joneirikb.7506

Keep in mind this is the same company that allowed jiggle physics to characters who wear heavy armor. To be fair that is mostly just the way they've made armor work in this game, by basically being a re-skin on top, using the same system for all armors. And yes this is the reason I can't stand putting anything that looks like a plate armor on a female character, and pretty much locks me to using chainmail chest pieces for those.

Hmm, but that still doesn't stop ppl running around in there underwears in the shiverpeaks... given the choice I'd prefer to look at someone in swimsuits! =) But at least then they'd have to run commando, aka no armor :) I've done that a few times myself, mostly for the fun of the challenge, but still ;)

Ironically that would make them even more fit as armor pieces in my eyes, because it would HOPEFULLY allow us to disable the pieces we didn't like, since they could be considered different parts ;) Don't like the feathers on the side, disable the gloves, don't like the fur around the neck, disable shoulders, etc. But yeah, still would prefer them to be just underwear alternatives for the Southsun beach and similar areas. Really don't want to look at bikini asuras in the shiverleaks :p

Hmm, from the comments of the artist that made these, I got the feeling there where for a specific thing/event/purpose, and got the idea that they where for areas like Southsun Beach. Basically replacement for your underwear, not armor/costume or visible elsewhere, unless you chose to go naked. Which I'm entirely fine with, and think is a good solution.

+1 to everything, just give me the same for my male norn!

Scaled Drake from the Desert, great looking skin, wish I could have one of those as a pet (for the little time I'm not merged with the pet)

But the sound of the words I picked up from the twitter (hate reading twitter is a mess that I can't figure out), sounds like "Southsun Project" and included fishing. So from a guess it sounds like a sort of activity area where you can use this, and do some various new mini games. If so it sounds like a good idea, I would support that.

Would love some more info on the whole "title" part, since that is literally all we've heard so far. I want to know when entire Kaineng gets our proper title of "BandWagon #1"

@Etheri.5406 Taking another line of thought at your idea of splitting veteran/casual players by either eotm or tiers. How about splitting them by the normal maps in WvW ? If ANet setup some larger variety of maps per match-up, and allowed for some different rules per map, you could easily re-create what you say without having to split up servers/alliances/whatever. Simply let people go play on the map they enjoy the style of the most. Just some quick examples to give the idea: Add EotM as a normal map next to EBG, and tune it so it gets 10% more loot in general, but perhaps less other things (like WxP, structures doesn't upgrade so no extra PPT etc).EBG should already give the most PPT so would appeal more to the PPT crowd and those that chase them down to get fightsGive the borderlands a bonus to WXP for example to encourage new players to go there and learn.General line of thought: It is better to give players the options to play ways they like, rather than shut down an entire tier for specific play styles (I mean, should they lock down entire tier 4 for roaming then? Just because I miss roaming). And most posters here would rather eat their keyboard than ever let there be a reason for anyone to ever go to EotM again. :p And considering the way the game/combat breaks under numbers, I can't really imagine how you would ever manage to make WvW give points for being "skillful", closest I can see would be to make one map (EBG?) give a bunch of more points for kills? (Though everyone is just going to scream I'm a spy from Mag if I say that...) (This probably worthy of a own separate thread) PS: (random comment) You're quite verbose, I've read all your posts so far, and keep thinking you could have said the same with half the text. Not that I'm one to speak, tend to do the same myself.

Server pride hasn't been a thing for a few years now... Good news is that guild pride will be more of a thing with this though So the logic is if something is wrong or broken or missing, accept it's broken and make it worse? Why is guild or alliance pride worse than server pride? Because there is a whole segment of the playerbase who will be left out! Doesn't this go against the historical design principle of the game developers?Who is going to be left out ? Everyone gets into WvW, if you haven't flagged a WvW guild, you're considered a solo player and put into a random server. And a solo player always have the option of joining a wvw guild for the next season.

Because it allows 2 guilds of 250 members each to stay together. Or 50 guilds of 10 players. A guild of 500 players are going to be their own alliance (but honestly doubt there are many guilds with that many active players left). This does have some benefits like multiple guilds to claim objectives with etc.

