Guild Wars 2

A QoL change that would make almost everyone in the game happy. Actually, I can’t think of a single person that wouldn’t like this change.

Add LS currencies to the wallet and add LS materials to the Mat Bank. Anet has been so thoroughly inconsistent with it that it’s gone beyond aggravating and really looks like bad planning and design. Not doing so doesn’t improve the game and just makes things aggravating for the player.

Dayra.7405:

Torsailr.8456:

I think he was saying that if BG has 10,000 WvW players and alliances have a 10,000 member cap then all of BG could move to one alliance and be called the BG Alliance.

However if alliances have a cap of 5000 then BG would have to split into 2 alliances and they’d both need unique names.

For sure, smaller alliances make team-composition easier and more variant than large alliances.

Also for sure it does not make sense to allow alliances to grow larger than match-team-size.

But if you say, current NA-T1 teams are perfect size to fill up 24/7 4-map matches and we stick to such matches, then todays BG-size (or SFR-size, no idea who is larger) would be the max-size of an alliance.
BG-alliance would always be one team, whereas other teams would consist of several alliances.

I’ve no idea how many matches it would give if all teams are BG-size, maybe 2, maybe 3, maybe 4. But ANet for sure can determine this.

It is also possible to have matches of different sizes. Could be nice for variance.
In one week your (small) alliance is placed in a 4-map match with many others, in another week you alliance is placed in a 2-map match (assuming we have two balanced maps), with fewer others. In one week you play on maps with high (current) map caps, in another week you play on maps with low map cap (assuming you fit).

I see where you’re going with that. I agree having 2 500 member alliances compete as a team against 2 separate 1000 member alliances could make for an interesting break from the norm. It might pose problems with score tracking/allocation for a teamed effort though.

I think the overall success or fail of an alliance system would come down to finding what the right cap is for alliance sizes. Too high and it doesn’t effectively change anything, too low and you start running into not having enough people to compete well.

I think 2000 is about right. here’s how I derived it:
(80 person map cap) x (3 maps) x (6 blocks of time based on 4 hours of assumed average play time per player) + 50% for unaccounted variabkitten
× 3 × 6 = 1440 × 1.5 = 2160. Round down to 2000.

Given I have no way of knowing what actual wvw populations are on a server, this seemed a reasonable way to guess a potential cap size. I’m sure the devs have better means of evaluating populations to find a cap size.

Schtizzel.5497:

And then I can’t really grasp how an alliance system would help tackling night capping or off hour imbalances.
Matching Alliances against each other will definitively help balancing the over all population of a WvW Matchup but how can you ensure that a specific Alliance won’t bring in more people willingly to play at off peak hours.

How can you measure that in advance and how can you incorporate a way that tackles a fluctation of off peak players in an alliance between two matchups?
From my point of view this is pretty much not doable.

Is this something that should be programmed in to match ups?

Part of managing an alliance would be recruiting the types of players you need which would include when they could play. Would it be fair to say this is part of a valid strategy to win? If you can spread your members around the clock instead of stacking them in prime time to help you get the points, why would that be wrong?

Also if having more off peak players results in net higher scores over time and if match ups take population and score into account, isn’t this already factored into match ups “in advance”?

Dayra.7405:

Match-making could be totally different from today.
We have a fixed set of matches, and matchmaking would only be to place alliances into the teams of the matches, such that all teams have nearly equal man power, e.g. This week SFR-alliance is placed as one team to fight against the team of Elona+Gandara alliances as second team and Vabbi+Millers+Abaddon+Jade sea alliances as third team (assuming the total alliance size are nearly equal.). At the end of the match each alliance in the team receives the team-score as alliance-score and in the leaderboard alliances and it’s score are listed (not the temporary teams).

I think he was saying that if BG has 10,000 WvW players and alliances have a 10,000 member cap then all of BG could move to one alliance and be called the BG Alliance.

However if alliances have a cap of 5000 then BG would have to split into 2 alliances and they’d both need unique names. Or if 2000 then 5 alliances, etc. Now if alliance caps are set lower than a full world population then you’re almost guaranteed to end up with more alliances than you have servers and it’s likely not all alliances would be capped out. The more alliances you have, the more potential match ups there are which makes it much easier to match alliances up based on relative populations and skill/score.

