Guild Wars 2

Gaile Gray.6029:

titanlectro.5029:

I ask because it seems like she has chased a lot of stuff like this down. Honestly, getting Gaile to look into this seems like our best bet of getting a reply.

I can try. In fact I was writing a response without looking at the most recent posts. The fact that I can ask about this does not guarantee that we’ll be able to answer the basic question, which I sense is “Are changes coming for this situation?” right? But yes, I can certainly see if there’s info to share.

I cannot thank you enough for looking into this for us!

#GaileOP

tigirius.9014:

Can’t believe we still don’t have a reply about this even though I and others have mentioned this thread to Gaile multiple times now. smh If ever she wants to know why they have such a terrible reputation for lack of communication she can look over here.

How did you mention it to Gaile? Was it off topic in a thread or in a PM or something?

I ask because it seems like she has chased a lot of stuff like this down. Honestly, getting Gaile to look into this seems like our best bet of getting a reply.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Yes can we please move away from the traditional tropes of raiding and discuss how to utilize the core mechanics of GW2 to create a new type of challenging co-operative instanced content.

We also don’t need to talk about levels or scaling for the time being.

And those that want to continue to chat with Crystal about progression then please do so.

Chris

I couldn’t agree more. Honestly, if I wanted a traditional raid, I would play a trinity game and calculate the “objectively optimal” build on a spreadsheet. Traditional raiding is built for Trinity Minmaxing games, and if GW2 tries to run that kind of content, it will always be overshadowed by other MMOs.

GW2’s strength comes from breaking down these level/gear/class/build/group comp limitations. Instead of going backward, raiding in GW2 needs to leverage this advantage! That is the idea behind the proposal I made.

In the end, I don’t care what the final product looks like, so long as it improves upon what makes GW2 great, instead of trying to make it into a traditional MMO.

I’ve been thinking about typing up my proposal for a while now. Since it fits really well into the scaling/difficulty/reward discussion, this is a good a time as any.

PROPOSAL OVERVIEW
Use many of GW2’s existing strengths to build a randomized raiding system, which automatically adapts for group size and skill.

GOAL OF PROPOSAL
There are several parts of GW2 that are really extraordinary, and they can be leveraged to build an powerful dynamic raiding system which will be fun for a wide variety of play-styles and group compositions. These pieces are the following:

• Flexible group size with the ability to join or leave at any time (from WvW and Meta-Bosses)
• Randomized encounters with adjustable difficulty (from Fractals)
• A wide variety of encounter/boss mechanics (from Fractals, Dungeons, and LW)

PROPOSAL FUNCTIONALITY
In its simplest form, this proposal will function as a endless sequence of random encounters, lasting 5-15 minutes. These encounters could be “waves” of enemies in a defense scenario, or “rooms” in a dungeon or whatever. The important part is that this raid is dynamically generated, which allows it to adapt to changing circumstances of group size and skill. This format allows the follow benefits:

1) Flexible group size, with the freedom for individuals to join or leave at will
The raid would be randomly pulling from a large pool of possible encounters. Each encounter can be designed for a certain group size. As people join or leave, the next “room” or “wave” would be chosen from the set of encounters appropriate for the current number of players. This would give Anet the freedom to design content for a specific number of players, without forcing the group to maintain a specific size.

2) Scaling difficulty and rewards
Each time the victory conditions are met for a “room,” then the difficulty and rewards will increase for the next “room.” As each room is won, both the difficulty and reward continue to increase, until eventually the group starts to lose. At this point, the difficulty could either reset to 0, or be decreased by 1. Either way, the difficulty will be dynamically set by the group as they succeed or fail. Hardcore players can push it to new limits, and casual players can enjoy it on an easier difficulty.

3) A wide variety of encounter mechanics
Anet has designed countless boss/mob mechanics. In order to build a large library of random encounters, all of these mechanics could be used. This is especially great for LW content that is no longer in game, allowing Anet to use that work again. Because of the dynamic scaling, these do not need to be “once size fits all” mechanics. Large groups could have a chance of fighting the Claw of Jormag. Small groups might run into the Mossman.

4) Easily expandable and highly replayable
Anet could upgrade and expand this game mode by adding new possible “rooms.” In fact, every LW release could add an associated room to the options. The more the better! This way, the experience will be different every time. The number and skill of your teammate will be always changing, along with which random encounter are rolled up. Each play through would be a unique experience, and as more “rooms” are added, that will continue to increase.

