Guild Wars 2

Thanks Pre <3, we will be back to regular raiding soon!

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

a New Borderlands map should fit nicely inbetween the alpine and the desert map. However, before they give us a new map they need to fix the ones we have first, because they all have serious flaws.

Well fixing issues should always be a priority. I agree though that 3 different borderland maps would be nice to try out. I prefer alpine over dbl which I absolutely cannot stand, so personally I hope any future map is more focused on keeping navigation simpler and allowing structures to actually have a strategic value which dbl does not do.

Lets assume we get a new map with the next expansion, what would you like to see different or kept the same on a new map? Would you prefer the layout be similar to EB where structures are close to each other and with a large objective in the center to fight over, or would you prefer it to be another borderland themed map, with more open space and a wider layout of structures?

Please keep it constructive, and add any thoughts, ideas, suggestions you have.

It is nice to see there are people who are looking at the bright side of being on a linked server. The chance to have a new environment every couple of months can be really fun and keep things fresh. And as a former resident of SoR myself who was there for all those exodus’ and that painful drop from tier 1 to the bottom, I am happy to know they no longer have to worry about having to deal with all that, and can just login to have fun without having to lose their server through a merge.

Foghladha.2506:

Do you need a mama elephant and a daddy elephant to make a war elephant? :p thats an interesting new “trade skill”

This is GW, just press shift

That bear trap would be really good on chokepoints. The barricade could be really useful but would need to be limited in how many can be placed.

Yea I am not going to look at pvp as a standard, I have always found the pvp in this game to be a joke and in all honesty an insult to gw1 pvp which was king.

Oh you have a problem with it? Here’s what I have a problem with

-Pirateship meta
-Unbalanced state of conditions
-Siege wars

Want to know why people are focusing on sustain builds, its because there is too much garbage getting thrown around and somebody has to actually push through all those red circles, eat up all those condis, and sustain all that godkitten ed siege.

I dont want people being encouraged to go into wvw to farm stuff. The current reward system is fine, and a hell of a lot better then in the past. Making certain reward tracks repeatable is a reasonable request.

You don’t want to try new things like wvw or pvp, and yet you are complaining about things being boring because they are too repetitive…really? Try something new or take a break…

I will never understand why anyone thought it was good idea to let players go invisible in a competitive gamemode…

Autorun does not stop a player from being disconnected for being afk as far as I know. Participation starts to decrease after a few minutes if no activity is done to contribute to it, so its not like you can max out participation then go afk for hours and get rewards.

BRIDGES ZOMG, fighting on that bridge in bay is a pain in the kitten on a caster, there could be an entire enemy blob standing on it and the game targets the bridge lol.

A long overdue bump

Jeknar.6184:

Spx.9573:

just a normal day in YB garri

http://imgur.com/a/9LCVH

http://imgur.com/a/7FN4d

Please, if you are going to talk about the siege at least show everything… Art is meant to be whole.

WTB siege cap. That is disgusting to look at.

Bring out legendary armor or whatever so there is another material sink. A lot of mats have lost value, look at ectos. People are hoarding because the value is too low to sell, and they are waiting for the price to pick back up when the next big craze comes out. Also uncertainty about what/how many mats will be needed for the next new item adds to this behavior.

Ab multimap…this seriously needs to be toned down it gives WAY too much for too little time and effort required. I would suggest either limiting the amount of chests people can open, or to change the drops to reduce the amount of rares. Or just change it so you get a effect icon (for ex. Hero of Tarir or w/e) after completing the meta which allows you to open chests, and changing instances removes that effect.

kitten ed if they do, kitten ed if they don’t. You either have people complaining about being stuck in blowout matches for weeks at a time because either the dominant server cannot move out, or the outnumbered server cannot drop fast enough. And yet when they try to compensate for this and basically just speed up the process by adjusting the ratings to produce more balanced matchups, a bunch of people start complaining because they would rather not try to understand the reasoning behind this.

All the /facepalms…it hurts….

Haleydawn.3764:

X T D.6458:

AllNightPlayer.1286:

Hmm, I tested it again. My fault. They both grant 250. Maybe they changed/fixed it?
But what I know for sure is, that the Birthday and Celebration Boosters don’t work for the WvW reward tracks.

