a Mack truck from range, or hit like a Mack truck and stealth, or hit like a Mack truck and evade.

The idea that front-line warriors in WvW are playing without risk is utter nonsense. Only warriors have been expected to give up all their damage to survive just so they can pop an elite skill on a long cool down. It’s ridiculous.

The age old problem in WvW is that warriors without DPS are only good for bannering. A front-line melee class has to be both tanky and do damage, otherwise there is no use having it outside of the horridly unenjoyable pirate ship wet noodle builds. Going back to the 1 or 2 warriors just for banners wouldn’t be a good thing.

I’m going to revise my opinion on the scepter. I still think it was ruined as a ranged weapon. But it is quite possibly the most fun melee weapon in the game if you use it like you’re hitting people with a stick. My only concern is ANet going back and nerfing the damage and leaving it at 900 range.

I’ll be interested to see how much this affects 10-15 person havoks, there are always a couple extra thieves following us around.

Jeknar.6184:

Thelgar.7214:

Nightshade.2570:

Naix.8156:

Nightshade.2570:

lol, well seriously I love this.

Good to hear your happy that dev’s spent time on this.

More good news: those open field canons you voted yes to are nearly ready to ship!

You need to get a sense of humor.

There is no fun or humor allowed in WvW.

But this is the forum, not the game. This is the only place we can have some fun lately…

Stack and coverage war your way to Tier 1 and have fun telling everyone you’re in Tier 1. Nothing else is allowed. Tier 1 is all that matters and is the source of all knowledge, fun, friendliness and light.

Nightshade.2570:

Naix.8156:

Nightshade.2570:

lol, well seriously I love this.

Good to hear your happy that dev’s spent time on this.

More good news: those open field canons you voted yes to are nearly ready to ship!

You need to get a sense of humor.

There is no fun or humor allowed in WvW.

I also agree. Progress made should not be erased because of a patch.

It’s a spoiler. Some people, like me avoided all that stuff in order to enjoy the story unspoiled. Luckily for me, I played it before you posted.

Facepalm is perfect.
“Jump in on me!” (Jumps blindly into center of zerg)
(Squad watches, doesn’t jump in, then /facepalms)

No big deal to me. I used Karma infusions in most of my amulets anyway, with only my fractal and a couple WvW characters using something else. Always a use for infusions.

Ah yes, the joy of PvP changes like the stab change that nearly killed WvW outright.

I thought it was going to be toys. I asked for them back. I’m so happy I could, well not cry, I’m not a sissy. But I could do something like a primal scream.

This would be a nice change. I have a serious imbalance of one type of ring across a few stats.

Nerf short bow to range 900 way back when because people weren’t playing long bow. People point out that short bow is seriously inferior to axe and ask for range increase on short bow to 1200. ArenaNet nerfs axe… now two bad 900 range weapons…

900 range on Scepter 1 and 2? Goodbye Scepter.

Link guild progression to servers and reset it with every move. The guild moves are what throw things out of balance.

Solo capping a camp is interrupted more than often enough by other players as it is. If you aren’t anywhere near a camp, there shouldn’t be time enough to port and run in when it is being capped. If you want to defend the camp, be near enough to it that you can react.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Thelgar.7214:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Sird.4536:

No wonder the siege polls are winning lol, the ideas here are just….

What is your idea that is better than changes/additions to siege?

Dude, unless he is going to suggest removing the gates, anything is better than the two suggestions here to increase invulnerability on placed siege and remove siege disablers.

Instead of complaining about changes to siege, what would you like to see? ANet seems willing to try any simple changes that extend an existing mechanic, while they work on the more complicated underlying issues.

Pointing out that an idea has an obvious and predictable effect isn’t complaining. Both eliminating siege disablers fall into that category. It doesn’t take testing to figure the effects of those. They’ll give an advantage to the side with more numbers. I would not make any changes that favor larger sides over smaller sides. I’ll point out any others that do that as well.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Sird.4536:

No wonder the siege polls are winning lol, the ideas here are just….

What is your idea that is better than changes/additions to siege?

Dude, unless he is going to suggest removing the gates, anything is better than the two suggestions here to increase invulnerability on placed siege and remove siege disablers.

phantom.1675:

Thelgar.7214:

phantom.1675:

GOALS: Fix mega-servers/home world, fix 1 man siege defense

2) Make siege invulnerable (or invulnerable siege option) for a short time (need testing).

1 defender with 5 well placed AC’s thwarting 10-15 players from taking objectives encourages too many large zergs to have free reign all over the place.

Defending vs outnumbered should be more of a combination of defensive siege AND minimal numbers in open field combat. The 1 defender can AC the players while 5-10 more players actually fight them near the structure/assault point.