ASSOCIATED RISKS

• Lack of story: Random content does not really have a story attached to it. That said, when was the last time you paid attention to the story in AC?
• Development Load: While I believe this proposal will allow Anet to leverage some existing assets, it will still be a big commitment to build 100+ short encounters. Developing Dev tools specifically for this purpose is a must.
• Maintenance: Properly balancing and maintaining a 100+ short encounters, will be a significant drain on resources. Although with appropriate Dev tools that can be mitigated.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Not next year, no. Not months from now, no. It’s coming, and it’s coming very soon.

In fact, I’m going to a review in less than an hour, although that doesn’t set a release time quite yet.

What I wonder about is this: What if someone says something is coming “in the next couple of days” or “within the next week” or “by the end of the month” and then testing reveals an issue that delays the implementation? Would you rather hear something rather specific, like “in the next couple of days,” even while you know that it could change for reasons outside our control? Or would you rather hear “soon” and not have as solid an expectation, but also take on board that the implementation is a top priority (as was mentioned in the thread about the Currency Exchange changes)?

I feel that either answer isn’t perfect, so I’d welcome your insights. You should know that I truly do understand that “soon” is frustratingly vague and I argue against.. I mean, “I gently speak in favor of alternatives…” whenever we can use something more meaningful. On the other hand, saying something more specific can result in flaming “You promised it by XX time!” comments, because even a casual possible release time could be adopted as an absolute date/time/time zone promise.

Thoughts?

Give us an ETA, emphasis on the E.

When people complain that the ETA was not exact, remind them that estimates are not promises! You could even include that reminder after every estimate. Something like this.

Hi guys,

Don’t worry, this change is in review right now. It will probably be released in the next few days (remember: estimates are not promises). We’ll keep you informed.

-Hypothetical Anet Dev

If a player reads a post like that, and comes back five days later demanding that Anet make good on their promise, it is only because of that player’s stupidity. I hope that the community will address that player’s comments without Anet needed it intervene at all.

John Smith.4610:

edit 3 (in story form): Lemark wasn’t much of a haggler. the merchant had taken almost every copper he owned, but it was worth it. He was positive this time, no more fakes, no more copies, forgeries or lies, this was it. He could feel it, sinister…ghostly, it felt weird to hold, but he didn’t care, his journey was one quarter complete.

Couldn’t this be Ectoplasm? It is ghostly, and I’m sure holding a glob of it would feel weird.

Svarty.8019:

titanlectro.5029:

PabbyGaul.9682:

Apparently, there aren’t any ecologists that play/program in this game.

The slow polarization of WvW servers is inevitable because the system doesn’t mimic reality and is being played by real people. There is NO incentive to move to lower populated areas because right now More Population = More Kills = More Rewards. Its not rocket science…….its ecology.

Scale Magic Find, Drop Rates and Experience based on simulating a limited resource (Bags) rather than an infinite one (because its computer game) and the problem solves itself.

The result would be that high population servers have a severely impaired Magic Find, Drop rate, and Experience bonus in WvW. WHY?….Because in reality bags don’t drop out of thin air, they are a limited resource. So if there’s only a thousand bags to be had, I would much rather be after them with only 50 ppl rather than 2000. Making these stat bonuses inversely proportional to population mimics the reality that when you have lots and lots of people good stuff is harder to find. Exp would scale also because fighting on lower populations is simply more challenging. If it wasn’t people wouldn’t be leaving. If yer always the underdog why shouldn’t their efforts be considered more difficult? Isnt experience related to the difficulty of the task…ect.

So….the solution is really simple. Limit rewards in a way that mimics the consequences of actual population size.

The details of this idea were already submitted via Adopt-A-Dev. Would welcome some criticism.

This is perfectly inline with my analysis also.
(for reference :https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Solution-to-fix-the-population-imbalance/4438581)

I propose a test! Lets give this idea a try for a few months.

This is one of the least disruptive ideas. It will not break server communities or server coordination or large group combat or any of that stuff. It is not overly complicated. If it works, then we can be done with all of these crazy “remake everything about WvW” ideas. If it doesn’t work, then there is nothing stopping Anet from doing something more drastic later.

This idea has a lot of potential benefits, and very few risks. Most of these other ideas come with huge risks and sacrifices (including the one Anet proposed); some might even completely ruin WvW and turn it into EotM. Before we try anything drastic, lets give this simple but powerful tweak a try.

His suggestion is the Outmanned buff by another name. Look how well that works as incentive to move to an Outmanned map (i.e. it doesn’t). Scale it to server size. Personallly, I don’t see it having the desired effect.