So that creates multiple alliances at cap that would then be in the same pool to be matched against each other. Alliances that are 90% of cap would be in a separate pool of match ups. 80% in a third, etc. Match ups would then proceed as they currently do. 1 alliance vs 1 alliance vs 1 alliance.

As alliances change in size restructuring would need to be planned in to avoid a constant steam roll scenario that many people find problematic. And with the increased number of alliances over servers it should limit the stagnant feeling of always playing against the same people.

I think….at least that’s how I interpreted it. Am I close? Not sure.

Samis.1750:

I would also be very careful about weakening communities since WvW is pretty much the only community left in GW2 aside from the RP community – which has been harmed to some extent by the megaserver. Most WvWers know people in multiple guilds and many are often members in multiple guilds, at least on TC.

Guilds and players come and go like the wind. The idea of a server endures. There’s a reason why religions continue to flourish in modernity. They are great at building community compared to the secular alternatives. Tarnished Coast is comparable to a religious institution or university. Guild are your team in the local softball or bowling league.

I’m not religious, but happy Rosh Hashana to you all!

Fair point. I suspect once a large alliance gets going it will take on a momentum all of its own similar to some of the large guilds. Members may come and go but the alliance remains.

At least, I’d hope so.

Reverence.6915:

With alliances, what about players with no guilds but actively participate in their server’s WvW efforts? New to WvW and have no direction on which alliance to pick?

Alliances may sound nice in theory, but I think it’ll only put up barriers to people getting into WvW, as it may forcefully separate friends due to alliance population limits. As an example, if this were to be implemented today, the majority of Blackgate would choose to move as one. Would an alliance fit that many people? or would the population cap be a lot lower and force people who’ve played together for 2 years give or take (majority of Blackgate’s guilds) to split up?

I don’t think it creates more barriers to entry. Currently people are stuck in whatever server they pick when they start playing. If you don’t read the forums in depth before hand then your WvW choice is effectively random or based on nearly irrelevant details like PVE world population. You simply lack any information to make an informed choice. Once you start playing, if the world your on doesn’t have a style of play you like then you’re effectively stuck unless you fork over some gems to transfer.

By separating WvW from world selection then it lets players play and get more information before having to choose what to do with WvW. And if Alliance recruit as guilds do I think that would reduce barriers by making the transition to WvW more informed and smoother.

However, you do have a good point that massive servers like BG may be forced to split depending on Alliance size caps. I would wonder though how many would be opposed to that if where they want was largely voluntary? I mean, it would allow most friends to continue playing together if they talk about which alliance to join instead of doing it blindly. I don’t play on a massive server so I really don’t know how they’d feel about that. I’m guessing and trying to see it from that point of view as well.

Also, having a system that allows alliance transfers/switching if you aren’t happy with your alliance would take a lot of the sting/fear out of picking an alliance.

I wonder…about a class that uses magic to either “summon” weapons/armor to use or “creates” weapons/armor out of raw magical energy.

The unique mechanic would be to equip the weapon/armor stored in it. Say F1 & F2 for weapons and F3 & F4 for armor sets.

When you equip weapon/armor it gets stored in the unique mechanic instead of on your character. Then when you use the mechanic it creates a magical weapon of that type. IE if you have a Sword stored in F1 then when you hit F1 you summon a glowing magic sword into your hand that lasts until you leave combat.

F1 & F2 would swap weapons.
F3 & F4 would let you swap armor sets.

Utility skills might adjust cooldowns, reach, or add special attacks to a weapon.

John Corpening.9847:

This would happen at regular intervals, the intervals were all over the map as were the size of the worlds in this thread so I will propose this cadence:

• Off Season
• Tournament
• Restructure
  • Create new Worlds
  • Redistribute Alliances

This cycle would take a few months given the cadence of tournaments we have had which is about the time that we would want to rebalance populations. After the restructure, players could transfer like they do now if they so desired.

I think this might be over complicating it. The key is having dynamic databases that update with alliance membership numbers.