Wxp and participation are not the same thing. Wxp is awarded for doing a variety of things in wvw, this increases your participation rate in wvw which determines how many points you contribute towards progressing your reward track. Wxp is not actually used for reward tracks.

Both of those boosters give an effect called Celebration bonus, which btw will only stack in duration, meaning if you use both of those boosters at once, it will give you 25 hours of the same bonus and not a 200% combined effect. These boosters will help increase your WxP gain, but will not effect reward track gain.

Also from the wiki for Birthday/celebration boosters, if you clicked on them to read it:

“10% bonus to reward track progress.”.

Also noted as a bug on the wiki is that this isn’t applied to WvW reward tracks. If it is bugged and doesn’t work, it should be fixed to be fair between PvP/WvW tracks.

Ah sorry didn’t notice that, haven’t used them in awhile.

AllNightPlayer.1286:

Hmm, I tested it again. My fault. They both grant 250. Maybe they changed/fixed it?
But what I know for sure is, that the Birthday and Celebration Boosters don’t work for the WvW reward tracks.

Wxp and participation are not the same thing. Wxp is awarded for doing a variety of things in wvw, this increases your participation rate in wvw which determines how many points you contribute towards progressing your reward track. Wxp is not actually used for reward tracks.

Both of those boosters give an effect called Celebration bonus, which btw will only stack in duration, meaning if you use both of those boosters at once, it will give you 25 hours of the same bonus and not a 200% combined effect. These boosters will help increase your WxP gain, but will not effect reward track gain.

Exciton.8942:

X T D.6458:

Exciton.8942:

X T D.6458:

Chaba.5410:

X T D.6458:

The bad side of this is mainly public perception. Some people will start expecting this kind of intervention from anet, some will start their own conspiracy theories as to why X server was bumped up or down.

Nope. That’s part of it but not the meat filling.

The bad side is that it rewards stacking behavior. Just stack a server so it starts winning a match by a landslide and Anet will manually intervene regardless of whether players on that server want it or not.

Yes, I find it extremely ironic I posted four hours before McKenna on Snowreap’s thread sarcastically suggesting a glicko adjustment for NSP and here we are with exactly that.

IMHO there shouldn’t be a need to manually adjust. If manual interventions are felt to be needed, then it points to the implementation of Glicko needing adjustment. I’d also review the randomization roll.

A bigger motivator for stacking on a new server is bad matchups, if a group/player cannot have fun on their server, and this continues for a long time they will leave simple as that. Getting steamrolled for weeks, even months at a time with no hope in sight is a bigger danger to server stability.

In all honesty, I never hear people say they transfer because they want to win lol, and I have friends in a lot of wvw guilds who have been on many servers. Their reason was always bad matchups and a need for a better playing environment.

That is not true.
Truth is ppl love bad matchups as long as they are on the overwhelming winning side.
The history tells us, the top servers in T2 and T3 always become the choice of bandwagoners. Those who transfer always pick the server that is already winning and just snowball the effect to make their win even more dominating.

If a group or player wants to play in a specific tier why would they go to the server that is being steamrolled every week. Obviously they will go to the stronger server because it is working its way up and is more active, they are not necessarily doing it because they want to win, there’s no reward for winning lol. There is only the perception of an active server that is rising up in the ranks.

It is not about reward. Majority just want an easy ‘i win’ button. Simple as that.

And this is exactly the reason why WvW is always shrinking. Players transfer to bigger servers. The people left being severely outnumbered will stop playing. This will just happen again and again. Overtime, you lose population.

Why do you think it is a good thing to encourage players transferring to winning servers? The end result is always that the whole game mode will hurt.

When did I say it was a good thing or that I want to encourage it?

From Wiki:
These potions are obtained from Daily achievement reward chests that have a WvW objective and grant 250 points towards the currently selected reward track and are not affected by boosts.

Experience boosters, and the guild buff can boost gain by 60% and the outnumbered effect provides an additional 50% boost to participation.

Potions just award a fixed amount of points towards a track.