It could also be abused by the “server riding” effect where swathes of people transfer to a low server and ride it up the league, then repeat.

This suggestion is significantly different than the Outmanned buff.

Outmanned is a minor buff (1.3x loot) that effects a map only so long as it has 4v1 odds.

The suggested change will effect the loot for entire servers. Every server in T8 would be getting a massive loot bonus relative to T1. Before the population begins to balance out, that difference could be more than 3x the loot. That bonus would not go away just because a guild group switched maps.

If a large group of people transfer to a server, then that bonus would decrease (assuming that it is tied to man-hours as it should be). They could not cheese the system that way. They only way to “manipulate” the system would be to constantly transfer to underdog servers, which is EXACTLY what we want to have happen.

Here is the best part. We could try it and see who is right! If the naysays are correct, then we can try something else, no harm done.

PabbyGaul.9682:

Apparently, there aren’t any ecologists that play/program in this game.

The slow polarization of WvW servers is inevitable because the system doesn’t mimic reality and is being played by real people. There is NO incentive to move to lower populated areas because right now More Population = More Kills = More Rewards. Its not rocket science…….its ecology.

Scale Magic Find, Drop Rates and Experience based on simulating a limited resource (Bags) rather than an infinite one (because its computer game) and the problem solves itself.

The result would be that high population servers have a severely impaired Magic Find, Drop rate, and Experience bonus in WvW. WHY?….Because in reality bags don’t drop out of thin air, they are a limited resource. So if there’s only a thousand bags to be had, I would much rather be after them with only 50 ppl rather than 2000. Making these stat bonuses inversely proportional to population mimics the reality that when you have lots and lots of people good stuff is harder to find. Exp would scale also because fighting on lower populations is simply more challenging. If it wasn’t people wouldn’t be leaving. If yer always the underdog why shouldn’t their efforts be considered more difficult? Isnt experience related to the difficulty of the task…ect.

So….the solution is really simple. Limit rewards in a way that mimics the consequences of actual population size.

The details of this idea were already submitted via Adopt-A-Dev. Would welcome some criticism.

This is perfectly inline with my analysis also.
(for reference :https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Solution-to-fix-the-population-imbalance/4438581)

I propose a test! Lets give this idea a try for a few months.

This is one of the least disruptive ideas. It will not break server communities or server coordination or large group combat or any of that stuff. It is not overly complicated. If it works, then we can be done with all of these crazy “remake everything about WvW” ideas. If it doesn’t work, then there is nothing stopping Anet from doing something more drastic later.

This idea has a lot of potential benefits, and very few risks. Most of these other ideas come with huge risks and sacrifices (including the one Anet proposed); some might even completely ruin WvW and turn it into EotM. Before we try anything drastic, lets give this simple but powerful tweak a try.

This thread is plagued by a lot of people who do not understand what the developer is proposing. Please read that entire dev post until you are sure you understand it!

Essentially, John suggested using multi-guild alliances as “chunks” of players. Every few months, these “chunks” will be randomly reassigned to new servers, in such a way as to make the populations balanced.

(Oversimplified) Example:

For the first few months it would be:
Server 1: Alliance A, Alliance B, Alliance C
Server 2: Alliance D, Alliance E, Alliance F
Server 3: Alliance G, Alliance H, Alliance I

Then for the next few months it could be:
Server 1: Alliance A, Alliance D, Alliance G
Server 2: Alliance B, Alliance E, Alliance H
Server 3: Alliance C, Alliance F, Alliance I

So you would always play with the people in your alliance, but the alliances themselves would be shifting between servers involuntarily every few months.

This is why people are concerned about SERVER coordination, because you will have to start from scratch again every few months, as I explained in my earlier post.

John Corpening.9847:

Alliances would provide continuity for the community. I see the server pride of today becoming Alliance pride because of that continuity. But I also see the off season as a time for the newly formed world of alliances to develop their own identity as they head into the tournament. Keep in mind that if an alliance was big enough to fill a world that mapping becomes one to one. If that became the case maybe the world could just take the alliance name. It’s interesting because that time together gives everyone involved a chance to see if they all want to ally together to truly solidify into a world. If not, you are still playing with your community for the glory of your alliance in the next restructure. But your community would be playing with other communities new to you and maybe this new bunch is a better fit for you and an opportunity for your alliance to grow.

This alliance idea will certainly help with keeping communities intact, but it also causes issues with coordination.