The way I see it is if Alliances are a collection of individuals/guilds then they have control over their own numbers. If the alliance membership size is kept in a database it can be updated either dynamically as the alliance changes or as a call each week. Each week when it comes time to create matchups you group the alliances into tiers based on population then refine it based on previous scores/leaderboards (if none treat as 0).

This allows match ups to be made independent of what is happening in the alliance and allows the match ups to always be current with membership levels. If an alliance drops 200 members in a week then they’ll be matched against someone with a similar number of members the following week. It would prevent a situation where someone gets railroaded by higher numbers.

It may be possible for people to try to game the system by not having many people in the alliance and then joining up after a match up is set. I think a few smaller alliances might try this but enough of the regular players would find this idea abhorrent and wouldn’t bother trying. We want meaningful matches, not new ways to game the system and cheat. But no system is 100% cheat proof. I think the community would self police itself in this regard and if it proves to be a re-occurring problem with some then a GM could hand out suspensions if necessary.

It may be necessary to freeze placements in the tiers for a Tournament. But I think there might be a few unconsidered variables there to make a decision like that now. Personally I think after 6-9 months of alliances things would be fairly stable and the increased number of alliances over servers would allow for a more robust round robin tournaments making freezes unnecessary.

Clerigo.9475:

timmyf.1490:

Clerigo.9475:

Chris been missing for a day. Any news?

I’m not sure it’s appropriate to ask. He’s dealing with family issues. He’ll return when he returns.

I know he is dealing with family issues, thats why i asked. Im hoping for everything to be alright.
If Chris returns tomorrow or only next month is all the same for me, as long as everything is ok with him.
Just asking.

He hasn’t posted an update yet today. Either he’s speedily working on starting the next phase and we’ll see it soon or he’s still taking care of his family.

Either way, I agree, I hope everything is ok with him and his family.

John Corpening.9847:

Hey Guys,

Normally I like to summarize the discussion as it is happening but today I’ve been away from my desk for most of the day and just popped on to see that we are at 6 pages! YIKES! It’s going to take me a bit to catch up because I read every post in a thread that I’m engaging in. I’m making this post to let you know that I am reading this thread but I’d like to absorb everything everyone is discussing before I make my next response.

Thanks,
John

The conversation has generally been around the pros/cons of fixing population imbalance and PPT scores.

Suggestions for population balance have been for server mergers, gvg alliances, population caps (dynamic and static), and ppt handicaps.

I’ve just been casually reading. I’m sure someone else has a more in depth summary than I could do.

Clerigo.9475:

Just a quick note on this: all mmorpgs, or rpg online i have played, including gw1, that had or have a related “henchman” design, suffer from deterioting pve grouping content and loss of community social activity.

I know its a double edge blade, but if i have to chose ill go with finding a way to make grouping more fun and rewardable, rather than following a path that, imo, has almost nothing to do with what “mmorpg” should stand for.

Fair point.

Palador.2170:

Vlad Morbius.1759:

All of these would be amazing. Why not be able to go into dungeons or fractals with 2 people and 3 henchmen and have it designed to scale accordingly, or even solo with henchman and make each versions rewards unique. Too much content geared too specifically and it’s a waste. That said final request large new areas to explore and real reasons to explore them.

Marcus Greythorne.6843:

Just wanted to comment on this…

Living Story Missions aren’t like dungeons (group-play required) but those missions can be played in groups of 5 as well as alone.

Imho this scaling would feel great for regular dungeons as well. Don’t have 5 guys? Just go in there with your friend and experience it as well. Other games did this with dungeons (I remember LotRO) and had a lot of success with these modes.

I would love to see future dungeons be like that: really challenging for 5 players but also viable for small teams / solo players (for all the players who don’t like team content – quite a few). I know some people are soloing dungeons too, but this is hardly what I’m talking about since it takes a while to complete a dungeon without skipping most content.

I agree with both of these, with two “small” additions.

Henchmen: Anyone can get the default ones, but more interesting ones have to be earned and/or customized. Imagine if you could get a default class/skills for them, then customize the look. Normal costuming items and costs would apply, adding to gameplay.