Exciton.8942:

X T D.6458:

Chaba.5410:

X T D.6458:

The bad side of this is mainly public perception. Some people will start expecting this kind of intervention from anet, some will start their own conspiracy theories as to why X server was bumped up or down.

Nope. That’s part of it but not the meat filling.

The bad side is that it rewards stacking behavior. Just stack a server so it starts winning a match by a landslide and Anet will manually intervene regardless of whether players on that server want it or not.

Yes, I find it extremely ironic I posted four hours before McKenna on Snowreap’s thread sarcastically suggesting a glicko adjustment for NSP and here we are with exactly that.

IMHO there shouldn’t be a need to manually adjust. If manual interventions are felt to be needed, then it points to the implementation of Glicko needing adjustment. I’d also review the randomization roll.

A bigger motivator for stacking on a new server is bad matchups, if a group/player cannot have fun on their server, and this continues for a long time they will leave simple as that. Getting steamrolled for weeks, even months at a time with no hope in sight is a bigger danger to server stability.

In all honesty, I never hear people say they transfer because they want to win lol, and I have friends in a lot of wvw guilds who have been on many servers. Their reason was always bad matchups and a need for a better playing environment.

That is not true.
Truth is ppl love bad matchups as long as they are on the overwhelming winning side.
The history tells us, the top servers in T2 and T3 always become the choice of bandwagoners. Those who transfer always pick the server that is already winning and just snowball the effect to make their win even more dominating.

If a group or player wants to play in a specific tier why would they go to the server that is being steamrolled every week. Obviously they will go to the stronger server because it is working its way up and is more active, they are not necessarily doing it because they want to win, there’s no reward for winning lol. There is only the perception of an active server that is rising up in the ranks.

Chaba.5410:

X T D.6458:

The bad side of this is mainly public perception. Some people will start expecting this kind of intervention from anet, some will start their own conspiracy theories as to why X server was bumped up or down.

Nope. That’s part of it but not the meat filling.

The bad side is that it rewards stacking behavior. Just stack a server so it starts winning a match by a landslide and Anet will manually intervene regardless of whether players on that server want it or not.

Yes, I find it extremely ironic I posted four hours before McKenna on Snowreap’s thread sarcastically suggesting a glicko adjustment for NSP and here we are with exactly that.

IMHO there shouldn’t be a need to manually adjust. If manual interventions are felt to be needed, then it points to the implementation of Glicko needing adjustment. I’d also review the randomization roll.

A bigger motivator for stacking on a new server is bad matchups, if a group/player cannot have fun on their server, and this continues for a long time they will leave simple as that. Getting steamrolled for weeks, even months at a time with no hope in sight is a bigger danger to server stability.

In all honesty, I never hear people say they transfer because they want to win lol, and I have friends in a lot of wvw guilds who have been on many servers. Their reason was always bad matchups and a need for a better playing environment.

Dodge to the side, kite and flank constantly, range bomb the backline. Focus all the downed, and never let them rally.

Melee heavy zergs tend to be very predictable in their movement, they charge, and after a short period restack, this is one of the biggest vulnerabilities to exploit. Using terrain to your advantage is also extremely important, know how to utilize chokepoints and how to move around in open field. Melee zergs are most dangerous in tight areas like lords rooms where they will usually run around in a ball, these smaller areas make sustain much easier for them, and harder for pug zergs to move around in.

The biggest problems with pug zergs is keeping people focused, coordinated, and on the commander. You can also use this to your advantage. Sometimes it is better to harass an enemy at every opportunity, picking people off, forcing others to come rez, and bombing them to whittle down their numbers. And knowing your limits is key, dont prolong a fight you cannot sustain with your group, back away when needed so people can heal and survive.

Forum Bug kitten …

/15 quaggans

OriOri.8724:

Samug.6512:

Too bad. Maybe if siege would get a “Repair” skill instead, so you can either shoot with them OR repair, maybe that idea would get more positive votes.

It wouldn’t. People who WvW are so opposed to anything involving siege its beyond ridiculous. A lot of people saw no impact from these hammers as shown in this thread, and yet people are still complaining about the “impact” that they had.