Currently, servers are CONSTANTLY trying to get their members to coordinate, communicate, and use the server TS. If every few months the server structure is rearranged, this work will be undone over and over.

Whose TS should we use? How should we protect against spies? What sort of conduct is allowed on the TS? Who is leading that large zerg in EB and how I can coordinate with them? I just spotted 50 XYZ headed for Bay, who should I send the call-out to?

Every server has had to answer these questions, and any community leaders know how much of a pain it can be to get these all squared away. Under the new system, these kind of questions “reset” every few months. We will be constantly trying to coordinate with our team, and never making any permanent progress.

Eventually, everyone might get to the point where people no longer try to communicate or coordinate on a server level, because it is wasted effort. Everyone would just talk to the members of their own alliance, and ignore everyone else. That would be a really sad day for WvW.

TL;DR
Frequently rearranging server structures causes a nightmare for server communication and coordination, which might end with people not coordinating at all.

Dayra.7405:

titanlectro.5029:

That said, server mergers will not solve the population balance issues. People will still stack to the winning servers, because they have incentive to do so.

That’s why it isn’t a good idea to merge the low-pop servers. Either

• start from scratch with fewer teams
• delete the Top-Pop-server to force the overstacked people to spread out. (they have the people that made the problems)

In both cases the balance-limits have to be implemented first (you are allowed to overstack again)

And then you just destroyed every last server community for your solution. We are back to the cure being worse than the disease.

I realize that there are some vocal forum users that are convinced that WvW is 100% broken and that any and all changes are justified because there is nothing good left in WvW. Clearly this is not the case. If there was truly no good left, then people would not care about it at all.

We must assume there IS good left, or else no one would be posting here! Therefore, it is paramount that we do not sacrifice the good of WvW to fix the bad! Removing the existing server communities or removing any form of teamwork with 40+ people, are both perfect examples of destroying the good to try to fix the bad.

These changes are very appreciated!

If you wanted to relax the restrictions a bit more, you could allow mail and whispers to anyone in your guild.

Dayra.7405:

titanlectro.5029:

1) Server membership is voluntary
2) There is more incentive to stack than to unstack

• Merging servers will not change either #1 or #2, and will therefore not net any long-term improvement.

While I agree with you on most parts, I think you forgot:
WvW has not enough population left to fill the maps for 51 (24+27) teams not even in primetime.

That’s where team reduction (less parallel matches) helps, and in my view is needed. (alternatively reduced number of maps per match, reduced match-capacity.)

Another alternative is to let teams (server) play various formats of matches. A few (3 or 6) play 24/7, some play 16/7 or 8/7, some play 24/2 (weekend only), then you choose your team based on: It plays when I like to play.

You bring up some good points!

If WvW population has taken such a big hit that we need less servers, then I’m all for it Although I’d be interested in giving incentive to destack first and see how it goes.

That said, server mergers will not solve the population balance issues. People will still stack to the winning servers, because they have incentive to do so.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I know a lot of people don’t bother reading the whole thread so I’m going to repost this bit of what Rimmy said since I think he explained it a little better than me.

Rimmy.9217:

“But I want large scale battles!”… yes, you’ll still get those. A cap limit of forty people still means up to 120 people on the map at the same time, and once populations level out somewhat the cap can be raised incrementally (and ideally, secretly – we don’t want selfish stack-oriented people to start imbalancing things deliberately again) and, assuming interest in WvW continues (or increases) the huge battles that some servers have come to know and love will return.

Think of lowering the cap as an austerity measure that nobody likes right now, but clears up a lot of mistakes and bad decisions made by players in the past, and gives us a chance to rebuild into something better. It’s going to be unpleasant for some, great for others, and have little discernible effect for the rest. But once things have settled out… we’ll be in a better place.

I did read that post.

I’ve been on GoM since headstart so I’ve pretty much always been a lower tier player.

That said, if my team had a 40 person limit, and so did the enemy, that would suck. It would remove an entire form of play from WvW, which is a HUGE price to pay. Perhaps you do not enjoy playing with more than 40 people, and that is your prerogative. However many people LOVE that kind of play, and that play style would be completely destroyed by this “fix.”

Sacrificing an entire play style for a fix is excessive. That is why I say the cure is worse than the disease.

This is the most essential part: The cure must not be worse than the disease!

If you break down the problem to its essence, it has two parts:
1) Server membership is voluntary
2) There is more incentive to stack than to unstack

Any effective solution has to change one of these two parts, without being worse than the disease. This rules out a lot of the proposed solutions. Some of them would even work, but would come at a terrible price.