By making siege invulnerable upon building, it also encourages more flash building of defensive siege by a minimal number of players which enables above (but requires there be > 1 defender).

This allows more smaller groups 5-15 to take objectives and requires similar sized groups to defender against it. This keeps 5 players from defending entire fortified maps while the rest zerg ball on another borderland. Mostly it enables comeback potential where having fortified stuff doesn’t snowball the entire week’s scoring.

This is very favorable to stacked servers, requiring matching numbers to defend anything. It turns the BLs and BL thirds of less populated servers into a Karma train for the stacked server unless they dissolve their main force into a havok for each map, conceding EBG and likely losing their home BL as well.

I didn’t say I wanted matching numbers. I said I wanted sane numbers, 20 versus 1 should always win, given they have 3-4 siege weapons placed. The problem is siege is stupid and cant dodge the AC, players can. If 20 guys get wiped by 1 AC, I am ok with that. But even if 20 players can survive a single AC, the siege never will and that’s what allows taking of objectives and makes WvW interesting.

As to what is favored, I would love to see a test, because I don’t believe you. And you (or I) can’t possibly know until someone tests it, otherwise it’s just unfounded guesswork.

Furthemore, Anet is supposed to address the population imbalance overall. I am simply talking about where players are given roughly equal numbers. If you both teams have 100 players, the current system favors putting the smallest amount possible (i.e. 1) to defend each objective by manning siege and have the largest zerg ball of zerker run around somewhere. This isn’t interesting and it isn’t fun.

I am favoring anything which forces a split of zerg balls into much smaller teams and encourages fights rather than 1 guy hiding in a keep with 5-6 siege weapons able to hold off versus 20 enemies.

For what it’s worth I am on DH getting the anet rickroll of the CD conglomerate. The issue is, everything gets fortified and we dont have enough players to take anything. Either our siege is wiped by 1 guy with balli/AC or enough of the siege is eliminated that he can hold out for the zerg ball to come and just roll us over. This is happening to us because we are Low Pop.

You can not believe me, but it isn’t unfounded guesswork. I was running one-man defense on Fort Aspinwood against TC right after the Alliance stacking. A few more seconds per attack, and we’d have lost everything rather than a couple towers. The margin for getting a team to defend before or as the gate/wall drops is that narrow. Any experienced havok commander knows that a few seconds is regularly going to contribute to victory, and to make sure you have people dropping siege as soon as you arrive rather than fooling around with the guards. You’re asking for extra seconds for free. it doesn’t take a test or guesswork to figure out the result.

phantom.1675:

GOALS: Fix mega-servers/home world, fix 1 man siege defense

2) Make siege invulnerable (or invulnerable siege option) for a short time (need testing).

1 defender with 5 well placed AC’s thwarting 10-15 players from taking objectives encourages too many large zergs to have free reign all over the place.

Defending vs outnumbered should be more of a combination of defensive siege AND minimal numbers in open field combat. The 1 defender can AC the players while 5-10 more players actually fight them near the structure/assault point.

By making siege invulnerable upon building, it also encourages more flash building of defensive siege by a minimal number of players which enables above (but requires there be > 1 defender).

This allows more smaller groups 5-15 to take objectives and requires similar sized groups to defender against it. This keeps 5 players from defending entire fortified maps while the rest zerg ball on another borderland. Mostly it enables comeback potential where having fortified stuff doesn’t snowball the entire week’s scoring.

This is very favorable to stacked servers, requiring matching numbers to defend anything. It turns the BLs and BL thirds of less populated servers into a Karma train for the stacked server unless they dissolve their main force into a havok for each map, conceding EBG and likely losing their home BL as well.

“Charge!”

No better name for it.

Oh, and get Brian Blessed to voice it for Charr using the same voice he used in Flash Gordon to say, “Diiiiiive!”

I wish I’d get more of the hair and total makeover kits.
Having the permanent bank, trader, merchant and repair cannisters, I get a bunch of the single use versions of those.

Gliding in the spawn locations. It is in the PvP lobby, so having it in non-combat areas (with invisible walls to contain it) would be nice.

Cavalry mounted on Dolyaks.

Blaydyn.5871:

If siege disablers are really that big of a problem, which I don’t think they are, then limit the amount of siege they can hit, like one disabler can only de-activate two pieces of siege.

Awful idea. Negates the siege of a havok group, but only a minor inconvenience for bobbers, who are going to drop four to six pieces of siege. Makes it not worth bothering with at all.

Siege disablers are one of the few things added that stall the blob. They are critical in havoking. Removing disablers and increasing wall or door stats would be taking active and heroic play out of the game and replacing it with static and boring defense.

I wonder how things would be different if Guilds weren’t unlinked from servers way back when. If Guilds had to restart at level 0 every time they moved, it would be a bigger decision to move.

