Showing Posts For wirapuru.6548:

Siege Troll Discussion

in WvW

Posted by: wirapuru.6548

wirapuru.6548

(Sorry, right now I can’t read ALL the suggestions above but just want to throw mine here:)

How about giving some (more) responsibilities to the commanders? Wait, I don’t want to be polemic here, these are my ideas:

If you’re in a squad

  • As you try to place a blueprint, the commander must confirm (like a yes/no join party question) its placement.
  • Everyone can build on commander-allowed placed blueprints, being on squad or not.

If you’re not in a squad

  • You can place whichever blueprints wherever and whenever you want.
  • People can only build on a blueprint placed by someone not in a squad if they’re not in a squad either. If they want to build on that blueprint they’ll have to leave their squad (and then join again if it’s the case).

Why this would be good?
Commanders are there to command and organize. Ok, we know that much of this concept at WvW is sometimes applied as a pointless zerg magnet, even more after the 300g announcement. Still, they must have some control on how siege plays on certain attack/defense scene. With a commander restriction on what can be built on that battle scene things will probably go more as intended by the commander.

But most people aren’t in a squad, they’ll continue to place blueprints and, since most people aren’t on squads, everyone will build. What gives?
As I understand it, people go on zergs for two reasons:

  1. Protection, after all you can’t face an enemy zerg alone.
  2. Strategy, they trust someone (the commander if one is present) is creating something worth doing.
    And it’s just too easy to do it. You join a zerg, maybe go intelligently as the group approaches things or maybe YOLO it and do your thing alone (probably dying in the process). I believe that, with the commander having more control on how things go inside his/her squad, it’ll make people want to join the squad. After all, things are actually managed there.

That said, let’s pretend this was implemented:

  1. Commanders start to build squads that place and build only intended siege pieces.
  2. In time, it’ll be known that Commanders actually control how attack/defense siege strategies go.
  3. People joining WvW worried about winning it will probably follow commanders zergs as usual. Blueprint placed? They will be “safe” from accidently buiding troll siege blueprints if they’re on commanders squads. If they’re not in squads they’ll eventually learn they should be on one by /map chat or game guides. If even then they can’t figure that out, well – sorry but that’s too clueless for WvW IMHO.
  4. If the above is confirmed, people not in a squad will see that most people don’’t build their siege blueprints, since most are on squads.
  5. Siege trolls will be there and still placing blueprints, but the people who actually are with the commander and following the commander strategy won’t build it because they can’t – unless they actively leave the squad.

Ok, I know this would demand a lot of new stuff, but in my honest opinion: it’s what being a Commander is about. If a Commander can’t control how siege is placed on attack/defense then I think it’s really a (now colorful) dorito on the map being a zerg magnet. Good commanders deal with this lack of control and make things happen, but kinda hard for them sometimes.

I really think there must be some way to Commanders have some control on siege placement (and no, I don’t have a tag myself, but I trust 70% of the commanders I’ve met so far).

Hero Of The People

in Account & Technical Support

Posted by: wirapuru.6548

wirapuru.6548

Ok so we have to submit a ticket for this? Because if you quickly look aroud there is a good ammount of people with this issue, it’ll be a lot of tickets..

Hero of people not unlocked for some ppl

in Bugs: Game, Forum, Website

Posted by: wirapuru.6548

wirapuru.6548

Well, I can’t confirm for others but seems like no one I know has it. I actually looked for it at the first minute after patch (I had some chapm bags to open) and nothing.

Even Dulfy’s guide mentions it’s a “currently bugged” collection (at http://dulfy.net/2014/09/08/gw2-items-collections-guide/ look for Current bugged collections as of Sept 11, 2014)

Can someone confirm having it unlocked/activated?

Dry Top Mine bugged

in Bugs: Game, Forum, Website

Posted by: wirapuru.6548

wirapuru.6548

Replying only to confirm. Honestly, it’s almost embarrassing to see no one has replied yet.

Bugged Cave In Debris

in Bugs: Game, Forum, Website

Posted by: wirapuru.6548

wirapuru.6548

Replying to confirm this as well. AND to confirm that the Dry Top population seems to have dropped a lot too, for the same reason people already said here (can’t reach Tier 6).

A side note: first day after patch it was working, I remember I went boyh inside the mine and did the event 1 or 2 times. Seems like something is breaking it and let it broken after whatever is the bug.

Entering/leaving sandstorm state does not fix it. It keeps broken forever, it seems.

Connection error 7:11:3:191:101 [merged]

in Account & Technical Support

Posted by: wirapuru.6548

wirapuru.6548

(sorry, this will be a wall of text)

Ok, what I’m going to suggest is not a definitive fix or should be seen as a fix itself, only a workaround – but for me has been working flawlessly so far. (Next I’ll explain the whys of it, the solution itself is way below, in case you want to ignore.)

First, quickly, why I think this works (a.k.a. what I think it’s happening): After reading this entire topic and other places (reddit, guru, etc) it really seemed something around Anet’s servers network structure, together with the lack of action from the client (the game itself) to action when this structure “fails” to deliver as it should. In a simpler network structure – let’s say, when a client tries to talk with a single server at the endpoint – it’s pretty straightforward to:

  1. client needs a remote resource and have the fixed remote server address x.×.×.x
  2. client tries to reach server at address x.×.×.x and opens a connection
  3. client asks for a resource through the open connection to server
  4. client receives a response from server (with data or an error) then reacts

This is simple, because when #2 fails, it’s because address x.×.×.x isn’t reachable or when #4 fails the connection dropped or some error is properly informed by the server.