• Merging servers will not change either #1 or #2, and will therefore not net any long-term improvement.
• Forcibly redistributing players until the match is balanced would fix the problem by changing #1, but the cost will be the entire existing WvW community. This makes the cure worse than the disease.
• Dramatically decreasing the WvW population limit would fix the problem by changing #2, but at the cost of removing all large group play. This makes the cure worse than the disease.

Finding a solution that will work:
I doubt that Anet or the player base really wants to make server membership involuntary (no matter how you do that, it will hurt community). Therefore if there is a solution, it must come from changing #2. Somehow, there must be more incentive to destack, than to stack.

Finding the right incentive to destack will be tricky. If you give servers monetary rewards for being the underdog, then teammates might turn against each other when they get reinforcements, because those reinforcements are reducing their rewards. While it might be tricky, it think it is doable. These rewards could be tweaked until they provide enough incentive to destack, without significant negative side-effects.

TL;DR
Because no one wants to lose their freedom, the best solution is to provide an incentive for voluntary destacking. This incentive could be some form of a precisely regulated monetary bonus to lower pop servers.

I noticed that this happens when you walk between different downleveled areas.

:(

ColinJohanson.2394:

I just want to quickly add, there are some errors on this chart of how stuff is unlocking, as well as 1st character vs. account unlocks when some of these systems were carried between regions. We’re trying to identify what happened and repair those things assigned the wrong account/character fields, as well as levels.

This begs the question, how is it SUPPOSED to be? Would you mind sharing that list with us?

SkyShroud.2865:

Zesbeer.8365:

Proposal Overview
Guild Event Calendar

Goal of Proposal
create a fast and easy way to schedule guild events without having to send out mail or whispers to your guild.

Proposal Functionality
Under the guild window there would be a calendar tab with a plan blank calendar

• ability to add events
  • date and time info along with ingame waypoint or poi
  • ability to have the event span across more than one day
  • ability to have events repeat like when make up guild missions take place ect.
• rank options for who can add, remove, edit and view
• option to be able to be mailed a summary (per player so if a player wants to opt out of it they can)
• option to turn on anet events ( things like feature patch updates or pvp/wvw tournament starts)

Associated Risks

• spam
• inappropriate language or events added
• conflicting events with other guilds (note that every guild would have there own and other guilds would not be able to see them unless you were a member of that guild)

In additional to what suggested.

Goal of Proposal
Easier to coordinate with individuals of different timezone.

Proposal Functionality
Display a alert in guild chat if there is a upcoming guild event in xx minutes.

Completely agree, a built in calendar (which automatically compensates for timezones) with in-game announcements would be amazing!

Proposal Overview:
Simply the guild upgrade system by removing the build queue.

Goal of Proposal:
The goal of this proposal is to remove all the frustrating micromanagement that goes into managing upgrades, by simplifying the system. I’m recommending that the build queue be removed entirely, and in its place all upgrades will fall into two modes: Instant Buy, and Cost Per Day.

This improves upon the current system, which requires constant babysitting and fidgeting. If you want to keep a buff up 24/7 it requires a coordinated group effort. There is no reason why it should need to take this much effort.

Proposal Functionality:

• Remove the build queue.
• All “one time use” upgrades will become instant buy, with a fixed price and no build time.
• All “buff for x hours” upgrades will become toggles. You can turn the buff “on” for a constant influence drain that keeps running until you turn if “off” again. You could also add a “use for 1 day” button.

Associated Risks

• Perhaps some people find the build queue system to be fun.
• This will probably make guild upgrades more powerful.
• People could leave too many buffs on, and burn through all their influence.

There is a reason why I primarily play a kit engi or a staff ele. Anything else feels underwhelming/boring/simplistic. That said, there is nothing wrong with the other 6 classes, I just don’t like them. Likewise there is nothing wrong with the high engi skill ceiling.

@OP there are 6 other classes for you to choose from that are designed for what you want. Engi’s biggest problem is not skill ceilings, it is hobosacks…

This is why there are siege timers. This is from one of the beta weekends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztvINdeJuo

So the next point of interest will be about the new TP, and yet John Smith is not listed as a speaker on this post?!
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/points-of-interest-episode-6/

This needs fixing!

There are plenty of legit concerns to bring up about this game. This is not one of them.

Karl, if you are reading this, I hope you know that the majority of the community appreciates the level of communication you bring to us. I’m sure you don’t have to give us a heads up on balance changes or listen to our feedback and make changes before it goes live. Keep up the good work and ignore complaints like this!