Grouping: To encourage grouping, add a rare chance of something (Dungeon Tokens, maybe) dropping from each opponent. The chance is unaffected by MF, but it goes up the more real players are in the team. Ending rewards may be slightly nerfed to even things out.

+1

I don’t hate dungeons but I do hate having to deal with PUGs. I have a small circle of friends on GW2 and most of them aren’t available for dungeons when I am so if I go I have to pug or join and neither experience has left me wanting to do it more.

Being able to use henchmen to round out my party or scale it to solo would enable people like me to do dungeons more often (probably daily for some paths).

When they redesigned champ loot that specifically excluded Jormag champs from dropping loot bags. If people are farming the champs there for loot they’re just wasting time. I haven’t seen anything to indicate loot was reinstated there. I’m not even sure the champs that spawn count towards kills.

When Teq got a revamp the devs stated Shatt and Jormag would also eventually get a revamp. Didn’t say when though.

So I’d envision a heavy caster to be something like a cross between elementalist and warrior. I’m tempted to call it battle mage, but the name doesn’t fit.

Take Auras and Attunements from the elementalist, shouts and stances from the warrior. Instead of having a ranged skirmisher like the ele, this would be a melee brawler.

Where as elementalist summons elementals to help fight a mob, this class would become part elemental.

Attunements would pick which elemental you take the traits of and auras would be defined by the elemental. Fire might give bonuses to damage, air for precision, water for healing power, earth for toughness. Each element would also give weapons an enhancement buff/condition.

Auras would do damage to enemies and buffs to allies within X units.

Elite skills would allow transformation into elementals similar to norn transformations.

ProTech.8402:

What we are missing is the Evil Heavy armor class, so something like Death Knight.

Light: Good Elementalist, Neutral Mesmer, Evil Necromancer.
Medium: Good Ranger, Neutral Engineer, Evil Thief
Heavy: Good Guardian, Neutral Warrior, Evil ?

Maybe evil is not the best word for it so something dark that can use death magic, etc.

Hmm, death knight….dark knight….BATMAN!

Allow players to create their own outfits and sell them on TP. I create my custom look based on skins I have. Bundle it, save it as an outfit, then sell on TP. Buyer can use it as an outfit, but doesn’t get the individual skins used to make it. Instant new market on the TP.

Expand crafting to allow players to pick and choose stats and appearance.

Maybe I really like the hilt from greatsword A but hate the blade, but greatsword B has an awesome blade. Let me try to combine the two and make a new skin.

Modeling/texturing would need a complete overhaul I imagine and thus would never happen. But so worth it!

Scipio.3204:

Alright, I’ll try.

There is no challenge in anything after two years,

Hmm, hardcore mode? If the character dies, it’s gone for good. Can not WP back to life, can not be rezzed from full dead(dead, not downed). If the character has any rare or better equipment it gets auto-sent to the mail box, otherwise it’s deleted along with the character. Make a new char and start over.

How far can you make it on one life?

I would like to have our actions actually be reflected in the world over time.

IE. Zhaitan is dead, over time (2-3 years) we should see fewer risen in the game.
If certain events aren’t done then we get a spontaneous raid event related to it such as if we don’t do the centaur events in Kessex then a large group raids Queensdale. Or vice versa if over farmed.

Maybe tie this into a meta map system similar to what Dry top has so people realize it’s going on?

I don’t think it’s possible to implement a reduced population cap that is fair to everyone and doesn’t involve forcing some people to change how they want to play. Some people enjoy the blobfest and want to be on those servers. I don’t think it’s right to try and force them to split up to rebalance WvW populations.

By the same token these people won’t want to transfer to lower population servers unless you create some really unbalanced incentives to do so.

It seems there’s 3 types of solutions to this. Alliance/GvG, PPT handicaps, and restructuring WvW.

Alliance/GvG pairings based on populations would solve several “problems”.
*Each group would be based on people who actually WvW instead of high pop PvE worlds.
*GvG groups would create a much higher number of participant units than server worlds.
*More participants would create better weekly pairings.
*Everyone finally gets the GvG they keep harping about.