The easiest way to find a good guild to play with is to go into WvW without a guild tag and play the way you would like to play. Either roam on your own and group up with people taking camps and engaging other small groups or run to a tag and got on a havok group or blob. Play for a while and see how you like it. Someone will invite you to join their guild. Join and give it a try.

Just a personal thing, but If they insist you fill out an application first, wait for another invitation. The friendliest guilds in my experience are those that invite people playing with them, add them to comms, talk and play and let things progress naturally.

I used an eater on my empyreals, so now I’m always short those. Ascended crafting eats through my mats pretty hard. I get just enough dragonite to get by. I’m about four blocks of bloodstone ahead, not counting what I stashed on a mule a while back when I was champ train running before the boxes were nerfed. I’ve had to break into that stash once or twice, including guild donations. So while I don’t need more bloodstone dust, getting less would eventually drain me.

A few things to contain blobbing:

Enable friendly character collision. Make the blobmanders deal with the negative side of moving and forming big numbers.

Speed debuffs based on group size. It is still a problem that 50 man blobs maintain constant swiftness and can launch people out with movement skills to overtake small groups and single targets.

Friendly fire. Never going to happen, but it would make movement and maneuver in large blobs have a downside. .

Cobrakon.3108:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Downgrade to a lower resolution. “Problem” fixed. This is what happens when you try to play a game in conditions far beyond what it’s development had access to, ie 4k was limited to, as far as I recall, cinematic format in theaters until recently.

Still not an excuse. WoW had larger UI options, Blade and Soul does. It is possible to have a larger setting for the UI. This is not rocket science. Why conform and fall in line so easily? Where does your logic stem from? You make it sound so simple to downgrade yet LCD technology is wonky if its not at its native resolution. 4k displays will only get more popular, and the solution is possible.

Not to mention the people with low vision who could use larger ui options. This is QoL to the max but its even beyond that. It’s basic functionality that’s on the line. The thing is it has a solution, that is not that hard to implement.

Agreed, Compared to the changes in the camera and such, a larger sized UI seems pretty trivial.

I was thinking about this yesterday while running on my sylvari mesmer. A couple more options would be nice. Even if it was just splitting the glow and higher quality coloring (which were changed way back when) into two separate sets, it would be something.

Oh, and sylvari cultural armor that shows more skin color and glow would be great too. The original flamekissed armor looked fantastic on sylvari.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

• There’s no incentive for unaffiliated players to transfer from a full to a low-pop world.
• There is, however, a strong disincentive for moving: the high cost.
• There are also incentives for moving to higher-pop worlds: better fights, better coverage (so more likely to be competitive), better chance of finding a zerg (for those who want), and generally “safer” to havoc (for those who prefer that).

I think addressing server imbalance and bandwagoning is going to take more than a

I don’t get why unaffiliated players should be encouraged to move downward. It is the guilds that need to spread out to create dynamic and enjoyable tiers. Unless this is the “Get off the map so I can bring my guild in, losers.” thing.

World size only makes havoking safer on a full world when you have a mismatch. Havok becomes getting run over repeatedly when facing a large world, regardless of the size of your own. Unless it is TC, where you can usually take most everything on its third of your map and the other enemy’s map without encountering any significant resistance with a roaming group, and if you are the type of low-life to do so, spawn camp those thirds with a havok group.

I didn’t mind the lack of queues. The maps didn’t feel empty and the fights were fun.

I’d be happy if the populations stabilize where they are.

Specifically rams and catas. You ought to get something for continually taking a beating and dying.

Dominator Staff
The Crossing
Azimuth
Berserker’s Lightward’s Battlestaff (might cost over 350)

Jana.6831:

Depraved Ambience.7942:

So remove the nodes, disable hero points, and promote toxic player behaviour! Salt for everyone!

I agree with that actually, the nodes are far worse than the crafting stations could’ve ever been – ask almost any commander (one I know solved this by ignoring the nodes and his zerg – but he’s that good that people don’t want to miss out, so they’re ignoring the nodes as well – don’t neccessarily try this at home).

You can have our victory nodes when you pry them from the cold, dead, hands of the commanders we don’t push with because they don’t let us get our victory nodes!

This has to work on golems. Anything that encourages more golem usage is a good thing.

I think the system is fine as is. Also, the reworking of systems that aren’t broken, e.g. the New Player Experience, along with taking time to go back and gut old content in the starting areas, combined with destroying existing content, e.g. Lion’s Arch and the Zephyrites, contributed significantly toward the lack of content in the game now.

I’m looking forward to this more than any gem store item. I hope it talks, I have an Asuran warrior who has r-Tron everything and the stuff talking to me is the best part.

Dawdler.8521:

In the final version, its a skirt.

Unless you wear medium armor, then it is a trenchcoat.