Saephaan.7285:

my dear engies, please go to this post and keep it on top page! it’s a page where devs usually answer only if a post has lots of views and replies (or so it seems).
people are actually agreeing with it on that subforum so don’t waste this oportunity to seize anet and destroy the Hobosacks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/No-hobbo-sack-fix-sigh/first#post4363362

They will probably just move it here or merge it with this one.

That Guy.5704:

Hey look more backpeices to conflict with hobosacks https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/crafting-backpacks-new-leveling-items-and-more/

Anet went for the creative solution to hobo sacks…

ADD MOAR!!!!11111

Last time around, transfers had special pricing before the tournament to discourage stacking. Will that be happening again?

Mark Katzbach.9084:

Ragnar.4257:

Ragnar.4257:

Inb4 this was a calculated ‘leak’ so they can then ‘generously’ change the decision to show how ‘in touch’ they are with WvW players.

Say what

I’m just going to squash this rumor right now. Before the strong negative feedback received after the interview at gamescom, every intention was for each color to cost 300g. Pending QA, that version was ready to ship for the feature pack.

When the flood of feedback came in, there was a flurry of emails working out the best course of action, and in the end Zach and Tyler worked the weekend to make sure this change could be made on time for 9/9.

I really appreciate Anet’s willingness to turn the ship around so quickly. I realize that was no easy task and personal sacrifices where made to make this possible, and I’m grateful.

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here.

When it comes to WvW, “small” changes have a big community impact. (After all, WvW is the most community driven aspect of GW2.) Things like character or account bound WxP define how the game is played. Likewise, charging 300g per color also has a profound effect on the community.

I understand why Anet wants to wait until the last second to announce things. You have been burned in the past; I get it. That said, if you had communicated with the community about your plans sooner (even if it was strictly hypothetical), you would have gotten this important feedback sooner, and been able to plan accordingly. There would have been no need for a heroic weekend cram session.

This is a reoccurring problem with WvW development. It happened with WxP, Bloodlust, US Season 1 Leagues and now with Commander Tags. All of these problems could have been avoided by working with the community during the development phase.

So this is my suggestion:

Keep the WvW community in the loop. Include us BEFORE you invest a lot of time and energy in an idea. Make sure you emphasize that everything is hypothetical, and you are not promising anything. (So you don’t get burned again by people saying “Anet promised”) Just include us and get our opinion, and you will get a better game as a result.

Duh

Anet absolutely needs to change this before it goes live.

Warrior

xok.2915:

I HOPE , ‘’ OLD ’’ MIST FORM !

The old mist form was SOOOOO broken.

Anymras.5729:

PWNcakesAndROFLs.8263:

Not sure if it goes the ToS, but this can be achieved with 3rd party peripheral software, such as the key-binding software that comes with gaming mice.

Anyone know the specifics if it would violate it or not?

This could be considered as something that would give a player an advantage, and thus would probably be disallowed. It seems possible that a case could be made for medical reasons, though, as many players have medical issues such as carpal tunnel or worse.

The only advantage is medical. I’m pretty sure that Anet is not balancing grenades for “finger stamina.”

Pretty much all gaming keyboards and mice have a “turbo” option, which does this exactly. The truth is that a LOT of grenade engis do this, and I have never heard of one being banned.

Lets be honest, is Anet going to throw the ban hammer around because people’s fingers are getting cramped/tired? Do they really want that PR? That said, I’m sure their official position will be “no.”

I’m pretty sure they gave up on the CDI, and pretty much all forms of “looking ahead.”

They COULD continue to share parts of their vision of the future with us, complete with a huge disclaimer at the top saying, “This is all tentative, we are not committing to anything.” Instead, I guess they prefer giving us the silent treatment until we all turn into angry rage monsters.

So here is the Wiki entry for Super Elixir.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Super_Elixir

That page gives the following stats:
Impact Heal: 700 (0.4)?
Pulse Heal: 204 (1.0)?
Number of Targets: 5
Pulses: 11
Duration: 10 s
Radius: 240
Combo Field: Light
Range: 900

That says that the pulse heal scales 1:1 with healing power. Essentially that at 1500 healing power, each pulse would heal for 1704! This seems ridiculously overpowered, as this one skill alone would be putting out nearly 900h/s.

So my question is simple, is this accurate? Does it really heal 1704 per tick at max healing power? Or is that coefficient wrong, and it should be something like 0.1:1 per tick?