Siege gets destroyed, build another whats the problem. Siege mechanics in wvw are already a mess and long due for an overhaul. I don’t want people who are glued to siege constantly repairing their ac’s, and I don’t want ktrain blobs repairing their catas and golems.

Caliburn.1845:

Thank you for being so transparent and honest about these manual adjustments Mckenna.

I’m still troubled about whether or not manual adjustments are a good or bad thing for WvW.

But I am thankful you are telling us exactly what you are doing and why.

It’s a little of both. It is good in that it helps compensate for glicko not being fast enough to provide better match ups for a variety of reasons, one important factor is real time statistics like population. Servers who are dominating a tier might find themselves in what has been referred to as “glicko hell” where there is very slow movement until they are finally moved up. This leads to many weeks of blowout matches that are not fun for anyone except those that like to ktrain empty maps and spawn camp.

So with anet manually adjusting the glicko scores, they are basically just speeding up the process, it is not meant to manipulate match ups in any devious way, they are not showing favoritism to any server, and it’s not because some people on the forum asked them to…seriously people stop with that nonsense. It is just an effort to help alleviate a larger problem that would only get worse over time and cause more players to stop playing because of bad match ups.

The bad side of this is mainly public perception. Some people will start expecting this kind of intervention from anet, some will start their own conspiracy theories as to why X server was bumped up or down.

Either way, it just points to a lot of server instability. They need to implement linking in a better way to stabilize servers, because the way it is currently implemented will just continue to cause these issues.

Chaba.5410:

X T D.6458:

That idea from Tyler, which he only brought up for discussion was to gauge reaction and feedback because it wasn’t actually something they were working on, it was basically to create some extra worlds specifically designed for smaller amounts of players in the same server system model that currently exists. It has no similarity whatsoever to battlegroups, at least not how some people are describing it.

It is possible that one of the options they discussed was to change the server structure to differentiate between tiers and servers. Meaning smaller tiers would have a smaller population cap, highest tier with the maxed population cap, etc. Instead of each server basically being the same. Who knows.

Yes, it was a post to gauge interest. See my emboldened part.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Hypothetically-Speaking-New-Worlds/first#post6173458

“The ultimate goal of this hypothetical plan would be two-fold:
1) Give players/guilds that are too big for their ‘Full’ status world an opportunity to move to new worlds, enabling them to grow more easily again.
2) Achieve a larger number of smaller worlds that we can link together to achieve more balanced numbers for each team.”

Do you see the assumption that a larger number of smaller worlds would help Anet achieve more balanced numbers for each team? The only reason I’m associating the idea of more smaller shards with Battlegroups is exactly because of the smaller size. A battlegroup was described as being limited to 1000 players. How many players do you think one of those smaller shards would have been capped at?

Yea but just looking at numbers and seeing some kind of association of battlegroups doesn’t take into account all the other features which are totally separate. His idea would still keep the server structure and would not overturn it in favor of an alliance/battlegroup model.

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

How are you gonna measure that kind of ad-hoc participation to the point that is relatively equal size?

How can they not? The game generates massive amounts of data. I realize this gets speculative here now since we don’t have view into the actual code, but consider that reward tracks are literally based on measuring individual participation as is shard population status. Why would an individual’s average weekly participation amount not be known?

Do you remember TylerB posting here asking what players thought about if Anet were to open smaller shards so that they had smaller chunks sets of players to do world-linking with? Basically the idea was that smaller shards are far easier to link into teams of relatively equal size than the large blocks we have currently. I can only surmise that’s the Battlegroup idea filtering through.

That idea from Tyler, which he only brought up for discussion was to gauge reaction and feedback because it wasn’t actually something they were working on, it was basically to create some extra worlds specifically designed for smaller amounts of players in the same server system model that currently exists. It has no similarity whatsoever to battlegroups, at least not how some people are describing it.

It is possible that one of the options they discussed was to change the server structure to differentiate between tiers and servers. Meaning smaller tiers would have a smaller population cap, highest tier with the maxed population cap, etc. Instead of each server basically being the same. Who knows.