PPT handicaps would allow the current structure to remain in place and involve the least amount of change. However, trying to create a balanced handicap based on population that wouldn’t invalidate some forms of play would be difficult at best. This also brings up the issue of how effective/meaningful is PPT at measuring how a world is doing in WvW? It definitely favors larger populations over smaller ones.

Restructuring WvW similar to what Blaeys was talking about might be a fair middle ground to everything. It would help spread out population in each tier and foster adhoc alliances between same color worlds without creating the problems EoTM suffers. However it wouldn’t necessarily create for better weekly pairings and it would rely on the generosity of higher population worlds to help out the lower population worlds for no benefit to themselves. Perhaps if there was a WvW XP/Karma/MF bonus to fighting alongside lower population servers it would help? Something like a 10% bonus wouldn’t be overpowering but it would still be a noticable buff.

CrashTestAuto.9108:

The thing is, while the number of red posts went up, the two biggest issues that were being asked about at the time of the protest were SAB and traits (there have been bigger issues before and since). Neither of those have been addressed despite Occupy SAB being what raised the communication issue above being ignorable in the first place (or if not, was highly coincidental to that), and the traits system thread now being 50 pages of pretty much unanimous hatred. The appearance of communication has gone up, but actual communication on things that matter has pretty much stayed the same.

I believe it was actually the leak of the commander tag changes that precipitated everything with the communication issue. SAB came up in the wake of that.

I would argue that communication has gone up, not just the appearance of it.
*Guild Halls, one of the more prominent things people talk about have a CDI starting tomorrow.
*The WvW Siege troll and population balance issues, both long time problems, have a dev actively participating in the discussion.
*The commander tag issue saw discussion and was changed before release.
*The Traits discussion got a dev post saying things were being reconsidered.
*The economy forum still has a dev actively talking to players.

This is just what I recall of the top of my head. There is plenty of communication to be had. Whether or not it interests you is a different issue.

A question about the Guild Hall CDI.

Will this be a feature discussion? As in what features we’d like it to have? Or more of a QoL/Logistical one similar to this thread? Or perhaps an open free for all of ideas?

Completely abandon the concept of worlds and servers for WvW and replace it with Alliances.

To start with, let players create their own alliances. These alliances would probably start as guild alliances but there shouldn’t be any reason why an individual couldn’t join one. These alliances would then be registered as WvW participants. After alliances are registered, retire the world servers.

Alliances would have a tiered registration.
*Tier 1: less than 500 members.
*Tier 2: 501 – 1000 members.
*Tier 3: 1001 – 1500 members
*Tier 4: 1501 – 2000 members
Have a cap of 2000 members forcing people to create other alliances and stopping stacking/bloating of an alliance. Members will belong to 1 alliance at a time. Have no cap on the number of alliances possible in the game.

Match ups will be based on tier first, then either by leaderboard score or a round robin rotating selection. I believe there would be enough alliances to make a round robin selection possible and effective.

Current world bonuses from WvW would instead be alliance bonuses.

All existing players would have an option to join an alliance, either with a guild or individually.

New players would never get an option to select worlds, their data would just be stored on a random server. The server at this point would be irrelevant. New players would then get to pick an alliance via game play from recruiters just like guilds do. This would allow for a much more informed decision about it as compared to now and allow for better development of “identity” in an alliance as opposed to world servers.

Problems may occur with individuals belonging to different alliances than their guilds belong to. However, this was also true of people belonging to different worlds in the same guild. That issue seems to have had only minor problems and I wouldn’t anticipate alliances creating significantly more in that respect.

This may also make a use for the team chat channel and differentiate it from map chat.

In short, this would level populations, increase the number of “players/alliances” in WvW, create a better sense of identity post megaserver, and still allow people to keep playing as they have been.

sirian.4981:

This idea would require a lot of work. Expansion level amounts of work and we have no evidence Arenanet is interested in developing substantial new content.

A new class wouldn’t require anywhere near the amount of work an expansion would require. Besides, this is fun brainstorming.

Weapon Specialist. Similar in composition to the warrior and replace adrenaline with a special skill set for each weapon. The longer you use the weapon without swapping the more powerful the special skills become.

I don’t think you’d have to go far to find a weapon specialist type of fighter in the lore either.