Mork vom Ork.2598:

I just took the trouble and checked all 19 pages of our beloved thread.

Except for the first few where it only says “about a year ago” we can be sure that this thread has never been inactive for 30 days.

And I’m pretty sure it never will.

I wonder if there are any other threads on the forum that match that achievement?(Sticky threads don’t count.)

Come on Anet. Vanity is the endgame. Fix this!

Brutal Augus.5917:

Lord Jim.3971:

Nope, NPCs don’t fight back and players will hide in keeps whether they are t1 or t3. Don’t waste your spare time performing menial and pointless tasks in game, fight people and if they are going to cower inside their keeps “bugging” dolyaks on their odd venture into the fresh air they really aren’t worth the effort you’ll put in to get at them.

…you have obviously never been a small server in tier7. Where we get matched up against massive servers like DH and NSP and HAVE TO cut supply off from them just to get our keeps back. Otherwise they will sit in our keeps and siege/upgrade the place because they can just jump down on us when we come to the gate, Trebbing and catapulting just gets you portal bombed and open field battles 20 versus 70 don’t go so well…Sometimes you HAVE TO cut their supply lines just to know that by the fourth time you go back to raid they will at least be out of supply and not be able to repair the walls/gates. Cutting off supply is a valid tactic.

I’ve played everywhere from T8 to T4, and supply denial is a big deal in every one of them. I have also read countless threads about T1 and supply denial, but I’ll admit I’ve never been there (nor do I want to be).

Regardless, this is an ancient bug that should be fixed. Based on how long it took them to fix the party system in WvW, I wouldn’t hold your breath…

You didn’t miss anything.

The most recent major update to WvW (EotM) is so broken it no longer qualifies as a competitive game mode. At most, it is now an upgraded Queensdale champ train (they depreciated the old one). Other than that, not even a mention of future WvW development since like February, unless you count the developers trying to fix the season 2 rewards…

What do they gain by Alt F4ing?

They still die. You still get loot. There is no armor repair cost either way. It takes them a lot longer to get back into the fight. In the end, you come out ahead.

If you run into someone Alt F4ing, just let them sit in their corner eating paste. They are not hurting anyone…

Despite the success of the game mode, WvW is not a priority for Anet. It never was.

For a good long while, WvW accounted for most of the forum activity for this game. Instead of shifting their priorities based on player preference, they just shut down that part of the forum. They abandoned a strong and loyal community, because they did not want to shift their priorities to accommodate that community.

That is why I’m not on here angry. Anet has lowered my expectations to the point where I don’t expect anything anymore. Living Story and sPvP is their focus, WvW is a side feature (like jumping puzzles).

EotM has given us an interesting opportunity to see what it looks like when WvW is completely separated from its community.

It is truly mind-blowing to see how completely EotM has stopped being a competitive game mode. It is 100% karma/xp train now, to the point where people complain that players are “trolling” them if they defend objectives.

The conclusion is simple and powerful: If you remove the community from WvW, the game mode collapses.

As such, it is then important that the WvW Community be encouraged and nurtured. Unfortunately, the most of the recent changes have hurt the community, rather than helped it:

• Removing the match-up thread forum
• Megaservers making server affiliation invisible
• Season 1 and 2 encouraging people to abandon community for rewards

It is time that we turn this around, and start actively supporting and encouraging the WvW Community. I think it would be great if the next WvW CDI focused on this topic. I think there are a lot of great ideas out there to do this, and many of them will not require a large investment in Anet’s part. Even if the CDI does not produce a lot of “tangible” results, it would still be valuable to have this discussion, so it can influence future decision making.

@OP

A large part of my server would probably rage-quit the game.

People who are in bronze have EVERY opportunity to leave, and choose to stay. We like it here. If you don’t like bronze, transfer like everyone else who doesn’t like it. Don’t seek to destroy what we like because you don’t like it.

They tried this in EotM, and it turned into a Karma/XP train. EotM is no longer even a competitive game mode.

Just because WvW has problems, that does not mean that every solution will help. This solution will make it worse, no thank you.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Lack of community in EoTM made it into a karma train. Anet should learn something from this (but won’t).

You said it before I could.

All of you people who have been pushing for servers to be abolished, you need to take a good hard look at EotM. How will you like it when your favorite game mode turns into that…

It is really amazing actually. No one told everyone in GW2, “Hey guys, here is this plan to farm EotM for craploads of karma and XP, all you have to do is stop fighting each other.” It happened naturally and organically. Now there is NOTHING LEFT of the original purpose of EotM.