Jeknar.6184:

Kamsin.8541:

+ only commander/lieutenant (5ppl group/squad minimum ?) can speak

So if a scout isn’t on the chat it can’t talk? Oh well, I don’t think anyone cares about my reports anyway…

I care! Long as they are inaccurate because you are the enemy

And seriously people need to stop looking at tags and squads as some kind of tool to exclude others.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We wanted to clear up some of the information in this thread.

The Battlegroup system mentioned in a previous post in this thread was part of an old discussion with alpha testers which then was leaked by someone who no longer is in the program. In the past, we would propose systems/ideas to our alpha testers to help gauge player opinion. However, as you know, the WvW Team since has moved to posting these discussions on the official forums.

For further information, the response of the alpha testers to the Battlegroup concept was very mixed, similar to the responses in this thread. Additionally, it would also have been a huge undertaking to build that system, and we ultimately decided it wasn’t the correct route to go.

In contrast, World Linking utilized a lot of existing tech and required considerably less time to construct, meaning we could move on to addressing other core issues in WvW much more quickly. Even though there is a lot of debate around World Linking, it is “easier” to change and adjust unlike other systems that have been discussed. With all that being said, the team does appreciate the feedback and discussion happening in this thread and will continue to evaluate World Linking feedback and make adjustments as necessary.

Understandable, thanks for clearing that up. Especially about the tester leak…now we know how all this nonsense went public in the first place.

Some projectiles are able to travel farther then the stated range, usually due to uneven terrain. If you are using it on a target, and you are both on even flat ground it should be at 1200 range. If you are standing on a wall and using it on a target on the ground, it will travel farther.

I liked it last night, first thing I did was say hello to everyone across wvw. My favorite part is no longer having to leave a map to get help that’s just awesome.

Grim West.3194:

X T D.6458:

Now..can we please stop this nonsense about battlegroups, and get back to actually discussing server linkings?

Gaile merged the battlegroup thread into this one. This is where we are to discuss it.

As for the rest of your comments, you misunderstood my intent. But that’s ok.

I would prefer to hear your proposed solutions to WvW’s problems.

I started a thread on server linking that got closed, and a thread on battlegroups, that I apparently must have missed,got merged with this one? Seriously mods?

I basically stated 3 steps for improving linking, instead of putting out a wall of text I will try to keep it short.

1)Linking is meant to boost populations for a server but this should be reserved for lower tiers, tiers 1 and 2 should be unlinked. Here is why, the native population of linked servers is more likely to help lower tier servers then higher tiers. Higher tier servers are only experiencing short term gains from linking, which leads to a roller coaster type of effect, made worse by the cheaper price of transferring to the linked world. Since you don’t know when you might lose your link, or if you will get a link, the host server is constantly put into an unstable state because you actually get punished for winning, eventually losing your link, which means losing players, losing coverage, and not being able to stay competitive. This is why you will keep seeing higher tier servers keep rising up and falling every new linking.
It is just a short term boost at the cost of long term stability.

2) Shorten the linking evaluation schedule to 1 month rather then 2. It doesnt mean that linkings have to change, just be evaluated. This will help compensate for glicko’s poor matchmaking which can be slow to react and does not take into effect changes in population, which linking is based off of.

3) 2 options here: For NA
One option is to reestablish a 5th tier and have the tier 3/4/5 matchups be 2v2v2
Second Option is to keep 4 tiers but allow tiers 3/4 matchups be 3v3v3

Wasn’t this originally a feature in wvw? But it was removed…for what should be obvious reasons lol. Why would you want opponents to see everything you are typing lol, and imagine the amount of chat you would have to go through yikes. The point of map chat now is to communicate with those on the same map, and team chat with the rest of your server mates on other maps.

Grim West.3194:

X T D.6458:

Here is what I concluded from reading this nonsense about battlegroups….A bunch of elitists want to exclude the rest of the community. Yea…no thanks, how about we let people play how, when, where they want.

Lol.

First:
WvW is a failure in it’s current form.
Changes have to be made or it will continue to suffer the agonizingly slow death march it is currently in: Less players, less fun and most importantly – less revenue for the company that maintains it.

Second:
I am very far from an elitist and at this point in the game about as casual as you can get. Also, I actually would prefer that the existing system be fixed by killing blobs and servers like BlobGate. But I’m not blindly opposed to change. The proposed battlegroup system could work for the average casual player if done right.

