Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Shiren

Member Since 02 May 2012
Offline Last Active Feb 08 2014 03:12 AM

Topics I've Started

Reviving Mesmers through walls

29 December 2012 - 05:43 AM

OK so now we are seeing people die inside a keep, at a wall, and waiting for a res later on so someone can res them from the outside, this brings the mesmer back alive inside the walls and now able to portal people back into the structure despite being found and killed during a mesmer sweep. It seems killing the mesmer is not enough anymore, you now have to camp their corpse to prevent someone from resing them if they died close to a gate.

There is a 10 minute timer on inactivity before the game kicks you and you are unable to take actions when dead so camping it for 10 minutes should be enough, but now it seems there is a way to circumvent this and mesmers can be dead for periods of longer than 10 minutes and circumvent the auto-kick.

Obviously it's unfair and expecting people to sit on a corpse for 10 minutes is too long, let alone indefinitely (until the auto-kick circumvention exploit is fixed). Knowing how everything else ArenaNet does seems to be cripplingly bugged I'm hesitnant to suggest it, but line of sight seems like a decent requirement for a resurection (until we see people unable to do it because of the same obstruction bugs that affect ranger projectiles). I don't think this is healthy for WvW.

Commander - Is it good for WvW? At what cost?

05 December 2012 - 07:50 AM

Do you guys think the commander function is good for WvW design? I'm not asking if you think it's good to have someone to focus your forces on or to rally the pugs/zerg, I'm specifially talking about the decision to make the only identifiable person on a map ro*ed by a 100g purchase. Incredibly significant parts of WvW rely on functions which are reserved for rich people and not people who have proven they should have that responsibility or who have the potential behind them to make use of it.

To a certain extent, WvW is made better by the presence of a commander. Guilds use them to focus their members on siege points and they are almost mandatory for co-ordinated large scale sieges. Pugs use them to find a zerg to rally around and become a cohesive part of the group. Without them, these kinds of things would be more difficult.

And then there is the downside. Many commanders are a just players who were good at playing the TP and not at playing WvW (some of the most skilled and knowledgeable commanders will make very little money from WvW - it's often not about capping and moving on, sometimes defending is very important - and someone has to pay for upgrades). Some commanders are just outright bad and will direct zergs to chaotic and pointless locations while key locations are lost. Some commanders devalue the presence of other commanders, they all look equal and there is no way for pugs to tell who is a knowledgable commander and who is a bad commander.

The biggest issue I see with commander is that it comes at the opportunity cost for WvW to have a better system put in place by guilds or friends who have chosen someone to follow around. Say a WvW guild has three commanders, but one is on holidays, one has just finished a long shift and needs a break and the other is just burnt out for a while. There are still many people in that guild who want to WvW but they use a commander to wrangle up some pugs, or even just to keep track of each other. There is no way for them to appoint a leader of the guild group on the map and see their location to rally on. They have to deal with voice chat and often will lose members or have difficult rallying together.

Wouldn't it be better to have a system where guilds/groups/friends can form raids and appoint a raid leader? They have their own raid chat to comminicate with the entire raid (similair to squad, only this time it doesn't cost 100g and it's not specific to one person) and they should be able to see each other on the map (similair to a party). Being able to see how much supply your group has without having to type 1 in chat would also be helpful (I know commanders can currently do this). It would also be good if they could all have a follow option for a certain person, giving them an icon similair to a commander one, but an icon you only see if you follow them, and not before that.

Using the primary rally mechanic of WvW as a gold sink is harmful to competitive play. It puts too much pressure on current commanders to be on for better coverage and it makes it very difficult to assign new commanders, especially when there is a very high risk of a guild sponsored commander burning out in the first week or two due to the pressures of having to be on and perform so much. It would be better to have a system where people could organise themselves and rally on a person they choose to. This way, if a commander goes offline the guild can continue operations on their own chosen person. Smaller groups of players can work together and have enhanced communication and co-ordination without having to have a specific character drop 100g on what should have been a free feature for organised guilds and groups to use.

The current design (a lack of a free alternative) is putting a gold sink and e-peen ahead of organised, skilled and competitive play. It would be easier to group smaller guild WvW communities if the functions which are currently exclusive to the commander tag were redesigned to be available through other systems. It's still possible to have the e-peen commander and the raid leader/guild/group chosen and limited leader.

Is GW2 in trouble?

13 November 2012 - 10:37 PM



We’ve all seen the never ending posts about the game being empty, people flocking to other games and countless “this game sucks” posts. The rest of us kept playing the game. Most of us expected the game to lose people as we distanced from launch and the population levelled out. I suspect ArenaNet was on the same page. The launch population wasn’t going to be the active player base.

Only three months in we now see a radical turn around and abandonment of one of the core philosophies of the game, it’s development, it’s marketing and our trust: the introduction of a new tier and the promise of a treadmill.

As we watch Guild Wars 2 mature in its Live environment, we have found that our most dedicated players were achieving their set of Exotic gear and hitting “the Legendary wall.” We designed the process of getting Legendary gear to be a long term goal, but players were ready to start on that path much sooner than we expected and were becoming frustrated with a lack of personal progression. Our desire is to create a game that is more inclusive for hardcore and casual players alike, but we don’t want to overlook the basic need for players to feel like they are progressing and growing even after hitting max level. Adding item progression is a delicate process normally undertaken in an expansion, but we feel it’s important to strive to satisfy the basic needs of our players sooner rather than later.

Aside from being confused on what a dedicated player is (my guild plays for several hours a day, every day and many of us only have one 80 and one exotic set, none of us have a legendary, so her definition of dedicated must be very specific to grinding) the implication is that the game needs something it doesn’t already have. I also thought they wanted us to have exotic gear, it wasn’t supposed to be a long term goal. I am genuinely confused by her reasoning.
How much trouble could GW2 be in that only three months after launch they have had such a dramatic reversal on their stance? That they would betray their core design so quickly with no other avenues trialled, just to keep the population satisfied? I thought Halloween was a success from a population point of view. I was always in overflow and the game was very active. I still find the game to be very active, people running dungeons or playing through content that’s rewarding.

Is there something we don’t know about that has put the game is such a dire situation that this change makes sense? Why would they so dramatically change their design direction if the population or game wasn't in trouble?


World Chests Bugged?

11 September 2012 - 06:45 AM

Is anyone else noticing all the world chests in the game seem to be bugged? I was in Kessex Hills and I heard people talking about a chest in a cave where a giant is chased out by ettin. Once you retake the cave he shares his chest with you, only the people who were there saw that the chest was already open. I did the event a couple hours later and the same thing happened to me. I was later in Caledon Forest and I did the quaggan organ puzzle, opening the clam to the chest, but the chest was already opened. Neither of these chests have I ever opened on any character. I asked about it in map chat and a lot of people were saying they were getting the same thing happen.

Is this a server thing or is everyone having trouble with chests not giving loot?

Invisible Status and Player Location

11 September 2012 - 01:20 AM

Does anyone know if my location in the guild tab and friends list changes when I set my status to invisible? If I don't want people to know I'm online it's not very helpful if my location in the Guild status panel keeps updating. Offline people don't move from Lion's Arch to Malchor's Leap. I know the game displays your location to people in a few different areas,do these things still update on their side of things when you appear offline?