Do you really want the rest of WvW to go this way? Yes WvW has problems now, but that does not mean that every idea to change it will change it for the better. Every WvWer should learn from what happened to EotM, and defend server communities to the bitter end.

Aldorion.9741:

Okay just out of curiousity:
-Having a script that counts the amount of times you pressed the z-key (for example) and plays the same amount of notes afterwards would be okay then, right?
You pressed, lets say, 10 keys and afterwards 10 notes will be played (which equivalent 10 keys). That could not be exploited in combat, since you don’t know how fights will go in advance.
- Also if you make a Autohotkey Script which does only mousepositioning should also work then. So lets say i want to enter “Lion’s Arch” and hover my mouse over the playerportrait, do a leftklick, press z, the script moves my mouse to “Enter Lion’s Arch” and presses the left mousebutton (only 1 keystroke for one action). Then if i press it again it moves the mouse to the “okay the map is full” window and presses leftMousButton. Should also be allowed then, I guess.

Working around the “One Keystroke”-thing is pretty interesting ^^
(That was just an idea, so let my know your thoughts on that)

Have a good day everyone! ^o^/
-Aldorion

They are not going to allow loopholes to their rules, that can only end badly for them.

You need to start thinking like a company with legal concerns. If they officially endorse anything, it causes a storm of problems. It is far easier and better for them to ban macros all together, rather than allow some and not others.

That said, what they SAY vs what they DO will not always line up. I believe that ENFORCEMENT of this rule will likely hinge on the advantage statements they have mentioned multiple times.

So if you are waiting for them to give the official “ok,” it will never happen. That said, I know people who have been macroing the choir bell since it came out ~18 months ago, and have not been punished.

Yes.

linuxotaku.4731:

Cassocaster.4576:

laokoko.7403:

Cassocaster.4576:

laokoko.7403:

Well since dye is cheap now, you can buy all of them up Cassocaster, like you said you would.

I’m not sure if this is a right or wrong asnwer. Good luck on it.

You seem to have some issues with the GW2 economy, I read your other posts and you seem to think that anyone involved on the TP is ripping regular players off. You know who sets the prices? The people who buy things. You complain that others earn more at the TP than farming and you know, you’re right. But what does complaining do for you? It just wastes your time because they will continue to do what they do, that’s how a market based economy operates.

What does your reply to my post have anything to do with my point of seeing a HUGE jump in unid buy orders all on Friday, by the way? Because I posted on another thread that I will continue to buy if the price keeps dropping? Well, it climbed, my last order I paid 17.3 for another 500, today buy orders are filling at 24, I won’t buy again unless they fall.

I also still hold out hope that the 20K silver ore I have will someday by worth something too.

See how strange it is to jump topics?

fill free to post in those thread, about me complaining on the economy, I think you are getting off topic.

I’m really just talking about you, since you started this thread. I remember you and Wanz are discussing back and force about unidentified price. I’m not sure if Wanz really think dye will drop to like 10 silver. Or he just want to buy more.

I’m just flash backing your post. Since you say you’ll keep buying it. So if you think it’ll go up to 1 gold or something, 24 silver isn’t too high right?

Are you truly so slow that you cannot see that I am calling you out for changing the subject of MY THREAD? I wanted to know why 2.7 million unid buy orders popped up in literally one day and you bring in the fact that I think they will hit a gold so I better buy all of them, Yeah, let me get right on that, 60K on the market, lowest is roughly 25 silver so 2000 gold ought to do it, just send me in an in game message with that and I’ll split the profit with you. Troll elsewhere please.

The 2.7m buy orders look clearly like an attempt to pump up the price. This is the one form of market interaction which leaves me queasy — it looks like it trades on human gullibility in a way that’s harmful to the average player; I assume it’s because this pops the item in question up on the main page as popular. Changing the metric to use number of market participants instead of or in addition to raw # of items requested would probably be an improvement.

To see how it can work, look at the graph for “recipe: shadow of grenth” over all time:

http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/49481

You’ll see a spike in buy orders and prices — those were presumably almost all 1c buy orders which were canceled after the person doing that got what they wanted.

Wow… that is terrifying.

Ya…

Been leveling a new toon with the new trait system. Quite frankly it is nothing but a source of annoyance. The adept traits should be MUCH easier to obtain, not 100% map completion on high level maps…

Give out more trait points sooner, and re-balance the trait unlocks (make them cheaper AND easier), and you might have a good system.