GM White Noise was trying to be stealthy. Proof that Anet trains their own ninja mods!

I kinda feel sad for whomever becomes the liaison after Gaile. I mean, she did such a good job that filling her shoes will be a legendary task.

John Smith.4610:

does even a little half-correct information make people better off or worse off?

If someone is completely ignorant I think half-correct information can help get them to a minimal level of understanding so they can at least start to think about it. But that also leads into “I know just enough to get into trouble.” Which is probably where I’m at when it comes to economics.

I think a lot of teachers take the approach of oversimplifying things so they’re only half correct just to get students started on the path of learning the material, then refining and completing that knowledge as the course progresses.

Extra Credits’ videos are always made as more of an introduction/overview because the topics they talk about are too broad/deep to go into effectively in that format. They want to introduce the topic and make people talk/think about it, not necessarily educate them on everything.

How about a timer on how much supply you can take from a keep? No more than 20 supply in a minute? Enough to slow down the trolls but not overly inhibit a player’s ability to defend/repair.

If you consistently hit the limit, maybe 5 times within 10 minutes then you get locked out of the keep supply for a half hour? It would stop trolls, but a zerg should still have enough people to rotate through getting supply so this limit isn’t hit.

This would be a limit on the character. So me hitting the limit wouldn’t affect my teammate or commander and vice versa.

Blockhead Magee.3092:

The exhaustion idea has merit, however, a limit of three seems a bit small considering you may want to quickly build a number of defensive siege when you see a blob storming your keep. I’d wager the griefers won’t be dissuaded no matter what cap is put in place. They’d just wait it out.

One small tweak, perhaps, would be to not allow flame rams to be created inside a tower, camp or inner keep (SM & Garrison). At least force the griefers to use something that has a modicum of value.

I think a system that allows siege to be destroyed by the player base would be a better way to go. Some sort of approval where some number of players concur that a piece of siege should be destroyed in any given area. It would be a lot harder to get a group of griefers together to remove siege than it is for them to create it.

Allow a squad to salvage siege for a percentage of supplies used to build it? Share those supplies among the squad members that aren’t full?

John Corpening.9847:

Here are some parameters and questions we should consider:

• Can we come up with a system that doesn’t involve constant policing from GMs?
• What are the characteristics of bad behavior that are different than good behavior?
• How do we prevent bad behavior without making too big of an impact on good behavior?
• What restrictions might we be able to live with as good players in order to prevent bad behavior?

I think a fundamental problem here is that we’re trying to find a game mechanic to predict/fix player decisions. Any mechanic that gets put in place would just shift the troll behavior to something else without fixing the issue. I don’t think you can program your way out of this kind of problem.

I honestly think sending some GM’s out with a banhammer to exterminate trolls with extreme prejudice would do a lot at combating the trolls. It’s gotten out of hand because there’s no fear of repercussions. Show them there are consequences and many of them will either leave or get banned. Those that are left will be the die hard griefers but at least there will be fewer to deal with.

Once the majority of trolls are gone it would be easier to re-evaluate what kind of programming fixes could be made.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

4: The ability to fire Asuran Special Forces into Enemy Keeps with a special Guild Trebuchet!!!!

I can see it now, a scattershot of Asura Engineers flying over SMC dropping grenades on everyone.

…which begs the question, if an engineer hits the wall, will his hobosack explode doing siege damage to the wall?

Essence Snow.3194:

Is the economy designed around rewards or are rewards designed around the economy? (not talking about appearances ofc)

Neither and both.

Any time you add or change a reward it’s going to have an affect on the economy. Likewise a change in the economy will affect rewards. The two are so intertwined that you can’t really break it up in the manner your question suggests. It’s more of a balancing act than designing one around the other.

Hi John,
I saw this video on Extra Credits today.
http://youtu.be/W39TtF14i8I

Would you say this is an accurate overview of MMO economics? I think I see a lot of concepts there that match elements of the economy in GW2.

Also, the video talks about how a treasury can influence inflation by controlling how much money is minted and that can be mirrored in an MMO by controlling how much gold is dropped by mobs. We’ve seen you do this with champ bags but do you also control the gold drops from regular mobs in a similar manner?