Give ANET some cogent ideas instead of complaints.

If you disagree with my comment, I would strongly suggest you go back and read your posts.

In your words:

-I would lock BlackGate for transfers for 1 or 2 years. Schadenfreude. I’m not usually like that, but in this case they deserve it. BlackGate gamed ANET’s system until it broke, and we are ALL suffering the consequences. Make them pay.
(No bias at all right)

-"As for “Community”; you can acknowledge the hardcore server vets by giving seniority priority in Battlegroup assignments. "
(Because non hardcore and new players dont exist right?)

-“The “minority of players” you mention has never been a part of ANET’s philosophy. What makes you think they would be that stupid now?”

-“Leadership of Battlegroups could be left to the commander tags we have in place. With random placement of players and guilds into battlegroups, it will be up to those leaders to rally the players they are given.”
(So only those with a tag matter and get to decide what happens with the random players they are given?)

-“Let the system kick players for inactivity perhaps, but it would have to require not logging in for a significant portion of the match.”
(The system already kicks players for inactivity after several minutes, and you want to prevent them from being able to log back in? Um you know people have lives right, and can’t stay in front of a computer screen all day.)

-“Only allow people who have bought the expansion(s) to play.”
(Really? Force people to buy something they can play for free already?)

-“Placement into those battelgroups could be given preference to players that have been on their servers the longest. Your spot could be “saved” for a certain amount of days before opening up to be filled by someone newer to the server or randomly placed by the system.”
(Because who cares about new players right?)

-“There is no good reason to allow a server like Blackgate to exist.”
(Because even though we are full, and have no link, and do lose matches, we are still the boogeyman of wvw right? And no other server has blobs of course.

Oh and of course this gem…
“The destruction of small guilds and elitism is deadly to the game”

Now..can we please stop this nonsense about battlegroups, and get back to actually discussing server linkings?

morrolan.9608:

X T D.6458:

Here is what I concluded from reading this nonsense about battlegroups….A bunch of elitists want to exclude the rest of the community. Yea…no thanks, how about we let people play how, when, where they want.

I want to move to BG ……….. oh wait

(I don’t really)

Do or don’t it’s all cool, long as you are free to choose how you want to play. Militia or member of a guild, everyone deserves equal treatment.

It might get messy if you start getting reports from 4 different maps, and have to constantly ask for more info trying to decide where its coming from.

Here is what I concluded from reading this nonsense about battlegroups….A bunch of elitists want to exclude the rest of the community. Yea…no thanks, how about we let people play how, when, where they want.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Caliburn.1845:

Been watching this discussion with interest.

First, the battlegroup idea. To what degree it was developed and the specifics of how it would work are unclear, and if it had gone Live the finished product would almost certainly have been different than what Mal’s sources told him.

But it is clear that World Linking is only a band-aid solution to WvW. A short term fix for larger systemic problems that need to be addressed to revitalize WvW.

I have been a WvW commander since the first month of the game(and am still active). The game-mode is incredibly stale, players and guilds are quitting, disbanding, or branching into other game-modes to maintain interest in GW2.

So to McKenna and the other members of the WvW team, pick a direction for WvW and go with it. It might be wrong, it might be right. It might work, it might not. But right now WvW is just sliding into oblivion.

If you have to do away with servers in the process, do it. If you have to fundamental change how scoring works, do that. If you need to revamp mechanics and maps, do that.

But don’t rely on the players to direct your attention. We’re a diverse and argumentative group that will never agree on anything, and if you leave things to us WvW will never change in any meaningful way.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. The polls in general hurt the community. My example was something made by the devs that would have helped tremendously instead it was canceled out by Server links as a permanent solution.

Battlegroups indeed would have evolved from the point in which I knew it to be.

Well Server links were implemented as a live beta test, then we were polled on whether it should be a permanent feature, and those of us who voted, supported keeping it permanently. The implementation needs to be handled better, I think most could agree on that, as the current system just creates too much instability.

What makes conditions so unbalanced is not just the damage, its the mechanics of conditions which I outlined in my first post, and others have as well that make it so frustrating for people to have to deal with.