Now, add to that – over-simplified and superficial – formula one single change: the remote resource the client needs doesn’t have a fixed server address. The resource can be reached in one of various servers (addresses) and that is because a MMO game is used by thousands players at the same time, and one single server wouldn’t handle them. Then:

  1. client needs a remote resource, asks for an available server address for it
  2. client acquires the remote resource’s server address x.×.×.x and caches this address locally, so it doesn’t need to ask again for X hours or when the local connection changes
  3. client tries to reach server at address x.×.×.x and opens a connection
  4. … (same as before)

The problem, in my perspective, is initially created there on #2 above: as soon as the client has a remote server address for that specific resource, it’ll always try to reach it through that address until it has to renew that address. And, apparently, that doesn’t happen when it should, like i.e. when the client didn’t get the resource. And, again apparently, this happens when your local connection changes.

WHAT I’VE BEEN DOING TO SOLVE THAT
—————————————————————————-
I force my local connection to change. And that’s why, probably, the already known and repeated possible fix of resetting your router sometimes works. Problem is, it depends on how you resets it and IF the ISP will change anything about your router’s connection, because sometimes it won’t.

I force it through a VPN connection. If you want to know more deeply about it please do a research, this post is long enough already. But for what matters:

  • You don’t need to have a paid subscription since a lot of these services offer a free plan with limited time or data transfer (i.e. one I used before and worked: VPNReactor ).

What you need is to change your local connection so the game have to look for another server/route and not keep trying the same f***ing setup it cached before. So, after connecting through the VPN, enter the game and try to load your char. Since I’m just one person I can’t say it’ll work fine 100% of the times, but for me it did, 100%, and got stuck a lot. After loaded I could exit the game, disconnect from the VPN, and enter again – done.

This post is already extremely long so I won’t say much more but one last important thing: even if this works for you we have the (unfortunately very probable) chance of being stuck at the next map loading. When that happens you have 2 options:

  • Do the same connectVPN-enterGame-load-exit-disconnectVPN-enterGame-play procedure again with the free limited VPN service.
  • Or, as I did because I already use VPN for other stuff, to subscribe for a paid VPN plan and switch servers/IPs/etc whenever you want – although through a VPN connection I never had any stuck-loading problems (which falls to the other discussion about ISPs throttling/blocking/etc routes, which I won’t enter into discussion now, heh)

Welp, I did write this wall of text because I was looking for something like that and through some tips here and there from others – which I thank you a lot – I ended up with my own solution. It’s definitely not a worthy solution or fix for many, but a workaround for those, like me, wanting to play the game – even with some trouble – until (let’s hope) Anet fixes it.

Connection error 7:11:3:191:101 [merged]

in Account & Technical Support

Posted by: wirapuru.6548

wirapuru.6548

I downloaded PrivateTunnel from OpenVPN, and while I’m connected I can access the my character (was stuck in Lion’s Arch) without issues.

Thanks for the tip, since they have that 100mb data transfer free I guess I’ll try to use it for char “rescues”, heh. At this point doesn’t hurt to try everything.

Connection error 7:11:3:191:101 [merged]

in Account & Technical Support

Posted by: wirapuru.6548

wirapuru.6548

Ok, I got it working as I said in https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/tech/Connection-error-7-11-3-191-101-merged/4273426 above, through guesting. But, guess what, when I log out then tried to log in, at the VERY FIRST ATTEMPT the hell begun again.. ah well.. sadness

Connection error 7:11:3:191:101 [merged]

in Account & Technical Support

Posted by: wirapuru.6548

wirapuru.6548

Reseted my modem and router billion times, still getting stuck on few loading maps.
Last one I got disconnected->

ISP: NET
Location: Curitiba, Brazil
Region: NA
Server: Blackgate
IP: 64.25.33.69 (Southsun Cove)
Error Code: 7:11:3:191:101

But, tunneling services helps and make me able to login on these (stucked connection) maps.

Hi, thanks for the tunneling tip. Any of these services you could recommend? (I’m from BR as well)

Connection error 7:11:3:191:101 [merged]

in Account & Technical Support

Posted by: wirapuru.6548

wirapuru.6548

welp, kinda hopeless after all those replies and no solution so far, but there it goes for stats:

ISP: NET
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Region: NA
Server: Tarnished Coast
Error: The game client has lost connection to the server. Please wait a few minutes before restarting the client and trying again. (code=7:11:3:191:101)
Characters With Problem: Thirty Little John, Elizabetha, didn’t try the other 3 after trying those 2 (90% of the time Thirty Lil John) all the past 3 hours.

Strange is, I played very smoothly until 3-4 hours ago – then 40+ tries with the same error. One time it did enter the game and map, just for a few seconds.. then gone again.

Tried all the provided “solutions” so far, not a difference.
EDIT: my bad, didn’t have tried to guest another server yet, and it actually worked. I guested SoH and it instantly worked out. I’m hoping it’s just a temporary issue with TC server or something. Anyways, good luck for the players trying to make it work, and even more to the Anet team trying to solve it out, thanks for all the efforts.

(edited by wirapuru.6548)