I’ve never noticed a change in coins from mobs but then it’s such a tiny amount that I typically ignore it. However, a tiny amount for me would be a huge amount on a global scale and any changes to that would have a not insignificant impact on the economy.

Niquechelle.2015:

This is just a short summary of the most mentioned things in this Thread. I hope it helps a little

Guild mail
-ability for the guild leader so send mail to the whole guild at once

Can we expand this into a guild wide whisper where guild leaders/officers can whisper everyone in the guild regardless if they rep or not?

Note: if we can see guild chat even when we don’t rep then this is superfluous.

Is it a bug or feature that the potent version of the utility consumables don’t count for this achieve? The only difference is the potent version lasts for 1 hour and the regular lasts for 30 min.

If this is a feature, please change it.

I’ve noticed on all my characters that the Elegant Backpack (Exotic) is listed twice in the production window and there doesn’t appear to be any difference between the two. The lower level backpacks are only listed once.

I had 100% map completion before this patch. I noticed when I went into Caledon one of the hearts had completely reset. It was the Lv 2 heart to the nw of the Grove entrance where you kill larvae.

DeWolfe.2174:

ipan.4356:

The reason that you cannot hide the kits is that they need to be visible to other players – it’s a PvP thing.

Completely false…… Especially with Asura Engi’s.

Actually several weeks ago Josh Davis made a comment about Hobosacks on Ready Up. In effect, they didn’t want to disable hobosacks because people in PVP needed a way to identify what weapon you’re using. And until they solve that issue hobosacks won’t be going away.

Gw2 has a day/night cycle. Any time it’s night you will see it.

ExtraCosmic.9082:

Magic find improves your drops, that’s the whole point, but making a difference is hard to measure. Luck increases very slowly, and a few percentage points makes a negligible difference, so you’re not really going to notice a change. Even if your results are substantially better your mind will have been gradually adapted to that as the new normal instead of a sudden realization that drops are better. Rare items are still rare, and RNG being what it is two people can try testing but have particularly lucky/unlucky streams that seem to contradict their MF.

That said, I would consider it worth it, at least in the sense of salvaging blues and greens instead of selling them. While it seems contradictory to raise your chances of getting items just to spend more money on salvaging them, you’re also raising your chances of things you want for their value, and will eventually hit the cap and be able to fully enjoy the fruits of your MF. As for whether assorted boost items are worth it, that’s more up to you and your resources. For example, doubling your MF would make an item with a 1% chance of dropping, grow to 2%. It makes a difference, but you’re not going to be rolling in exotics, and how much boost you want to go out of your way for is your choice.

The maximum account MF is +300%, I believe. However, I don’t know how the occasional boosts from achievement points stack with the bonus from luck, and whether the AP bonuses are wasted after reaching 300% or if they stack separately.

I believe the total my you can have is around 565% from boosters. But you can only have 300% as a permanent bonus.

At 150 MF my drops don’t seem any better than before the MF changes. I still get 1-2 rares a week and if I’m lucky I’ll get an exotic every 2-3 weeks.

The biggest problem I have with the dragons is they just stand there. The dragons are the champions of the elder dragons and all they can do is just stand there and glare at me? I feel less like a participant in an epic battle and more like I’m giving a pedicure to an unruly dog.

Some of the more fun fights for me have been in Frozen Maw and Megadestroyer when everyone isn’t CCing it to death. When they actually get a chance to move it forces players to react and it eliminates safe spots. You can’t just afk 1 for the fight or you’ll die. The Tequatl overhaul was a step in the right direction but he still just stands there.

Why can’t the dragons move? I’d love to see the shatterer or jormag pounce on the battery stations to damage them. I’d love to have the fight roam over a section of the map flattening everything in it’s path. I could see Jormag charge over a group of grawl, killing them in the process, to get at the players; or swallow whole that champ troll near by because it annoyed him.

Why are the dragons limited in how they can attack? They can slam the ground or roar? Where’s the sweeping tail smack of doom? Why can’t they bite someone in half? Why not use their wings to send us flying?