No change from current iteration. No change from current iteration, 1 Alliance will be on 1 "New World", and thus play like a current server. From the old thread: You can make the new alliance and changes at any time until the last week of the 2 month period. During this last week, it is locked down so the servers can calculate the "new worlds". Once done, I guess you'll be able to start changing it again, but it won't take effect until next change 2 months later.

Curious why is this an elitist thing ? In the example I gave, a casual server was actually more or less "invaded" by elitists, trying to make a server into a hardcore server, and brush the existing fairly casual community (by comparison) under the rug ? The idea here is that it can go in every direction. I mean you could just as well have a "casual" alliance that refuses any "hardcore" or "elite" players, is that any more or less biased/elitist than the other way around? And what does any of this has to do with "anti-woman bias" ? I mean, what the heck is that even?

Orr is usually fairly populated, more so than many other maps (good node farming for one). But the week that a new Living Story comes out, will usually empty the entire rest of the game, as everyone rush to try the new stuff. It will go back to normal soon enough, and usually see temples being cleared again. (looking at the wiki, there is at least one path that can be done reliably with 3 players)

I'd generally prefer to scale after the middle server. A 80B 40C 10Thus set the scaling after server B, and allow n+10, so server A could have 50 players, against B's 40. To a minimum of 20 or so. This allows for more even battles all over, while only restricting the largest server so it doesn't over-run both the others. As Dawdler pointed out though, it does hurt zerg map hopping.

In that case, I'd rather change it to, "only those with such upgrade can post or see it." But then again, we could probably just disable it anyways in chat option. So probably not an issue. But I've never once missed a world chat in this game, In fact I already tend to disable /Team in wvw as it is, because there is rarely anything of interest or much use there.

+1 Been thinking about posting this kind of post myself, but honestly your post summed everything I wanted to say anyways. :) My Norn Guard wants realistic plate armor, and especially helmets without titanic horns that would get stuck in every bush, tree, weapon, and randomly stab birds to death.

Who says there is "decay" that impact anything? We dont know how the matchup system work in detail or how it assign alliances and players to world based on the algorithm. We just know the broad concept as Anet has laid it out. Technically this wouldnt matter as that empty alliance would just get replaced by other alliances and players to create a decently balanced world weighed against the rest. If you cant move until the end of a season you cant go back anyway. And if you try to move an entire alliance the first week, I am sure there are failsafes to transfering just like now (ie world is full). A bit of an assumption on my part, but figured that they would continue to use the existing system of "play hours" to determine worlds. As such it would make sense for them to measure how much play hours an alliance had, to see where to put it for the next season. Thus, if Alliance A has 500 players (theoretically) that has played active they will have lots of "play-hours", thus will be put in a new alliance (for the new season) with other alliances and guilds and a singles, based on that. But if every single one of those players are also in another Alliance B, and clicks to select this alliance for the next Season, does the system catch up on this, and adapt ? If not we might be stuck with 500 players (theoretically) that could strongly unbalance 2 different new worlds for a Season, and perhaps repeat it several times. Basically, if the play-hours are tracker per individual, and thus into the Alliance B, then it would be ok and the system would adapt this, and adjust properly. If it follows the Alliance, then we can get some pretty wrong numbers, and thus some silly match-ups again.

I read through this entire thread a while ago, but have forgotten what has been mentioned in these 50 pages, so probably repeating stuff: Are there any ways to deal with people making 2 different alliances, with 2 different guilds, having all the same members, and just swap theoretically 500 people every other matchup, trying to manipulate 1 alliance to decay to get grouped with a stronger in general world, then everyone rep that for the next season and overwhelm the enemy. While letting the other alliance "decay" with inactivity again ? One point I'm starting to appreciate at this point, is that Alliances, unlike Servers, gives players the chance to accept or deny players. Being a resident of Kaineng, I've seen our server been bandwagoned a few times, our entire community/culture trampled under bandwagoners that only cares about using us to be the next big thing and then dump it, letting us deal with the leftovers. And knowing that there isn't a single thing we can do about it, because lets face it, no player can stop another player from joining a server. In this regard I'm looking forward to the Alliances, because at least we have something we can build a community around... Another topic that has been mentioned by the Dev's, but not details or talked much about, probably because it isn't very important but still something I'm curious about: Server titles. Can we get any more details on those, please? Some questions: Will titles be "Server Name"?Will they work like PVE titles, thus not be displayable in WvW?What will determine what server title we get, last server on?What about people that have jumped around all their time, last server, or server spent most time on, own title "Server Jumper" ?To be honest, I'd probably feel a little insulted if I saw for example someone with the guild tag for WarMachine running around with the "Kaineng" server title. But then again, at this rate, you might as well just make Kaineng's server title read "BandWagon#1".