Sarika.3756:

X T D.6458:

Bad guys over there, best scout call.

It’s a good change yes, will just take some time to adapt to.

My favorite is “Inc on me!”

Erm…

I’m happy for this change – even though it’s going to take some time to get folks to remember to tell us what map they are on.

After all, we’re still trying to get size, activity, location, and guild tag…

LOL yes. It will be really nice though not to have to leave a map to contact a group to come help, really hated that. Or to minimize the game and hop ts channels to ask for assistance.

Honest John.4673:

X T D.6458:

Balthazzarr.1349:

X T D.6458:

Something tells me the coding for this might be very difficult because the game would have to track the player and change the chat message each time he/she changes maps. Might be really hard to actually implement. Same might be true with any color coding for nametags to indicate what map they are on.

Track player? Why? Just recognize what map the message is coming from and tag it the same way they tag what guild you’re sending a guild message from.

You wouldn’t change the message just because the person changed maps… that wouldn’t make sense. The message is “from” a specific BL so the tag stays in front of it.

By message I meant the identifier for a nametag, if for example there was something like JohnSmith (BGBL) then JohnSmith (JQBL). Guild chat is not dependent on player location, just association meaning membership of the guild, maybe it could work the same for team chat I dont know.

The guild panel is able to tell you your location. If I see all my guildies on Yaks Bend Alpine Borderlands then I don’t have to ask “What BL are we on?”. As a coder something tells me they can just re-use the code that tells you what guild your posting from and pull the location source like you would from the guild panel.

This is interesting, since your a coder which of these seems the most technically feasible:

1)Color code the names of players to indicate what map they are on
2)Add text code identifiers next to a players name, like JohnSmith (BGBL) or (RBL)

Johje Holan.4607:

How are you all who are able to get to the poll getting there? I just go to my account screen still (which I actually never knew existed so that’s pretty cool).

Edit. I pasted the link into Chrome and it worked.

You have to logout, click the link here, and login again when prompted, it will take you to the voting page if you want to change your vote or see the results.

Fixed

/15 quaggans

Ubi.4136:

Why does the wvw laurel vendor sell amulets and rings at a discount for laurels and badges of honor, but the accessories are still full price + ecto?

It has always been like that…I really don’t know why. You can get them through other means, guild commendations can be used to get ascended accessories. But the best option is to farm blood rubies and petrified wood to get the new ascended trinkets including back pieces from the 2 new pve maps. You can also farm these items through reward tracks in pvp/wvw, you will still need to farm the unbound magic though but it’s not hard. The nice thing about these trinkets is that you can choose any stat in the game, and can reset the stats.

Pensadora.9478:

So sorry we’re the only server that is closed. We are just having too much fun! Save up your gold to get into this amazing WvW community once we open again.

Fun is mandatory!

Balthazzarr.1349:

X T D.6458:

Something tells me the coding for this might be very difficult because the game would have to track the player and change the chat message each time he/she changes maps. Might be really hard to actually implement. Same might be true with any color coding for nametags to indicate what map they are on.

Track player? Why? Just recognize what map the message is coming from and tag it the same way they tag what guild you’re sending a guild message from.

You wouldn’t change the message just because the person changed maps… that wouldn’t make sense. The message is “from” a specific BL so the tag stays in front of it.

By message I meant the identifier for a nametag, if for example there was something like JohnSmith (BGBL) then JohnSmith (JQBL). Guild chat is not dependent on player location, just association meaning membership of the guild, maybe it could work the same for team chat I dont know.

AndrewMcLeod.3857:

X T D.6458:

Gaile Gray.6029:

Skritts are back on the job, doing what skritts do. Contract with them at your own risk, of course.

Did they fix the bug where the skritt get stuck in terrain and don’t open the stash?

If the skritt hasn’t been able to loot the stash for you after 30 seconds, he now gives up and refunds your contract.

Ah very nice, thanks

Something tells me the coding for this might be very difficult because the game would have to track the player and change the chat message each time he/she changes maps. Might be really hard to actually implement. Same might be true with any color coding for nametags to indicate what map they are on.