To me the dragons aren’t epic fights. They’re just boring. At least make them turn and attack their sides once in a while. I want something at least a little dynamic. I think there should be more than a vague suggestion of death at facing a dragon.

Gaile Gray.6029:

I take your comments on board: If that screenshot is representative of GM and squad chat, the gold is very similar and that can cause confusion (and possible griefing).

Let us have a few days to look at this (due to the holidays) and see if there’s a way to make GM/Gm chat more obviously different from other in-game chat strings.

Thanks for the feedback, guys!

Inverted? Black text on a white background?

Gaile Gray.6029:

Dreamslayer.7659:

Gaile Gray.6029:

Dan.4398:

Quick question: These golden whispers will they be blocked from players view if the chat box settings are on don’t show whispers and game messages or are they considered something else?
I don’t plan on ever getting one hopefully but i would still like to know.

If someone has turned off whispers, then I believe that player will not get the warning. This is the player’s choice, of course. We will not make a different or additional effort to contact the player. Again, the warning is a courtesy, and whether (1) a player puts her- or himself in a situation that earns a warning, and (2) blocks whispers, is entirely the choice of the player.

May I humbly suggest you consider some sort of screen print message in large font and some godly thunder / reverb.

That some may be turned from their wicked ways and resume the path of righteousness – or at least harmlessness.

I could have SO much fun with this! For instance, I totally want to record a “Turn away from the Dark Side” message. Or maybe “This is a warning. Go forth and sin no more.” Or “You are standing on the edge of an abyss. Step away! Take the path of non-cheatiness!!”

Ok, I should stop now.

So…where’s the kickstarter for that feature?

Sawnic.6795:

There are people who exist that only have one toon, you know.

So you do what everyone else in the game does when they get a precursor they don’t want/can’t use. Sell it on the TP and buy the one you do want.

Your chance of getting a precursor hasn’t changed. What you do with a precursor you don’t want hasn’t changed. I fail to see how this patch makes anything worse and has been previously stated, it may make it more likely for you to get a useful precursor.

So…why the kitten?

Hi John,
They announced last week pricing changes to the Commander Tag…and some changes to how it would be implemented. Were there any economic discussions about the price changes or was this a purely game design decision? If there were economic discussions can you talk about any of the factors that went into the change?

What about some sort of teaser display about features? IE:

Mystery feature 1: This feature will give you Samuel Jackson levels of kittenery. 10% complete.
Mystery feature 2: Shiny! 95% complete.
Mystery feature 3: Ohh, Ahh, OMG, you did what to that omnomberry? 50% complete.
Mystery feature 4: Queen Jennahs fabulous shoes. 70% complete.

You give us a status of a feature, some humorous and possibly irrelevant statement about it, and let us try to puzzle out what you mean. And if you’re really evil you can even post in the guessing threads with Hot and Cold.

You follow company guidelines about not telling us what’s in development, show us things are being worked on, and make things a little fun at the same time. Update it on patch day or every month or something.

So, a suggestion: Blue Tags.

A couple people have mentioned corralling some of the more prominent forum members into helping organize future CDIs and you seem to like the idea.

How about “promoting” a few forum posters for each subforum to act as a community liaison to you or the community manager? These wouldn’t be mods, they would be volunteers that would help guide discussions and channel feedback to the devs and they’d be able to post with a blue tag instead of a red tag to denote their volunteer community position.

This would be a voluntary position you could offer to people you’ve noticed that have a passion for the game and the ability to have productive conversations with people. They get a direct line to devs for answers and you get people to help with the community, everyone wins. They’d be doing what they’re already doing, just with a slightly more formal position to do so.

As I understand it Anet will never notify you via whispers that you’ve been reported, they will just investigate the report.

Anet only really has 2 punishments for problems in the game: temporary suspensions or permanent ban. Either way, the first time you’ll hear of it is when it happens. If you’re in game they’ll boot you and send you a pop up message stating you’ve been suspended/banned. If you’re out of game you’ll find out when you log in.

If it’s not a suspendable/bannable offense then I believe they just make a note in their records and you never hear anything about it. And if it’s a spurious report I believe they investigate the person doing the reporting.

In short, contact support, block the account and play on.