This would be a good way to implement it, creates zones for it where it makes sense. And also create more "social zones" around in maps. Great idea, +1. I'm against the typical bikini outfit/armor skins, because I just honestly think it looks to dumb to watch a character in bikini/speedo charge into 20 mordrem. I already have trouble with that with all the silly skins and stuff we got already, but that one would just take it to another step, and I'd just have to disable other peoples looks entirely by setting everyone to basic skins. If they where to add bikini/speedo as an outfit/armor skin, I demand they also give me the option to override how everyone looks locally on my machine (without having to replace everyone with faceless generic characters without gender)

would result in a very dull bunker meta and only condition damage in offensive builds. It wouldn't be the only change, but the general idea would be to stop damage buffs from stacking, rather increase each damage buff, and make it more about managing upkeeps of them rather than stacking on top of each others. That way ANet could (if they wanted to) keep the power creep more in check, by having a max damage +X% and restrict the uptime. (Unfortunately I'm not good enough to be able to pull good numbers from my head, so I won't try) I'd also like to see just about everything being reduced a bit in general, the game is on steroids compared to before HOT. @"apharma.3741" +1 the problem is we need stacked damage to be able to perform burst combos able to take down bunkers. beause sustained damage is lower then sutained healing when fighting a bunker with tons of damage mitigation /boons etc. if you just remove stacking from direct damage we would deal tons of more damage with conditions.if there would be alot less healing and less boons then maybedo you remember good times when blasting fields was^actually good for healing? sure there was alot less damage around, but now there is so much healing no one would bother with a water field.Probably didn't word myself very well, but basically we agree. I'd like to see all healing lowered, defensive skills on longer cooldowns, most attacks on lower cooldowns and/or with lower damage. Including having a bit less condition damage (and much less spammable). Etc. In short: like it was in the first few years of GW2 before HOT came and put everything on stereoids because of "powercreep". The part with making damage bonuses non-stackable is just another thing to put on top of that. Heck, I'd also love to see them taking more stats away from the weapon/armor/trinkets, and put more into the core stats, so we can't "extreme" stats as much as we can right now. Which would restrict a good bit of the worst bunkering and one-shotting as well. Atm this game feels like playing Ikaruga, pick white or black, and get one-shot by the other, with scourge bullet hell.

would result in a very dull bunker meta and only condition damage in offensive builds. It wouldn't be the only change, but the general idea would be to stop damage buffs from stacking, rather increase each damage buff, and make it more about managing upkeeps of them rather than stacking on top of each others. That way ANet could (if they wanted to) keep the power creep more in check, by having a max damage +X% and restrict the uptime. (Unfortunately I'm not good enough to be able to pull good numbers from my head, so I won't try) I'd also like to see just about everything being reduced a bit in general, the game is on steroids compared to before HOT. @apharma.3741 +1

Thanks, now I'm having this terrifying mental image of an entire alliance of nothing but Scourges. Imagine an entire Alliance that only accept scourge players, demoralizing. Think I'll stay in PVE land for a bit longer. Imagine entire guilds that only accept scourge players, demoralizing. There are such guilds on your server, right? I mean since the alliances doesnt really add anything to that which cant be done today.Haha I know there aren't anyone quite that silly :p Relax, just messing around/joking. Mostly toying with the idea "what if", then finally ranger would be most sought after class in the game! I think every commander would die of heart attack.

Thanks, now I'm having this terrifying mental image of an entire alliance of nothing but Scourges. Imagine an entire Alliance that only accept scourge players, demoralizing. Think I'll stay in PVE land for a bit longer.

Would love to see this, would make many outfits usable. But suspect it is a lot of work, probably a lot more than we can imagine. Most of the outfits are probably made with the shoulders as part of the outfit, if they just "take them off" we probably get holes in the outfit or worse. But hopefully ANet can work with this in mind for the future, so future outfits can come with removable shoulders.